Jesus Counter Plan

[Dr. Fox On Socks 3928]

Sorry, I forgot to explain how policy debate works. I know you did pufo, so I'll go nice and slow so that even you can understand.

 

Fiat means "let it be".

 

I can "let (the USfg pass a policy) be [done]".

I can "let (world peace) be [done]".

I can "let (global warming/ AIDS/ eternal damnation/ God) be [solved for]".

I know you have an ego much larger than your actual abilities, so I'll ignore your dismissal of versatility (and that I did CX for much longer than I did PF), and use terms everyone else can understand, since I don't really care about your opinion.

 

The event (as you so helpfully noted) is called policy debate; the debate centers around policies. "World peace" is not a policy, "the existence of god" is not a policy, and "solve global warming" (while certainly a goal of some policies) is not a policy in itself.

 

The aff cannot assume that their chosen problems will go away, they must argue that their plan (read: policy) will address those harms.

Fiat is the assumption that the alleged means to the end exist, it does not cover whether they actually are means to that end.

 

Fiat is a very limited tool that affirmatives (and negs running CPs) can use to prevent wasting time on whether a given policy would come into existence (such as needing to prove that enough congressmen would vote for it) because the resolutions do not ask whether 'the USFG will do ..." they ask whether the 'USFG should do ...'. This allows for consideration of improbable plans, but when a plan (or CP) proposes an impossible action, then fiat is no help.

 

Assuming that the other side successfully proved the plan's impossiblity (which, of course, would be up for debate), then we cannot logically assume the plan exists (which is what fiat is). Even if we tried, it wouldn't be helpful in a policy context because it could never happen in the world where the resolution exists, and therefore could never bring about solvency.

 

Even if it would solve, the plan's impossiblity is a priori, it's a waste of time to discuss whether something would solve if it has already been shown that it could never exist.

 

The extent to how much you can fiat is up for debate. For example, most people think that it's fair to fiat that your policy will pass, lets say to create tax incentives for alt energy. But there's a debate to be had to whether or not it's fair for the aff to fiat that the companies will take the incentive and develop alt energy, or that the people will buy/ use the energy from the company. Fiating that the companies will take the incentive and develop alt energy is called object fiat, because you're fiating extra steps after the original act (or fiating solvency).

But all of these are possible so they're not part of this debate. We're talking about impossible fiat. Also, this point is non-responsive to fiating solvency in-general. The companies talking incentives and people buying the energy are only links to solvency. Fiating them (assuming you can, which you're right, is still not a settled issue) is not the same as fiating "Global warming stops" or "God solves"

 

This isn't what we're talking about. The original question was whether or not you can fiat that God exists. Is it possible that God exists? Yes. Then you can fiat it to be true.

The question was: "If one side argued that god didn't exist, would 'we fiat god' be a responsive answer?" And the answer is 'no.' If I argue that your plan cannot exist, then you must show that your plan can indeed exist before you can fiat anything with it.

 

So if your plan depended on 2+2=5, and I responded 'that's not possible, therefore no solvency,' you would be wasting your breath replying with 'we fiat 2+2=5'. Fiat is only the assumption that the plan will exist, but it requires that the plan be possible (however remotely) in the first place.

 

I read that a couple of times and I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. The "Neg doesn't have the power to create X".

 

No shit, sherlock. Do you think the aff has the power to control the USfg?

No, by "power to create" I mean that it is possible to employ agents that do not yet exist, but this can be done only if they can exist under the abilities of the USFG. A classsic example would be a plan that creates a new government agency. The USFG has the power to create new agencies, so the aff (or neg on CP) does as well. So the other side can't argue, 'that agency doesn't exist, we win.' But the USFG does not, to my knowledge, have the power to create deities, so neither do the debaters.

 

If you can prove that something is not possible for the USFG to do, then it does not fall under fiat power.

[Dr. Fox On Socks 3928]

Just because it has a name doesn't mean it's a logical or valid argument. Just because a few people have won on it before opponents who didn't make the right arguments (remember, if the neg concedes that the plan is possible for the USFG to do, then they lose the ability to contest fiat) doesn't mean it's a logical or valid argument.

 

I've won (and lost) on ridiculous arguments that have no basis in logic or reality, it happens sometimes, but there's a reason you don't see such specious logic used by the best debaters: it's really easy to poke holes in, among other things.

 

This is the Help Me forum where we try to help people debate better; telling them it's okay to ignore the rules of logic and fundamental argumentation, just because you used it to steamroll over some novice team you would have beaten anyway, is not helpful.

[Robbgray 47]

i did not read this thread but if i'm aff i'd say we consulted Jesus and he said vote aff.

[Chaos 2587]

 

 

 

Plan- Prior to passage of the affirmative advocacy, the Ministry of Magic will be consulted

 

A. This is an extra-topical counterplan- though the plan is passed through the USFG, the Ministry of magic is consulted prior to passage of the advocacy

 

 

B. Net Benefits: The CP stops extinction which Dark Wizards cause, increase hegemony (as other countries will like us more if they know we can magic them away), avoids corruption, disease, infrastructure, lack of resources, war, etc.

 

C. Wizards are (fucking) awesome

Harry Potter in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007 and Lord of the Rings in 1954 and 1955

 

If you have seen Lord of The rings or read the books, or seen any of the Harry Potter or read the books, you'll agree. Wizards are (fucking) awesome

 

Gandalf killed a Balrog (Big Fire giant), went through Fangorn Forest unharmed, removed power from Sarumon, the dark white wizard, destroyed legions of orcs and fought off a Nazgul ( A Dragon, except a whole lot angrier) unharmed

 

Dumbledore took down the dark wizard Grindelwald, researched the philosopher's stone and succeeded in creating one, found the dozen uses of dragon blood, is the only wizard Voldemort ever feared, successfully dueled Voldemort, and told Harry Potter how to beat Voldemort. Not to mention was in general, the greatest (In-world in Harry Potter) Wizard ever.

 

 

 

D. Solvency

Magic gives witches and wizards abilities reaching the infinite in number

Harry Potter in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007 (paraphrased)

 

Magic allows wizards the ability to ignore natural laws, such as instant production of food, water, and other necessities, including medicine or prevention of terminal illnesses

 

 

E. Advantages

Aurors are the Special Forces paramilitary operators in the wizarding world-they are the best at killing dark wizards

Harry Potter in 2003, 2005, 2007 (paraphrased)

 

Wizards and Witches go through extreme training measures in order to join the ranks, requiring at least five Nastily Exhausting Wizarding Tests, and excellent marks in potion-making, stealth, disguise, location and concealment, among other tests. They are also proficient in all manners of information extrapolation, brilliant, and among the best in spell-casting

 

Dark Wizards cause extinction

Harry Potter in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007 (paraphrased)

 

Voldemort organizes the Death Eaters, his loyal group of witches and wizards who pursue the dark arts, freely kill muggles and track down and murder witches and wizards who tolerate Muggles and “mudbloods," magic makers from Muggle families. "

 

 

 

The Ministry of Magic is racist

 

Harry Potter in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2007 (paraphrased)

 

The Ministry of Magic feels that the purpose of house elves is to serve their masters, despite the fact that house elves have far greater magic than even wizards

IMPACT:

Only by refusing racism can we continue morality- You must reject racism

Memmi, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Paris, 1997

[Albert, RACISM, p. 165 (DRGCL/B1046)]

B. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. "Recall,"says the Bible, "that you were once a stranger in Egypt," which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal -- indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality

[Hbod11 10]

i love this. JESUS. Finally he is everywhere. YES!

[fighthepower 6]

dont do jesus do general god, or else the other team will run terrorism DA

 

A. Uniqueness-1st amendment

B. Link-the cp will consult jesus, making us for reals a christian country

C. Internal link- terrorists hate christians

D. Impact- another terrorist attack, but worse

[Dominordrian 10]

i did not read this thread but if i'm aff i'd say we consulted Jesus and he said vote aff.

 

I think he'd actually say vote both because as long as the party at fualt confesses he will forgive.

 

That's right Jesus Wants Double Win!

 

So therefore perm, Consult Jesus, and let christ be the judge, we'll wait for him to circle the ballot.

[patriotsdebate 10]

dont do jesus do general god, or else the other team will run terrorism DA

 

A. Uniqueness-1st amendment

B. Link-the cp will consult jesus, making us for reals a christian country

C. Internal link- terrorists hate christians

D. Impact- another terrorist attack, but worse

 

This point doesn't matter. The only group that the "God" CP would save america from is the Jews and their isn't a big enough case for Jewish Terrorism have the impact outweigh. "God" CP still subjects america to plenty of terrorism. You just impact calc it.

[Enterprise 371]

im glad debate is heading in such a magnificent direction

Win.