homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:57 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:19 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Sharkfin wrote:
My primary issue with the aforementioned logic stems from my position on fiat. Basically, advocacy grants fiat. Fiat is created because we want to debate about the actual issues at stake-- not the political possibility of X policy occurring. If there's no advocacy (e.g. if the team is not actually defending the merits of X policy), then there's no reason to grant fiat. If there's no reason to grant fiat, then we shouldn't do so because fiat contorts the world, which is a bad thing unless there is some legitimate reason to do so.
Makes sense, but why does fiat come from advocacy?

In my reading, fiat is not a "power" that is granted or denied. Fiat is merely a convenient way of explaining a simple truth: we're debating about what should happen, not what will happen. Saying "I have fiat power" really means "we can just assume the plan gets passed, because that whole issue has nothing to do with whether it should be passed, which is what the resolution is about."

1. Fiat is either a fact of life or a distinct power that can be selectively invoked.
2. If we go exclusively off of the wording of the resolution, all the arguments against which fiat is conventionally invoked are automatically invalid. Therefore, it is unnecessary for fiat to be a distinct power.
3. By the Resolutional Bludgeon ("if you can resolve a problem with the resolution alone, do it"): If something is unnecessary, we shouldn't include it in our theory system.
4. Therefore, fiat is a fact of life, not a distinct power that can be selectively invoked.

The question that fiat answers - "are arguments about whether something will happen legit?" - is exactly the same for an advocated counterplan and a non-advocated hypothetical example. You don't need to advocate something for arguments about it not getting through Congress to be illegit; the resolution makes them inherently illegit.

Not sure if that makes sense...

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
MSD wrote:
Makes sense, but why does fiat come from advocacy?

Ah, thought I covered that but I must've edited that sentence out.

statement: Fiat should only be given to advocated positions.
(1) We give fiat so that we may debate the merits of a hypothetical situation.
(2) Debating merits of a policy is only good when actually considering it as a possibility.
(2a) It is neither educational nor beneficial to fantasize about those things which are not possibilities.
(3) The only things being considered as possibilities are those things which are advocated and the status quo.
(4) Therefore, fiat should only be granted to those positions which are advocated.

Quote:
In my reading, fiat is not a "power" that is granted or denied. Fiat is merely a convenient way of explaining a simple truth: we're debating about what should happen, not what will happen. Saying "I have fiat power" really means "we can just assume the plan gets passed, because that whole issue has nothing to do with whether it should be passed, which is what the resolution is about."
1. Fiat is either a fact of life or a distinct power that can be selectively invoked.
2. If we go exclusively off of the wording of the resolution, all the arguments against which fiat is conventionally invoked are automatically invalid. Therefore, it is unnecessary for fiat to be a distinct power.
3. By the Resolutional Bludgeon ("if you can resolve a problem with the resolution alone, do it"): If something is unnecessary, we shouldn't include it in our theory system.
4. Therefore, fiat is a fact of life, not a distinct power that can be selectively invoked.
\
I wrote a response, but then I realized I may have been misinterpreting your position. Am I right to assume that you are arguing that fiat is to be applied on any hypothetical policy change mentioned by either team? Why is it educational/beneficial for this to be the case?

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited