The role of inherency in the final round of the national debate tournament, 1949-1975

This paper examines the role of inherency in the final round of the National Debate Tournament from 1949 to 1975. A survey of the literature reveals that there are six justifications for the concept of inherency: the need to locate the cause of a problem: the need for the location of presumption in a round; the need to determine the permanence of the affirmative need; the determination of whether the affirmative need is- topically solved; the balancing of repairs against the affirmative plan; and the use of the term as a psychological term. The burden of inherency can be met in one of four ways: by linking the problem to a structure (structural inherency); by arguing that current structures should not be used (should not inherency); by arguing that the structure will not be used (attitudinal inherency); or by arguing that the problem has not been solved (existential inherency). The final round debates were examined, and the following conclusions were reached. 1. Inherency has played a significant role in many of the final round debates at nationals. 2. Although reasons for Inherency are rarely discussed in the rounds, there is some indication that the dimensions of presumption and. balancing predominate the use of inherency. 3. The most common type of inherency used, was structural inherency, followed by should not inherency and attitudinal inherency. 4. Existential inherency was rarely used. There were six problems encountered in the use of inherency in the final rounds. These were the creation of plan attacks for the second negative speaker, the problem of the uniqueness of plan attacks, a conflict over the meaning of inherency in the rounds, the non-expandable nature of many of the case repairs, the problem of determining the role of the judge, and the requirement that the affirmative make a structural change. Seven major trends in the use of inherency in the final rounds include (1) the development of new types of cases to ease the burden of inherency; (2) the development of the spread attack; (3) the altering of presumption; (4) the grouping of responses to inherency attacks; (5) the delay in the presentation of Inherency arguments; (6) the trend toward similar negative and affirmative positions; (7) the greater emphasis on inherency on domestic topics, compared to foreign policy topics.