This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nerdgod89 (talk | contribs) at 17:36, 14 November 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:36, 14 November 2009 by Nerdgod89 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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 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. |