homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:59 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Inherency: What is it?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:48 pm
Posts: 62
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Perpetually distracted.
I decided to make this thread after re-reading the following Ethos blog article: http://www.ethosdebate.com/2008/10/what ... sed-to-be/

For a long time, I (like the author of the article) have had people tell me that inherency is "Whether or not your plan has been passed yet, or whether or not it's likely to be passed." I always thought that was a shallow, insufficient description, and for a while I figured a better one would be to ask "Is there a need for the aff fiat, or will the effects of the plan be achieved by the SQuo?" because if there's no need for the aff fiat, you might as well not even be debating anything. It's an exercise in futility to debate things that are inevitable.

But this article redefines Inherency to match what it used to be in the debate world - asking the question "What is the root cause of this problem? What is it about this problem that resists solution?" If there is no deep root cause to the problem that is not currently being addressed, then the negative wins the Inherency argument - the aff plan is not addressing the problem with the right approach. In case you don't want to read the article, Dr. Srader explains it this way:

Quote:
Think of going to see a doctor. You tell the doctor that you have a headache that hasn’t gone away for six months. The doctor says “Have you tried aspirin?” Yes, you have. “Have you tried Tylenol?” Yes, you have. “Advil?” Yes. “Aleve?” Yes. “Oxycontin?” No, you haven’t tried Oxycontin. “Well, there you go!” says the doctor, and writes out a prescription for Oxycontin. “We’ve found a plan that hasn’t been adopted yet, so Oxycontin it is.”


Inherency is asking why the problem has persisted through these external solutions. If the aff proves that there is a problem in the status quo that is resisting solution and that needs a plan to solve it, then they have won Inherency.

Discuss?

_________________
I was going to put my debate history here, but it doesn't all fit...

Oh well. College student at Liberty University now. Not debating. But still hanging around.


Last edited by ImagoDei on Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:22 pm 
Offline
Laugh, or I will kill you
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:33 pm
Posts: 2492
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: College in San Diego Baby!
Inherency is the most important of the three "weighing" stock issues. It's defining the status quo and showing how the status quo is better than the affirmative plan. You show that the status quo has amazing solutions to these so called "harms" and you show that the status quo has advantages that the affirmative can't possibly get. I remember last year three tournaments into the year my partner and I were 14-4 on negative. We'd won 12 of those 14 rounds at least partially on inherency. It's a winning strategy to show:

a. (1N) The Status Quo is solving any harms that the aff claims
b. The Status Quo has advantages the aff plan won't have
c. So the Status Quo is a good solution
d. (2N) The Aff plan messes up certain D/A's
e. So not only do we lose the good status quo, but we get all of the problems I've talked about in my speech


A team who understands inherency is a team who understands the point of debate: the real world. When you can properly use Inherency, it will turn into your biggest weapon.

_________________
+X wrote:
Oh, come now, Daniel. Your mafia playing habits make you a no-good double-crossing manipulative liar. But I would never call you a jerk!

;) <3


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:27 pm 
Offline
Bumble! Bumble!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:30 pm
Posts: 1152
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Bumbling about in beautiful Colorado
Inherency is not just whether or not your plan has been passed. It encompasses the entire status quo; the way I explained it to my debaters is that under inherency (as aff) you should show that there is a problem, why there is a problem, what the solution to that problem is, and why that solution won't occur without your plan.

Whether or not your plan has been passed falls under inherency, but it is not inherency as a whole. Saying, "Inherency is whether or not your plan has been passed or will be passed without you," is a part-to-whole fallacy.

_________________
My guideline is, if you ever have to ask yourself if you're doing something creepy, you probably are. But then go ahead and do it anyway because being creepy is fun.
~JeremyB


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 7:57 pm
Posts: 978
Home Schooled: Yes
A disadvantage is not Inherency, 13.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:27 am
Posts: 107
Home Schooled: Yes
Kramer wrote:
A disadvantage is not Inherency, 13.


Inherency is involved in a Disadvantage, but it's called Uniqueness, not inherency.

_________________
"Until the possible becomes actual, it's only a distraction." ~ Qui-Gonn Jin

Verve, WA
G. Smith


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 7:57 pm
Posts: 978
Home Schooled: Yes
Sure. But in that case, it is a feature of inherency being incorporated into the DA. It does not make the DA part of the stock issue of inherency.

DA's are weighed under significance and/or solvency.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:49 am 
Offline
T-Rothasaurus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:48 am
Posts: 3114
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Washington
Inherency deals with what exists, not with whether or not what exists is bad.

_________________
"The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer's farce is almost done." - Wyman Manderly


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
I would like to state that the stock issues as a judging paradigm annoys me. Net benefits ftw.
/pet peeve


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:53 am 
Offline
T-Rothasaurus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:48 am
Posts: 3114
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Washington
Flash of light wrote:
I would like to state that the stock issues as a judging paradigm annoys me. Net benefits ftw.
/pet peeve

You need both.
Net Benefits is whether it's a good idea.
Stock issues is whether it's a good (as in well constructed) policy.

