Jump to content
fleshdunce

Supreme Court Fiat

Recommended Posts

1. No guarantee of test case, thus no guarantee of solvency. I'd run T-should.

2. It by nature pre-makes nine (or at least five) people's decisions, which undermines the concept of the Supreme Court. Thus, education decrease.

3. Supreme Court becoming drastically more conservative. Conservatives love DWC and SW/OPC (see Patriot Act) and Policy debate is by nature liberal. Thus, real SC almost guaranteed to side with Neg.

 

Basically, extremely unrealistic.

I guess the same things could be said about policy fiat, but SC is even less real world since it not only assumes the appearance of a test case but also that the test case actually makes it to the Supreme Court, that the SC decides to hear it, and 5 of 9 decisions would be for it. I'm not a fan. I still think this topic blows.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless they have proof of a test case that's already in the system, not only would I run Future Fiat Bad, I would run Individual Actor Fiat bad as well.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or they could just put in plan "upon the next appropriate test-case". . .

 

lot easier.

 

Also, the argument that not having proof of a test case means no solvency isn't that valid - there's plenty of stuff saying the court can summon a case. Also, the argument is hella could-should - the aff. advocacy should just be that if the supreme court had the option now, they would do this, and this decision now would result in x and x advantages.

 

Also, the idea that you decide the decisions of 5 people is kinda bogus - using Congress as an actor assumes that so many senators/reps. vote for plan - also, executive action assumes that only one actor takes plan normally - the arg. is theoretically illigit.

 

Also, the idea that the real SC would like something is a load of crap, and should-would. We assume they'll do plan if it's a good idea. . .

 

Beyond that, who runs that Supreme Court fiat is bad???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

supreme court fiat is a guaranteed aff right unalienable by the negative. there is zero negative argument ground here. killing aff rights to fiat the supreme court action is no different than fiating congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry ankur. In the past I have agreed with and loved everything you say, but I find it necessary to disagree here. I don't think the SC has anything to do with the affirmative's ground. Fiat is about congress and the executive, because they don't need a test case. But you can't Fiat a SC test case in action, that's like the affirmative making up a non-existing congressional bill. So unless the affirmative can prove a current test case they can't Fiat the way the SC will vote.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or they could just put in plan "upon the next appropriate test-case". . .

 

First let me ask you a question have you ever run this argument. They fiat that they have a test case is the theory behind that putting that in the plan only makes it worse. I well tell you why later in the post.

 

 

supreme court fiat is a guaranteed aff right unalienable by the negative.

 

Ok sure you will win that the aff gets to fiat the supreme court however you will not win that the aff can fiat the test case being brought up. First there has to be a test case on the docket. Then you will have to put in your plan text what case they are going to rule on, if you dont then you are a moving a target and that is bad for CP ground. If there is not then that is abusive because you fiat somone outside the USFG making that happen. Like korematsu they are fiating that a random person is going to sue the USFG becasue of racial interment. Also since that is abusive just read sue sponte theory on that is the only way that it can happen. That is what I do when I run this start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a) why cant the SC just rule on plan as is? why must there be a test case? what if plan is the test case? there are many ways to go with the plantext.

afterall, the purpose of fiat is to examine a world in which plan exists. not to evaluate its likelihood of existing nor the path through which is exists.

 

B) since when does the negative have a right to counterplan ground? even if its bad for CP ground, there is no impact to this. the converse applies equally. your demand for said counterplan ground equally abuses the affirmative in reverse.

if i give you 20$ i lose 20$. me giving you 20$ does not enrich us both, unless we are part of enron.

this is why most debate "theory" is absolute garbage. there is no truth and there are few claims which are "superior" to others. the only theory which matters is the one which facilitates the existence of debate as opposed to the content of it and that which revolves around actual rules of debate. example: fiat is a prerequisite for debate and the time limit for an aff constructive is indeed 8 minutes. i dont care what gamesplayers say, time limits are not flexible and neither is double win/loss possible on the ballot.

your "theory" is meaningless to real debate.

 

c) btw, not all SC fiat involves a test case. (constitutionality of plan). if plan is unconstitutional, then it is assumed that it is overturned, thereby violating the fundamental objective of fiat which is permanance. thus, the instinctive response is the override of constitutionality. in the absence of this all unconstitutional plans, regardless of how good they may be, would receive automatic losses for being unable to bring advantages. silly.

 

d) affirmative has the ground to decide the manner in which their plan comes to existence if necessary for their specific plan, however, that doesnt change the fact that the neg has no rights to make determinations about the method of passage (which btw, is what a lot of politics disads do).

 

e) the plan text of a korematsu case is sanctioned by the grammatical and syntax interpretations of the resolution. there is no reason why it should be dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a) why cant the SC just rule on plan as is? why must there be a test case? what if plan is the test case? there are many ways to go with the plantext.

afterall, the purpose of fiat is to examine a world in which plan exists. not to evaluate its likelihood of existing nor the path through which is exists.

