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barrier (i.e. a law that must Solvency asks whether the affirmative plan it cannot gain the advantages, and there- be repealed first).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. The judge who auto- inherency issue was in 1957 -- the present system. Nothing at all. matically accepts inherency as a voting is- Abner Sidlebrow from a small Mid- The plan is the only way to get ad- sue would operate along a stock issues western college voted for North- vantages. paradigm. Because she assumes that there west Iowa's second team over 2N: Aha! So, your plan makes this is a set of arguments the affirmative must Southern Idaho A&M, and his bal- new disadvantage unique and this win to have any place in the debate, each lot comment was, "The minor repair uniqueness comes from your own one be independently proven for a prima the negative proposes would solve answers! (Cackles with glee). facie case. For this judge, a lack of inherency the problem, thus making Obviously, this dialogue is oversim- is as important as a lack of solvency or be- resolutional action unnecessary." plified. Yet, when it comes down to an ac- ing non-topical is. If a list of negative (Garmon 1995) tual debate round, this tactic is one way to inherency answers were read, this judge While this story is a humorous one, it link a largely irrelevant (to the plan) disad- would automatically assume the impacts of does underscore a serious point: some vantage to the affirmative. Whatever the these arguments without requiring the de- people do not believe that inherency is im- affirmative claim as the inherent barrier can baters to make it for her. While this does portant. Other judges, however, consider be turned into proof that there is no risk of assume some level of intervention by the inherency to be an important issue. Also, disadvantages occurring in the status quo. judge, if she makes her paradigm clear at several debaters have found that inherency The other use for inherency today the beginning of the round, then all debat- can be made into a winning issue in today's seems to be to waste as much of the affir- ers should be aware that this third party debate rounds. A brief overview of mative team's time as possible. While there intervention may happen and should adapt inherency, though, shows that the actual are a few judges who will consider accordingly. Perhaps the most interesting history of debate has been one of devolu- inherency to be a vital issue, a randomly part of this judge's philosophy is, however, tion of the inherency standard from a prime selected judge from the national judging is that technicalities on inherency may be issue to one that is largely ignored. unlikely to vote on inherency. Rather, she enough to win, regardless of how the team Just after the turn of the century, will probably allow the negative to drop the fares on the rest of the argumentation. If inherency was considered an essential is- discussion of inherency because, even if the affirmative can provide even a smidgen sue. According to Glen Strickland (1995), the affirmative shows it is inherent, winning of inherency, the affirmative has technically structural inherency arguments were the a single stock issue does not win an entire passed this text. Alternatively, if the nega- heaviest burden for affirmative teams to debate round. Because time will have to be tive can supply a single point that shows carry at this time. As such, many teams were spent answering inherency, this leaves less the plan is being done, that one thing may able to argue that there was nothing in the time for other issues, making it easier for be enough to sway the judges ballot on present system stopping the plan, making the negative to capitalize on strategic er- inherency. The third reaction to inherency is to impactual advantages. The first assumes will. The fact that the United States will meet automatically discount it. Tim Mahoney ar- that at a given time a given impact will oc- the time-frame (i.e. there is not inherency) is gues that inherency is not a voting issue cur once, such as a nuclear strike or an in- key to the success of the other arguments and actually makes the negative team look vasion from space with disastrous conse- in the negative strategy. worse for running it (1995). According to quences. This single impact will be large Scenario 2: 1AC claims that him, inherency is not a voting issue because enough on its own so that it does not need every day 5 children die of child the attack can be answered on the existen- to happen again and again to have great abuse. The affirmative plan is to tial level. Additionally, if a plan is expected physical, social, or moral impacts. The sec- conduct child abuse prevention in the future, as in the NHI example dis- ond type of advantage assumes that a con- education which will solve the prob- cussed earlier, there will always be the op- tinuous problem, such as murders, acid rain, lem immediately. 1NC claims that tion of claiming that the plan is needed be- or heart disease, is the impact. These im- the federal government will imple- cause a few days more of solvency is natu- pacts occur repeatedly and each time the ment the same program in 2005, so rally better. When time issues are examined harms grow collectively worse. there is no inherency. Both teams this way, inherency loses meaning because, Under scrolling inherency theory, win their solvency arguments. An even if the plan will be done soon by the inherency would be a voting issue on single economics disadvantage is placed present system, the one day's advantage of impactual advantages, but not on continu- on case by 1N. 2A claims that the having the plan now is a net benefit to the ous impactual advantages. This happens disadvantage applies equally well affirmative case. for the same reasons as why time-delay to the negative. In addition to giving the affirmative counterplans also solve for the affirmative Under scrolling inherency, the nega- this added weight, the inherency arguments harms. In the following scenarious, I will tive inherency argument actually helps the may also discredit other negative argu- use scrolling inherency theory to explain affirmative in this round. Since the advan- ments. If the plan is already going to be put why inherency is or is not a voting issue in tage has a continuous impact, every day into effect and the negative claims that the the round. that the plan or status quo future plan is plan also will not solve, then either the Scenario 1: 1AC claims that not in effect is equal to five more deaths. inherency argument or the solvency argu- global warming will destroy the Since both teams solve equally well, the time ment is illegitimate. This occurs because one planet if United States emissions period becomes very important. Since there cannot claim that a plan will both solve for standards are not adopted by 2010, are five more years worth of deaths pre- the problem and will not solve for the prob- the cutoff date for taking effective vented by doing the plan now and not wait- lem; the two contradict. Also, inherency action. The affirmative plan is to cut ing, this serves as a net benefit to the plan. arguments injure the uniqueness of disad- emissions today. 