[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
NEG. Fiat
- To: CEDA-L@Cornell.Edu
- Subject: NEG. Fiat
- From: mgremillion@selu.edu
- Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 15:30:04 -0400 (EDT)
- Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 14:23:18 -0500 (CDT)
- Apparently-To: <CEDA-L@listproc2.mail.cornell.edu>19 May 1997 14:29:10 CDT@
- Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University
Why not simply do away with the entire concept of fiat and adopt in its
place the concept of intellectual endorsement. After listening to enough
Kritik debates, I've come to the conclusion that fiat really is a joke. I've been judging for a number of years and have never cuased nor preventeda war with
my ballot. Why not just say that the judge is voting for X case as an act
of intellectual endorsement of a particular proposal. This would open up
negative ground to argue Kritiks right from the start (absent the procedural
hurdles); could possibly spike out the political perception disads (how
can my endorsement of a program/policy possibly cripple U.S. credibility);
and allow the negative to offer counter-proposals that could also gain
my intellectual endorsement.
Let's get rid off the archaic concept of fiat once and for all.
Scott M. Elliott
SELU
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page