Jump to content
AmAsKh

Fiat Bad

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

 

I was looking for a fiat bad card and couldn't find one. Could anyone tell me where I could find a fiat bad card?

 

Thanks,

AmAsKh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what you mean by 'fiat'.  There are several conceptions of it.

 

-There's plenty of roleplaying bad cards.

-Fiat as counterfactual imagination is really hard to indict unless you're a fatalist. The alternative is 'you can't ever change anything', and that's not a good worldview.  (Also, what's the point of debate at that point?)

 

... and so on.  You really need to strictly conceive what you mean by fiat, or what you think your opponents mean by fiat, if you want to indict it.  Not all of them will roll over and agree they're roleplaying for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to use a fiat bad card in order to say that this debate is pointless since the idea that the 1AC has brought up in the debate has many times been thought of in Congress and still has not been passed. For this reason, the aff's plan has no chance of happening in the current political system. Vote neg because they ... revolution in a different political system ...

 

Are there any good cards which can help me do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. SOLVENCY CANNOT BE FIATED   A. C. Snider, (Debate Coach at Boston College, ADVANCED DEBATE, 1983, p. 94)  “Fiat power allows the plan's mechanisms to come into existence, but after creation of the plan must be examined as a separate policy system; fiat power is then useless.”  

 

There something I found in my theory file

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone post the Schlag 3 evidence?

There’s no meaningful relationship between their education/agency claims and social change—get out of the argument room

Schlag ‘3 (Pierre, Distinguished Prof. @ U. of Colorado and Byron R. White Professor @ Colorado Law School, 57 U. Miami L. Rev. 1029)

 

