Politics and Fiat

[brorlob]

Okay, I have posted comments in many threads on a variety of issues relating to these two concepts. I generally believe most politics links usurp fiat. I have made this comment numerous times. I often get neg repped with commentary like "retard" or "lern debait" or something equally idiotic. What I have never seen is an explanation of how evaluating a link which occurs prior to plan passage does not equate with claiming the plan can't pass congress. After all, if the judge can discard a plan for an impact which comes from debating it in public, the consideration occurs in a back room prior to proposal. Such a consideration justifies exclusion of a plan which has no chance of passing on the same "real world" grounds that people use to defend the modern interpretation of fiat.

If you're one of the people who has made one-line comments without substance, here's your chance: defend the practice. Put up or shut up.

For deeper analysis, please look to my recent blog entry on the subject (it's too long for a forum post).

[wreckingmachine]

I've never repped you for it, but I imagine the answer would be that fiat is just the assumption of plan passage and funding, not the implications of its passage and funding. Politics counts as an implication, because though the link is based in congress, the impacts have to do with what happens after the plan goes through and the neg never contests that the plan passes. Your argument would logically have to apply to budget trade-off disads as well, because while the funding is fiated, the link occurs prior to plan passage, right?

[aspasp]

I'm a novice so I don't really know but say you have ran the econ stimulus DA. So the link is passing the plan decreases polit. capital. Political capital is key to passing the stimulus.....stimulus key to econ, etc.

How is that usurping fiat? It's a byproduct of the plan so I don't really get it.

[Companion Cube]

Can you embellish on this: "What I have never seen is an explanation of how evaluating a link which occurs prior to plan passage does not equate with claiming the plan can't pass congress."

[brorlob]

Originally Posted by wreckingmachine

I've never repped you for it, but I imagine the answer would be that fiat is just the assumption of plan passage and funding, not the implications of its passage and funding. Politics counts as an implication, because though the link is based in congress, the impacts have to do with what happens after the plan goes through and the neg never contests that the plan passes. Your argument would logically have to apply to budget trade-off disads as well, because while the funding is fiated, the link occurs prior to plan passage, right?

The problem isn't where the impact occurs, but where the link occurs. To prevent the link from occuring, the plan cannot pass. Though, it's even worse than that, as you can see below:

Originally Posted by Companion Cube

Can you embellish on this: "What I have never seen is an explanation of how evaluating a link which occurs prior to plan passage does not equate with claiming the plan can't pass congress."

It involves the role of the judge/ballot. If rejection of the plan keeps a politics DA from occuring, it follows that the primary link never occurred. If the primary link is political capital, the link occurs regardless of plan passage should the proposal be made in open congressional session. So the only way that rejection prevents the impacts is to place the role of the ballot prior to public debate - like at a Senator's staff meeting. It is at this same location where plans which have no prayer of passing congress are rejected.

Assuming you really want to impose "real world" analysis into fiat theory. As "real world" is the only justification I've ever seen used to attempt to discredit classic fiat theory (which would exclude most politics DAs), the argument collapses under scrutiny of its own principles.

[wreckingmachine]

Yes but the link for budget trade-offs occurs at the budget allocation level, which is prior to plan passage too.

The second part of what you said doesn't make sense to me. You're assuming voting negative is the equivalent of proposing a plan in congress and then rejecting it, whereas I am assuming that voting negative is the same as the plan not having been proposed at all. Why is your assumption preferable?

Regardless of which is better, neither interpretation of fiat justifies debating whether or not the plan will pass at all, which is the primary purpose of fiat, yeah?

[brorlob]

Originally Posted by wreckingmachine

Yes but the link for budget trade-offs occurs at the budget allocation level, which is prior to plan passage too.

Not analogous. If the spending trade off is based on plan text i.e. "funding will come from budget cuts to X" then the link is directly to the plan text and not to some unconnected outside influence like political capital. If the trade off is not linked to the plan text i.e. "AE policies trade off with Y" then the trade off occurs at the point of the next spending bill when the cut is made - after the plan.

