Jump to content
KritikallySound

Ray South Tourney

Recommended Posts

What cards? Are you refering to a inherency shell (presumption)?

 

Presumption =/= inherency. Presumption is based off of solvency, more specifically if you can prove a terminal solvency deficit the judge should vote neg on presumption assuming that presumption still flows neg (IE the negative team is still defending the status quo, a CP or K alt flips presumption aff unless kicked).

 

I'm more or less talking about structural v attitudinal.

 

There isn't much point in delineating the two, the only circuits where inherency is actually relevant tend to be filled with lay judges who most of the time won't be able to differentiate. Furthermore, even conservative districts like E-MO still will almost never pull the trigger on a proven inherency argument by the neg. If, for whatever reason, you do go for inherency it's better to keep it simple with "the plan has already passed" and use as specific an example to the plan as possible. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumption =/= inherency. Presumption is based off of solvency, more specifically if you can prove a terminal solvency deficit the judge should vote neg on presumption assuming that presumption still flows neg (IE the negative team is still defending the status quo, a CP or K alt flips presumption aff unless kicked).

I agree to an extent. If the 1AC lacks a inherency contention then an argument for presumption can be made. Would say that you have to assume the SQ is sane and sensible w/o a strict inherent barrier. I'm sure you can cut a card from a old school debate handbook about inherent barriers and their difference. Most people don't give a shit about inherency tho, like you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree to an extent. If the 1AC lacks a inherency contention then an argument for presumption can be made. Would say that you have to assume the SQ is sane and sensible w/o a strict inherent barrier. I'm sure you can cut a card from a old school debate handbook about inherent barriers and their difference. Most people don't give a shit about inherency tho, like you said.

Nah, not really. For the first, cases haven't been written like that on the national/college circuit for a long time because people realize congress is basically pointless, but furthermore, that doesn't resolve the assertion that presumption is wholly unrelated to inherency in the first place. I would agree that it can come into play in a debate where inherency is also at play though, because if you can show that a policy has been passed and failed then you have terminal defense against the solvency (aka a presumption argument). Usually presumption is seen in a situation where there's some external factor that completely makes the case unable to solve, for example if someone is talking about warming but concedes/drops that were past the tipping point then the neg could argue to vote neg on presumption because at that point there's no way the case could solve.

 

How many aff policies/plans have passed? The truth of it is that the impacts are all BS so there's actually no reason to pass it insofar as why the aff talks about it, but that's the dirty (not so secret) secret of policy debate isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×