Jump to content
deb8lover

[Surveillance] -- Fiat Power

Recommended Posts

As the new season is coming up there will obviously be plenty of stuff we will have to discuss, but I think "fiat power" is going to be quite interesting. I'm curious as to what you college debaters think of the arguments below:

 

1) Circumvention -- as in the NSA will find loopholes and resume surveillance, which basically acts as a solvency takeout

 

2) Rollback -- as, say, an impact to the Terrorism DA for next year, it could be "a terrorist attack would cause the NSA to re-think surveillance and change laws which allows them to surveil (even just taking out the aff entirely)"

 

So my question is: can you use durable fiat to fiat through these arguments? You can't fiat solvency, but these 2 border on solvency vs implementation, so... thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone will want to avoid thinking about these issues and so will default to the nice and easy assumption that fiat is durable.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone will want to avoid thinking about these issues and so will default to the nice and easy assumption that fiat is durable.

 

But is that a winning strat?

 

There's a reason that camps like SDI, Michigan, Georgetown are putting out circumvention files and terrorism DAs with rollback !s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a winning strat by itself, but it's a big reason most functional arguments for durable fiat will end up winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone will want to avoid thinking about these issues and so will default to the nice and easy assumption that fiat is durable.

 

Hey, as long as the aff is doing the fiating no one in college is going to care. The second that you EVER think about neg fiat than pages like this will be linked to you on your losing ballot from us college duhb8ers 

 

https://www.facebook.com/nonegfiat?fref=ts

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, as long as the aff is doing the fiating no one in college is going to care. The second that you EVER think about neg fiat than pages like this will be linked to you on your losing ballot from us college duhb8ers 

 

https://www.facebook.com/nonegfiat?fref=ts

 

Honestly, the people at that link have an incredibly limited idea of fiat.

 

Everybody has fiat power.  It's just the ability to imagine the world as it isn't.  When the aff says fiat, they aren't saying anyone will actually do the plan after the round, they're saying 'imagine a world, otherwise like our own, except this plan existed'.

 

When you yell at the QB on your TV this fall about the terrible decision he made on the field, and say what he should have done differently, you're invoking fiat.  You're imagining the play if it had happened differently.

 

So when the negative proposes a CP, they're also asking us to imagine a world different than the status quo.  That's fiat.

 

Now, I also believe CPs are trade-offs to the aff.  Losing the CP should not mean you lose the round if the SQ is still better than both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, the people at that link have an incredibly limited idea of fiat.

 

Everybody has fiat power.  It's just the ability to imagine the world as it isn't.  When the aff says fiat, they aren't saying anyone will actually do the plan after the round, they're saying 'imagine a world, otherwise like our own, except this plan existed'.

 

When you yell at the QB on your TV this fall about the terrible decision he made on the field, and say what he should have done differently, you're invoking fiat.  You're imagining the play if it had happened differently.

 

So when the negative proposes a CP, they're also asking us to imagine a world different than the status quo.  That's fiat.

 

Now, I also believe CPs are trade-offs to the aff.  Losing the CP should not mean you lose the round if the SQ is still better than both.

The Facebook Page is satirical

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Facebook Page is satirical

 

The problem with satire as presented by facebook wall is it is impossible to tell it is satire unless you know it going in.  Satire strongly benefits from longform writing.  Swift's A Modest Proposal is so effective because if you did read just a short blurb of it selected at random, you probably wouldn't know it was satire just from that passage.

 

So yeah, they got me.  Insert 'Can't tell if' meme pic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with satire as presented by facebook wall is it is impossible to tell it is satire unless you know it going in.  Satire strongly benefits from longform writing.  Swift's A Modest Proposal is so effective because if you did read just a short blurb of it selected at random, you probably wouldn't know it was satire just from that passage.

 

So yeah, they got me.  Insert 'Can't tell if' meme pic.

This pleb thinks A Modest Proposal is satire.

