Negative fiat

Negative fiat is fiat power granted to the Negative team. More broadly, it refers to the right of the Negative team to propose counterplans. Although the theoretical basis of Negative fiat and counterplans is generally accepted in the NCFCA and Stoa, some have raised objections to it, and many judges will not vote for counterplans.

Argumentative basis
Proponents argue that counterplans are legitimate because they can successfully negate the resolution and/or Affirmative plan. For example, if the Affirmative proposes a plan, and the Negative shows that it prevents the enaction of a better counterplan, the existence of the counterplan is a legitimate argument against adopting the plan (and/or resolution.) For this argument to be valid, the Negative does not even technically need fiat; it is the fact that the counterplan exists at all that negates the Affirmative.

Policymaking
Proponents argue that counterplans reflect real-world policymaking. In the real world, the choice is very rarely between "this plan" or "nothing"; whether or not a better option exists is an important issue that must be considered.

Opponents respond that debate is a rhetorical exercise, so whether something reflects real-world policymaking is not necessarily relevant.

Reciprocity
Some proponents argue that the Negative should be granted fiat simply because the Affirmative is. There is no inherent reason why fiat should be restricted to the Affirmative.

Ethical responsibility
Some proponents argue that counterplans are ethically necessary: sometimes, the status quo is simply unacceptable, and the Negative may feel that a counterplan is the only choice they are morally comfortable with. Because teams should never be placed in a situation where they must violate their most heartfelt moral principles, they argue, counterplans are a necessary part of debate.

Potential for abuse
Opponents argue that, because the Negative is not restricted by the bounds of the resolution, there is no inherent limit on what they can do. They could, for example, fiat world peace, or that North Korea will unilaterally disarm. The potential for abuse is too great, they argue, so counterplans should be disallowed.

Proponents respond with several arguments:


 * 1) Abuse is self-checking - if a counterplan is completely unrealistic, it doesn't actually prove the plan is a bad idea. Yes, technically sanctioning North Korea might prevent them from unilaterally disarming, but the prospect of North Korea unilaterally disarming is sufficiently unrealistic that it isn't a valid argument against sanctioning North Korea.


 * 1) Evidence checks abuse - the Negative needs reasonable advocacy and support for their counterplan. They can't fiat world peace because there is no evidence saying they can.


 * 1) Abuse can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis - just because abuse is possible some of the time doesn't justify banning counterplans all of the time. If a counterplan is abusive, the Affirmative can just say "this is abusive" and the judge can vote it down; if a counterplan is not abusive, then it should be allowed.

Resolutional basis
Some opponents argue that, because fiat comes from the word "should" in the resolution, and only the Affirmative is affirming the resolution, only the Affirmative gets fiat. The Negative has no counter-resolution with a "should" to affirm, and thus no basis for fiat power.

Proponents argue that this misunderstands the nature of fiat. Fiat comes from the fact that the round is about what "should" be done, not what will be done - not from the fact that the Affirmative is the one affirming the resolution. Counterplans are still an argument about what should be done, so they have all the same protections of fiat as the Affirmative plan does.

Ground skew
Opponents argue that Negative fiat dramatically expands the Negative's ground, and is thus unfair to the Affirmative.

Proponents argue, first, that the ground skew is not actually large - the requirement that the Negative must construct a valid and competitive counterplan severely limits their options. Second, some argue that counterplans help restore an imbalance caused by the Affirmative's unlimited prep time. When facing an unfamiliar case, the round is severely biased Affirmative; giving the Negative extra options helps restore balance.