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

RE: Neg Fiat

Okay, I feel stupid.  In my list of common reasons to accept neg fiat, I 
left out the most obvious one, which is reciprocal powers.  I'll address 
that, I hope, in this post.

You write:
> 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.

The affirmative gets fiat because we are evaluating their policy. 
 Therefore we evaluate their policy.  We aren't evaluating a negative 
policy, so why should we, for example, determine the desirability of the 
affirmative plan in a world *after* anarchy?  Is that really what is meant 
by the should in the resolution?  I somehow doubt it.  Aff fiat solves the 
problem you identify with arguing policy, so why continue to give the same 
ability (propose a policy) to neg.

Of course, we could decide to make a lot of attempts to make everything 
even and fair as far as who gets what fiat.  Then we end up with plan-plan. 
 Stopping in the middle, however, has created a real mess of theory that 
really has no united theme or intuitiveness.  Just a bunch of rules and 
limits that have nothing in common.  Go either way (plan-plan or abolish 
neg fiat), but here is a bad place to be.

And continue:
> 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).

Sorry.  I'll try to explain them.

> 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.

Okay.  Fair enough.

What I meant about defending plans in multiple worlds is this.  When 
negative presents a counterplan, they are affecting the world in which plan 
is passed in some way.  The general goal of a cp is to change to 
surrounding world in which plan is implemented so that the plan is bad or 
impossible.  This is quite a power, so we generally put some restrictions 
on it (unless you want to let the neg on a cr topic counterplan that 
everyone stops being racist...) to keep neg from abusing it.  My argument 
under the first implication is that this huge set of forbidden

> 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.)

Defending plan as the best topical manner to solve is not the burden given 
to aff, unless you accept plan-plan.  I think I started with a plea to 
realize that this discussion exists outside of plan-plan theory.  You 
should start arguing plan-plan, cuz everything you say supports it.

> 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.

I wasn't arguing against utopian fiat.  I was just stating implications of 
looking at the cp as purely opportunity cost.  It's a point of discussion, 
not an argument in favor.

> 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.

Great.  The discussion I was looking for.  Now just tell me what limits you 
think you should put on negative's power to determine that context (ie, 
limits on fiat) and justify them, and we'll be on our way.  You say that 
counterplans "seldom" change too much context, but how do we know when neg 
counterplans change that context too much, so that debate over the aff plan 
is pointless?  Can neg fiat that people stop being racist then evaluate an 
aff cr case in that light, claiming net benefits competition off of some DA 
to gov social spending?  Do you really want to allow this?  Tell me your 
limits.

Chris Smith
Woodland Park HS Debate

"Love is apparently killed by time, only because it transcends time; and 
its spiritual and infinite essence cannot be contained with the limitations 
of a material and finite world."
	- Caroline Spurgeon, on Shakespeare's philosophy of love
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page