Inherency and Solvency
Two stock issues that every affirmative case must prove — why the status quo fails and why the plan fixes it.
Inherency: Why the Problem Persists
Inherency is the stock issue that asks a deceptively simple question: why does the problem exist right now, and why won't it go away on its own? If the status quo is already solving the problem, or if existing trends will fix it without intervention, there is no reason to adopt the affirmative plan. The affirmative must demonstrate a structural or attitudinal barrier that prevents the current system from addressing the harm.
There are several types of inherency. Structural inherency points to laws, regulations, or institutional arrangements that block a solution. For example, an affirmative case about federal renewable energy mandates might argue that the current lack of a federal standard means states act inconsistently, creating a patchwork that the market alone cannot resolve. Attitudinal inherency argues that decision-makers lack the political will or public support to act. A case about reforming the criminal justice system might point to tough-on-crime attitudes among legislators as the barrier.
Existential inherency is the weakest form, simply noting that the plan does not currently exist. Most judges expect more than this. The affirmative should explain why the plan has not been adopted and why it will not be adopted absent the resolution.
