Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
This answer comes from Breaking Down Barriers: How to Debate 1996 (Edition 3)
What gives the negative the right to fiat a counterplan and what kinds of counterplans are they allowed to run? What kinds of plans can an affirmative fiat into action? The answer to these questions depends on the kind of fiat allowed in a debate. In this section, I discuss different kinds of fiat.
Institutional Fiat
Probably the most commonly held interpretation of fiat is "institutional fiat." This view of fiat argues that any existing institution or group can implement a proposal. As long as a team can document that this group can carry through with a proposal, then they should be able to support that proposal. Opponents of this position argue that it allows too much abuse including teams who present socialist counterplans advocated by socialists who make overstated claims that "socialism is coming" and "we can have socialism in days in this country." However, institutional fiat supporters argue that such claims can be attacked for their overstatement and that unusual positions should be given a voice in debates.
"Negative has no Fiat"
This view of fiat is held by very few people and most judges reject it. However, some people believe that the resolution gives only the affirmative fiat power. They argue that the resolution is the source of fiat power and that the resolution states what the affirmative can and should do. The resolution does not state the negative can or should do anything. For example, the resolution, "Resolved: That the federal government should act to reduce terrorism" states only that the affirmative should fiat government action to reduce terrorism-it makes no such statement to the negative. The problem with this view is that the negative needs to oppose the affirmative and to do that, they can and should be able to argue that an alternative action would be superior. For example state or United Nations action to reduce terrorism should be used proving that the federal action in the resolution is a bad idea.
Reciprocal Fiat
A common view is that teams have equal fiat power. In this view, the negative has the same fiat power that the affirmative has. The affirmative has the right to fiat a plan so the negative can argue that it likewise has the right to fiat a counterplan to prove that the resolution or the affirmative case is a bad idea. If the affirmative gets the right to fiat, then so does the negative. What "reciprocal fiat" means depends on the debate. If the affirmative says any government action is fiatable, then the negative can say the same thing.
Resolutional Agent Fiat
This view argues that only the agent stated in the resolution can fiat action. This means that if the topic says "the United States should . . ." then the affirmative and negative can only fiat United States action. Opponents argue that this narrows the debate too much and ignores that other nations can contribute to solving problems just as much as the United States, not to mention the fact that if the negative can show Canada should act to solve a problem instead of the United States, then this is a reason to reject United States action. Supporters of Resolutional Agent Fiat argue that giving the negative the ability to fiat any group outside of the Resolutional one is too burdensome to the affirmative since there are hundreds of different nations, groups, states, etc.
Utopian-End-State Fiat
Another view of fiat is that a team can fiat anything including people's attitudes and actions. This view argues that we should argue about what people should do, not just what governments do. Opponents of this view argue that this is imaginary, that groups of people do not suddenly become "happy" or "peaceful." Utopian fiat supporters respond that legislators do not suddenly change their mind either and vote for proposals. However, there are still two problems with utopian views of fiat. First, such a view of fiat makes debate virtually useless. If a team can fiat that people are happy-why even debate? Just present your case that people should be happy. Why argue about it, after all who is against people being happy? Second, utopian fiat ignores how things could occur. It is true that legislators rarely "change" their minds suddenly. However, if they were to do this, we could look at the consequences of that real action of people voting for such a proposal. We can't look at the consequences of everyone having a "peace" mindset because no such thing has ever occurred, at least not without some precipitating factor causing the peace mindset.
"Object" Fiat
Some argue that teams have "object" fiat. What is object fiat? Well, to understand object fiat, you need to look at two key parts of a resolution or a case, the subject (the main actor) and the object (the thing being acted on). For example, in a case that has the United States encourage China to change its human rights practices, the United States is the Subject and China is the Object. The two teams can certainly fiat the subject United States (unless you have a very restrictive view of fiat). However, can you fiat the object China? If you can, the negative could just fiat that China will improve its human rights practices. Many would argue that this is abusive and destroys the debate because the negative just fiats away the affirmative advantage as well as the debate. Advocates of Object fiat say that the debate is not over, rather the debate must focus on whether it is right or wrong for the United States to pressure rather than China acting on its own.
Single Actor Fiat
Can a team fiat more than one institution? Good
question because this is disputed in rounds where one team tries
to fiat multiple groups. For example, can the negative really
fiat that all 50 states implement the affirmative plan instead of
the federal government? Some argue that this is abusive and
unrealistic since 50 states never enact the same legislation (let
alone legislation on the same issue). Those who support multiple
actor fiat argue that teams should be able to offer alternatives
to the affirmative actor including groupings of various
governments or organizations.
Thanks to Ryan Sheffield for asking this question.