Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ewok

Weird theory

Recommended Posts

Some of our schools novices made this theory arg.

"You have no inherent barrier because of fiat" :confused:

They said that their inherent barrier was that plan was unpopular so it wouldn't pass. It makes sense but is so unorthodox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of our schools novices made this theory arg.

"You have no inherent barrier because of fiat" :confused:

They said that their inherent barrier was that plan was unpopular so it wouldn't pass. It makes sense but is so unorthodox.

 

Thats ridiculous-- inherency is an affirmative argument saying that the plan is not happening in the status quo. Just be like "hey, this isn't a game of whether it will pass, fiat means we debate the merits-- all your solvency claims are really just politics link turns, basically."

 

Seriously, though, that should be your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats ridiculous-- inherency is an affirmative argument saying that the plan is not happening in the status quo. Just be like "hey, this isn't a game of whether it will pass, fiat means we debate the merits-- all your solvency claims are really just politics link turns, basically."

 

Seriously, though, that should be your argument.

 

Good point. To add on, I think stock issues theory (of which I'm not terribly well acquainted) focuses more on a plan "having" inherency outside the round. As long as there is an inherent barrier out of round, the plan still works. You argue that while the affirmative fiats the passage of the plan, in real life, we couldn't just fiat Bush to pass the plan (Otherwise the Brad Bolman Act of 2006 would've been passed a while back). Obviously the affirmative could fiat that all the problems in the world go away and call it a day, but in the end you're discussing the implications of the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL they ran it on me and my partner, ill give them the fact that ive never seen novies debate theory that well, but they didnt know what they were talking about it was a good round but they completely undercovered all our answers, tell them that they did a good job

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of our schools novices made this theory arg.

"You have no inherent barrier because of fiat" :confused:

They said that their inherent barrier was that plan was unpopular so it wouldn't pass. It makes sense but is so unorthodox.

Fiat lets you OVERCOME the inherent barrier. It doesn't work the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the real world of policymaking, inherency isnt an issue. but in debate, to preserve competitive equity for the negative, the demand for inherency is placed on the aff.

 

all inherent plans would have zero solvency. its a theoretical double bind which only exists because debaters created the concept of inherency to policymaking.

 

but mbv is correct in saying that fiat lets you overcome these inherent barriers. the purpose of fiat is to establish an assumption core to all debate - assuming X, what results? we assume X to be the 'passage' of plan. now, there are all sorts of interpretations of what it means to 'pass' plan - some specify a time, some say its 'right now', others (me) say its instantaneous and therefore plan exists and never passes. but the point of this discussion is to simply demonstrate that fiat is used by the aff and neg to assume that if plan were in existence today, then what? without fiat, you cannot evaluate the neg disads and aff advts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the most painful and at the same time funny rounds that I have ever judged involved a circuit school and a stock issues non traveling school.

 

The circuit school was aff and the stock school was neg

 

1AC CX:

 

"What is your inherent barrier"....the answer "What's an inherent barrier?"

 

Neg thought they had an easy win and spent the remainder of their speeches hammering home that the plan didn't have a barrier.

 

Aff didn't know what an inherent barrier was and repeatedly asked for the neg to explain it to them, but they at least told me that the neg provided no reason to vote on inherency and that there was no abuse or ground loss. The stock issues team was unprepared for such arguments and looked at inherency as a simple litmus test.

 

The stock issues team was uber-mad at me after the round because they couldn't understand how I didn't pick them up......but then again they didn't ask for my prefs and assumed I was a stock issues judge. It was a fun oral critique as I had to explain it all to the debaters.

 

.......and the round was very short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'advanced' debate or not, no debater should be asking 'ummm, whats inherency?' you cant get into competent fiat debates which accompany many critiques without understanding what fiat does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in the real world of policymaking, inherency isnt an issue.
Wow. Not merely wrong, but "all the way wrong" as my dad used to say. Maybe you should stick to LD. Word on the street is you've got a pretty salty competitor in that event... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. Not merely wrong, but "all the way wrong" as my dad used to say. Maybe you should stick to LD. Word on the street is you've got a pretty salty competitor in that event... ;)

 

no. inherency SHOULD be an issue... but lets face it... uncle sam has so many overlapping and redundant programs it would make your head spin. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no. inherency SHOULD be an issue... but lets face it... uncle sam has so many overlapping and redundant programs it would make your head spin.
The only thing that makes my head spin is the persistence of the mistaken notion that inherency is about whether some form of Affplan is or is not already being done in Status Quo. That ain't inherency, my brother...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing that makes my head spin is the persistence of the mistaken notion that inherency is about whether some form of Affplan is or is not already being done in Status Quo. That ain't inherency, my brother...

 

oh i know. but just because the sq is making attempts doesnt mean that any of their misguided attempts are working. they just keep throwing money at it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh i know. but just because the sq is making attempts doesnt mean that any of their misguided attempts are working. they just keep throwing money at it. :)
*Sigh* Lucky for you I've given up arguing with you for Lent... ;)
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*Sigh* Lucky for you I've given up arguing with you for Lent... ;)

 

lol. that might be the funniest thing i have heard in days. including jake's funny cross-examination of karlyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL they ran it on me and my partner, ill give them the fact that ive never seen novies debate theory that well, but they didnt know what they were talking about it was a good round but they completely undercovered all our answers, tell them that they did a good job

 

 

[/it was a good round we did not know what to do so we just made a little thing like theory our biggest argument]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wouldnt go around advertising that. it just shows you either are messing around with a novice team (and thus being an a-hole) or that you dont know what you're talking about (and thus just a silly novice yourself).

  • Downvote 1

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...