Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
YoungGun

Fiat test case

Recommended Posts

Idk why this is, but for some reason i dont understand the whole fiat test case thingy can someone explain it to me? i understand what fiat is but a fiat test case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument relates mostly to Affs who use the courts (esp. the SCOTUS) to accomplish their purpose. Some people have suggested that for whatever reason it is illegitimate for these Affs to simply assume that the necessary test case will be brought; their argument usually is that the delay involved in waiting for an actual test case to be brought is a reason to doubt that plan is a good idea. Some folks go so far as to argue that no such test case would ever be brought, and therefore plan "can't happen." The kind of people who advance these sorts of arguments don't have a very firm grasp of what fiat is. They assume it is some sort of mechanism or instrumentality for bring Policy X into being. That is not the case, of course...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its abusive...

like all affs - either because of the T we ran or the theory...

 

but seriously, its makes no sense. You can fiat passing a law or ruling on a pending case. But how do you know a test case will be brought so you can solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiating test cases is fine. All fiat is, is simply the ability of the affirmative to create an imaginary world where plan has been enacted. For courts plans without a current test case, that means that the plan-world has seen the test case and the Supreme Court has made the necessary ruling.

 

As far as I am concerned, the "can't fiat test cases" position is as abusive and inane as saying that, because you're fiating the Supreme Court, you automatically fiat at least 5 people, making you multi-actor fiat (which is bad). Fiating test cases is perfectly fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kanul and Swanson you dont know what you are talking about. First it is diffrent then a law becuase the people in the actual case are not part of the USFG. So if the aff conceed that there is not a test case on the docket which means they fiat that there will be but they have to fiat people outside the USFG to bring it up. This unfair because they can have a black person bring up the case and claim a racism advantage which we can get no offense from. Also the court on like congress and the prez has to wait for problems to come to it and cant do whatever it wants. This is an ok argument I am not going to say that its super good but if your anwser is fiat checks like swanson prepared to get owned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think some people are misunderstanding the test case fiat arguement...

 

 

nothing to do with the sc fiat being bad or multiactor fiat or anything like that at all. test case fiat is only needed when there isn't an existing case in the status quo...there are thousands of existing cases, its never really neccessary to fiat a test case, if it is; you're better off not using the courts to enact the plan/cp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiat says that something should happen, not that it exactly would. The aff can fiat a test case. It is not abusive. It is actually a plus for the neg. Get up in c-x and ask when the next test case will be, they won't know. You then read a XO counterplan and have a net benefit of imediate solvency. Run some courts DAs and your gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiating a test case simply means that this case is similar to case X in the past, the court does X on the current case and overrules the past case X. And they are fiating that this occurs.

 

An argument that is HORRIBLE but some judges have bought it around where I live is "If they fiat a test case it means they are assuming the gov does something bad so the aff plan forces gov. to do bad things.

 

It isn't logical at all but judges here have bought it...

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

test case fiat is as illegitimate as saying "we will implement a fusion power policy..." or "we will fly lightyears away using a hyperspace jump...."

 

you cant fiat something which does not exist. you cant fiat fusion or hyperspace jumping technologies. you also cannot fiat that a test case.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with fiating a test case is that it requires fiating private actors to do something. Someone has to bring a case before the Supreme Court; the Court doesn't reach out and grab cases to bring them before the Court. The moment you permit the fiat of a private actor, you then overstep the permissible bounds of fiat. After all, if private actor fiat is legitimate, a plan could fiat that we all love one another or that everyone will engage in world peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds to me like it has alot to do with what circuit you debate on...

(which is fine, it's your circuit to run what you want)

 

i always thought it was chill cuz there's no abuse. You can argue all you want about what it justifies but then the arg is "what test case fiat justifies is abusive" not "test case fiat is abusive." Someone talked about court DAs already, which there are alot of. Plus I think this delay thing can get looked at another way: try and debate uniqueness and links on a plan that doesn't happen immediately. (immediate) Test case fiat gives the neg certainty on this level of the DA.

 

so thats only the aff(court) side of the story

there are neg args too (and alot of the good ones have been mentioned on this thread already), but i think this is a hard abuse story to win without some concessions

i think a more compelling debate about the courts is enforcement (especially in cases where they have to try to check our cowboy of a prez). There are aff answers to this floating around most places but intuitively neg just comes out on top.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The test case cannot be fiated and therfore has a long timeframe. Hit them with a counterplan...non courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that might be interesting but then all the offense in the round would apply to the cp only (see my above post) so it'd being weighing aff disad impacts against timeframe

 

yay4immediateTestCaseFiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with fiating a test case is that it requires fiating private actors to do something. Someone has to bring a case before the Supreme Court; the Court doesn't reach out and grab cases to bring them before the Court. The moment you permit the fiat of a private actor, you then overstep the permissible bounds of fiat. After all, if private actor fiat is legitimate, a plan could fiat that we all love one another or that everyone will engage in world peace.
The test case cannot be fiated and therfore has a long timeframe. Hit them with a counterplan...non courts.

 

Alright, this goes to both of you, the word should in the resolution gets them out of every single one of those arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fiating a test case is not abusive, it is neccessary. If they don't use a test case, you pull out Sua Sponte. Listen to all of the other posts: Use an XO counterplan and claim immediate action. With one or two courts bad DAs, you have the round in your hands.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, this goes to both of you, the word should in the resolution gets them out of every single one of those arguments.