Originally Posted by wreckingmachine

The second part of what you said doesn't make sense to me. You're assuming voting negative is the equivalent of proposing a plan in congress and then rejecting it, whereas I am assuming that voting negative is the same as the plan not having been proposed at all. Why is your assumption preferable?

It's not, and it's your theory which demands such consideration, not mine. The justification of the fiat theory which allows for PoCap exchange in plan passage is "real world policymaking." If a plan is rejected prior to consideration on the grounds of political implications, one of the potential political implications it might be rejected on is "This plan to end corn ethanol subsidies in favor of hemp biofuel will never pass in a million years."

Originally Posted by wreckingmachine

Regardless of which is better, neither interpretation of fiat justifies debating whether or not the plan will pass at all, which is the primary purpose of fiat, yeah?

Neither should. One does.

[Studley Dudley]

I'm with Brolob on this issue.
If the negative's interpretation of fiat is "the plan is debated" then why should voting negative mean a world in which the plan was never proposed? If the judge is acting as a policy maker (which is the necessary role of the ballot in order to assume politics disads) then is his voting "negative" a vote to "never introduce the issue" as opposed to a 49-51 vote against the plan?

It just seems like the negative wants to have their cake and eat it too, if you assume plan gets debated, then it gets debated, not just for your link claims, but for answering those link claims as well.

Now, Brett, here's a question. Do "plan's a concession" links still apply? My assumption would be yes, because even if you adopt the idea of fiat that it gets proposed either way (aff or neg ballot) then it's only seen as a concession if it gets passed (aff ballot).

However, I am also of the camp of: "Fiat means the plan exists" not "is passed" so the concession link wouldn't apply.

What's the justification of existence vs. passage?

[Zeno]

I think that politics violates fiat:

1) it forces the aff to be more significant than every policy passable by congress; that can be impossible when put up against the stimulus or likewise bills that have more weight in our current economic status

2) the calculations involing other policies o/w the significance of the plan belong to the status quo. these are the congressmen and women's reasons for not voting for the plan and are their attitude on the plan. this is inherency or the flaw in the current approach, not a disadvantage to the aff, but one to the squo

3) fiat does not imply passage, it implies existence; politics is a critique of the act of policymaking in the current status quo or the disadvantages that result from this political calculative thought, not a reflector on the desirability of the plan. thus politics is not germane to the debate of whether or not the policy is desirable.

But, I do like politics DAs and think they, for some reason, bring out better analysis of DAs on the part of debaters.

[Teddy Ruxpin]

I gave a short lecture to my novice lab on this exact subject on tuesday of last week. I totally agree that, the way most tix da's are run is completely `tarded. The way we used to run "Clinton DA" back in the day was with a card that explained that presidents like Clinton (and Regan and a few other historic examples) get all the blame or credit for anything that is seen as coming from the fed gov, even if the president himself has nothing to do with it (DEA or DOD does something on their own? Clinton gets blame even when it's not on his orders...) That way of running it was always quite a bit more legit because then the DA really is an implication of plan's existence (and funding for said plan coming from the fed gov). Some of the debates I've heard on politix this year have made me feel nauseous. At harvard, I had one neg team dictate to an affirmative which senators would vote for and against their plan! My answer would've been "Screw off! If you're going to misinterpret fiat that badly, then I'm going to go ahead and fiat exactly the opposite result among the senators who matter! Shit, I'll fiat that Obama veto's it and that congress unanimously overrides the veto!" Quite frankly, if someone wants to get into a contest to see who can abuse fiat better, you're not gonna get me on anything!

[brorlob]

Originally Posted by Hunk BaconStrong

Now, Brett, here's a question. Do "plan's a concession" links still apply? My assumption would be yes, because even if you adopt the idea of fiat that it gets proposed either way (aff or neg ballot) then it's only seen as a concession if it gets passed (aff ballot).

However, I am also of the camp of: "Fiat means the plan exists" not "is passed" so the concession link wouldn't apply.

