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

Re: Neg Fiat

At 09:47 PM 5/18/97 -0500, Isaac N West wrote:

>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 
>
>

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
PUTTING OUT FIRES, AND DAMN GOOD DEBATERS
db8coach@lightspeed.net
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page