Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yeah if you want. It's a little abusive in that it's international fiat. But it is answerable:

Stuff like good for neg flex, real world, better model, and role-playing good. Also stuff that the neg's job is to disprove the aff, and it doesn't really matter how the neg gets there.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

International Fiat – Good

 

 

1. Tests the affirmative – they need to be able to defend the entirety of the plan

 

2. Best for critical thinking – forcing them to debate on specific parts of the plan makes them prepare more detailed and educational answers

 

3. International education – allows for education about international actors rather than simply the USFG

 

4. It’s not utopian/object fiat - other countries often invest in things like the plan, it tests the plan’s desirability

 

5. It is reciprocal – the USFG is made up of thousands of different actors, there’s no reason why we can’t fiat that many as well.

 

6. Err Neg on theory – the aff gets infinite prep, first and last speech, and get to set the ground with the 1AC

 

7. Checks new affs – generics are key to a debate against the infinite number of plans that are possible

 

8 Not a voting issue – reject the argument not the team.

 

9 Key test of USFG in the resolution-key to reciprocity due to inherent aff advantages like first and last speech.

 

C/I---the negative gets one cohesive actor that currently engages the affirmative’s country in the status quo - solves your predictability claims Defense: a) Real world is arbitrary ---the judge doesn’t have to be a USFG lawmaker---they just need to decide what the best option is - a decision-maker can always say it is best if someone else does the decision

 

B) Search for the best policy option - debate is about clash over the best policy option for a decision-maker.  That search gets gutted if we put artificial constraints on it, such as not testing the actor.

Edited by stephaniRhodes
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) International fiat (IF) =/= object fiat. Object fiat is "fiating" the object[ive] of the resolution. Like on the college warming topic it would be fiating that warming stops.

2) International fiat is bad for limits by drastically expanding the number of potential actors on the table which in turn exponentially multiplies the number of potentially responsive CP's. Fiating China is especially bad for the aff on an engagement topic (what if someone pops you with a 'China should do the plan to the US' style CP?). In this case the argument that the 'aff should be prepared' isn't responsive because it begs the question of limits in the first place. 

An immediate counter argument is that Adv CP's have the same problem. Three potential responses

- i) Non-sequiter -- this is a question of the legitimacy of IF =/= the question over the legitimacy of Adv CP's (ie 2 wrongs don't make a right)

- ii) It's a question of the number of viable responses to the 1AC in the form of a CP that matter. While the neg could fiat almost an infinite number of potential US actions, a relatively low percentage of them can withstand the perm. Allowing international actors is different because it drastically increases the number of potential CP's that could survive to the 2NR because of the amount of interested parties. Take basically any country making a claim to the SCS and all their different options as a starting point. 

- iii) It's generally easier to attack the solvency of/mitigate the NB to an ADV CP than an IF CP. It's probably easier to come up with analytics or have cards sitting in a backfile somewhere (or hell, with a good aff it's in your 1AC solvency ev) that things like, say, domestic warming prevention won't solve (IE we need China). However, it's far more unlikely that aff's would have or be able to quickly generate a good answer to some random facet of Chinese policy. 

- iv) Depending on the way you do the IF CP, it could basically be an Actor CP, which is more or less a PIK. 

 

3) This (the below) is a terrible theory block. You want fewer arguments that are well developed, not blippy args the judge can't write down, let alone find the time to care about 

 

International Fiat – Good

 

 

1. Tests the affirmative – they need to be able to defend the entirety of the plan

Which IF circumvents -- this doesn't test the plan because you haven't provided a reason why it's bad. This is also too generic. Any CP can be tied to an attack on the "necessity of the aff" argument, so you haven't provided a reason why IF is good and necessary (ironically). 

 

2. Best for critical thinking – forcing them to debate on specific parts of the plan makes them prepare more detailed and educational answers

This isn't debating specific parts of the plan at all, because the plan doesn't happen in the world of the CP -- also begs the question of limits. Also super generic again and not a reason why IF is good.

 

3. International education – allows for education about international actors rather than simply the USFG

Topic solves. You might have better luck with this argument on a domestic topic. You also need a reason why this education is 1) is more desirable than education gained by other potential types of CP, and 2) able to exist in a world "without fairness" (the aff's obvious response). 

 

4. It’s not utopian/object fiat - other countries often invest in things like the plan, it tests the plan’s desirability

This isn't responsive to a realistic objection made to IF. 

 

5. It is reciprocal – the USFG is made up of thousands of different actors, there’s no reason why we can’t fiat that many as well.