Yes concession links would apply. In such a case, it is the plan's existence and not the plan's passage which provides the link. A neg would need to say nothing more to defend the practice in front of me as a judge. Of course, it will go a good long way if neg has a case-specific link card on such a DA. And obviously, the link arg couldn't say "to pass plan X, senator B needs to make a concession on Z to senator C." A good concession arg would be, "Plan X would be perceived as a concession to senator C" or "Plan X is run under subcommittee Q, chaired by senator C, so its execution cedes power to her."

Originally Posted by Hunk BaconStrong

What's the justification of existence vs. passage?

I think there are two potential ways to justify this. The more sound, imo, is to present a full plan text and not just a one-sentence quip. If enforcement, funding, mandates and legislative intent are all spelled out in 1ac then the plan can "exist" without passage. "Plan: increase alt energy by creating production tax credits for X" leaves a lot to be hashed out and is probably overly vague. My recent thinking on this subject also has me re-evaluating my distaste for A-spec and F-spec args. I think neg should have some latitude arguing against these kinds of plans, though probably not as much as they claim. A good PMN would be better in front of me than a politics scenario, for instance. "The USfg will do Nuclear" is hardly the kind of plan which overcomes bureaucratic resistance within the nuclear regulatory commission, for instance.

The second justification is probably a little less dinosauric (I reserve the right to make up words). Time limits and a nearly infinite number of permutations of politicians, pending proposals and agency interactions makes discussion of plan passage an inappropriate focus of argumentation. Fiat was instituted to maintain the focus of the debate on the policy proposal's direct implications and desirability. That focus can only be maintained by assuming the plan's existence absent discussion of plan passage.

[BlueJay91]

I could easily be wrong about this, but I usually handle the fiat argument as it dealing with the after effects of plan passage.

Like, when we're in a debate, fiat allows you to discuss the before and after of plan passage, not the middle of plan passage, right? So, my story is not relating to who votes on the plan, or what tweaks of the plan need to be made between creating the bill and the signing of it by Obama. The politics DA story is based on how the political climate is before and after plan passage, making it like any other DA on the block.

This is probably because I do not get into the details of concession links and whatnot in my politics debates, so my perception of the idea could be a bit skewd. I do come up against this argument at practically every tournament I go to, so it's definitely something I have experienced.. and need to make an actual block for. x_x

[Rhizome]

Originally Posted by BlueJay91

I could easily be wrong about this, but I usually handle the fiat argument as it dealing with the after effects of plan passage.

Like, when we're in a debate, fiat allows you to discuss the before and after of plan passage, not the middle of plan passage, right? So, my story is not relating to who votes on the plan, or what tweaks of the plan need to be made between creating the bill and the signing of it by Obama. The politics DA story is based on how the political climate is before and after plan passage, making it like any other DA on the block.

This is probably because I do not get into the details of concession links and whatnot in my politics debates, so my perception of the idea could be a bit skewd. I do come up against this argument at practically every tournament I go to, so it's definitely something I have experienced.. and need to make an actual block for. x_x

Fiat only allows the discussion of 'after plan passage' (I don't like the term - there's status quo and then a world of plan which some people call 'post-plan'). Anything before plan passage is the status quo and can only be defended under the burden of rejoinder.

In order for a politics dis-ad to link without theoretical objections the link should be explained as 'enforcing energy legislation causes [tradeoff/perception/concessions/etc]' which should trigger the internals to the d/a

[The Incredible Hulk?]

I always made an intrinsic perm on ptx, but that was just me :P

[Corporate DB8er]

I've always felt that politics is a bad debate. To say that the political implications of a plan passing are anything more than speculation is a real test to what we call "evidence" in a round. Finding the latest political pundit who claims to be able to predict the future of what will and won't pass if something else does or doesn't pass is not educational (except to show how often they are wrong), does not foster best competition, and destroys insight into how the political process actually works. But that is beside the point.

