DEBATE

1. DEBATE INHERENCY

2. INHERENCY • The 2nd stock issue is Inherency. • The term INHERENCY is a noun derived from the base word “INHERENT” which is an adjective and means: “…EXISTING IN SOMEONE OR SOMETHING AS A NATURAL AND INSEPARABLE QUALITY.” Webster’s New World Dictionary and Thesaurus

3. INHERENCY • The Affirmative team must be able to prove one of two things: 1. The Aff could not be adopted, the harm solved or the advantage achieved in the current system without changing the LAW. 2. It is highly improbable that their plan would be adopted, the harm solved or the advantage achieved in the current system given the ATTITUDE of the American public and Congress.

4. INHERENCY • The Negative team tries to prove that there is NO INHERENT BARRIERto the adoption of the Affirmative plan. They try to prove one of two things: 1. That the Status Quo is ALREADY IMPLEMENTING THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN, or 2. That the Status QuoCOULD ADOPT THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN, IF IT WANTED TO DO SO.

5. INHERENCY • Inherent Barriers come in two types: • A structural barrier which is a LAW • AN ATTITUDINAL BARRIER which is such an unpopular idea, it is unlikely that Congress would ever pass it into law.

6. INHERENCY • A STRUCTURAL BARRIER IS A LAW. • It is a law that must be repealed or changed for the Affirmative plan to take effect. • Laws are made in 3 ways: Executive Legislation Supreme Order by Court Congress Decision

7. INHERENCY • AN ATTITUDINAL BARRIER IS AN OPINION BY THE PUBLIC ON A PARTICULAR SUBJECT THAT IS SO OVERWHELMING AS TO PREVENT CHANGE WITHOUT FORCE. • It must be overwhelming enough that it would be unlikely Congress, the President or the Supreme Court would enact such a program, without the advent of the Affirmative Plan.

8. INHERENCY • You can tell if something is a big enough issue to be an ATTITUDINAL BARRIER, if: • IT WOULD CAUSE PICKETING. • IT WOULD CAUSE RIOTING. • IT WOULD CAUSE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE • An Attitudinal Barrier frequently results in passing a law to make people do what they won’t do on their own.

9. INHERENCY • There is a 3rd type of Inherency that is sometimes used by Varsity Debaters when they do not have a structural or attitudinal barrier to their plan. • They call it Existential Inherency or Gap Inherency • The theory behind this argument is that there is a “gap” in the current system where their plan “does not exist.”

10. INHERENCY • The Affirmative team presumes that, because their plan does not currently exist, it will not ever exist without an assist from the Affirmative team. They argue that their plan’s very non-existence is a type of barrier in and of itself. • There are two ways to deal with Gap Inherency. 1. Argue against it [when you are on the Negative], or 2. Embrace it and use it [when you are on the Affirmative].

11. INHERENCY • Let’s start with arguing against it: • There are two problems with Gap Inherency or Existential Inherencyas a theory. • The first problem is that there could be many reasons why a plan might not exist in the status quo. Below are several reasons why a plan might not currently exist, having nothing to do with laws or attitude of the public. • It’s a bad idea. • It doesn’t work very well. • It’s too expensive. • Nobody particularly likes the plan. • There are multiple disadvantages to implementing the plan.

12. INHERENCY • The Affirmative will not be able to prove that there is a law [structural barrier] or overwhelming attitude [attitudinal barrier] preventing their plan from being adopted; only that it doesn’t exist now. • The second problem is that Gap Inherency is really sort of a labeling magic trick. • Remember that both structural and attitudinal inherency were barriers in the current system keeping the affirmative plan from coming into existence without the affirmative team to remove them • In both cases, they were actual obstacles to the adoption of the plan.

13. INHERENCY • Gap Inherency argues that the lack of existence of something is a barrier or obstacle. • It is used by debaters who have written Affirmative cases where they do not have either a structural or attitudinal barrier. • It actually takes Nothing [no barrier] and tries to make it into Something [Gap Inherency] by naming it. • The theory behind Gap or Existential Inherency does not rise to the quality level of either Structural or Attitudinal Inherency. • Lack of plan existence, or a gap in the current system, does not mean that the plan would never be enacted on its own, or that it necessarily should be. • In addition, nothing does not become something just because you name it. • Thus, you can argue that the concept of Gap or Existential Inherency is not a real type of Inherency.

14. INHERENCY • Okay, your other option is to embrace this theory. • To do this you need to know its limitations. Remember, this is a theory that is NOT well accepted by: - A lot of coaches [they think it’s cheesy]. - Conservative debate theorists [they think debaters who run it are too lazy to find a “real” barrier]. - Lay judges [they don’t understand it]. • You would probably not want to try to argue this in a round where you have a coach or a lay judge. • On the other hand, Gap Inherency is a theory that is often accepted by: - Younger coaches [who aren’t as attached to the older theories]. - Liberal debate theorists [who are open-minded to new theory ideas]. - College debaters [don’t ask…].

15. INHERENCY • Hypothetical Practice…..

16. INHERENCY • Is there a law preventing the Affirmative plan from being adopted that would constitute STRUCTURAL INHERENCY? Maybe…maybe not. The DOT currently has a policy requiring the unloading and reloading Mexican cargo at U.S. port of entry stations at the border. However, it also has a pilot program out of the Port of Nogales, Arizona, that is allowing some Mexican trucks to come across the border without unloading and continue to their destination. That puts this case in a precarious position of being somewhere in between. I think the lack of a firm structural barrier could easily be argued equals no barrier at all. • Is there an overwhelming public resistance to Mexican truckers on U.S. highways that would constitute ATTITUDINAL INHERENCY? Maybe…maybe not. There is certainly overwhelming resistance by U.S. truckers and the Teamsters Union [trucking’s labor union]. Their resistance to this plan has held up the pilot program for 2 decades. On the other hand, I doubt that the U.S. public would picket or protest. • Is it simply an absence of the Affirmative plan in the present system that has created a GAP? Not really. The existence of the pilot program means that there is not even a gap.

17. INHERENCY • It could be argued that the Affirmative team has NO INHERENT BARRIER for the following reasons: • The Affirmative team DOES NOT HAVE STRUCTURAL INHERENCY because the Dept. of Transportation is already changing their policy, as is evidence by the existence of the pilot program in Port of Nogales, Arizona. • Here’s something to remember… You can’t run this INHERENCY argument and run DISADVANTAGES at the same time. If you win the argument that we are already doing this now, any DISADVANTAGES will apply to the current system, as well. When you are dealing with a PILOT PROGRAM, you have to make the decision between INHERENCY and DISADVANTAGES. With other cases, when you argue STRUCTURAL INHERENCY, you are arguing that there is nothing stopping us now. Then you argue why we aren’t doing it, i.e. DISADVANTAGES. When you have a PILOT PROGRAM, you can’t do this.

18. INHERENCY • The Affirmative team DOES NOT HAVE ATTITUDINAL INHERENCY because the American public in general doesn’t care about this issue, and • The Affirmative team DOES NOT HAVE GAP INHERENCY because the pilot program in Port of Nogales, Arizona, means that their program exists in some form. • Remember that when we discussed the OBLIGATION of the Affirmative team, we talked about the fact that the LEAST we should expect them to do is PROVE THAT THE COULD NOT, OR WOULD NOT BE ADOPTED NOW [Inherency]. If you can prove they haven’t met this obligation, they should lose the round.