_________________
"The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer's farce is almost done." - Wyman Manderly


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:27 am
Posts: 107
Home Schooled: Yes
Kramer wrote:
Sure. But in that case, it is a feature of inherency being incorporated into the DA. It does not make the DA part of the stock issue of inherency.

DA's are weighed under significance and/or solvency.


well no duh :D

_________________
"Until the possible becomes actual, it's only a distraction." ~ Qui-Gonn Jin

Verve, WA
G. Smith


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:46 am 
Offline
Laugh, or I will kill you
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:33 pm
Posts: 2492
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: College in San Diego Baby!
Kramer wrote:
A disadvantage is not Inherency, 13.
A common misconception. Inherency establishes the status quo. If you show that the status quo is good, and then contrast that with the aff plan being bad, it shows a net loss to voting affirmative.

If you're running novice Inherency "the aff plan has already been passed" then it totally contradicts D/A's. However, running Inherency correctly directly correlates to D/A's. Significance and Solvency also relate to D/A's, but establishing the status quo as a positive reason to vote negative and then contrasting that with the D/A's of the affirmative plan almost always warrants a negative ballot.

_________________
+X wrote:
Oh, come now, Daniel. Your mafia playing habits make you a no-good double-crossing manipulative liar. But I would never call you a jerk!

;) <3


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 8:16 pm
Posts: 71
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Searching for pineapples in uoı6ǝɹ
lucky13 wrote:
Kramer wrote:
A disadvantage is not Inherency, 13.
A common misconception. Inherency establishes the status quo. If you show that the status quo is good, and then contrast that with the aff plan being bad, it shows a net loss to voting affirmative.

If you're running novice Inherency "the aff plan has already been passed" then it totally contradicts D/A's. However, running Inherency correctly directly correlates to D/A's. Significance and Solvency also relate to D/A's, but establishing the status quo as a positive reason to vote negative and then contrasting that with the D/A's of the affirmative plan almost always warrants a negative ballot.


Your argument does not seem to refute his statement. His statement was that DA's are not Inherency. Yours states that DA's work with Inherency.

Working with=/=the same.

_________________
Grove City, Class of 2017


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
lucky13 wrote:
Kramer wrote:
A disadvantage is not Inherency, 13.
A common misconception. Inherency establishes the status quo. If you show that the status quo is good, and then contrast that with the aff plan being bad, it shows a net loss to voting affirmative.

If you're running novice Inherency "the aff plan has already been passed" then it totally contradicts D/A's. However, running Inherency correctly directly correlates to D/A's. Significance and Solvency also relate to D/A's, but establishing the status quo as a positive reason to vote negative and then contrasting that with the D/A's of the affirmative plan almost always warrants a negative ballot.


DAs don't contradict inherency in the form that you claim is novice. It's different lines of argumentation: first, you argue that the plan passed. Second, you argue that IF THIS WEREN'T TRUE, the plan the aff is proposing is worse than the aff's status quo. In other words, the government passed the plan, and it's unfortunate they did, because the plan was a bad idea.

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:29 am 
Offline
Laugh, or I will kill you
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:33 pm
Posts: 2492
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: College in San Diego Baby!
DebateRus wrote:
lucky13 wrote:
Kramer wrote:
A disadvantage is not Inherency, 13.
A common misconception. Inherency establishes the status quo. If you show that the status quo is good, and then contrast that with the aff plan being bad, it shows a net loss to voting affirmative.

If you're running novice Inherency "the aff plan has already been passed" then it totally contradicts D/A's. However, running Inherency correctly directly correlates to D/A's. Significance and Solvency also relate to D/A's, but establishing the status quo as a positive reason to vote negative and then contrasting that with the D/A's of the affirmative plan almost always warrants a negative ballot.


Your argument does not seem to refute his statement. His statement was that DA's are not Inherency. Yours states that DA's work with Inherency.

Working with=/=the same.
In that case it was his mistake in the first place. I never claimed that they are the same thing.

@Min: It's acceptable, but it's not real world. There are different lines of thinking on this, but I always tried to make my arguments something that actually applied to the world. In the real world you wouldn't say: "actually the healthcare bill solves the problems of a bad healthcare system, but IF THIS WEREN'T TRUE, the healthcare bill is worse than the status quo." That's a total contradiction. If you argue inherency and say: "this IS the case" then you need to stand by that. When you say what has passed and what has not, you're defining the status quo. It's a total cop out to do otherwise. Even when you say: "it's unfortunate they did, because the plan was a bad idea" you still should lose (or at least tie) because you've just said that the status quo sucks. At the end of the day the question is: "should the government adopt the resolution?" If the future system is better than the current one, then the answer is yes. So an aff says that we need to change, and a negative says not too. When a negative says that the current system sucks, that totally kills their own ground.