Doesn't really make sense. No one actually debates about the thousands of actors in the USFG, and 98.5 percent of debaters don't want to (else ASPEC wouldn't be a joke in the community). 

 

6. Err Neg on theory – the aff gets infinite prep, first and last speech, and get to set the ground with the 1AC

This needs to be tied to the 'reject the arg not the team' issue, or else it just becomes a "position olympics" about whether being the neg or the aff is worse with no way to resolve the argument for the judge. 

 

7. Checks new affs – generics are key to a debate against the infinite number of plans that are possible

This isn't a justification of why IF is good, which means this argument is bad. Theory needs to be specific. XO CP/PTX/etc. all "solve" this theory arg. 

 

8 Not a voting issue – reject the argument not the team.

Needs a warrant. 

 

9 Key test of USFG in the resolution-key to reciprocity due to inherent aff advantages like first and last speech.

You haven't provided a reason why testing USFG is good. For one, the first and last speech is already "balanced" by the block -- that was an intentional choice when designing the structure of policy debate. 

Second, you haven't given a reason why testing the USFG is a good way to test the "1st and last speech advantage" -- again, this gets to the "generic" problem of theory.

 

C/I---the negative gets one cohesive actor that currently engages the affirmative’s country in the status quo - solves your predictability claims Defense: a) Real world is arbitrary ---the judge doesn’t have to be a USFG lawmaker---they just need to decide what the best option is - a decision-maker can always say it is best if someone else does the decision

Real world is arbitrary takes out your next argument about the best policy option. If the judge isn't a lawmaker then why should they care about finding the best option. Instead they are adjudicating debate as a game, which means you default to preventing abuse. 

You have also failed to provide a reason why finding the best policy option is a desirable paradigm for debate. 

 

B) Search for the best policy option - debate is about clash over the best policy option for a decision-maker.  That search gets gutted if we put artificial constraints on it, such as not testing the actor.

Haven't said why this search is good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) International fiat (IF) =/= object fiat. Object fiat is "fiating" the object[ive] of the resolution. Like on the college warming topic it would be fiating that warming stops.

2) International fiat is bad for limits by drastically expanding the number of potential actors on the table which in turn exponentially multiplies the number of potentially responsive CP's. Fiating China is especially bad for the aff on an engagement topic (what if someone pops you with a 'China should do the plan to the US' style CP?). In this case the argument that the 'aff should be prepared' isn't responsive because it begs the question of limits in the first place. 

An immediate counter argument is that Adv CP's have the same problem. Three potential responses

- i) Non-sequiter -- this is a question of the legitimacy of IF =/= the question over the legitimacy of Adv CP's (ie 2 wrongs don't make a right)

- ii) It's a question of the number of viable responses to the 1AC in the form of a CP that matter. While the neg could fiat almost an infinite number of potential US actions, a relatively low percentage of them can withstand the perm. Allowing international actors is different because it drastically increases the number of potential CP's that could survive to the 2NR because of the amount of interested parties. Take basically any country making a claim to the SCS and all their different options as a starting point. 

- iii) It's generally easier to attack the solvency of/mitigate the NB to an ADV CP than an IF CP. It's probably easier to come up with analytics or have cards sitting in a backfile somewhere (or hell, with a good aff it's in your 1AC solvency ev) that things like, say, domestic warming prevention won't solve (IE we need China). However, it's far more unlikely that aff's would have or be able to quickly generate a good answer to some random facet of Chinese policy. 

- iv) Depending on the way you do the IF CP, it could basically be an Actor CP, which is more or less a PIK. 

 

3) This (the below) is a terrible theory block. You want fewer arguments that are well developed, not blippy args the judge can't write down, let alone find the time to care about 

It wasn't a theory block? It was just a quick list of ideas to give OP a sense of some possible arguments to expand on to write blocks for the future, should they choose to pursue an international fiat argument. Never advocated international fiat was good, just ideas if the OP wants to run them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So say Aff pressures China to do something and they say that it results in the plan

 

if cp says just have China do the thing, is that object fiat? Or just international? I'm a bit confused about the what the definition of object fiat is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So say Aff pressures China to do something and they say that it results in the plan

 

if cp says just have China do the thing, is that object fiat? Or just international? I'm a bit confused about the what the definition of object fiat is.

 

My understanding of object fiat (at least, in the context of the theory you'd hear) is fiatting away an advantage. So, if the plan offers a QPQ to get China to stop the production of ASATs and claims a space war advantage, a CP which says "China stops producing ASATs" would be object fiat. Even if you could spin it as just international fiat though, it's really easy to see the abuse story from the aff and it would be tough to justify that CP on theory

Edited by PailAmbrose
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×