Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
Inherency is an important issue in debate that is often under-appreciated. Yet, arguing it well can be important because it establishes the basis for the debate-the difference between the plan and the present system and why one is superior to the other.
Affirmative Inherency Arguments
First, argue that the present system is different from the plan. That means, you need to present evidence that describes the status quo. This might mean, for example, presenting evidence that says the present system relies on states and local areas to provide funding for schools (this would be different from your plan if you advocated federal funding for all schools).
Second, argue that the present system will not solve the problem and/or that the present system causes the problem. For example, you would argue that relying on state and local funding for schools causes inequity and inadequate support for education. You could also argue that local funding for schools makes the United States unable to solve its lack of competitiveness in the international economic market.
Your inherency argument
Negative Inherency Arguments
First, you can argue that the present system is like the affirmative plan. This will rarely win rounds with policy maker judges, but it is a real winner with stock issues judges, especially those that believe that there needs to be a barrier to the plan.
Second, you can argue that the present system will solve the problem or is not causing the problem.
Some additional arguments that negative can make against inherency include the following:
1. There is no barrier to the plan being enacted (I have argued that this is a "should-could" fallacy because the resolution asks the affirmative to show that the plan should be implemented-not whether it could be implemented; unfortunately, judges often believe differently)
2. The status quo is incrementally changing to solve the problem (check out the question on incrementalism on the BDB: How do I? Web page)
3. The affirmative must show that the current policy is permanent and will remain in place for a long period of time or the affirmative has not met their inherency burden (again, not a standard I agree with, but one you can argue).
4. The affirmative plan is just a minor repair. You can argue that the present system is very close to the affirmative plan, with the only difference being funding or administrators. The result is that the plan does not make an inherent change or that the plan is not topical because, for example, it is not a "substantial change" (if that was the wording in the resolution).
5. The negative can
argue that a minor repair would solve the problem. The negative
can argue that the present system can solve the problem if it
just had more funding, a better administrator, education efforts,
or other small adjustments.
Thanks to Polo for asking this question.