Jump to content
TejaVepa

Object Fiat

Recommended Posts

This hasn't been a (real) problem or issue for the last two years.

 

Space was not about to explore/develop itself,

Neither was Transportation Infrastructure going to invest in itself.

 

 

 

What are going to be the Object Fiat issues that come back for Latin America?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not honestly sure. My gut says--its really much of a problem based on the following.....

 

<p>What does the USFG say is economic engagement?  </p>

<p><a href="http://bauscharddebate.com/2013/03/defining-economic-engagement/">http://bauscharddebate.com/2013/03/defining-economic-engagement/</a></p>

 

The above article has 2 lists--the 2nd list is more what I'm suggesting you look at in terms of. It speaks to the mechanisms, but certainly the first list has some policy structure to it.

 

Do nations tend to want our trade?  Does this specific nation tend to want our trade?

My guess is if we want to negotiate or trade on issues like this--the ego/respect/international reputation issue for non-rogue states is to meet and negotiate. Even rogue states gain

reputation points from meeting with us presumably. Not to mention that the political powers don't want to seem totally anti-thetical to the economy or business.

 

And even nations that talk smack about our military policy are probably more than welcome to take free stuff and/or access/reputation/prestige.

 

In some cases many of the affs will be riding a wave of current policy (we already have ongoing relations & periodic negotiations)--this is the nature of how affirmatives are built strategically--for uniqueness reasons.

I think we generally meet with these leaders almost on a yearly basis.

 

Also, as a superpower we have a number of carrot and sticks incentives (positive & negative) for people to negotiate with us.

 

Not sure what the evidence will look like in terms of Venzesuela or Cuba.  Even then, I think that private businesses & private individuals may make these choices (abscent an existing ban on US good or a future ban on US goods).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain exactly what object fiat is.

In its most basic sense, object fiat is fiat that wishes the problems of the status quo away.

 

Example: 

1AC- US promotes policies to prevent human rights violations in China

1NC- CP: China should stop committing human rights violations.

 

or...

1AC- Increase launch assistance for the ISS to improve vaccines against an Al Qaeda bio terror attack.

1NC- CP: Al Qaeda should not use a bioweapon against the US. 

 

 

It's abusive because: 

A. it links into basically any type of ________ actor bad theory (international actors bad, multi actor fiat bad, etc)

B. if object fiat were justified, the neg could literally use it to solve every issue the aff presents without any deficit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1AC- US promotes policies to prevent human rights violations in China

1NC- CP: China should stop committing human rights violations.

This example actually doesn't seem especially abusive....

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's extremely abusive - not just object fiat (this isn't even a debate - it's always abusive) but also international actor fiat (more debatable but probably bad).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Object Fiat, as understood from its gramatical roots is the fiating of the actions of the OBJECT of the Resolution, rather than the Subject (or Agent).

 

The Objects in the resolution: "The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela" are "Economic Engagement" (The Direct Object) and "Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela" (The Indirect Objects).

 

Fiating the actions of these "Objects" is what defines "Object Fiat"

 

It is considered abusive, primarily because you fiat away a problem with the Status Quo.

 

 

This hasn't been an issue in the last few years: Refer to my OP:

 

"Space will explore itself" and "Transportation Infrastructure will invest in itself" are impossible scenarios, so it didn't come up. By the same line of logic, it's also impossible to say "Economic Engagement will increase itself"

 

 

BUT

 

When we get to Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela, these are actors that can do actions.

 

What types of CP's are legitimate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pretty decent example of object fiat would be fiating the object of the resolution to not do something.

 

China res.

China will not to go war with the US.

 

Arguably it could be the object of the resolution or the object of the advantage.  To me the abuse seems to be the same.

 

In terms of the resolution it would probably be something like fiating the country comes to the table.  However, i don't think

any affs will really do this.  This argument (object fiat abuse theory) might make sense to ensure they don't......if you

run a "country X won't come to the table."  Although what most of those pieces of evidence will be is:

1. country X didn't come to the table in X or Y scenario

2. country Y hates us.  

Both suggest there is the possibility they might not come to the table.  And it does significantly effect the risk

scenario in the debate if either is true......in the TOTAL ABSCENCE of other evidence by the aff team.

 

This was a legit concern by Teja.  I'm not sure it will materialize in a high number of debates (say greater than

15%).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Object Fiat, as understood from its gramatical roots is the fiating of the actions of the OBJECT of the Resolution, rather than the Subject (or Agent).

