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:
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.