Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
superman222e

What does the cross ex question "Do you defend that fiat is illusory" do?

Recommended Posts

The answer to that question seems pretty obvious, so I believe it's really only asked for dramatic effect. I'll explain what I mean by this in simple terms. Generally that question is asked by teams running kritiks of representations and discourse as well as by performance teams in order to help them win the framework debate. They may say that since fiat is "illusory," the world the other team imagines as a result of a certain plan is in itself a creation based on the justifications for the plan (which they will probably claim are nefarious and wrong to begin with). Then they will attempt to extrapolate this point to say that the kritik is a prerequisite to the plan.

 

However, just because fiat is illusory doesn't mean the other team automatically loses the framework debate. If the debate is still centered around whether or not the plan is advantageous, the fact that its perceived benefits are illusory doesn't in any way mean you cannot weigh them against the (real or illusory) impacts of the kritik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It means your opponent is an idiot.

 

I kind of agree with this. That question is usually pretty useless, since the answer is pretty much "duh."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It means your opponent is an idiot.

 

Agreed.

 

It's that your opponent has a terrible misconception of what fiat is

 

They probably assume fiat means that "at then end of the round, if the judge votes aff then the plan will pass and all the impacts will actually happen"

 

Of course this wont actually happen. They might also think it's "illusionary" so that you "pretend" that it will so you can debate.

 

All of this is wrong.

 

 

Fiat is THE AGREEMENT OF THE DEBATERS TO DISCUSS WHAT SHOULD/OUGHT TO HAPPEN instead of what WILL happen at the end of in the real world.

 

If debate was about what will happen at the end of the round, the whole activity would devolve into a kind of weather-forecasting / sports-betting game. Every judge's ballot would be rendered valid or invalid based on the events of the future.

 

It's the idea that the debate should answer the normative question of if the plan is a good idea or a bad idea. If the neg can win by saying that the Plan wont pass congress because the minority party is filibustering until the end of session of congress, at which point all the legislation gets wiped off the table, then that's bullshit because they actually haven't done the work to show that the plan is a bad idea.

 

There are a billion logistical reasons for why a plan may not actually pass in a real world setting. This is why the aff is granted fiat power, because if all of those issues were legitimate negative strategies, the aff would have to come up with a plan that if introduced to congress at the end of the round, it would have to pass and become part of the law of the USA in order to be voted on by the judge. This is an unreasonable standard and doesn't get to what debate should be about.

 

 

Now the other fallacy about this whole mess is the whole "fiat good/ fiat bad" arguments. This is asinine.

 

Fiat exists. You can claim it's good or bad, just as you can claim oxygen is good or bad-- it's good when you're breathing it. It's bad when it's helping a fire burn down your house. The fact is, it both exists, and is illusionary at the same time.

 

The best way to describe it is in bold above.

  • Upvote 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...