INHERENCY, STRATEGY AND ACADEMIC DEBATE by Benjamin R. Bates According to most debate text au- something preventing the present system plan from being done now?" There are three thors, judges, and coaches, there are four from accruing the advantages. This view of levels of inherency accepted in today's de- stock issues, or burdens of proof, that an inherency merges the issues of inherency bate community. The first is also the oldest. affirmative team must meet to have a prima and solvency. If a plan uniquely gains an It is structural inherency. This type of facie case. These issues are topicality, harms, advantage by implementing a particular inherency identifies laws, treaties, court rul- solvency, and inherency. Topicality is simple strategy and that is the only strategy that ings, or executive orders that prevent the to understand, as it only asks whether the will work, then the advantages are linked proposed affirmative plan. If for example, affirmative team is upholding the resolution. with the plan so much that they have be- the affirmative wanted to import avocados Harms (which includes significance) is also come inherent to the plan. If this claim is from Mexico, current laws that say the not difficult to comprehend. It only asks if made, the negative can attack inherency by United States cannot do so would provide the problem is serious enough to act on. removing solvency. If the plan cannot solve, a clear structural barrier (i.e. a law that must Solvency asks whether the affirmative plan it cannot gain the advantages, and there- be repealed first). Also under structural can fix the problems. Inherency, however, is fore the advantages are no longer inherent inherency are structural gaps. Although no much less clear. Not only is inherency a to the plan. current laws blocks the plan in the present poorly defined issue, but there is also a A second specific view of inherency system, the current actions of the present question of whether or not it is an issue at asks, "can the problem be solved without system do not go far enough in what they all. This article will attempt to define the is- resolutional action?" Sometimes there are do. If, for example, the United States limited sue of inherency and identify when problems that must be solves before it is its use of weapons of mass destruction to- inherency is or is not a voting issue in a too late. This does not mean, however, that ward Russia already, but the treaty did not debate round. the resolution is the only way to do so. If mention China, there would be a structural the negative chooses to admit that there is gap when it came to limiting use against Definitions of Inherency1 a problem in the real world, it has three op- China. The second level of inherency is at- To begin this discussion, it is neces- tions. The negative can counterplan. A titudinal inherency. This identifies any sary to define what inherency is. There are counterplan admits that there is no mecha- deep-set feelings that would prevent the several views as to what "inherency" nism in the present system that can solve plan from being done now. For example, if means. The most simplistic view, meaning and that major action must be taken (i.e. it the plan were to enact more species protec- easiest and clearest to understand, defines admits that there is inherency). A second tion laws, the attitudes of many inherency as why smart and reasonable option is to perform a minor repair: to take congresspeople would prevent them from people allow dumb or bad things to happen some action that does not adopt the resolu- approving the plan in the present system. (Grassmick, 1995). This provides a basic tion, but still fixes the problem. This does Structural inherency is easier to prove but understanding of what inherency is, but it admit some level of harms, but if the harms attitudes are almost as strong, although is not enough. While this definition does can be solved for without adopting the reso- they do have the propensity to change. The cover the basic question, it leaves out a few lution, then there are no inherent barriers to final type of inherency is existential important points such as a bright line, a change. The third negative strategy is to inherency. Existential inherency states that method of proof, and standards. More pre- say, "a change to solve the problem is al- if the harms exist and the plan has not been cise views of inherency make these distinc- ready in the works." This was popular with done, there must be something blocking ac- tions and make inherency into a usable de- the national health insurance topic. Many tion, even if we do not know what it is. Exis- bate argument. negatives would say, "if we wait for X num- tential inherency relies on several assump- The first view asks if the affirmative ber of years, the Clinton plan will be passed, tions: plan is the only way to get the advantages; and there will be insurance for everyone." 1) no one is acting on any level. that is, are the advantages inherent to the Such a claim, if true, would mean that there 2) no one is interested in acting now. plan? This falls under the general definition would be no reason to choose the resolu- 3) there is no propensity for any level as asking why, if the plan is so good, does tion over the present system, since any of change. the present system not act on it? The affir- resolutional action would be done by the 4) there are no alternate solutions mative would claim that there is that there is system anyway. being proposed now. The third view of inherency is unre- Each of these assumptions is faulty, as there 1 See Cox, 1975 and Cherwitz & Hikins, 1977, for lated to the effects of the resolution or of is undoubtedly someone trying to do the an expanded discussion of the definitions of inherency discussed in this section. the plan. It asks instead, "what blocks the plan, especially if the authors for the sol- vency section actually advocate the plan. resolutional action was unnecessary. Dur- rors. There may be, however, more effective Even if a minor official in an obscure branch ing the 1950s and 1960s, negative teams were forms of inherency argumentation, a sub- of government writes a memo on the affir- successful at arguing this point, and many ject explored later in this article. mative plan, then the present system has won national level tournaments on Since inherency is a voting issue with taken some level of action on the plan, mak- inherency alone. During the 1970s and some judges, we must ask how a judge ing claims of existential inherency illegiti- 1980s, the importance of inherency declined. should react to an inherency argument. mate. While it was still possible to win the Again, there are three basic ways for a judge inherency argument, the issue was held to to react to an inherency argument: accept Practices of Inherency a higher standard and was rarely used in it, reject it, or let the debaters fight it out. Although inherency has been defined close rounds (McGee,1995). Lower stan- The last of these reactions is probably the as a theoretical issue, this has not been the dards for meeting the burden of inherency most common and the most acceptable to way that inherency has been used in de- were due to the introduction of new modes both judges and debaters. Following the bate rounds over the years. Inherency has of inherency. As attitudinal and existential basic guidelines of a tabula rasa judge, in been around since the beginning of formal inherency became more popular, structural this setting inherency is debatable, just as academic debate. In this time, its role in the barriers became a kind of "pseudo- topicality is debatable. If inherency is purely activity has changed substantially. Accord- inherency" and were no longer necessary debatable, then there are no preconceived ing to Meredith Garmon, inherency has for a prima facie case (Schunk, 1978). In the notions as to the worth of the argument been an issue that has never carried much 1990s, though, judging philosophies were going into the round. The judge will look at weight in a debate round According to his less and less likely to view inherency as a her sheet at the end of the round and, if post to CEDA-L, central issue in a debate (Pettus, 1991). enough of the inherency attacked is carried Coaches up through the 60s Inherency still has a place in debate across the flow, then her only justifiable almost universally told their stu- rounds. Rather than being a jurisdictional decision would be to vote on inherency. If dents that [inherency was [a vot- issue like topicality, inherency is now used the negative presents the inherency viola- ing issue]. And 1Ns during that to gain strategic advantages in the debate. tion as a voting issue, and if the affirmative period used to scream about Inherency attacks commonly set up disad- fails to respond adequately, then just like a inherency on the assumption that vantages in the following way: dropped topicality argument, the negative it was a v.i. ...But a careful analysis 1N: The plan has already been could win on this argument alone. of all debate ballots ever written will done, so there is no need for plan There are also some judges for whom reveal that the only time a negative action, right? inherency is, was, and always will be an ab- team ever won a round on an 2A: No, nothing has been done in solute voting issue.