[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Neg Fiat

I think that there are few things in debate as sacred as the 
counterplan.  I think that it is one of the only reasons that someone 
wuold ever vote on topicality (i.e. the affirmative interpretation of 
resolutional ground division skews "fair" ground for the negative to 
fiat).  Many of the arguments made by Chris have been run in rounds over 
the last few years but I still do not understand the logic behind it.  

Chris' question could apply equally to affirmatives, why do we let them 
fiat in a policy?  Easy.  Without the construct of fiat there would never 
be a discussion about how to solve the problem.  Otherwise, our activity 
would just be competitive oratory where one side would discuss a problem 
and the other would deny it.  Real argumentation about the problem would 
be difficult at best since there would be no way to solve it.  Therefore 
fiat was designed to allow TEAMS the ability to solve for the problem.  
If Chris' argument is correct about the illegitimacy of negative fiat, 
then affirmative fiat would fail the same test.  Therefore, why only 
limit it to affirmatives.  They win well over 65 percent of the rounds 
anyway.

I also do not understand his "implications" for his theory (Due to my 
lack of email clipping knowledge I did not include his post so you will 
have to refer back to it).  First, he says that it is unfair for the aff. 
to have to defend the plan in any world.  What?????  This makes no 
sense.  I guess what he is trying to say is that we should only compare 
the policy versus the status quo.  Why?  Lots of claims but no support 
for them.  I think that the affirmative should have to defend their plan 
as the BEST topical manner to solve their harm.  It makes the affirmative 
prove their advantages are best solved in regards to their 
solvency/advantage authors.  If the neg team is not allowed to challenge 
this notion, then we would have to settle for good policies versus the 
best policy to solve.  If our activity is truly a policy-making venture, 
then why must only one side be able to present a policy.  In the real 
world (which is so much like debate :) amendments and debate are for this 
very reason, to find the best policy.  Also, since most judges will vote 
affirmative even if their is only the slightest risk of solvency, the 
negative could never win a case debate.  ( I don't blame them, why not 
take a chance but negative fiat helps to solve this dilemma.)

Secondly, Chris says that the negative must prove that the counterplan 
could be done in the status quo.  What?  Are you referring to an 
uninherent option or that people would do it?  Once again, we got rid of 
that whole should/would discussion for affirmatives with fiat and why not 
give it to the negative.  I think that Chris is trying to eliminate 
utopian counterplans.  I guess that teams can try and run them but they 
are so ridden with transition problems that they seldom win when there is 
debate on the counterplan.  I say let them try to run it because they 
seldom win but nonetheless they have ground to propose it.  

Third, Chris says that just because the aff is bad or worse than other 
choices, why does the negative get to create a new world in which to 
evaluate the counterplan.  He rambles about the status quo being the ony 
thin that you interpret the resolution through.  What?  Why is it so 
unfair to make the affirmative defend their option as the best in and of 
itself.  Seldom do counterplans change the entire scheme of evaluation 
for the counterplan.  If the afirmative is not the best way to solve, 
then why would someone choose it over another option.  The resolution 
does not constrain how the affirmative is evaluated.  It only serves to 
set parameters as to what is fair game for the affirmative to do.  Just 
as Chris says, the resolution does not specify in what context the aff is 
evaluated.  

His last complaint delas with arguments about "should not' gives fiat 
power.  Not sure that this is the reason why there is negative fiat--more 
likely it is out the necessity to give reciprocal fiat power to the 
negative to make it a fairer playing field.  (By reciprocal I mean that 
the negative should be given as much fiat power as the affirmative such 
as the affirmatve gets the USFG and so should the negative be it other 
government branches or even foreign governments, bet this will spark 
discussion for those that got this far).  If should is the power that 
gives the affirmative fiat, then why wouldn't toopical counterplans be 
legitimate (I think they are).  To meet your test then all that would 
have to be done is to make every counterplan topical so it could get the 

almighty fiat power.  

Finally, I do not think that the critic votes for the counterplan per 
se.  It is more like the critic decides that the affirmative is not the 
best option and that there are other things that could solve better.  

Enough for now

Isaac West
Kansas State Debate
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page