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

Why any meaningful case requires fiat

I think my subject heading may be a little extreme, and some of my arguements
may overlap with others' ideas on this thread, but I need a break from research
and wanted to contribute my two bits.

I can't think of a normative claim that doesn't make a comparison.  "Patriarchy
is bad," for example, is made with the assumption that there exists the
possibility of a non-patriarchial alternative.  "Prison overcrowding increases
crime," of course, assumes a comparison to a less overcrowded alternative (even
though its not a normative claim, its normative implications are obvious). 
"Capitalism destroys the environment" really is a claim as to how an alternative
(anarchist, socialist, what-have-you) would be better. 

Most cases make a normative claim. Nearly every case, except a old-style fact
res case, claims that something is bad.  Some cases also go the extra step and
say that there is an alternative to alleviate the harms (plan) and read
evidence that supports the reversal of the problems (solvency).  Even if the
case does not provide a plan and solvency, the argument that the case make 
assumes some alternative, and certainly the case authors assume a comparison 
between two different things.  In my opinion, when an affirmative runs a plan,
they are merely clarifying exactly what the alternative that they defend and 
reading evidence (hopefully) justifying is adoption. Absent a plan, the same 
debate occurs, except that the negative has to make a guess as to what the 
aff wants to do, and the 2AC gets the option to pick a plan so as to turn 
all the disads.  

Whether the alternative is a specified plan, an implied policy, or everyones
estimation based on case advocacy, a comparison is made. This comparison, in my
mind, is fiat: the power to hypothesize your alternative in existance in the
debate round so as to compare it to the status quo, or sometimes vice-versa, if
the aff is defending the status quo.  Often, this fiat is abused by plans that
are ambiguously worded so as to allow shift, or to imagine alternatives that
are so radical or perfect that negativs loose all ground (of course world
harmony is better than the status quo!)  Even if the aff doesn't write a "plan"
arguments about the nature of fiat apply because a comparison is still made and
that comparison may beg the question by hypothesizing perfection. 

I think teams should always run a plan, and they should write the plan so that
it's clear what they mean, and tell us who the agent of action is.  It 
clarifies the debate and focues the round on the issues at hand as opposed to 
beating around the bush so that the negative must waste time trying to find out what the aff's
argument really is.

Kieran Ringgenberg, UMKC
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page