[Ankur]

Why, yes James, it does have variable t (t = time)!

I encourage people to draw it to visualize it as we go along. You might need several sheets of paper before its done. I also tried to set it up paragraph by paragraph, so please read one paragraph and then go back and follow the instructions as indicated.

Remember, all plotted lines you draw must have only one value of y (or z) for every value of x. Its a rule of math.

Its triaxial cartesian graphing with x-axis = time, y axis = 'imaginary implications' (i.e. plan solves poverty and creates jobs but causes nuke war) and z axis = 'real implications' (i.e. effect of racist discourse etc). Y- and Z-axes are arbitrary in scale (you'll see why in a minute) and both represent 'value' which can be either positive or negative. So if the plan has a net detriment as shown by a nuke war disad, then it will plot in the negative y-axis (you'll understand this better later). But for simplicity for the non-math people, draw them as two biaxial systems of X vs Y and X vs Z. Dont forget labels!

Draw the x-axis. The negative x-axis represents the past (i.e. the status quo). The positive x-axis represents the future (i.e. the time in which the implications of either the policy or the aff discourse occur). The origin, time zero, represents 'the present time' or 'right now'. The x-axis has discrete units of time. For our purposes, you can mark off time in whatever units you want - days, months, years. But know that the x-axis itself is not arbitrary.

Since all 'policies' (can be actual policy or critical action) are by default compared to the status quo, I assign the status quo a value of zero. Since the status quo has already occurred and is assigned null value, then the line you draw is the entire length of the negative range of the x-axis.

The following is a critical posit to the model: Now, most people will agree that fiat is instantaneous. If there is a timeframe associated with fiat, it would be the right of the affirmative to define. This would effectively erode the negative's competitiveness in the round because aff can simply suggest passing plan post-disad link/uniqueness. To prevent the aff from abusing the neg, fiat must be instantaneous.

Instantaneous actions are undefined on a timescale. They are represented by open circles. So if you can agree that fiat should be instantaneous, then you would draw an open circle at the origin (where the x and y or x and z if you are using two biaxial graphs, or x,y and z if using a triaxial graph). The origin represents 'right now' and the positive x-axis represents the future.

We now move to plotting effects of plan and effects of discourse. Its important to note that there is a significant difference between the two. First, the imaginary implications. Plan causes some arbitrary effects, which can plotted relative to the status quo. Since the y-axis is value, then "good effects of plan" would be in quadrant I (positive y, positive x quadrant). Negative effects of plan would be in quadrant IV (negative y, positive x quadrant). If the plan is net beneficial, you can draw a line starting from the origin and ramping up into quadrant I. But what if the plan is initially good but then causes nuke war? So initially the line goes up into quadrant 1 and then reverses course and falls into quadrant IV. So you can see that in relation to the null of the status quo, you can plot relative benefits and detriments to the aff plan. This is important because it stresses the temporal component of arguments. And in noticing this importance, you can craft your arguments to have temporal significance.

But there is a problem with this interpretation - if the future starts at the origin, then nothing has 'changed' relative to the status quo. We just added fiat of nothing. Therefore, the change must not be at the origin. Instead, it should reside on the y-axis (positive or negative is arbitrary). So redraw your effects of plan as an open circle starting somewhere on the y-axis (but not the origin) and moving off into either quadrant I or quadrant IV. Your graph should look like two lines with two open circles on the y-axis. Remember: It can be a sine wave for all that it matters - its relative to the status quo, so it doesnt need discrete values.

Let's move onto real world implications (your x-z graph). The real world effects of the aff's discourse (or the neg's) doesnt ever 'take a break' for instantaneous action. Its continuous. So repeat your x-y graph on the z-axis except for the fact that there is no open circle. It's a straight line on the negative x (representing the status quo, aka the past) up to the origin (representing 'right now') and then carries on forward into the positive z axis as a squiggle or some implication either positive or negative (again, arbitrary).

Here's where it gets interesting with regards to real world implications. Depending on the arguments of the round, the real world implications could end at the end of the round or continue on forever, reverberating into the future. Let's pretend that the affirmative wins the idea that the negative critique of the aff ends when the round ends - that the benefits of the K dont extend into the future rounds or future real world. In that case, the z-axis ends at roughly 1.5 hours in the future from the origin. Your line in quadrant I or quadrant IV ends after 1.5 hours. If the neg wins that there is an effect into infinity from now, then the line extends to infinity. So in fact, the content of the round determines both the degree and duration of real world implications. Interestingly, you can also have a break in the real. An argument can be made that there is no current implication to the discourse until the judge makes the ballot. Therefore, the real implications would be null value until 1.5 hours into the future from the origin, take a break with an open circle and restart there. This lends credence to a whole different set of critical arguments with respect to time and their terminal real world implications.