Fiat was created because the community (and the judges within it) were tired of hearing negative arguments that said the affirmative proposal will never pass, so they can't solve. In some areas, the debate still comes down to the affirmative plan won't get funding (because the government is broke) so they don't get solvency.

At the point the debate community gets tired of hearing poorly written, exaggerated link stories that come with politics scenerios, then the judges within the community will start voting on the fiat theory to get rid of these dumb arguements. But Aff's need to run the theory arguements. Call them a kritic to make them sexier, I don't care, just run them so judges start having a choice.

My personal favorite turn to politics is that the affirmative plan is the intellectual property of the affirmative team (also goes with my answer on why pics such as executive order are bad). The president doesn't get or lose political cap for the plan, the affirmative team does. Then, the affirmative team will use their new found political capital (positive or negative) to do the opposite of the negative scenerio. You can use fiat in the same fashion. Under fiat, I can make up whatever scenerio of voting I want to create the opposite political implication that the negative are claiming.

As a judge, I encourage affirmative teams to develope and run these arguements in round, so that I can start teaching negatives a lesson and we can make real change in the activity. Until the affirmative's start doing this and start winning with it, negatives will continue to run the bad arguements and win on them. Why not go back to a world in which we evaluate if the plan could even pass in the political arena?

[Dart Throwing Primates]

Originally Posted by Corporate DB8er

I've always felt that politics is a bad debate.

seconded.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by Dart Throwing Primates

seconded.

Fail.

Politics exists in a world of fiat because it does, in fact, discuss the implications of the plan. The plan would upset X, Y, and Z senator, and so they would be less likely to pass some other bill is no different than plan upsets X, Y, and Z country, and so they would nuke us. Just because politics occurs at a different stage of the plan doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Also, as for pol-cap scenarios, its like a soft power disad. Plan means US isn't able to ask Russia to sign X treaty, because Russia is annoyed, is no different than plan means Obama isn't able to get X senator join sign a bill because that senator is annoyed. This argument fails to make sense, unless you are complaining about the stage of the link, in which case you really don't get to continue to post here anymore.

Originally Posted by Corporate DB8er

I've always felt that politics is a bad debate. To say that the political implications of a plan passing are anything more than speculation is a real test to what we call "evidence" in a round. Finding the latest political pundit who claims to be able to predict the future of what will and won't pass if something else does or doesn't pass is not educational (except to show how often they are wrong), does not foster best competition, and destroys insight into how the political process actually works. But that is beside the point.

Because reading the news, finding out which bills are passing now and which aren't, how controversial they are, and which policies would be more or less popular is totally a bad idea for policy debate. Sure, pundits are wrong sometimes, but who do we read when we are adults, looking to see what bills may soon become law? Is there some magical adult-only 100%-accurate forecast of legislation to be passed that debaters don't have access to? If so, I will never read politics again.

Originally Posted by Corporate DB8er

Fiat was created because the community (and the judges within it) were tired of hearing negative arguments that said the affirmative proposal will never pass, so they can't solve. In some areas, the debate still comes down to the affirmative plan won't get funding (because the government is broke) so they don't get solvency.

Never hit a politics disad that said the plan wouldn't pass. I agree, that's a stupid idea.

Originally Posted by Corporate DB8er

At the point the debate community gets tired of hearing poorly written, exaggerated link stories that come with politics scenerios, then the judges within the community will start voting on the fiat theory to get rid of these dumb arguements. But Aff's need to run the theory arguements. Call them a kritic to make them sexier, I don't care, just run them so judges start having a choice.

And yet they haven't. Seems they're fine with politics.

Originally Posted by Corporate DB8er

My personal favorite turn to politics is that the affirmative plan is the intellectual property of the affirmative team (also goes with my answer on why pics such as executive order are bad). The president doesn't get or lose political cap for the plan, the affirmative team does. Then, the affirmative team will use their new found political capital (positive or negative) to do the opposite of the negative scenerio. You can use fiat in the same fashion. Under fiat, I can make up whatever scenerio of voting I want to create the opposite political implication that the negative are claiming.

