| Revision as of 00:29, 22 August 2008 editNeelix (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users169,014 edits Added distinguishing link← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:40, 22 August 2008 edit undoNeelix (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users169,014 edits Added other distinguishing linkNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{distinguish|inherence}} | {{distinguish|inherence|inerrancy}} | ||
| {{Policy Debate}} | {{Policy Debate}} | ||
| '''Inherency''' is a ] in ] that refers to a barrier that keeps a ] from being solved in the ]. | '''Inherency''' is a ] in ] that refers to a barrier that keeps a ] from being solved in the ]. | ||
Revision as of 00:40, 22 August 2008
Not to be confused with inherence or inerrancy.| Policy debate |
|---|
| Organization |
| Format |
| Argument types |
 Policy debate |
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:
- Structural inherency: Laws or other barriers to the implementation of the plan.
- Attitudinal inherency: Beliefs or attitudes which prevent the implementation of the plan.
- Existential inherency: The plan hasn't happened yet.
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. Many judges will not vote on it, and negative teams do not run it often because it contradicts uniqueness on disadvantages.
This speech and debate-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |
 | This article about politics is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |