Jump to content
kyby123

A Lesson in Inherency

Recommended Posts

Lately I have been noticing many people talk about inherency or write aff cases with inherency that really is not what they say it is.

 

To put it bluntly, it pisses me off.

 

So I am typing this to give all of you a little lesson in what inherency really is. First of all here is what I have been seeing for the most part.

 

to start out, go online like either google or lexis and try to find bad things that are happening in south africa. thats your inherency...

next think of what you can do to make things better. then construct your plantext...

then look online again for how giving aid in that way (economical, technical, logistical, troops, ect.) well solve your inherency, and that is solvency...

now the easiest part is harms. all you have to do is find extentions for your inherency and use internal links from other files you have, or research them that say they lead to bad things. then put them under advanteges and your done!

 

The Author will go nameless.

 

Now for those of us who cant see anything wrong with this, this is not inherency it is harms the bad things that are happening are the HARMS not the inherency. Inherency is the state of the plan not being implemented in the staus quo.

 

There are 3 kinds of inherency

1.) Gap inherency-The Plan is not in effect so obviously there is a reason why.

2.) Attitudinal inherency-A group of people do not want the plan to happen and are causing it to not pass.

3.) Structural inherency- There is some sort of barrier preventing plan from taking place such as a law.

 

Gap inherency is by most considered to be the weakest inherency. Structural and Attitudinal inherency are much stronger.

 

That is my lesson sorry if I am sounding bitchy to anyone but I am tired of trading for files with no inherency and 2 sections of harms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amen to that i'm sick of bad inherency debates as well. also if i hear another person ask me "What's your inherent barrier?" i'm going to punch them in the throat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes that too you dont neccessarily have to have an inherent barrier (for instance you could have gap inherency) so quit freakin asking that in cross-x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If plan isn't passed, you're better off not mitigating your own disad's uniqueness. I don't understand why inherency matters so much to you. Stock issues are arbitrary and lame. I do not even feel the need to warrant that assertion.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i also think it needs to be pointed out that there is no "a" in Inherency. Just trying to help end the ridicule of those who are Spelling Challenged :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not really go for inherency unless it is obviously not inherent. The barrier thing is stupid though. Did you know there is an "Inherency Barrier Spec"? Kill me now.

 

Yeah... it's unfortunate... But there are worse arguments..."I will be running a F-spec Kritik." Yeah... No such thing. But hey whatever people want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if your plan isn't in existence, its inherent. End of Story

in the fun world of novice deabtes, yes this would be true. However, when you get up to the big leagues you begin to realize that you need to have a better argument than "plan is not in existence" for Inh.

 

that being said i think that people who go for Inh. are idiots (the exception being plans that are obviously NOT inherent).

 

this being said i lost on Inh. for the first time ever last week. :sob::o my partner dropped it in his rebuttal, i was extremely pissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it would be interesting to note that if the Aff reads evidence that states their plan will solve, this usually means that a law does exist. Oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in the fun world of novice deabtes, yes this would be true. However, when you get up to the big leagues you begin to realize that you need to have a better argument than "plan is not in existence" for Inh.

 

that being said i think that people who go for Inh. are idiots (the exception being plans that are obviously NOT inherent).

 

this being said i lost on Inh. for the first time ever last week. :sob::o my partner dropped it in his rebuttal, i was extremely pissed.

 

reference the Oceans topic. GBN Matt Nadell/Adam Stern beat College Prep in the finals of the NFL national tournament on Inherency and a DA (but primarily on Inherency). all analytics on Inherency. pure beauty. i LOVED watching that round.

 

brennan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought it would be interesting to note that if the Aff reads evidence that states their plan will solve, this usually means that a law does exist. Oops.

 

No, it means their plan is grounded in literature that says: we should do this because it works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

talking about inherency one time i went up against a varsity team in my league division and they litterally ran 8 minutes of inherency, I only heard of this happening in legend never in real life, because of this I can proudly say that I went up against 8 minutes of inherency and won.

 

oh yea KYBY are you just selling the UTNIF anarchy CP that they put out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh yea KYBY are you just selling the UTNIF anarchy CP that they put out?

 

No its homemade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lately I have been noticing many people talk about inherency or write aff cases with inherency that really is not what they say it is.

 

To put it bluntly, it pisses me off.

Apparently so. However, your own understanding of the issue is, uh, somewhat faulty. Perhaps you should bear in mind that old saying about how people who live in glass houses ought to behave...
Inherency is the state of the plan not being implemented in the staus quo.
Actually, no. Inherency refers to whether Problem X will or will not persist into the future absent resolutional action. As Snider's Code of the Debater puts it: "Explains why the problem identified persists and why it is not being solved." It has nothing to do with whether Affplan has or has not been enacted...
Gap inherency is by most considered to be the weakest inherency. Structural and Attitudinal inherency are much stronger.
Not sure who "most" are, but stop listening to them, 'cause they're idiots. What you call "gap" inherency is much STRONGER than what you call "attitudinal," and is AT LEAST as strong as what you call "structural" inherency (which you'd understand if you just thought about it for, oh, about five seconds or so)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lately I have been noticing many people talk about inherency or write aff cases with inherency that really is not what they say it is.

 

To put it bluntly, it pisses me off.

Apparently so. However, your own understanding of the issue is, uh, somewhat faulty. Perhaps you should bear in mind that old saying about how people who live in glass houses ought to behave...
Inherency is the state of the plan not being implemented in the staus quo.
Actually, no. Inherency refers to whether Problem X will or will not persist into the future absent resolutional action. As Snider's Code of the Debater puts it: "Explains why the problem identified persists and why it is not being solved." It has nothing to do with whether Affplan has or has not been enacted...
Gap inherency is by most considered to be the weakest inherency. Structural and Attitudinal inherency are much stronger.
Not sure who "most" are, but stop listening to them, 'cause they're idiots. What you call "gap" inherency is much STRONGER than what you call "attitudinal" inherency, and is AT LEAST as strong as what you call "structural" inherency (which you'd understand if you just thought about it for, oh, about five seconds or so)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another kind of inherent barrier : Ice cream barrier.

 

The government was going to enact the plan, but instead they all went out for ice cream.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it should also be pointed out that competitive college rounds contain inherency debates. I witnessed two rounds at the missouri state university tournament in october that involved inherency. They werent like WAYYYY competitive featuring top teams in the country or anything but they were still good debates. The inherency debate does not end at novice debates.

 

 

love

jamie

nhs 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tshu--

 

you saying that attitudinal inherency is worse bc it might prevent better solvency bc plan doesn't change attitudes?

 

gap inherency better bc the affplan doesn't exist in the status quo so whether or not the status quo will solve in a year or so eventually is irrelevant to affplan being better than sqo today?

 

just wonderin if im reading into your post correctly or no. no disagreement intended.

 

 

by the way---the original poster is way too upset about the state of inherency, outside cfl nationals and local debates never run it. lets just put this stock issue in the grave next to significance and lets cremate topicality.

 

inherency should be changed to uniqueness...if you have evidence that the harms are in the status quo and you solve those harms then you are going to win.

 

if the status quo is moving towards solving those harms, it mitigates your case slightly if the harms are systemic and you might lose to a good disad. oh deary me. you must answer the disad with turns! what a shame.

 

you can still win your case with linear advantages if you allow the neg NO offense by turning the shit out of their sq defending positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to figure out when "existential inherency" became "gap inherency." Until this thread, I had always heard it called existential -- maybe Kansas just likes to keep old, more complicated terms around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inherency as such isn't an argument. There is no reason to reject a plan because it is not attitudinally inherent. Most inherency arguments are really uniquess takeouts or advantage mitigators.

 

If you win that the plan will happen eventually, all you have to do is win a disad to it happening now (like politics) and you win without having to deal with case.

 

So, stop going for inherency as a voter. It's not. It's case defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...