 

If so, then fiat gives Aff unlimited ground. True enough, all humans should love one another. We can't have meaningful policy debate on that, however, because it goes beyond the realm of policy to fiat that all people love one another. The word "should" simply means the focus is to be upon desirability of the policy (as opposed to whether the policy ever would be done), but it is not to be construed to take the means out of the realm of possibility. There are several good theory articles on this particular subject.

 

To fiat a test case means to compel a private person to seek review of a controversy that may not exist. If we can use fiat to compel private people to act, ground is limitless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If so, then fiat gives Aff unlimited ground. True enough, all humans should love one another. We can't have meaningful policy debate on that, however, because it goes beyond the realm of policy to fiat that all people love one another. The word "should" simply means the focus is to be upon desirability of the policy (as opposed to whether the policy ever would be done), but it is not to be construed to take the means out of the realm of possibility. There are several good theory articles on this particular subject.

 

To fiat a test case means to compel a private person to seek review of a controversy that may not exist. If we can use fiat to compel private people to act, ground is limitless.

The only "warrant" (if it can be called that) in your argument is that you can't have meaningful debate on whether all humans should love one another.

 

But guess what.

 

The rez isn't Resolved: All humans should love one another.

 

It's Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain without charge or to search without probable cause.

 

Something that you can have meaningful policy debate about. Quit whining.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only that, but not fiating test cases makes the topic too limited.

 

Only courts can decrease authority (T).

No test case (S)

 

It's hella abusive on this topic to not let aff fiat test cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only that, but not fiating test cases makes the topic too limited.

 

Only courts can decrease authority (T).

No test case (S)

 

It's hella abusive on this topic to not let aff fiat test cases.

 

Why? Our executive and legislative branches can decrease authority and at times have done so. Why is private actor fiat not just appropriate, but necessary? Your reasoning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

affirmatives that "fiat" a test case might be better served to pick a test case for the supreme court to rule on. increases both affirmative and negative ground and i think it makes debates both more specific and strategic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
affirmatives that "fiat" a test case might be better served to pick a test case for the supreme court to rule on. increases both affirmative and negative ground and i think it makes debates both more specific and strategic.

Yes

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fiat says that something should happen, not that it exactly would. The aff can fiat a test case. It is not abusive. It is actually a plus for the neg. Get up in c-x and ask when the next test case will be, they won't know. You then read a XO counterplan and have a net benefit of imediate solvency. Run some courts DAs and your gold.

 

right, a fiat test case isn't so much abuse as it is a weak argument. it 1)has no inherency because it cannot prove there isn't a case that would lead to this ruling anyway and 2) it has NO TIME FRAME. "there will a case at some point somewhere in the future and when it shows up the court will say X". as neg what i say is "ok, but while your sitting around waiting for a test case we will have nuke war, econ collapse, and genocide." therefore neg must be better because the Aff has no idea when their problem will actully be solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
right, a fiat test case isn't so much abuse as it is a weak argument. it 1)has no inherency because it cannot prove there isn't a case that would lead to this ruling anyway and 2) it has NO TIME FRAME. "there will a case at some point somewhere in the future and when it shows up the court will say X". as neg what i say is "ok, but while your sitting around waiting for a test case we will have nuke war, econ collapse, and genocide." therefore neg must be better because the Aff has no idea when their problem will actully be solved.

 

The mistake in your analysis is that you're working with a policy maker paradigm - SQ is better than plan cuz plan doesn't know what it's doing, yet SQ = guaranteed inaction, and plan = chance of action. It's easier to deviate which is better.

 

If you're going to run the test case fiat abuse, you need to run a CP alongside, period. Prefereably a CP that commits immediate passage to plan, i.e. XO or Congress or foreign action or something vs. Court ruling. If you don't run a CP, your essentially conceeding that aff = chance of happening, when neg = no chance of happening. AND when you run this argument, w/o the CP, you're shooting your DA's uniqueness out the window because you're core argument is that plan takes forever to pass, thus, logically, you can never know whether your DA's will be unique to when plan passes. The only way DA's become unique to you is if you run them as NB's to a CP. There have been TONS of rounds this year where this has been my response to the test case fiat argument, and my 2AR's normally consisted of a deon advantage in case, and why the 1% chance of passage outweighs my lack of timeframe. This is also a clever way to dodge the generic politics/XO, or politics/EPM combo that people seem to be infactuated with. You can dodge politics by running this lack of uniqueness argument, and claim that since the DA isn't going to bite you, you have a CP w/o any NB. However, the response to this is that CP happens faster, but then it comes down to a debate about the fwork of the CP. You can also extend your arguments saying that the DA links to the CP, and that the CP is guaranteed to lead to the impacts of the DA, while the case has a chance of dodging uniqueness, thus preventing it.

 

 

If you run this argument, it's smart to run it as an extra-T violation, simply cuz the fiating of a test case takes private individual actors to sue each other and eventually reach the courts. It's also good to run alongside it a stocks or burdens framework, that when the affirmative doesn't show when plan happens, it hasn't shown you that it will, thus leaving the judge to vote on presumption that it will never happen until the aff. shows that it will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol. someone just neg repped me saying "learn to read"

and didnt even respond to my post.

 

awesome. remind me to give you 30 speaks on CLARITY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...