Now that's just abusive. What about relations disads? the plan is the property of the aff, so saudi gets angry at me and my partner, not the US who passed the plan or Obama who pushed it? The analogy of the top answers this directly. There is no reason politics is unique for this situation.

Originally Posted by Corporate DB8er

As a judge, I encourage affirmative teams to develope and run these arguements in round, so that I can start teaching negatives a lesson and we can make real change in the activity. Until the affirmative's start doing this and start winning with it, negatives will continue to run the bad arguements and win on them. Why not go back to a world in which we evaluate if the plan could even pass in the political arena?

And now we know why debate is dying. Politics is the only way for us to learn about non-resolutional bills that are actually being debated out in the political arena. Fiat is to ensure that there is no "Will it pass?" question, but rather the "What if it did pass?" question. Politics adds to the latter, not the former. I have never heard of a politics disad with the impact "The plan doesn't pass." Instead, it is "This other bill does/doesn't pass." Which is completely different, and there is no risk of spillover from one to the other. Otherwise, why wouldn't the US rollback the plan after we realize Saudi got really angry at us?

[I<3topicality]

haha craig

It's weird to assume that just because you fiat a policy you get to not suffer the consequences of any political fallout/reprocussions. Politics is no different than a disad that said "your plan causes a civil war in China which spillsover and collapses the CCP," or "your plan is a win for Mugabe in South Africa which causes instability" (a disad damien ran against me last year..pretty innovative if I saw so).

So why should fiat get you out of a debate that is the functional equivalent to every disad? Means less aff scrutinization for one. And winning politics disad education good isn't too hard of a debate to win either.

There is probably a reason that college debates aren't won on this argument (or high school debates for that matter). But PS, I wasn't someone that neg repped you, I just happen to like politics debates.

[brorlob]

Originally Posted by I<3topicality

haha craig

It's weird to assume that just because you fiat a policy you get to not suffer the consequences of any political fallout/reprocussions. Politics is no different than a disad that said "your plan causes a civil war in China which spillsover and collapses the CCP," or "your plan is a win for Mugabe in South Africa which causes instability" (a disad damien ran against me last year..pretty innovative if I saw so).

So why should fiat get you out of a debate that is the functional equivalent to every disad? Means less aff scrutinization for one. And winning politics disad education good isn't too hard of a debate to win either.

There is probably a reason that college debates aren't won on this argument (or high school debates for that matter). But PS, I wasn't someone that neg repped you, I just happen to like politics debates.

The examples you give link to the existence of the plan. Most politics DAs link to effects which occur prior to the plan's passage. If effects prior to passage are fair game, then one possible effect is failure of plan to pass because of political objections, like the DA. Once we consider political implications prior to plan passage, the use of this reasoning is justified. Just because politics DAs stop short of making the argument doesn't mean it's not the same logic. Theory objections are based on what the logical form justifies, not how it's used in the particular instance.

And I know you weren't one to neg rep me. Never seen you shy away from a debate on theory.

[I<3topicality]

Originally Posted by brorlob

The examples you give link to the existence of the plan. Most politics DAs link to effects which occur prior to the plan's passage. If effects prior to passage are fair game, then one possible effect is failure of plan to pass because of political objections, like the DA. Once we consider political implications prior to plan passage, the use of this reasoning is justified. Just because politics DAs stop short of making the argument doesn't mean it's not the same logic. Theory objections are based on what the logical form justifies, not how it's used in the particular instance.

And I know you weren't one to neg rep me. Never seen you shy away from a debate on theory.

ah darn it, my post went away when the site crashed with too many people accessing the server

Basically, you need to be responsible for the reprocussions of your bill - fiat just guarantees it goes into congress. Just like people have to be responsible for the consequences of a plan's effect on china relations, so too do you need to be responsible for the effect on other congressional members - how it creates partisan/bipart. The brightline between the two is hardly noticeable, if it even exists.

and politics education good answers that claim as well :0

[smoth as sandpaper]

Voting aff usually endorses the statement that "the usfg should do X". Endorsing this means that the aff probably has to defend the process of the USFG doing plan. Any other interp is probably arbitary and leads to stupid args like "its the aff teams PC".

This is not at all the same as claiming "plan won't pass". That argument makes zero sense in this framework because voting aff is endorsing passage of plan. Politics is just a question of what would happen as plan is debated within the implementation phase.

Plus politics debates are really sweet and educational.

[brorlob]

Originally Posted by I<3topicality

ah darn it, my post went away when the site crashed with too many people accessing the server

Basically, you need to be responsible for the reprocussions of your bill - fiat just guarantees it goes into congress. Just like people have to be responsible for the consequences of a plan's effect on china relations, so too do you need to be responsible for the effect on other congressional members - how it creates partisan/bipart. The brightline between the two is hardly noticeable, if it even exists.

and politics education good answers that claim as well :0

Fiat guarantees we consider the implications of the plan becoming official policy when comparing advantages to DAs. Considering how it becomes policy is the one way fiat has changed over the years between when I debated and now when I find myself coaching and judging. I do understand that a policy, in and of itself, has political implications. Those are certainly legitimate links to policy scenarios. But such scenarios avoid the question of how the plan was passed. Political capital exchanged in plan passage doesn't avoid this analysis of how. And once we accept that asking one question about passage is okay, how can we theoretically exclude others except by arbitrary standard. Why can we ask "how" and not "will" the plan pass? That's the question I never see answered. Of course, a five plank plan answers "how" in the case, offering a nice spike against these scenarios.

As for politics education good: it's a long and time tested strategy to cut an obscure political scenario for out rounds, knowing no one will have evidence on why AE plans will cause Diane Fienstien's rise or fall and the ensuing 134 extinction scenarios. Given the limited time we have to debate an issue, and the nearly unlimited number of politics scenarios (once you account for the number of potential pocap exchanges, pending legislation and complex world scenarios) it becomes clear that asking neg to provide an enforcement based link is hardly creating some kind of unfair burden.

[Studley Dudley]

Christos, while you say politics education good doesn't answer back the underside of the argument.

Then what about vote-no?
Why should the negative only be allowed to say "fiat means plan is debated" for a link argument, but not for answering that link argument?

EDIT: Also, Christos your example is asinine. Whereas the impact of the plan on relations with China is predicated off of the plan's existence, implications of political capital is predicated off of how the plan was passed. Not that it passed. Come up with a better analogy.

Aff should defend reprecussions of plan's existence, not passage.

Also, Christos you are fundamentally missing why the negative gets to dictate how the plan is passed through congress.

[Rhizome]

Originally Posted by twdcjgads

"fiat means we only consider implications of plan passage" ok, so what? you have no reason why its uneducational to weigh it against the aff or why its unfair to the aff. your answer to chritos why its educational doesn't even respond to why there educational.

EDIT: brorlob seriously if your going to neg rep me dont make it so obvious. It don't care if your my elder, your reasons why they shouldn't be evaluated are dumb and the better people who run this have theoretical reasons such as it's uneducational for why they shouldn't be evaluated. You are a tool, dont neg rep me and actually respond to what I said.

preempt: if you weren't the one who neg repped me then I apologize, it seems like you did because you said "respect your elders".

talking about why racism is bad is also educational but it's not germane (Spelling) education in terms of debate. same applies to politics for the most part.

[brorlob]

Originally Posted by twdcjgads

"fiat means we only consider implications of plan passage" ok, so what? you have no reason why its uneducational to weigh it against the aff or why its unfair to the aff. your answer to chritos why its educational doesn't even respond to why there educational.

While we're talking about educational....They're, not there. Okay, on from grammar policing: It's uneducational on two fronts - first the immense unpredictablility of specific politics scenarios and the violation of the principles of argumentation.

And something doesn't need to be unfair to be theoretically invalid - it just needs to utilize logic which justifies other practices (plan won't pass) which clearly are unfair.