Inherency (policy debate)
Encyclopedia
Inherency is a stock issue
in policy debate
that refers to a barrier that keeps a harm
from being solved in the status quo
.
There are three main types of inherency:
Despite the classification of these three as the "main types" of inherency, the existence of other types are subject to theory (much like a substantial part of the lexicon for the event). In higher level policy debate inherency has become a non issue. There are some judges who will not vote on it, and negative teams do not run it often because it may contradict uniqueness arguments on disadvantages. However, inherency arguments are more likely to be run with a 'Stocks Issues' judge who could hold that the absence of an inherent barrier is enough to merit an affirmative loss.
Stock issues
In the formal speech competition genre known as policy debate, a widely-accepted doctrine or "debate theory" divides the deliberative elements of proving the resolution as affirmative affirmative into four logical issues, called the stock issues...
in policy debate
Policy debate
Policy debate is a form of speech competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government or security discourse...
that refers to a barrier that keeps a harm
Harms (policy debate)
Harms are a stock issue in policy debate which refer to problems inherent in the status quo. These problems may be either actual or potential...
from being solved in the status quo
Status quo
Statu quo, a commonly used form of the original Latin "statu quo" – literally "the state in which" – is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs. To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are...
.
There are three main types of inherency:
- Structural inherency: Laws or other barriers to the implementation of the plan. An example of this would be a plan under which the United States federal government imposes unilateral tariffs and quotas to prevent international trade. This plan is inherent because it goes against current World Trade Organization laws.
- Attitudinal inherency: Beliefs or attitudes which prevent the implementation of the plan. An example of this would be a plan under which the United States federal government eliminates all immigration laws concerning Mexico. This plan is inherent because the general attitude of Americans is that such increases in immigration would increase unemployment.
- Existential inherency: Perhaps the strangest of the three, this claims that the plan won't be implemented simply because there is no reason it would be. An example of this would be a plan under which the United States federal government makes playing the board game Monopoly illegal. It may be possible to prove this plan to be a good idea; however, it is inherent and won't happen simply because it hasn't and probably won't.
Despite the classification of these three as the "main types" of inherency, the existence of other types are subject to theory (much like a substantial part of the lexicon for the event). In higher level policy debate inherency has become a non issue. There are some judges who will not vote on it, and negative teams do not run it often because it may contradict uniqueness arguments on disadvantages. However, inherency arguments are more likely to be run with a 'Stocks Issues' judge who could hold that the absence of an inherent barrier is enough to merit an affirmative loss.