 

c) btw, not all SC fiat involves a test case. (constitutionality of plan). if plan is unconstitutional, then it is assumed that it is overturned, thereby violating the fundamental objective of fiat which is permanance. thus, the instinctive response is the override of constitutionality. in the absence of this all unconstitutional plans, regardless of how good they may be, would receive automatic losses for being unable to bring advantages. silly.

 

d) affirmative has the ground to decide the manner in which their plan comes to existence if necessary for their specific plan, however, that doesnt change the fact that the neg has no rights to make determinations about the method of passage (which btw, is what a lot of politics disads do).

 

Even if this is ture then that means that they have to rule the case sue sponte and that is another debate which I could list tons of reasons why that is bad. Also even if you win the affirmative has the ground to decide the manner in which the plan comes to existence that way has to be fair because it destroys pre round prep. If they neg cant prep for the aff at all because we will never be able to predict what they are going to run then the chance of the neg wining in unlikley. Also if the plan is the test case then you are still fiating outside people like the aff team to do the plan.

 

 

 

B) since when does the negative have a right to counterplan ground? even if its bad for CP ground, there is no impact to this. the converse applies equally. your demand for said counterplan ground equally abuses the affirmative in reverse.

if i give you 20$ i lose 20$. me giving you 20$ does not enrich us both, unless we are part of enron.

this is why most debate "theory" is absolute garbage. there is no truth and there are few claims which are "superior" to others. the only theory which matters is the one which facilitates the existence of debate as opposed to the content of it and that which revolves around actual rules of debate. example: fiat is a prerequisite for debate and the time limit for an aff constructive is indeed 8 minutes. i dont care what gamesplayers say, time limits are not flexible and neither is double win/loss possible on the ballot.

your "theory" is meaningless to real debate.

 

Lets think about why they neg should not get CP to my understanding it is because they can fiat outside actors and that is unfair. So all your reasons why you would reject my CP are reasons why you reject the plan. Also if we dont have this kind of theory then the AFF will win all the time because the AFF can just fait world peace and win because that is what you justify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets think about why they neg should not get CP to my understanding it is because they can fiat outside actors and that is unfair. So all your reasons why you would reject my CP are reasons why you reject the plan. Also if we dont have this kind of theory then the AFF will win all the time because the AFF can just fait world peace and win because that is what you justify.

 

lets focus on this because this is very important. you can fiat something so long as to make a claim about the future. the aff can fiat world peace because world peace is not a policy. you can fiat a policy not a change in conditions. world peace is a characteristic of the results of a specific policy... say a global pledge to end all wars. the aff can sure as hell fiat a global pledge to end all wars. however, they have no solvency for it.

 

as unrealistic as "world peace" is, adopting a ban on extraordinary rendition is equally unrealistic. inherency tells us this much.

 

to every plan, one must have solvency.

 

and no. regardless of what you say, the neg is NEVER guaranteed counterplan ground. nothing in debate promises the neg a specific counterplan (case specific) or a generic group of counterplans (like consult X) or the right to run a counterplan whatsoever. counterplans are common negative strategies. burning jews was a common nazi strategy... doesnt make it right or warranted. the only theory in debate which matter is theory which establishes the rules of debate and the construction of all debate - fiat. everything else is merely an interpretation 100% deviant from "truth" because the only truth to your "theory" is that your theory isnt out of a route of fairness, its out of a desire to win, and that by itself taints the entire argument you establish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the easy answer is that its reciprocal with congress.

you don't say "we'll wait til someone brings a piece of legislation through committee, then just fiat the vote count", that would be asinine, allow for all sorts of rollback and plan never happens arguments, kills the focus of debate

 

and the alternative is much worse, waiting until the next available test case destroys disad uniqueness, that's actual ground loss and its ground that the neg probably should be guaranteed - they need to be able to compare the plan vs. the current status quo, not some random future status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answering a post above-- in a world of no sc fiat wouldnt no supreme court case solve because the supreme court is conservative

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That argument can be turned, saying SC fiat is THAT unrealistic bc court is so conservative that the real SC would always side with neg to uphold patriot act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That argument can be turned, saying SC fiat is THAT unrealistic bc court is so conservative that the real SC would always side with neg to uphold patriot act.

I dont think thats a good argument because the framers made the topic "liberal"- under that interpratation we wouldnt be able to solve with a supreme court actor-- this is pretty bad on a LEGAL topic-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lets focus on this because this is very important. you can fiat something so long as to make a claim about the future. the aff can fiat world peace because world peace is not a policy. you can fiat a policy not a change in conditions. world peace is a characteristic of the results of a specific policy... say a global pledge to end all wars. the aff can sure as hell fiat a global pledge to end all wars. however, they have no solvency for it. as unrealistic as "world peace" is, adopting a ban on extraordinary rendition is equally unrealistic. inherency tells us this much.