 

The Objects in the resolution: "The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela" are "Economic Engagement" (The Direct Object) and "Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela" (The Indirect Objects).

 

Fiating the actions of these "Objects" is what defines "Object Fiat"

 

It is considered abusive, primarily because you fiat away a problem with the Status Quo.

 

 

This hasn't been an issue in the last few years: Refer to my OP:

 

"Space will explore itself" and "Transportation Infrastructure will invest in itself" are impossible scenarios, so it didn't come up. By the same line of logic, it's also impossible to say "Economic Engagement will increase itself"

 

 

BUT

 

When we get to Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela, these are actors that can do actions.

 

What types of CP's are legitimate?

 

If the aff advantages are based in improvement in the Latin American economy, then an object fiated CP would be problematic for the aff. If the aff advantages are, on the other hand, a result of engagement, then the CP would not be competitive (as the aff would always maintain a comparative advantage, since a country can't engage with itself). The first solution, then, would seem to be to run an aff that is not approximately topical, i.e., one that does not treat the word "engagement" as synonymous with "investment" (or some related term).

 

The real solution, I would argue, is to adopt an opportunity cost theoretical paradigm for evaluating CPs instead of a comparison of best policy options. At the very least, there should be (as a theoretical test) some notion of choice between two options (or else it isn't competitive), and there is no policy making entity who controls the domestic policies of multiple countries. The neg will disguise the lack of competition by running a disad as a net benefit, but I believe affs should be attacking such CPs on a theoretical level as well (just like they should with all CPs using international fiat, state government CPs, or consult CPs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real solution, I would argue, is to adopt an opportunity cost theoretical paradigm for evaluating CPs instead of a comparison of best policy options. At the very least, there should be (as a theoretical test) some notion of choice between two options (or else it isn't competitive), and there is no policy making entity who controls the domestic policies of multiple countries. The neg will disguise the lack of competition by running a disad as a net benefit, but I believe affs should be attacking such CPs on a theoretical level as well (just like they should with all CPs using international fiat, state government CPs, or consult CPs).

I used to agree with this mindset, but I don't anymore. Two reasons.

 

1. This mindset is inconsistently applied. Just as there's no individual entity who controls the policies of multiple countries, neither is there any individual entity who controls multiple branches of the US government. No one person can force Congress, the courts, the president, or any subagency to do anything. Because of this, requiring a team to use an agent with total autonomy is an impossible one.

 

2. Activism allows us to engage in these questions usefully even without the existence of one sovereign agent. Perhaps no individual controls multiple countries with any real degree of power. But all individuals are capable of using their time and effort and knowledge to try to change the actions of others, in fact, this is the way that almost all debaters will end up applying their skills because probably none of us are going to be the president. Therefore, debating about the desirability of one agent's actions versus another is still important.

 

I think the real best reason to restrict fiat to the USFG is just a question of predictable limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the case that object fiat is usually associated with the negative.

 

The way Teja framed the question.....and the nature of the resolution.  

 

In terms of the affirmative, 2 agents are involved, but only one is fiated in reality.

 

I think however, that Chaos or Xiiii explained it correctly.  Most of the advantage will be based on US engagement not Venezuela action.

 

Pretty Big Takeaway for thinking about the rez:

 

I think thats actually an excellent way to think about advantages and solvency--both on aff & neg.

1. Advantages stemming from US action toward X country

2. Advantages stemming from Country reaction to our engagement or our move to openness. 

3. Some middle area where the country saying yes/no is relevant.

 

I think 85 to 95....or even 99% of the debate will be on affirmatives that do #1.  But I'm sure there will be messy middle ground.  Ah....debate.  But the distinction is pretty huge in my mind......in terms of writing affirmatives that are hard to answer.

 

Given the smallness countrywise of the resolution (4 versus say 10)......I would think the topic committee hopefully got countries where there is a high probability of them saying yes.

 

To clear this up a little further though.....it would be necessary to see how we do trade diplomacy & negotiations (aka the process).

 

A textbook on US diplomacy would probably sort this out.  You may also be able to do searches based on the key terms and/or agents

from this page: http://www.ustr.gov  (our trade rep. office)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This mindset is inconsistently applied. Just as there's no individual entity who controls the policies of multiple countries, neither is there any individual entity who controls multiple branches of the US government. No one person can force Congress, the courts, the president, or any subagency to do anything. Because of this, requiring a team to use an agent with total autonomy is an impossible one.

