What to Run Instead of Inherency
In the last post, we explained why Inherency needs to leave. Now, let’s talk about what you should run instead.
What was called Inherency can be presented in two different ways.
Topicality Violation. If the Plan was already passed, then the affirmative is not advocating a change/reform. You can build a simple Topicality press out of that.
Impact Calculus. Run arguments talking about what will actually happen if the Plan is passed. Perhaps nothing will happen - those are Harm and Advantage responses. Perhaps there will be administrative confusion - that’s a Disadvantage. Perhaps money will be wasted. That’s probably a Backfire.
Because of the high cost of Presumption arguments, Impact Calculus is usually the right call. But either one is coherent.
These two options cover every scenario where what would have been called Inherency might be relevant. This kind of direct, tangible arguing clears all the smoke out of the debate. Questions like: “Are you inherent if the bill is on the Senate floor,” are gone, and we’re back to “Is the resolution true? Should we do the Plan?”
That’s it. Just like that, Inherency is obsolete.
Up next: a summary of all the theory changes in Omni.