 

to every plan, one must have solvency.

 

and no. regardless of what you say, the neg is NEVER guaranteed counterplan ground. nothing in debate promises the neg a specific counterplan (case specific) or a generic group of counterplans (like consult X) or the right to run a counterplan whatsoever. counterplans are common negative strategies. burning jews was a common nazi strategy... doesnt make it right or warranted. the only theory in debate which matter is theory which establishes the rules of debate and the construction of all debate - fiat. everything else is merely an interpretation 100% deviant from "truth" because the only truth to your "theory" is that your theory isnt out of a route of fairness, its out of a desire to win, and that by itself taints the entire argument you establish.

 

OK even if this does happen you could have a policy to end voilence. Then they could just fiat through there solvency. This proves how abusive your interp is. Plus the aff claiming a specific time, in which the plan is done, is also abusive.

 

Also, i agree with the idea that the neg shouldn't have the ability to run a CP, but through you interpretaion the reasons why they're bad still link to the AFF's plan. One of the biggest reasons why CPs are abusive is that the neg can fiat anyone they want and that is exactly what you allow. If this is true then the neg is never gauranteed fiat either.

 

the easy answer is that its reciprocal with congress.

you don't say "we'll wait til someone brings a piece of legislation through committee, then just fiat the vote count", that would be asinine, allow for all sorts of rollback and plan never happens arguments, kills the focus of debate

 

Ok but the congress is part of the USFG the person who brings up this case would have to be outside the USFG. Like you can fiat that the SP voting if the plan exist. Fiating inisde the USFG is fine because it is predictable but fiating other people outside it is not.

 

Also you can fiat whatever you want passing no matter what the judges whether or not they are conservative or liberal. The fact that they are part of the USFG means that you have predictable ground. your arguments are the equivalent to a roll back. The only time that roll backs happen is at walmart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great, so we'll confine our fiat to a litigant who's a member of the government, like some random worker in an executive agency. the rest of your post was incoherent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot have an "agent of action" for your fiat because fiat is not an action. Fiat is not the magical wand that MAKES plan be passed - Fiat is the normative construct whereby we set aside the real-world ploicy machine and discuss the pure merrits of a ploicy; we discuss the "should" of the policy without having to drag in the "would" of actual implementation.

 

Politics (the DA) show the awful muddle when political agents get involved in even good policy decisions - good "should" ideas get rejected for many "political" reasons. Fiat allows academic debate (both aff in case AND neg in CP) to divorce themselves of this mess.

 

So my long answer is that I think a SC fiat doesn't exist. It is contridictory to the theory of fiat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
great, so we'll confine our fiat to a litigant who's a member of the government, like some random worker in an executive agency. the rest of your post was incoherent.

 

This links to O-Spec and that has nothing to do with what I said nor does it have thing to do with this thread. The whole argument here is that you can only fait a part of the USFG. I think we can all agree that going down in the USFG to a random person is bad but SCFA does not advocate that. It only says that you can only fiat people part of the USFG and if you try and fiat a person bring up the test case an a department of the USFG then I can just killing you on O-spec all day.

 

You cannot have an "agent of action" for your fiat because fiat is not an action. Fiat is not the magical wand that MAKES plan be passed - Fiat is the normative construct whereby we set aside the real-world ploicy machine and discuss the pure merrits of a ploicy; we discuss the "should" of the policy without having to drag in the "would" of actual implementation.

 

Politics (the DA) show the awful muddle when political agents get involved in even good policy decisions - good "should" ideas get rejected for many "political" reasons. Fiat allows academic debate (both aff in case AND neg in CP) to divorce themselves of this mess.

 

So my long answer is that I think a SC fiat doesn't exist. It is contridictory to the theory of fiat.

 

First you will have to win this O-spec argument you talk about in the first part of your post. If you win that I guess that would be a ok awnser to SCFA however I think that is a hard debate to win because I do think Specing branchs is a good thing. Also this is not the theory of fiat it is O-Spec and SCFA and A-Spec do contridict each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK even if this does happen you could have a policy to end voilence. Then they could just fiat through there solvency. This proves how abusive your interp is. Plus the aff claiming a specific time, in which the plan is done, is also abusive.

 

Also, i agree with the idea that the neg shouldn't have the ability to run a CP, but through you interpretaion the reasons why they're bad still link to the AFF's plan. One of the biggest reasons why CPs are abusive is that the neg can fiat anyone they want and that is exactly what you allow. If this is true then the neg is never gauranteed fiat either.[/b]

 

1) there is still no such thing as abuse. its fictional. its never a reason to vote for anyone.

 

2) you still cant fiat a world in which there is no violence. "ending violence" is NOT a policy. making violence illegal IS a policy. but obviously, taking one look at prisons already gives you a solvency deficit. you could even try and go critical and it still doesnt matter. you could claim that by accepting some anti-violence aff discourse the participants of the round are thus educated and it spreads like a brushfire until the philosophy covers the globe. but you still need solvency to explain that the brushfire will happen!

 

3) there is nothing wrong with claiming a specific time. your disads should not be altered by this. if they are, then your disads are fundamentally illegitimate in the context of debate as per the fiat-politics theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) there is still no such thing as abuse. its fictional. its never a reason to vote for anyone.

 

2) you still cant fiat a world in which there is no violence. "ending violence" is NOT a policy. making violence illegal IS a policy. but obviously, taking one look at prisons already gives you a solvency deficit. you could even try and go critical and it still doesnt matter. you could claim that by accepting some anti-violence aff discourse the participants of the round are thus educated and it spreads like a brushfire until the philosophy covers the globe. but you still need solvency to explain that the brushfire will happen!

 

3) there is nothing wrong with claiming a specific time. your disads should not be altered by this. if they are, then your disads are fundamentally illegitimate in the context of debate as per the fiat-politics theory.

 

1) If there is no such thing as abuse then I guess there is no such thing at theory or topicallity because both of those arguments are about abuse. So if you are telling me that no judge will vote on T or theory then I think you are mistaken.

 

2) Even if it is not a policy no where in this years resolution does it say that you have to establish one. It just tells us to decrease the USFG authority. So say you will decreases it by releasing everyone from prison and then fiating there wont be violence because of securitization. Even so I can still run it critical and just read a movements solve card.

 

3)The affirmative is conditional because, despite the resolution not having an aspect of time, they only defend it in an arbitrary time such as the status quo, which is whenever they wish, this is Extra-Topical as well and a voter. The affirmative must defend their 1AC as this moment of consonance. Also the round is the status quo. This round will happen once and again because we debate, but has no effect on other rounds. This means that the importance is in the ethical advocacy of the affirmative in this round not what may happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) topicality is still legit. there is only one reason to vote for topicality - when the rhetoric and syntax of the affirmative policy (or negative counterplan) do not match. failure to match (i.e. be topical in rhetoric and non-topical in syntax) leaves the opposing team no argument to be made. silence is the only option, thus defeating the purpose of the game of debate.

 

2) absolutely you can run release prisons (policy) and then run securitization solvency. thats 100% legitimate and in accordance with the rules of debate. i should have clarified however, and this is my fault. you can also fiat actions. i can fiat that the judge tears up the ballot in rejection of racist debate. this doesnt mean that the judge actually tears the ballot. it means i am able to examine a world in which the judge tears it up.

 

3) i agree specification of time is extratopical, no more or less extratopical than a funding plank or one in which you specify your specific agent. but your argument was that these specifications crush your disad ground. they dont do anything of the sort. if they do its because you are running really bad disadvantages which shouldnt exist in the first place. you would actually be running a disadvantage which demands the judge to ignore ALL the rules of debate.

dude. debate is a game. there is nothing political about it. if saying FGM good wins you a round, say it. no one will look at you funny in the game because your statements are inherently encapsulated by the round which supercedes all other concerns. your words do not have an effect after the round, except to have a good laugh and discuss the strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
c) btw, not all SC fiat involves a test case. (constitutionality of plan). if plan is unconstitutional, then it is assumed that it is overturned, thereby violating the fundamental objective of fiat which is permanance. thus, the instinctive response is the override of constitutionality. in the absence of this all unconstitutional plans, regardless of how good they may be, would receive automatic losses for being unable to bring advantages. silly.

 

Ankur... can you clarify/explain? Are you saying that unconstitutional plantexts will be overturned, or are you talking about cases that overturn previous decisions on grounds of constitutionality?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
or they could just put in plan "upon the next appropriate test-case". . .

 

 

No dice. You've straight up hosed the timeframe and uniqueness debate. The idea of fiat is supposed to be instantaneous, your plan is worded in a way that makes the timeframe problematic. I don't know if the test case comes in a week or 5 years. That means you can answer back my politx scenarios with a "oh, well, that scenario will be past before our case is decided." And even if you elect not to do that, you've made the debate problematic becaues you're comparing two different timeframes (one perhaps years in the future with the present) that's potentially more abusive than a counterfactual.

 

Want to get out of the T/F debate and just argue that the Supreme Court decides it? Go for it, you're now either a) fiating a private actor unless the test case is already on the docket B) going to bite my Sua Sponte position, and my judicial activism position. It's not only extra topical, it's an abuse of fiat and uniquely steals my counterplan ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×