1NC grants the The disadvantage applies to each team vantages. If the present system will already advantage scenario and makes the equally well, but the negative hurts the do the affirmative plan, then it will also ac- argument that the United States will economy for five fewer years. At the end of crue the disadvantages that are applied to adopt emissions standards in 2006. the round, the judge must weigh the eco- case (with the exception of time-delay dis- A disadvantage claims emissions nomic scenario against 6,750 lives. Al- advantages), making the status quo no less standards hurt business growth by though this is a difficult decision in real life, harmful than doing the affirmative plan. 10 per cent each year. 2A claims that the assumed sanctity of human life should this is non-unique because of win this round handily for the affirmative. An Alternative Interpretation inherency argumentation. Scenario 3: 1AC presents a There is, however, an alternative to Under scrolling inherency theory, the case with two advantages. Advan- viewing inherency as either valid or invalid inherency argument is a winning one for tage 1 is that Americans are not in all cases. Because inherency is a debat- the negative team as the warming advan- learning enough now, more fund- able issue, there are times when inherency tage has a single impact and the present ing will better educate them. Ad- is always a voting issue and other times system will take action before that impact vantage 2 is that if students are not when inherency is never a voting issue. The occurs. Since affirmative evidence indicates adequately funded within the next conditions for each type will be described that there is a specific date by which action ten years, the United States will lose under what I call scrolling inherency theory. must be taken, any solvent action put into its global leadership. 1N claims that Under scrolling inherency theory, all of the effect before that date will avoid the harm. Bush's educational reforms will ad- previous inherency arguments are included Since the present system will adopt the stan- equately fund schools in 2006, and as legitimate. There are no changes in the dards for global warming before the date therefore there is no inherency. No levels of inherency. The only change is indicated in the affirmative evidence, the disadvantages are presented. whether or not inherency argumentation is present system will solve for the cata- Under scrolling inherency theory, the a legitimate tactic for a particular case and strophic impacts. Although the affirmative inherency attack injures one of the advan- plan. Unlike conventional inherency theory, does implement emissions standards before tages, but lets the other go through un- which examines whether the plan will be the present system does, there is no net scathed. The inherency argumentation on implemented in the status quo, scrolling benefit, as no other advantages are identi- Advantage 2 is enough to rebut this part of theory asks if the present system will act fied. The disadvantage does apply to both the case. Since the United States has 10 before the impacts of the advantages oc- sides. Since the affirmative acts 5 years be- years to shore up its position as a global cur. fore the present system does, the net dis- leader, and since Bush's new funding will There are two types of advantages: advantage is that the affirmative hurts busi- be fully in place in 2006, there is no inherency single impactual advantages and continual ness for one year longer than the negative for this advantage. Since global leadership can be preserved, there is no need to adopt generic inherency list, scrolling inherency Inherency." In CEDA-L [CEDA- the plan to gain that advantage. However, forces the debater to ask when impacts are [email protected]]. on Advantage 1, the inherency argumenta- coming, how they weigh, and if the evidence Grassmick, D. (1995, Oct. 26). tion still leaves the affirmative with a case. on her list meets the time-frame offered by [[email protected]]. "Re: Inherency." Per- Since every day of education is important, the affirmative evidence. sonal communication. the increase in funding will improve the Inherency is currently at risk as a vi- Mahoney, T. (1995, Oct. 26). overall quality of education over a longer able debate argument. It was a strong issue [[email protected]]. "Re: Inherency." In period. Since there is no threat of the status in the 1950s and 60s. In the 1970s and 80s CEDA-L. [[email protected]]. quo implementing more funding before declined in importance, but was still used McGee, B. R. (1995, Oct. 27). 2006, the affirmative gains at least five years as a strategic position. In the 1990s, [[email protected]]. of added benefits over the status quo. This, inherency skirted the borders of irrelevance. "Inherency." In CEDA-L. [CEDA- given no disadvantages to weigh against Today, debaters and judges can choose the [email protected]]. it, provides no reason to vote for the nega- future of inherency. It can be allowed to dis- Pettus, A. B. (1991). From attitudinal tive -- not even on the grounds of inherency. appear or it can be reasserted as a mighty inherency to permutation standards: A sur- argument. As this choice faces debaters, vey of judging philosophies from the 1988 Conclusion scrolling inherency could become part of National Debate Tournament. Argumenta- Inherency is an issue that is con- that second option. tion and Advocacy, 27, 159-170. stantly evolving (or devolving depending Schunk, J .F. (1978). A farewell to on your view). Scrolling inherency is a logi- Works Cited "structural change". Journal of the Ameri- cal step in the progression of debate, as it Cherwitz, R., & Hikins, J. W. (1977). can Forensics Association, 14, 144-149. becomes more focused on specialization of Inherency as a multidimensional construct: Strickland, Glen. (1995, Oct. 27). cases and farther away from whole A rhetorical approach to the proof of cau- [[email protected]]. "Re: resolutional issues. Scrolling inherency pro- sation. Journal of the American Forensic Inherency (fwd) Reply." In CEDA-L. vides the opportunity to focus both on the Association, 14, 82-90. [[email protected]]. case specific area, the topic in general, and Cox, J. R. (1975). Attitudinal inherency: a higher level of debate theory. Indeed, only Implications for policy debate. Southern (Benjamin R. Bates , M.A., 2000, Univer- by combining these elements can a scroll- Speech Communication Journal, 40, 158- sity of Georgia, is a doctoral candidate in ing inherency argument make sense and 168. Speech Communication at the University effect the round in a positive manner for Garmon, M. (1995, Oct. 26). of Georgia.) both teams. Instead of cards read from a [[email protected]]. "Re: