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.