 

2. Activism allows us to engage in these questions usefully even without the existence of one sovereign agent. Perhaps no individual controls multiple countries with any real degree of power. But all individuals are capable of using their time and effort and knowledge to try to change the actions of others, in fact, this is the way that almost all debaters will end up applying their skills because probably none of us are going to be the president. Therefore, debating about the desirability of one agent's actions versus another is still important.

I do not believe that one has to identify an actual policy making entity in order to see CPs as an opportunity cost to plan. Simply viewing the judge as the USFG (i.e., the actor in the resolution) limits the scope of CPs to predictable limits, keeps the idea of a forced choice, while eliminating the fiction of role-playing Congress, the executive, or the courts. It limits the debate, in other words, to the question of, "What should the USFG do about this problem?" which is obviously what the resolution demands. I don't want to hijack the thread to offer a theoretical defense of opportunity costs vs. best policy option (I'm too busy right now to actually debate it, anyway), but I believe an opportunity cost model to be a much more real world way of deciding issues (while admitting that no model is going to be a perfect fit).

 

If (in number 2) you're talking about rounds that argue for a change in the role of the ballot into something other than a consideration of a counterfactual alternative to the status quo, then obviously traditional justifications for CPs would have to be altered to fit the circumstances of the round. I'm having a hard time envisioning a round, however, where negs are articulating the kinds of things you're talking about in (2) as a CP (as opposed to a critical argument-- a Kritik or performance). If this is not what you meant, I'm just not following your argument here.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe that one has to identify an actual policy making entity in order to see CPs as an opportunity cost to plan. Simply viewing the judge as the USFG (i.e., the actor in the resolution) limits the scope of CPs to predictable limits, keeps the idea of a forced choice, while eliminating the fiction of role-playing Congress, the executive, or the courts. It limits the debate, in other words, to the question of, "What should the USFG do about this problem?" which is obviously what the resolution demands. I don't want to hijack the thread to offer a theoretical defense of opportunity costs vs. best policy option (I'm too busy right now to actually debate it, anyway), but I believe an opportunity cost model to be a much more real world way of deciding issues (while admitting that no model is going to be a perfect fit).

 

I hold that the starting point of the opportunity costs model should not be the actor of the resolution but the individual debater. I don't reject the model; I reform it. I think this is the most pragmatically oriented and most realistic model that debate can have. I also think that it minimizes intervention better because it doesn't cause us to force a choice between allowing K debates and allowing realistic consideration of opportunity costs (which are the justification for K debates anyway).

 

I don't disagree with your arguments about predictability.

 

 If (in number 2) you're talking about rounds that argue for a change in the role of the ballot into something other than a consideration of a counterfactual alternative to the status quo, then obviously traditional justifications for CPs would have to be altered to fit the circumstances of the round. I'm having a hard time envisioning a round, however, where negs are articulating the kinds of things you're talking about in (2) as a CP (as opposed to a critical argument-- a Kritik or performance). If this is not what you meant, I'm just not following your argument here. 

 

That's basically what I meant. I don't think that it would be necessary for the negative to articulate this argument though, because this argument is what's assumed by the framework argument that's implicit in most rounds. I think that framework arguments from both the left and right all take the individual debater as their starting point, and since that's true I don't see why I shouldn't do the same. 

 

The role of the ballot is to vote for whoever best proves that they're doing the best things through their speech, at least as I evaluate the debate. This is the starting point of our decision, and thus it's where the opportunity costs model originates in our evaluation of the round. Opportunity cost arguments don't just exist in the context of topical government action but rather in the context of the actual debaters. Because of that, any argument that a debater makes about where their effort should go is allowed under the opportunity costs model, although those arguments can be restricted further if subjected to arguments about predictability or fairness or education or ethics.

 

The connection between my thoughts about fiat and framework and counterplans and Kritiks was something I never noticed until now. This was interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I answer these challenges in this thread which is trying to address the same issue of object fiat & how much control the US has over business policies:

http://www.cross-x.com/topic/54806-problem-with-la-resolution/?do=findComment&comment=872565

 

Like any US policy its about incentives for action....not fiating the action.

Yes, this is kind of FX...but its secondary to an on-face interpretation that says the aff is specifically economic engagement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...