Obviously has never eaten children before.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with satire as presented by facebook wall is it is impossible to tell it is satire unless you know it going in.  Satire strongly benefits from longform writing.  Swift's A Modest Proposal is so effective because if you did read just a short blurb of it selected at random, you probably wouldn't know it was satire just from that passage.

 

So yeah, they got me.  Insert 'Can't tell if' meme pic.

If not satire then maybe parody, or just a joke. My first view I was confused, but after scrolling down a couple statuses it was pretty obvious they were trolling. Like the neg fiat -> anarchy picture is definitely not serious. Added to the "judges have the responsibility to end the round if neg fiat is in the 1NC" it's blatant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a winning strat by itself, but it's a big reason most functional arguments for durable fiat will end up winning.

I kinda disagree with you on this issue. I think that circumvention as a solency takeout if framed as an "alt cause" type of argument would take out the aff. I also think rollback of the plan itself might not happen but other forms of surveillence would increase could definetly occur. People are buying durable fiat a lot less now 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are buying durable fiat a lot less now 

...false? No one all of a sudden just said "damn, that fiat thing, it really sucks. When we imagine a world of the plan, what if we imagined a world of the plan without the plan?"

Rollback is covered by durable fiat.

Circumvention is not.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...false? No one all of a sudden just said "damn, that fiat thing, it really sucks. When we imagine a world of the plan, what if we imagined a world of the plan without the plan?"

Rollback is covered by durable fiat.

Circumvention is not.

I guess I sorta misspoke(typed). People buy a lot less the sweeping meaning of durable fiat. if the neg wins that the plan causes a roll back in overall surveillence which basically takes out an advantage, durable fiat for sure doesnt take out the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I sorta misspoke(typed). People buy a lot less the sweeping meaning of durable fiat. if the neg wins that the plan causes a roll back in overall surveillence which basically takes out an advantage, durable fiat for sure doesnt take out the argument.

Doesn't need to - the affirmative should have specific internal links tailored to the specific surveillance - you can't rollback that specific form of surveillance because of durable fiat, which means they still solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The annoying part is that durable fiat debates usually have to happen in the 1AR/2NR/2AR which means they're really terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The annoying part is that durable fiat debates usually have to happen in the 1AR/2NR/2AR which means they're really terrible.

Not really

2NC - Really brief analytic about rollback on politics

1AR - Durable fiat bro(ette)

2NR - Okay true, not going for it

95% of debates

Edited for glang

Edited by RickAstley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...false? No one all of a sudden just said "damn, that fiat thing, it really sucks. When we imagine a world of the plan, what if we imagined a world of the plan without the plan?"

Rollback is covered by durable fiat.

Circumvention is not.

Why wouldn't circumvention be covered? You aren't allowed to fiat that the NSA ends the surveillance you specify in the plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't circumvention be covered? You aren't allowed to fiat that the NSA ends the surveillance you specify in the plan?

NSA = USFG = Fiat says I can. Let's imagine a world where the government stops surveillance in x area includes the NSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NSA = USFG = Fiat says I can. Let's imagine a world where the government stops surveillance in x area includes the NSA

I'm just saying,

if fiat tests implementation and in regular instances you can fiat implementation then if it's durable why can't you fiat that the usfg ends its surveillance of x? I understand that you can't fiat solvency but IMO that's not a solvency question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just saying,

if fiat tests implementation and in regular instances you can fiat implementation then if it's durable why can't you fiat that the usfg ends its surveillance of x? I understand that you can't fiat solvency but IMO that's not a solvency question

Sorry I got confused in the previous post and it was incoherent.

NSA will circumvent and will continue to surveill different shit. You say stop phone tapping and they email tap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I got confused in the previous post and it was incoherent.

NSA will circumvent and will continue to surveill different shit. You say stop phone tapping and they email tap.

 

ok but what if plan is end all NSA electronic surveillance and your internals/impacts are specific to NSA electronic surveillance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...