The presumption is that the words of the judge (if they are well crafted) will effectively produce a social reality that corresponds roughly with the words uttered. But what reason is there to believe this? False Empowerment (No. 2) The endlessly repeated question in first year, "What should the court do?" leads law students to believe that courts respond to the force of the better argument. This would be tolerable if one added two provisos: 1. The better argument often means little more than the one the courts are predisposed to believe; and 2. In the phrase "force of better argument" it's important to attend not just to the "better" part, but to the other term as well. False Empowerment (No. 3) Law students first learn of many complex social and economic realities through the medium of case law. What they learn is thus the law's vision of these economic and social realities. Not surprisingly, there is an almost magical correspondence between legal categories and social or economic practices. This magical fit leads law students (later to become law professors) to have an extremely confident view of the efficacy of law. Many law students are cured of this belief structure by a stay in the legal clinic or by law practice. There is one group of people, however, who are generally not cured of this belief-structure at all, but whose faith is actually intensified. These are the people who hold prestigious judicial clerkships where an emotional proximity to and identification with their judge ("my judge") leads to an even greater confidence in the efficacy of law. These people are frequently chosen to teach in law schools. False empowerment can be disempowering. It can also lead to pessimism and despair. Many people react to a loss of faith in law or legal studies with despair or pessimism. But this is the despair and pessimism that comes from giving up a naieve or a romantic vision of law and/or legal studies. The onslaught of this despair and pessimism is a good thing. It is like the thirty-something who realizes that he is mortal and that life is brief. Generally, this is not welcome news. At the same time, it may help prevent a life spent in Heideggerian dread, tanning salons, or the interstices of footnote 357. When the academic loses faith in law or legal studies, typically that person is most troubled because she has lost the framework that makes her academic project possible. But so what? Isn't the demand that law conform to an academic project arguably a selfish one? The Con, The Joke, and The Ironic Truth The Con: In the courtroom, the appellate judge is typically seated behind an elevated bench. On the classroom blackboard the appellate judge is chalked in above the plaintiff and the defendant. This is both a reflection and a reinforcement of the belief that the appellate judge is an intellectually and politically privileged legal actor. The Joke: In actuality, the appellate judge is a person who operates in conditions of severe information deficits and whose outlook is thoroughly manipulated by professional rhetoricians. Very often he has little or no understanding of the configurations of the social field to which his rulings will apply. What's more, this is a person who is prohibited from talking about the social field, except with a highly restricted number of people. The Ironic Truth: On the other hand, because we believe the appellate judge is a particularly privileged intellectual and political actor, we contribute to making him so. Legal intellectuals like to believe that law is an intelligent enterprise. They like to believe that the law offers an interesting vocabulary, grammar, and rhetoric through which to think about the world and law itself. This is naive. The political demand that law be efficacious means that law must track, must indeed incorporate popular beliefs about social and economic identities, causation, linguistic meaning, and so forth. (Those beliefs are often intellectually bereft.) The Argument Room The argument room is a place where academic advocates go to argue passionately about law and politics. (Apologies to Monty Python.) Within the room, arguments are won and lost; triumphs and defeats are had. But generally, no one outside the room pays much attention to what goes on inside the room. Sometimes there is seepage and fragments of the conversations are heard outside the room. Participants most often spend their time arguing about what should happen outside the room. This they call “knowledge” or "understanding" or "jurisprudence" or “scholarship” or “politics.” The one thing that generally cannot be talked about inside the room is the construction of the room itself. Politics (No. 1) For progressive legal thinkers, politics is a "theoretical unmentionable": The concept "politics" does a great deal of theoretical work and yet its identity remains generally immune from scrutiny. The categories (right, left) and the fundamental grammar of politics (progress, reaction, and so forth) generally go unquestioned. Oddly, while everything else seems to be contingent, conditional, contextual, and so on, the categories of politics seem to be oddly stable, nearly transcendent. Strangely, this occurs at a time when the categories, left and right (and even politics itself), seem increasingly fragile and non-referential. Still, this is an intensely political time - political not in the sense of significant social contestation (not much of that) nor in the sense of ideological struggle (not happening much either). Rather, political in the sense of very significant reorganizations and reallocations of power, wealth, and so on. Capital (for lack of a better term) is in a period of rapid self-reorganization in which it increasingly regiments precincts of life previously offering some resistance to its grammar - to wit: time, family, media, public space, wilderness, and so forth. The point is not that these precincts were immune to capital before, but rather that capital is advancing at such an intense rate to bring about a significant disruption and a qualitative change in these precincts. This change is manifest not only in the colonization of new precincts, but in the self-organization of capital [*1034] (new financial vehicles) and, of course, in new literary and intellectual forms (postmodernism as both symptom and diagnosis). Meanwhile, the old categories, the old grammar, the old answers, seem to have lost some of their hold. The right is intellectually stagnant. And the left is, as a social presence, ontologically challenged. Indeed, in the United States, we seem at present to have several right wings and no left wing. This does not mean that "politics" as a social category is necessarily dead. It might mean simply that we (and others) have not understood, have not grasped, have not articulated its new configurations. What would be required on the intellectual level is a re-evaluation not only of the conventionally articulated categories, but of the social and economic ontology. At its best, postmodernism (and there has been a lot of bad reactionary and nostalgic postmodernism) is an attempt to trigger such a re-evaluation. Progressives, understandably, strive to protect their categories, grammar, and self-image from these challenges. But this is not without cost. To argue in favor of political positions is sometimes political. But it is not always political. Sometimes taking up a political argument is political and sometimes it has no consequences whatsoever. One cannot know beforehand. But it is a serious mistake to suppose that arguing in favor of a political position is in and of itself political. Very often in the legal academy, to argue for a political (or normative) position is not political at all. It simply triggers a scholastic, highly stereotyped meta-discourse about whether the arguments advanced are sound, accurate, should be adopted, or the like. Traditionally, the left has defended the victims of capitalism, imperialism, and racism. Indeed, this is an important part of what it means to be "on the left." Meanwhile, in the university, scholarly