Content-Manager, Administrators
203
edits
Difference between revisions of "Policy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Inherency
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Harms are the problems with the status quo, i.e. what is the problem that will happen absent the plan’s enactment. For example, a common harm for a policy AC that India and Pakistan should eliminate their nuclear arsenals would be an argument that nuclear war between the two states is inevitable in the status quo absent the removal of nuclear weapons. | Harms are the problems with the status quo, i.e. what is the problem that will happen absent the plan’s enactment. For example, a common harm for a policy AC that India and Pakistan should eliminate their nuclear arsenals would be an argument that nuclear war between the two states is inevitable in the status quo absent the removal of nuclear weapons. | ||
===Inherency=== | ===Inherency=== | ||
Inherency is the cause of the status quo. An affirmative must be “inherent,” which just means that the plan proposed by the affirmative is not already in existence. For example, an affirmative plan could be “the United States federal government ought to implement a carbon tax at $43 per ton of CO2.” Since there is currently no such policy in place, this AC is inherent. However, if the AC were to propose | Inherency is the cause of the status quo. An affirmative must be “inherent,” which just means that the plan proposed by the affirmative is not already in existence. For example, an affirmative plan could be “the United States federal government ought to implement a carbon tax at $43 per ton of CO2.” Since there is currently no such policy in place, this AC is inherent. However, if the AC were to propose “Plan: the United States federal government ought to enact income taxes,” this would not be inherent since such a policy is already in existence. Absent inherency, there is no reason to vote affirmative since the policy is already in place. | ||
There are three types of inherency - existential/gap, structural, and attitudinal. | |||
Existential/gap inherency refers to the absence of a law that would cause the aff. As of 2021, "Resolved: The United States should provide universal basic healthcare," is inherent because there is no current policy for it. | |||
Structural inherency refers to the existence of a law that is preventing the aff. With the healthcare example, if there was a law preventing the government from giving any kind of welfare/benefits to the people, it would prevent universal basic healthcare from being passed. | |||
Attitudinal inherency refers to an attitude that is preventing the aff from happening. People may perceive it in a negative light, and push back so it can't happen. An example is universal basic income (UBI) which is widely disputed over its ability to solve poverty. | |||
Affs may have a combination of these types of inherencies or all three - they aren't mutually exclusive. | |||
===Solvency=== | ===Solvency=== | ||
Solvency is the ability of the affirmative to rectify the harms it talks about. Absent the affirmative solving for the harms, there is no reason to vote affirmative since the plan does not work. Solvency is established through a “solvency mechanism,” which is a piece of evidence that explains how the policy proposal (plan) would work and its effects. For example, a policy AC about inequality might propose a plan to raise the minimum wage. This AC would then read evidence about how raising the minimum wage would rectify inequality and lift people out of poverty. | Solvency is the ability of the affirmative to rectify the harms it talks about. Absent the affirmative solving for the harms, there is no reason to vote affirmative since the plan does not work. Solvency is established through a “solvency mechanism,” which is a piece of evidence that explains how the policy proposal (plan) would work and its effects. For example, a policy AC about inequality might propose a plan to raise the minimum wage. This AC would then read evidence about how raising the minimum wage would rectify inequality and lift people out of poverty. | ||