Re: Inherency

["Sue E. Lowrie" <suee@ecst.csuchico.edu>]

On Thu, 26 Oct 1995 batesbenj@urvax.urich.edu wrote:

> Howdy everyone!
> 
> I am currently writing a paper on Inherency theories from the deep, 
> dark, ancient past of debate up to the present day (and maybe beyond).  
> Now, since I am not a complete expert on theory, I decided to come to 
> you, the members of the debate community.
> 
> Is Inherency a voting issue?  Was it ever a v.i.?  Should it be one?  Are 
> there cases where Inherency can never exist?  Does Inherency ever exist?  
> Should we care about Inherency?

	well, i dunno about anyone else, but at JC states and nationals 
	last year it seemed that alot of judges were voting on inherency.
	i know this is different than the national four year circuit, but
	it was still run on us at CEDA nats last year, so i would say it
	is still an issue out there somewhere.  personally, i think there
	are extreme cases that beg for inherency to be run...i mean, if it
	is clearly happening, or in the cards for the future then i think
	inherency is an issue...but this is unusual.  as far as making it
	as important as T. or Disads, i think not.  after all, even if the
	idea is being/will be implemented, it certainly doesn't make it a 
	good idea, and in our little world of debate, the judge has the 
	ability to reject the idea!  i'm curious about others feelings on
	this, because i heard alot of "inherency is BS" last year, but i
	also heard alot of teams running it in rounds!  
> 
sue lowrie
chico state

---

References:

• Inherency
• From: batesbenj@urvax.urich.edu

---

• Prev by Date: vermont
• Next by Date: Re: Inherency (fwd)
• Prev by thread: Inherency
• Next by thread: Re: Inherency
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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