Jump to content
OceanDebater

AT: Fiat shields the link

Recommended Posts

If you are running a politics disad, and the aff responds with "Fiat means the plan 'magically' passes and we debate whether or not the bill is good or not", how would the neg respond?

Edited by LionDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is predicated on the fact that the plan passes magically - meaning that if the aff tries to, for example, pass Aquaculture regulations, and your link is that the plan drains political capital of X - then if we pass the plan, that triggers the link, which triggers the impact - If anything, fiat PRODUCES the link 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the neg says fiat destroys whatever attitudinal barriers of the house/senate, thus leading to passage of plan?

 

So if plan passes immediately, when does the fight, and the expenditure of political capital happen? Or is my timeframe off?

 

How can I express this to lay judges in the most simple way, and defend against "fiat means there is not politics DA".

 

Can you define fiat?

Edited by LionDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the neg says fiat destroys whatever attitudinal barriers of the house/senate, thus leading to passage of plan?

 

So if plan passes immediately, when does the fight, and the expenditure of political capital happen? Or is my timeframe off?

 

How can I express this to lay judges in the most simple way, and defend against "fiat means there is not politics DA".

 

Can you define fiat?

 

1 - If the AFFIRMATIVE (I think you put neg instead of aff there) says than then make them give you warrants; I think that if they say that it's more of a "winners win" argument (link turn) or a "plan is popular" argument (non-unique link) - so just respond to each accordingly

 

2 - Expenditure of political capital happens in that "immediately" that the plan passes in - so the impacts kick in after voting aff

 

3 - "They say Fiat solves the link - Nope, if anything fiat PRODUCES the link. See, fiat means that the plan passes through congress immediately which means that voting aff leads to the expenditure of political capital. But political capital is finite, meaning that it trades off with X bill - the link evidence (put the author and date here) says that the plan is highly controversial meaning that ANY VOTE TO THE AFFIRMATIVE TEAM creates a political backlash from congress meaning that X person will have spent, irreversibly, the political capital they had - That triggers the impact, because then that means that X bill doesn't pass - that'll lead to A, B, and C, which are bad." 

 

4 - Fiat is derived from the word should in the resolution—whereby the substance of the resolution is debated, rather than the political feasibility of enactment and enforcement of a given planallowing an affirmative team to "imagine" a plan into being.

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are running a politics disad, and the aff responds with "Fiat means the plan 'magically' passes and we debate whether or not the bill is good or not", how would the neg respond?

 

This card should help you defend the theoretical legitimacy of the basis of your link argument and provide a good answer to "fiat shields the link."

 

at - fiat takes out the link 4cx.docx

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This card should help you defend the theoretical legitimacy of the basis of your link argument and provide a good answer to "fiat shields the link."

Whoops I meant to upvote. Will upvote another one of your posts, sorry brah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll straight up read theory that says the neg is entitled to politics DA's. I'll get around to writing that for you if you want since I really think that's it's some SUPER bullshit that tiny aff's try to get out of politics by whining. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 - If the AFFIRMATIVE (I think you put neg instead of aff there) says than then make them give you warrants; I think that if they say that it's more of a "winners win" argument (link turn) or a "plan is popular" argument (non-unique link) - so just respond to each accordingly

 

2 - Expenditure of political capital happens in that "immediately" that the plan passes in - so the impacts kick in after voting aff

 

3 - "They say Fiat solves the link - Nope, if anything fiat PRODUCES the link. See, fiat means that the plan passes through congress immediately which means that voting aff leads to the expenditure of political capital. But political capital is finite, meaning that it trades off with X bill - the link evidence (put the author and date here) says that the plan is highly controversial meaning that ANY VOTE TO THE AFFIRMATIVE TEAM creates a political backlash from congress meaning that X person will have spent, irreversibly, the political capital they had - That triggers the impact, because then that means that X bill doesn't pass - that'll lead to A, B, and C, which are bad." 

 

4 - Fiat is derived from the word should in the resolution—whereby the substance of the resolution is debated, rather than the political feasibility of enactment and enforcement of a given planallowing an affirmative team to "imagine" a plan into being.

I get that scenario.  Here's another hypothetic scenario that I'm not sure how fiat would explain the passage of the bill (change in mindset).

 

The affirmative passes bill XYZ.   XYZ has passed through the house and the senate, but the president vetoed it, and has a strong attitudinal barrier and opposition towards it (thus the inherency).  Not enough votes within congress to override the veto.  How does fiat (latin for 'let it be done') explain how the president signs the bill into law?

Edited by LionDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll straight up read theory that says the neg is entitled to politics DA's. I'll get around to writing that for you if you want since I really think that's it's some SUPER bullshit that tiny aff's try to get out of politics by whining. 

Only if you're down ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you're down ;)

 

Here's something I put together in 20 seconds that will provide at least a mediocre starting point for that...

 

A. Interpretation: the affirmative must defend all consequences/results of plan/fiat, this includes political consequences.

 

B. Violation - they don't

 

C. Vote neg

 

1. Ground -

 

2. Moving target - 

3. Competitive Equity -

 

4. Vote neg on in round abuse...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fiat is derived from the word should in the resolution—whereby the substance of the resolution is debated, rather than the political feasibility of enactment and enforcement of a given planallowing an affirmative team to "imagine" a plan into being.

 

 

Two things:

1) Normal means of plan passage is through Congress.  Its not through other means.   (that answers one of the core concerns on the thread)

You will need to defend an interpretation of what normal means in this debate and others when the other team does shady stuff.

 

2) But also specific to the quote, this interpretation is NOT true--at least as I read it.  You don't get to magically get out of solvency debates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things:

1) Normal means of plan passage is through Congress. Its not through other means. (that answers one of the core concerns on the thread)

You will need to defend an interpretation of what normal means in this debate and others when the other team does shady stuff.

 

2) But also specific to the quote, this interpretation is NOT true--at least as I read it. You don't get to magically get out of solvency debates.

 

I literally got that off of Wikipedia

 

I'm also more K-oriented than policy so I'm going off of yolo rn

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

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...

×
×
  • Create New...