attention depends upon the production of new exciting ideas and research agendas. This poses a problem for the left: the victims of capitalism, imperialism, and racism remain the same. The political-intellectual defenses advanced on behalf of victims remain the same. This leads to a certain sense of weariness and deja vu - stereotyped arguments, standard rhetorical moves. A tendency to fight the same old fights. Machines. This is a problem. A Problem for Progressive Legal Thinkers As the author of Laying Down the Law, it just isn't clear to me that law is the sort of thing that is endlessly perfectible. At times it seems to me that law is a lot like military strategy. You can try making military strategy the best it can be (maybe you should). But when you get done it's still going to be military strategy. In that context it would be a good thing to have a few people (I volunteer) to be less than completely enthralled by military strategy. The same would go for law. It could be that law is objectionable in important respects because, well ... it's law. From this standpoint it seems odd that someone should feel authorized to say: "You should do X." Legal Thought as Arrogance The belief is that the future of the free world, the maintenance of the rule of law, the welfare of the republic, the liberation of oppressed peoples, the direction of the Court, the legitimacy of the Florida election, hangs on a law professor's next article. This is the esprit serieux gone nuts. The most significant effect of this belief is to arrest thought and end the play of ideas necessary for creativity.Yes, legal interpretation sometimes takes place in a field of pain and death. But that hardly means that legal studies takes place in a field of pain and death. It is a residual objectivism that enables legal academics to believe that when they write about law - what it is or what it should be - they are somehow engaged in the same enterprise as judges. They're not. It is not that legal scholarship is without consequence. It's just that the institutional and rhetorical contexts are sufficiently different that the consequences are different as well. There is an important, indeed foundational, category mistake that sustains American legal thought - it is the supposition that because academics and judges deploy the same vocabulary and the same grammar, they are involved in largely the same enterprise. I just don't think that's true. My own view is that legal academics are but one social group (among many) competing for the articulation of what law is. Judges are another. Social movements, corporations, public interest groups, administrative officials, criminals, etc., are some of the others. For most of the history of the American law school, academics have anointed judges as privileged speakers of law. In turn, legal academics have adopted the habits, forms of thought, and rhetoric of judges - thereby accruing to themselves the authority to say what the law is. Legal academics legitimate their claim to say what the law is by fashioning law as an academic discipline requiring expertise. Legal academics then hold themselves out as possessing this expertise. Among those critical theorists who seek to contest this expertise, one can distinguish two approaches. One approach is to try to reveal the emptiness of the claims to expertise among the legal intelligentsia and to reveal how these claims nonetheless gain power. Another approach is to try to relocate the authority to say what the law is among those who have been excluded. I do not see these approaches as antithetical, but rather as complementary. Furthermore, both approaches will in fact reinscribe, will performatively reinforce, precisely the sort of rhetorics and hierarchies they contest. No way around that. I think critical thinkers all do this - though in different ways. And it's certainly worthwhile pointing out how it is being done. At the same time, no one is safe or immune from this sort of criticism. To learn to laugh at what is taken seriously, but is not serious, is a serious thing to do. To take seriously what is not, is a drag. A Problem for Progressives
 Progressives wish to pursue a politics that is efficacious. This means keeping track both of the social context in which progressivism articulates itself (on the side of the subject), and the social context in [*1038] which progressivism seeks to register its results (on the side of the object). But this work of reconnaissance - a work that is necessary - may bring unwelcome news: namely that progressivism unmodified is no longer a terribly cogent project. Choices will have to be made: to defend progressive thought against this unwelcome news or to put the identity of progressive projects at risk by encountering this unwelcome news. Formalism is virtually an inexorable condition of legal scholarship in the following sense: a legal academic generally writes scholarship outside the social pressures of what a lawyer would call real stakes, real clients, or real consequences. The failure of an argument in the pages of the Stanford Law Review is generally very different from the failure of an argument in a brief or an opinion. The difference in context changes the character and consequences of the acts - even if the authors use exactly the same words. Binary and Not (Insider/Outsider, Immanent/Transcendent, Mind/Body etc. etc. etc.)It's one thing to deploy oppositional binarism to describe the broad structures of a text. It's quite another to adopt binarism as an intellectual lifestyle choice. Oppositional binarism has a special hold/appeal in American law precisely because: 1) law is often identified with what appellate courts say it is; and 2) by the time a case gets to an appellate court, the reductionism of litigation and the binary structure of the adversarial orientation has reduced the dispute to an either/or (e.g., liberty vs. equality or formal equality vs. substantive equality, and so on). But ... Oppositional binarism flounders because law does not have fixed, uncontroversial grids. Hence, for instance, the notion that a person is an insider or an outsider just doesn't track with much of anything (except perhaps the author's own formalism).If one thinks about it, a person is an insider in this respect (he's white) but an outsider in that respect (he's working class) and then an insider with respect to his pedigree (he went to Columbia) but really an outsider within his insider Columbia status because he was profoundly [*1039] alienated from the Columbia social scene and blah blah blah. After a while (very soon, actually) the insider/outsider distinction loses its hold. The point is, unless you happen to have a well-formed, non-overlapping fixed grid (and this would be a very strange thing for a critical theorist to have!), oppositional binarism (like everything else) ultimately collapses. Interestingly, there was a moment of slippage in the history of critical legal studies (or perhaps the fem-crits) when binary oppositionalism slid from a heuristic into (of all things) a metaphysic! The Machines In Keith Aoki's comic strip, the agents of R.E.A.S.O.N. and P.I.E.R.R.E. fight each other in a comically cliched fashion. It is Nick Fury jurisprudence. And there is something strikingly right about that (however humbling it may be for me and others). One of the things that happens in the Nick Fury comic strips (as in Keith Aoki's contribution) is that the antagonists deploy machines against each other. In legal thought, we have a lot of machines in operation. n13 By this I mean that a great deal of so-called legal thought is not really thought at all - but the deployment of a series of rhetorical operations over and over again to perform actions (usually destructive in character) on other peoples' texts or persons. Every argument tends to become a machine. Over time, legal academics tend to become their own arguments. Then, of course, they become their own machines. At that point, it's time to move on.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schlag 3, Antonio 95?