Hopping back to what instantaneous fiat does for policy arguments... in this interpretation, you see a discontinuous line with the y-axis as 'passage of plan', if you will. You can do the calculus, but regardless of how close you get to the origin, the origin is still undefined in the policy sphere. The line approaches zero, but ends infinitely close to zero, i.e. non-zero. The act of 'plan passage' is therefore an undefined time. Becasue we claimed fiat to be instantaneous, it doesnt happen. You can think of this as one set of conclusions:

1) The status quo is a world in which plan doesnt exist and
2) The future imaginary world is a world in which the plan exists and has never known a time in which the plan didnt exist
3) There is no world in which plan 'passes', which is why arguments linked to plan passage (i.e. many politics disads, but not all) are nonsense. They cannot exist in an interpretation where fiat is instantaneous - how could you have an imaginary world implication to an action which never happened in the fake world? So it cannot be the act of passing plan which can cause imaginary world implications, it can only be implications of actually doing the plan. To put it into debate speak, Japan doesnt care if we pass an international treaty banning whaling. But they care when we start enforcing it and stop them from whaling. If we dont enforce the plan, then why do they care? Its a lot like OPEC and their "production quotas" which none of the countries follow anyways...

Even if you were to disagree that fiat is instantaneous, there is still no way to define the time of plan passage. So instead of two open circles on the y-axis (one coming from the negative x, one starting the future), you get one open circle at the origin and one open circle in the positive x-region anywhere. So you still dont have an imaginary future world which knows the act of plan passage. This still reinforces the idea that the process of plan passage cannot impact the evaluation of a policy. Worse still, the neg's disad based on next week's vote in Congress could be future non-uniqued because the aff could define plan passage as post-vote. So for example, the neg disad might say "Congress is going to pass LOST next week at the vote. LOST is good for x,y,z reasons. Plan costs Obama political capital, cant get LOST passed. This is bad." The aff could just define fiat as being "one week and one day." LOST passes, then plan happens, disad is future non-uniqued. Obviously, abusive!

Even if you disagree with all of this, the problem you run into is that if you can define the length of time during which 'plan passes' (i.e. define the time of fiat), only the affirmative can do that since it would be an attribute of the plan text. The neg has no right to define 'when plan is enacted'. If the neg was allowed such power, the neg would also have the power to say 'oh. and the aff's border patrol plan is staffed by 1 guy. you dont solve.' The neg would have unlimited range of action to effectively end the aff's ability to define what the plan does and does not do.

Ultimately, for the point of fairness, fiat must be instantaneous, discontinous and undefined. So in such a world, plan-passage linked implications are rendered irrelevant. And the core purpose of debate is best served by this because we are then evaluating the implications of the policy, not the implications of the process of passing a policy. We also get over the inherency-solvency double bind because how does one overturn a policy which 'exists as if it always existed'?

(Note: I obviously believe that there is a real world implication to passing policies - just that in the interest of fairness to both teams in a competitive game, such arguments are non-entitites).

Now comes the tricky part, and many people would need computer software to visualize it. But you can try it anyways. The two graphs you have (x-y and x-z, aka imaginary and real) need to be combined. You cant have a plot of 'implications of affirmative advocacy' with two divergent lines in the future, regardless of duration. This would violate math as there would be multiple points for every x-value of time. So draw a triaxial graph with the x-axis as the one going into the paper/out of the paper, the y-axis as the horizontal axis and the z-axis as vertical axis. For the really visually challenged, it can look like a regular two dimensional graph plotting y-z axes and the x-axis is a line going from your eye through the origin and through the paper into the 3-dimensional space beyond the paper.

To combine the lines, you use any 'algorithm' or 'calculation' you want. Again, its arbitrary because it depends on how you weigh the implications of the real or the imaginary. If the aff advocacy has a positive imaginary and positive real effect, then the line goes off into the positive y, positive z axis (looks like quadrant I). If it has positive imaginary but negative real, then the line goes off to quadrant IV.

To get a video visual of this, play the game curveball in the cross-x.com arcade. On the first ball, start the game by hitting it slightly off the center of your paddle. You will see the ball slowly curve towards a side. If you can visual the quadrants as dividing the screen in half from left to right and up and down, then you will visually understand what the combination of lines looks like. Remember, that the combination of lines has a y-component and a z-component, and this represents the degree of impact of both real and imaginary at any given time (t). Just as a refresher, the status quo would be a straight line coming out of the screen to your eye and going to the center of the square at the opposite end of the 'tunnel' in the game.

Where debate comes in, and how the judge evaluates the difference between the real and the imaginary, is that the debaters in the round are expected to instruct the judge how to evaluate the y- and z- components of the line. If the neg successfully argues that the imaginary isnt worth evaluating in the face of real world implications, the judge ignores the y-axis implications completely, and the graph shifts to the x-z graph. If its the opposite, that the real is irrelevant, then graph shifts to the x-y graph. How the judge evaluates the terminal implications of the affirmative and negative advocacies is dependent entirely on the team's arguments about the value of 'real' and 'imaginary' worlds. So the model of fiat and decision making is wholly compatible with the commonly accepted norms of debate - the only thing that is impacted is the evauation of plan-passage linked arguments. In fact, it emphasizes the need for you to help the judge in making this distinction so that the judge is not free to act independently of the round and impose their own valuation of the real and imaginary.