Jump to content
Nonegfiat

real debaters only

Recommended Posts

Hey I am a varsity policy db8r from the nat circuit. I went to a 7 week camp and... they never even mentioned the fiat DB. i would love if someone could respond to this post with more than just an explanation. If anyone has a paragraph or so that I can use in the 2AR to flesh it out, that would be awesome. I am having trouble winning against K's this year. I need to start beating NEOLIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I am a varsity policy db8r from the nat circuit. I went to a 7 week camp and... they never even mentioned the fiat DB. i would love if someone could respond to this post with more than just an explanation. If anyone has a paragraph or so that I can use in the 2AR to flesh it out, that would be awesome. I am having trouble winning against K's this year. I need to start beating NEOLIB

A good way to beat K's is by learning and understanding the lit. I would start off and read some of Henry Giroux's work, he's an ok neolib author to read but it provides a base to build on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PF is the epitome of Fake Debate. My high school only did PF, and i eventually converted to Policy, starting my own program, because I couldn't stand it anymore.

I really don't know why they switched, I hate PF with a passion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I am a varsity policy db8r from the nat circuit. I went to a 7 week camp and... they never even mentioned the fiat DB. i would love if someone could respond to this post with more than just an explanation. If anyone has a paragraph or so that I can use in the 2AR to flesh it out, that would be awesome. I am having trouble winning against K's this year. I need to start beating NEOLIB

Okay memes aside fiat double bind is a bad argument.

 

The text of the arg is in my signature, it basically says either your harms are fake and you should lose because they're fake or they're real and you can't solve because "fiat isn't real".

 

Just answer it with any reason why discussion of the aff is good. In my opinion "fiat isn't real" is one of the dumbest arguments in debate. No one thinks we can magically enact policy by signing the ballot aff, as these arguments seem to presume. Here is a block I've used before:

 

No one believes we are the federal government however we think there are productive and advantageous benefits from debating in a fiat paradigm where we model debates off of if the government were to pass out plan. There are portable skills like evaluating opportunity costs and understanding how government policies impact populations around the world. Fiat models of debate are good for education, research and make us better advocates for change outside of the room.

 

The impacts are

 

a. Critical thinking – examining the plan on different levels promotes a culture of intense scrutiny in debate, which promotes analytical examination in the real world

b.. Policymaking – weighing competitive policies is key to decision-making and political activism

cleardot.gif
 
Buuuuuuut you should really write your own block. That will help you understand the argument better and it will be more academically honest (for what that's worth when it comes to theory blocks). The reason I provide it is to give you a decent framework for understanding the argument.
 
As for beating neolib, I almost always go for impact turns. Also, neolib is a deeply ingrained and immensely complicated structure that their alt almost definitely cannot solve. Permutations are always nice, but people have massive perm blocks ready to unload in the block so I usually have an easier time just beating the K straight up.
 
Oh yeah, and consequentialist framework. Specifically, hold them to envisioning and defending an alternative system to neoliberalism. Do they advocate just tearing down the current system and seeing where people end up? That sounds violent, and there's lots of good evidence out there about these so-called "transition wars". If the alternative is communism, that's pretty easy to impact turn.
 
Just some thoughts based on what's worked for me. Not an end-all-be-all set of instructions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it's become trendy to hate on the fiat double bind, but I'm pretty sure I can still out debate anyone in the country on it. Sadly, it's been gravely misunderstood by so many people that folks have a (quite reasonably) bad interpretation, but at its core it just points out the gap between traditional authorship and debate authorship. Damn shame. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it's become trendy to hate on the fiat double bind, but I'm pretty sure I can still out debate anyone in the country on it. Sadly, it's been gravely misunderstood by so many people that folks have a (quite reasonably) bad interpretation, but at its core it just points out the gap between traditional authorship and debate authorship. Damn shame.