Their method of politics through fiat turns them into actors disengaged from politics and causes ressentiment and nihilism

Antonio 95 Robert, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kansas, “Nietzsche’s Antisociology: Subjectified Culture and the End of History”, Volume 101, No. 1 **we don’t agree with author’s use of ableist language

 

While modern theorists saw differentiated roles and professions as a matrix of autonomy and reflexivity, Nietzsche held that persons (especially male professionals) in specialized occupations overidentify with their positions and engage in gross fabrications to obtain advancement. They look hesitantly to the opinion of others, asking themselves, "How ought I feel about this?" They are so thoroughly absorbed in simulating effective role players that they have trouble being anything but actors-"The role has actually become the character." This highly subjectified social self or simulator suffers devastating inauthenticity. The powerful authority given the social greatly amplifies Socratic culture's already self-indulgent "inwardness." Integrity, decisiveness, spontaneity, and pleasure are undone by paralyzing overconcern about possible causes, meanings, and consequences of acts and unending internal dialogue about what others might think, expect, say, or do (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 83-86; 1986, pp. 39-40; 1974, pp. 302-4, 316-17). Nervous rotation of socially appropriate "masks" reduces persons to hypostatized "shadows," "abstracts," or simulacra. One adopts "many roles," playing them "badly and superficially" in the fashion of a stiff "puppet play." Nietzsche asked, "Are you genuine? Or only an actor? A representative or that which is represented? . . . [Or] no more than an imitation of an actor?" Simulation is so pervasive that it is hard to tell the copy from the genuine article; social selves "prefer the copies to the originals" (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 84-86; 1986, p. 136; 1974, pp. 232- 33, 259; 1969b, pp. 268, 300, 302; 1968a, pp. 26-27). Their inwardness and aleatory scripts foreclose genuine attachment to others. This type of actor cannot plan for the long term or participate in enduring networks of interdependence; such a person is neither willing nor able to be a "stone" in the societal "edifice" (Nietzsche 1974, pp. 302-4; 1986a, pp. 93-94). Pervasive leveling, improvising, and faking foster an inflated sense of ability and an oblivious attitude about the fortuitous circumstances that contribute to role attainment (e.g., class or ethnicity). The most mediocre people believe they can fill any position, even cultural leadership. Nietzsche respected the self-mastery of genuine ascetic priests, like Socrates, and praised their ability to redirect ressentiment creatively and to render the "sick" harmless. But he deeply feared the new simulated versions. Lacking the "born physician's" capacities, these impostors amplify the worst inclinations of the herd; they are "violent, envious, exploitative, scheming, fawning, cringing, arrogant, all according to circumstances. " Social selves are fodder for the "great man of the masses." Nietzsche held that "the less one knows how to command, the more urgently one covets someone who commands, who commands severely- a god, prince, class, physician, father confessor, dogma, or party conscience. The deadly combination of desperate conforming and overreaching and untrammeled ressentiment paves the way for a new type of tyrant (Nietzsche 1986, pp. 137, 168; 1974, pp. 117-18, 213, 288-89, 303-4).

Edited by SagarB123
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which Schlag article is it that talks about coming upon a fork in the road? I believe it was also included in Maury's DnG file. I had thought it was Schlag 03, but maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which Schlag article is it that talks about coming upon a fork in the road? I believe it was also included in Maury's DnG file. I had thought it was Schlag 03, but maybe not.

schlag 91

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which Schlag article is it that talks about coming upon a fork in the road? I believe it was also included in Maury's DnG file. I had thought it was Schlag 03, but maybe not.

 

 

schlag 91

Fork in the Road card

Schlag 91 — Pierre Schlag, Professor of Law at the University of Colorado, 1991 (“Normativity and the Politics of Form,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review (139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 801), April, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis)

           

One question will no doubt recur to the reader throughout this article: "But what should we do?" That question is not going to receive a straightforward answer here, and I would like to explain why at the outset. Suppose that you are walking on a road and you come to a fork. This calls for a decision, for a choice. So you ask your companions: "Which fork should we take? Where should we go?" You all begin to talk about it, to consider the possibilities, to  [*806]  weigh the considerations. Given these circumstances, given this sort of problem, the questions, "Where should we go? What should we do?" are perfectly sensible. 6 But now suppose that it gets dark and the terrain becomes less familiar. You are no longer sure which road you are on or even if you are on a road at all. 7 So you ask, "where are we?" One of your companions says "I don't know -- I think we should just keep going forward." Another one says, "I think we should just go back." Yet another says "No, I think we should go left." Now given the right context, each of these suggestions can be perfectly sensible. But not in this context. Not anymore. On the contrary, you know very well that going forward, backward, left or in any other direction makes no sense unless you happen to know where you are. So, of course, you try to figure out where you are. You look around for telltale signs. You scan the horizon. You try to reconstruct mentally how you got here in the first place. You explore. You even start thinking about how to figure out where you are. Meanwhile, if your companions keep asking "But what should we do? Which road should we take?," you are likely to think that these kinds of questions are not particularly helpful. The questions (Where should we go? Which fork should we take?) that seemed to make so much sense a short time back have now become a hindrance. And if your companions keep up this sort of questioning (Which road should we take? Which way should we go?), you're going to start wondering about how to get them to focus on the new situation, how to get them to drop this "fork in the road" stuff and start using a different metaphor. 8 [*807]  Now one metaphor that recurs throughout this essay is that of the theater. 9 Now, you might reasonably think that it's a bit difficult to get from the "fork in the road" metaphor or normative legal thought to the metaphor of law as theater. But actually, it's not that difficult -- especially not if you understand at the outset that those individuals who keep saying "Where should we go? What should we do?" are themselves already doing a kind of theater. They are engaged in a particular kind of dramatic action appropriate for a particular kind of scene, agon, and actors. They are doing the kind of theater that is particularly appropriate for forks in the road. Now, one problem with normative legal thought is that it is constantly representing our situation as a fork in the road – calling, of course, for a choice, a commitment to this way or that way. Now, you might think: well, this is not so bad. At least we get to choose. We are free and we can choose which way to go. But, of course, we are not free. The rhetorical script of normative legal thought is already written, the social scene is already set and play after play, article after article, year after year, normative legal thought requires you to choose: "What should we do? Where should we go?" We are free, but we must choose -- which is to say that we are not free at all. On the contrary, we (you and I) have been constituted as the kind of beings, the kind of thinkers who compulsively treat every intellectual, social, or legal event as calling for a choice. We must choose. What should we do? Where should we go? These questions are not helpful now. It's time to do a different kind of theater. And the first thing to do is figure out where we are and what we're doing. What we're doing, of course, is normative legal thought.

  • Upvote 3

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...