_________________
+X wrote:
Oh, come now, Daniel. Your mafia playing habits make you a no-good double-crossing manipulative liar. But I would never call you a jerk!

;) <3


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
In the real world you wouldn't say: "actually the healthcare bill solves the problems of a bad healthcare system, but IF THIS WEREN'T TRUE, the healthcare bill is worse than the status quo."


That's not the inherency you were talking about. In the real world, if someone proposed an individual mandate, you WOULD say "actually we already have an individual mandate, but even if this weren't true, the individual mandate is a bad idea."

Quote:
Even when you say: "it's unfortunate they did, because the plan was a bad idea" you still should lose (or at least tie) because you've just said that the status quo sucks.


That doesn't mean the aff wins. Aff has the burden to prove that they make the world better than the SQ.

Quote:
So an aff says that we need to change, and a negative says not too. When a negative says that the current system sucks, that totally kills their own ground.


Aff's change has to be BETTER than the SQ.

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Kramer wrote:
Sure. But in that case, it is a feature of inherency being incorporated into the DA. It does not make the DA part of the stock issue of inherency.

DA's are weighed under significance and/or solvency.


In what world are DA's weighed under solvency??

In plan english, it's about cause and effect.

Inherency (cause) --> Impact (harm/significance)

Plan (cause) --> Impact (advantage/significance or disadvantage/significance)

Everyone is familiar with arguments of impact vs. impact, but teaching to think through causality (as the inherency post teaches) improves the discussion of how externalities, other events, attitudes, etc relate to causes of things, which therefore provides a more nuanced view of the impact.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 7:57 pm
Posts: 978
Home Schooled: Yes
I personally weigh them under significance at all times, but some people put them under Solvency. I suppose the thinking is that solvency refers to all outcome scenarios of the plan. I personally agree with you; but some people would differ. It really just shows how broken the Stock Issue paradigm is.

And there is no scenario under which a DA is Inherency. Ever.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:27 am
Posts: 107
Home Schooled: Yes
lucky13 wrote:
DebateRus wrote:
lucky13 wrote:
Kramer wrote:
A disadvantage is not Inherency, 13.
A common misconception. Inherency establishes the status quo. If you show that the status quo is good, and then contrast that with the aff plan being bad, it shows a net loss to voting affirmative.

If you're running novice Inherency "the aff plan has already been passed" then it totally contradicts D/A's. However, running Inherency correctly directly correlates to D/A's. Significance and Solvency also relate to D/A's, but establishing the status quo as a positive reason to vote negative and then contrasting that with the D/A's of the affirmative plan almost always warrants a negative ballot.


Your argument does not seem to refute his statement. His statement was that DA's are not Inherency. Yours states that DA's work with Inherency.

Working with=/=the same.
In that case it was his mistake in the first place. I never claimed that they are the same thing.

When a negative says that the current system sucks, that totally kills their own ground.


That's not entirely true. What you say is, "Look, the plan has already happened. It's in the status quo right now. However, let's assume that it hasn't been done, and let's look at why it would be a bad idea."

If Aff says "you just killed your own ground," you say this:

1) The debate is about whether or not the Affirmative plan should be passed. If it has tried and failed miserably in the United States, the Aff plan should not be passed.
2) 2 plans that fail miserably is worse than 1 plan that fails miserably, so Neg still has the net benefit here
3) You lose Inherency, you lose the round. It doesn't matter how much the plan sucks - if it's in place right now in the United States, you lose.

_________________
"Until the possible becomes actual, it's only a distraction." ~ Qui-Gonn Jin

Verve, WA
G. Smith


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Actually, these days old school inherency has the most in common with kritik debates. If you say "The affirmative is addressing a symptom, not the root cause; they're whitewashing a flawed system with their stopgap solution, but the problem will reappear in another form," people would think you were running a K. But go back a generation, and that was a typical inherency debate.

It did bleed over into solvency as well, but back then, judges expected that solvency and inherency would have a very tight connection: the plan had to be narrowly tailored to address the root cause identified in the affirmative's inherency arguments, the same way a doctor has to be able to explain how the prescription is tailored to the diagnosis.

The kritik comparison isn't original with me, by the way: when the University of Texas debaters first sprang kritiks on the policy debate world, back in the early nineties, they tried to beat back arguments that the argument was nihilist and excessively radical by pointing out how perfectly it fit the profile of old stock issues debates.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:07 pm
Posts: 124
Home Schooled: Yes
DA's aren't inherency.

A DA is saying that something bad happens which is either not currently happening (brink), or happens worse under the plan than it does under the status quo (linear).

Just because a DA has a part dealing with what currently happens in the status quo doesn't mean it's inherency. That's called uniqueness, and is completely different.

_________________
Roman Smith
Verve, Washington
Stoa

Smith/Smith (2009-2010)
Smith/Smith (2010-2011)
Smith/Smith (2011-2012)
Johnson/Smith (2012-2013)


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited