Re: Inherency is not a voter

[BLechtreck@aol.com]

I agree Ken, but it has happened before.

>It seems then that inherency is a very easy burden. To adopt the outlook
>on inherency outlined above, a judge wouldn't vote on inherency unless the 
>negative provided the bill in congress or another policy option in the
status
>quo with the exact same language as the affirmative plan text. Otherwise, it

>seems that it would be too easy for affirmatives to say that a minute change
in
>the plan is the distinction from and justification over the status quo.

I think you are missing a very important distinction. There is a big
difference between plan intent and plan text. If the plan intent (and the
subsequent advantages) come from, say, a desal plant in the Middle East, it
would be irrelevent if that plant were done by congressional bill or
presidential order. The advantages would still be the same. Now if a
different process were being used (aero-gel vs. reverse osmosis), that would
be an argument worth running. But to say that the plan text needs to be in
the SQ already was not the intent of what I was saying.
 
>>The reason that inherency is a voting issue is that a policy topic assumes
that the
>>affirmative will do something different than the status quo. If they do
not,
>>then they have violated word(s) in the resolution (should - increase - et
>>al)..

>Doesn't this then assume that topicality serves the function to force 
>affirmatives to adopt policies which are distinct form the status quo?

No, only that there are reasons for it being a voting issue. Another reason
is the real world (That I am claiming real world justification for something
is even scarrier than the Kens agreeing) example. If a bill were before
congress to build this desal plant, and someone stood up and said that a
company was already in the process of doing just that, do you think they
would approve the bill? I hasten to say that the bill would either go down in
defeat, or be tabled, but either way it would not be passed. 

>To address more broadly why inherency is a stock issue. Why couldn't a 
>policymaker merely assess inherency in substantive discussion?

I'm not convinced there is a difference between your suggestion and reality.

>If inherency is supposed to be viewed as a test of whether or not we should
abandon the >status quo, the negative can uphold the status quo which is
apparently doing 
>something in the area of discussion. 

I agree with this part of the paragraph.

>Instead of accepting negative inherency arguments as justifications for
negative ballots, in >a non-"stock issue" paradigm, the same issues can be
addressed in substantive >discussion as policy alternatives to the
affirmative.

I think the implication to this part of the paragraph is that the negative
must somehow prove that it is a BETTER policy option than the aff. I would
disagree with this implication. However, if the implication is that the
negative can show it is already addressing the problems as outlined in the
aff, then I would agree. And we call that inherency. Now whether or not it
should be labled a "stock" voting issue, or a "substantive discussion", it
boils down to the same thing.

>An additional query... why is it when I state that I am adopting a
policymaking
>paradigm that the immediate assumption in these CEDA rounds is that the 
>"stock issues" need to be addressed?

This may be partially because the distinction has been lost among CEDA
people, partially because the brite line between the two has become blurred
over the years, and partially because the two are not that far apart. Why
would you, as a policymaker, vote for a plan that is doing something that is,
in essence, being done now? Now whether you just voted on inherency or some
substantive discussion is just semantic labelling.

>Saw you at SLO

Wasn't there.

I know, we missed you. Missed you at CEDA Nats too. I guess you were too busy
extending your career (wink, wink).

Hope to see you at Phi Rho Pi.

Bob Lechtreck

---

• Prev by Date: Congratulations
• Next by Date: CEDA Nationals
• Prev by thread: Congratulations
• Next by thread: CEDA Nationals
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page