 

Sorry to hate on your argument; I’m sure you would destroy me on it. But what do you mean it points out the gap between traditional authorship and debate authorship? You mean the gap between what our individual authors argue and what we use them for in an internal link chain, ie not one of our authors would agree with the overall argument of an advantage? If that’s the case I don’t understand how it’s relevant that we don’t “control the levers of power”. That just never seems like a relevant question in debate because we obviously don’t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hate on your argument; I’m sure you would destroy me on it. But what do you mean it points out the gap between traditional authorship and debate authorship? You mean the gap between what our individual authors argue and what we use them for in an internal link chain, ie not one of our authors would agree with the overall argument of an advantage? If that’s the case I don’t understand how it’s relevant that we don’t “control the levers of power”. That just never seems like a relevant question in debate because we obviously don’t

Our authors don't assume the context of debate and debate doesn't assume the context of reality. Both texts exist in alternate realities with 0 overlap. Those who legitimately claim a risk of extinction truly believe in it. We do not and cannot even begin to fathom belief, because belief is morally anathema to our standpoint epistemology. Our cited authors think these threats are very real. But they're not, and they never were. It never even could have been real. It makes more sense if you think about this in terms of multi-world theory: in every world in which those authors are right, and extinction does occur, no amount of advocating the plan could have ever mattered. And in every world in which they are wrong and things turn out fine, we had wasted our time obsessing over the plan. If the text of the 1AC is correct, then we have to confront it from multiple worlds (i.e. "percentage risk") and every single instance of extinction is a pointless world to consider. Thus, we should debate about the plan without those worlds because it's better for education, for advocacy skills, and it reduces the risk of trafficking in bad policies on the back of existential threat. The final trick of the fiat double bind, and why it's a double bind, is that you pick one half in the block. Where people go wrong is they just keep the dialectical tension instead of collapsing to the floating pik (which incidentally is what me and rothenbaum did my senior year, and is why we only lost on this argument twice in the whole season). 

 

Also worth noting for the record that I probably didn't "invent" this argument, but I did give it a name and definitely popularized it. Still, I'm indebted to Edmund Zagorin and John Cook for their thoughtful contributions. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed that the probabilistic element is vital to understanding the fiat double bind argument, but the multiversal framing is misleading because it smuggles an unargued for quantum immortality implication into the round (not that that's a bad thing if you're trying to win as negative). The best way for the affirmative to think about it is that learning about extinction risks can help us in the event that we get lucky once. If the affirmative acknowledges that good judgment still encounters stochastic failures, they can argue their education and politics both are beneficial. The double bind argument also uses an all-or-nothing framing that ignores that there are multiple ways in which a conjunctive chain of threat can break down, some possibilities of which are more harmless than others, and that learning about some stages may be valid even if others are invalid. For example, perhaps warming will only kill millions rather than everyone on the planet, or perhaps warming can be adapted to so that it will have very little impact at all. Almost all of the facts relevant to learning about warming as existential threat will remain important in that scenario. Teams reading the double bind argument generally round off all incorrect arguments to "epistemologically bankrupt" ones, and this is not a good way to think about prediction.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm woke as fuck rn

 

Our authors don't assume the context of debate and debate doesn't assume the context of reality. Both texts exist in alternate realities with 0 overlap. Those who legitimately claim a risk of extinction truly believe in it. We do not and cannot even begin to fathom belief, because belief is morally anathema to our standpoint epistemology. Our cited authors think these threats are very real. But they're not, and they never were. It never even could have been real. It makes more sense if you think about this in terms of multi-world theory: in every world in which those authors are right, and extinction does occur, no amount of advocating the plan could have ever mattered. And in every world in which they are wrong and things turn out fine, we had wasted our time obsessing over the plan. If the text of the 1AC is correct, then we have to confront it from multiple worlds (i.e. "percentage risk") and every single instance of extinction is a pointless world to consider. Thus, we should debate about the plan without those worlds because it's better for education, for advocacy skills, and it reduces the risk of trafficking in bad policies on the back of existential threat. The final trick of the fiat double bind, and why it's a double bind, is that you pick one half in the block. Where people go wrong is they just keep the dialectical tension instead of collapsing to the floating pik (which incidentally is what me and rothenbaum did my senior year, and is why we only lost on this argument twice in the whole season). 

 

Also worth noting for the record that I probably didn't "invent" this argument, but I did give it a name and definitely popularized it. Still, I'm indebted to Edmund Zagorin and John Cook for their thoughtful contributions. 

