| Revision as of 17:36, 14 November 2009 editNerdgod89 (talk | contribs)10 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:48, 16 December 2009 edit undoSmackBot (talk | contribs)3,734,324 editsm remove Erik9bot category,outdated, tag and general fixesNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Unreferenced stub|auto=yes|date=December 2009}} | |||
| {{ |
{{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 ]. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 8: | ||
| :*'''Structural inherency''': Laws or other barriers to the implementation of the plan. | :*'''Structural inherency''': Laws or other barriers to the implementation of the plan. | ||
| :*'''Attitudinal inherency''': Beliefs or attitudes which prevent the implementation of the plan. | :*'''Attitudinal inherency''': Beliefs or attitudes which prevent the implementation of the plan. | ||
| Despite the classification of these two 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 contradicts uniqueness on disadvantages. However, inherency arguments are more likely to be run with a 'Stocks Issues' judge who could hold a plan having no inherent barrier being enough to win the round for the negative. | Despite the classification of these two 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 contradicts uniqueness on disadvantages. However, inherency arguments are more likely to be run with a 'Stocks Issues' judge who could hold a plan having no inherent barrier being enough to win the round for the negative. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| {{Speech-and-debate-stub}} | {{Speech-and-debate-stub}} | ||
| {{ |
{{Poli-stub}} | ||
Revision as of 20:48, 16 December 2009
 | This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Inherency" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| 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 two 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.
Despite the classification of these two 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 contradicts uniqueness on disadvantages. However, inherency arguments are more likely to be run with a 'Stocks Issues' judge who could hold a plan having no inherent barrier being enough to win the round for the negative.
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. |