Policy debate uses the word "inherency" in an unusual way. One side in the debate proposes a plan and part of what they are obliged to show is that the plan will not happen in the status quo. This is termed "inherency". Despite using the term this way for several years, this has never made sense to me.
A longer description of the concept of inherency in policy debate can be found on Wikipedia.
My thought had been that it was meant in the sense, "it is an inherent part of the status quo that the plan will not happen", but the Wikipedia link uses the word differently, "This plan is inherent because...".
Is this usage of the word inherency unique to policy debate? Is there any precedent for this usage?
11/20/14 I'd still like a good answer and will upvote and accept one if it shows up.