 

Agreed that the probabilistic element is vital to understanding the fiat double bind argument, but the multiversal framing is misleading because it smuggles an unargued for quantum immortality implication into the round (not that that's a bad thing if you're trying to win as negative). The best way for the affirmative to think about it is that learning about extinction risks can help us in the event that we get lucky once. If the affirmative acknowledges that good judgment still encounters stochastic failures, they can argue their education and politics both are beneficial. The double bind argument also uses an all-or-nothing framing that ignores that there are multiple ways in which a conjunctive chain of threat can break down, some possibilities of which are more harmless than others, and that learning about some stages may be valid even if others are invalid. For example, perhaps warming will only kill millions rather than everyone on the planet, or perhaps warming can be adapted to so that it will have very little impact at all. Almost all of the facts relevant to learning about warming as existential threat will remain important in that scenario. Teams reading the double bind argument generally round off all incorrect arguments to "epistemologically bankrupt" ones, and this is not a good way to think about prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand why imminent extinction makes debate worthless. Suppose the Affirmative authors are definitely correct and their epistemology is sound: unless we fund education, the hegemonic decline of the U.S. will tear open a power vacuum, producing endless warfare consuming all of humanity. The inability to solve that problem shouldn't make it illegitimate to observe it and discuss it.

 

Take, for example, an Affirmative that doesn't claim an extinction impact. It's just, "fund education so that kids can learn more and get better jobs." Are my authors correct? Probably. Maybe not. If nothing else, I'm not being an alarmist. And, will voting Affirmative cause the plan to happen? No, probably not. Regardless of either one, it's just a debate about hypothetical solutions to real problems.

 

Whatever it is that's valuable about debate (education, "politics," whatever) why does that go away in a world of inevitable extinction? Why do those things even have to be present in order for the Affirmative to win? If I present a problem (the world is going to explode) and a solution (we should fix our hegemony) in a valid way, it doesn't matter if that solution will never be used. I've still won the debate. I've made a correct argument and proven the validity of the resolution.

Edited by TheSnowball
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand why imminent extinction makes debate worthless

...

Whatever it is that's valuable about debate (education, "politics," whatever) why does that go away in a world of inevitable extinction? Why do those things even have to be present in order for the Affirmative to win? If I present a problem (the world is going to explode) and a solution (we should fix our hegemony) in a valid way, it doesn't matter if that solution will never be used. I've still won the debate. I've made a correct argument and proven the validity of the resolution.

 

well it supports a framework that excludes plan focus in favor of reflecting on subjectivity/relationship to death. if the fiat double bind is paired with a fear of death k, then it becomes particularly strategic imo (like how south eugene reads this arg)

 

if we're all going to inevitably die soon as per the truth claims of the 1ac, then what is the value to the education from plan-focus debate, especially if we'll all be dead before we can deploy said portable skills in any meaningful way? inevitable extinction means that the most relevant impact is our relationship to death, i.e. refusing to fear death and maximizing VTL until our inevitable demise instead of investing in the future accumulation of knowledge, skills, etc. and wasting our energies trying to stave off existential threats because those pursuits are futile and can only inculcate ressentiment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well it supports a framework that excludes plan focus in favor of reflecting on subjectivity/relationship to death. if the fiat double bind is paired with a fear of death k, then it becomes particularly strategic imo (like how south eugene reads this arg)

 

if we're all going to inevitably die soon as per the truth claims of the 1ac, then what is the value to the education from plan-focus debate, especially if we'll all be dead before we can deploy said portable skills in any meaningful way? inevitable extinction means that the most relevant impact is our relationship to death, i.e. refusing to fear death and maximizing VTL until our inevitable demise instead of investing in the future accumulation of knowledge, skills, etc. and wasting our energies trying to stave off existential threats because those pursuits are futile and can only inculcate ressentiment

If the premise of the fear of death K is that death is ultimately inevitable, why is it any better to learn about politics in a world without imminent nuclear war than one with one?

 

And, why is reflection on death mutually exclusive with proving the resolution to be true despite the fact that everyone will soon die?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can i have card that states "education spending raises interest rates"?

I'm assuming that you mean to post this on the daily card thread.

 

Also, is there anything you're looking for that isn't covered in the interest rates DA on Open Evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread started as an innocent meme. Then it turned into me getting my ass roasted over fiat double bind. And now, it's reached the ultimate low point of any cross x thread-- random people asking for evidence

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, it's become trendy to hate on the fiat double bind, but I'm pretty sure I can still out debate anyone in the country on it. Sadly, it's been gravely misunderstood by so many people that folks have a (quite reasonably) bad interpretation, but at its core it just points out the gap between traditional authorship and debate authorship. Damn shame.

 

lowkey wanna see this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our authors don't assume the context of debate and debate doesn't assume the context of reality. Both texts exist in alternate realities with 0 overlap. Those who legitimately claim a risk of extinction truly believe in it. We do not and cannot even begin to fathom belief, because belief is morally anathema to our standpoint epistemology. Our cited authors think these threats are very real. But they're not, and they never were. It never even could have been real. It makes more sense if you think about this in terms of multi-world theory: in every world in which those authors are right, and extinction does occur, no amount of advocating the plan could have ever mattered. And in every world in which they are wrong and things turn out fine, we had wasted our time obsessing over the plan. If the text of the 1AC is correct, then we have to confront it from multiple worlds (i.e. "percentage risk") and every single instance of extinction is a pointless world to consider. Thus, we should debate about the plan without those worlds because it's better for education, for advocacy skills, and it reduces the risk of trafficking in bad policies on the back of existential threat. The final trick of the fiat double bind, and why it's a double bind, is that you pick one half in the block. Where people go wrong is they just keep the dialectical tension instead of collapsing to the floating pik (which incidentally is what me and rothenbaum did my senior year, and is why we only lost on this argument twice in the whole season). 

 

Also worth noting for the record that I probably didn't "invent" this argument, but I did give it a name and definitely popularized it. Still, I'm indebted to Edmund Zagorin and John Cook for their thoughtful contributions. 

Do you have any videos of you (or anyone else) going for this?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have any videos of you (or anyone else) going for this?

I have 1-2 videos but have no interest in making them public. No amount of PMs will change that decision.

 

That being said, this is the kind of thing we train people in at the Digital Debate Camp...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 1-2 videos but have no interest in making them public. No amount of PMs will change that decision.

 

That being said, this is the kind of thing we train people in at the Digital Debate Camp...

What else is the digital debate camp known for training kids in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What else is the digital debate camp known for training kids in?

We do all the normal stuff you'd expect from a debate camp - introduction to various arguments, advancing your in-round skills, research, theory, argument development, etc. - but what we do differently than everyone else is provide tons of office hours where you can solicit advice from a coach about whatever interests you. I've had students develop all sorts of cool, interesting, and unique positions by meeting with me 2-3 times a week. In that sense we're a bit laissez faire: you put in whatever time you want with whatever instructors you want, and you consume whatever lecture content interests you. I've had students put in 50+ hours a week, and others who sign up and are never seen nor heard from again. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the premise of the fear of death K is that death is ultimately inevitable, why is it any better to learn about politics in a world without imminent nuclear war than one with one?

 

And, why is reflection on death mutually exclusive with proving the resolution to be true despite the fact that everyone will soon die?

 

Answer to question 1: If we're dying in 2 years then who cares if we learn about gov

 

Answer to question 2: Alt isn't relflection on death -- its to not think of death the way you do -- if you do the mindset of the alt then it severs discourse and makes the perm have no net benefit because your impact is no longer bad.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer to question 1: If we're dying in 2 years then who cares if we learn about gov

 

Answer to question 2: Alt isn't relflection on death -- its to not think of death the way you do -- if you do the mindset of the alt then it severs discourse and makes the perm have no net benefit because your impact is no longer bad.

Thanks for responding to that. I had to read this whole thread to remind myself of the context.

 

For 1, why do anything if death is inevitable? What do we do in the alt? Just try to maximize VTL or fun? Why can't I do that by going to debate tournaments?

If the Affirmative isn't saying "we expect/demand/hope that the USFG will act" but merely that "here's the impact, supposing the USFG did act, it'd solve that problem," why is that a fear of death rather than a mere epistemological observation in favor of the resolution?

 

2, I get the severance stuff, but what does it mean to not think of death that way? How are we supposed to think about life and death, and how does that differ from a "reconsideration"?

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...