Fiat – the magic wand of debate
Fiat is a term that is often used in debates and I wanted to go over some basics.
Fiat is a term which means “let it be.” In debate, its come to represent the idea that debates should revolve around the “should” question instead of the “could” question. So rather than asking, could the US federal government reform transportation infrastructure in this way, we ask, should the US federal government, if it could, reform transportation infrastructure in this way?
It moves the debate to the land of potential consequences. We get to include in our discussions potential benefits of adopting the plan versus potential costs of adopting the plan.
In policy debates, negative teams could make the argument every round that while the Aff plan “sounds good,” there’s no way it would ever happen so they should lose.
On the other hand, if first had to debate the ‘could’ part of the equation, this would make debate rounds pretty boring as we would always be bogged in the “how” question. The Neg would probably win almost every debate by arguing a senator will fillibuster the plan. You would probably have to spend a considerable amount of time in your 1AC explaining all the details rather than arguing the other stock issues.
Basically, people believe if Aff had to prove their plan could actually happen it would limit what rounds covered to where debate would no longer be much fun.
There are some reasonable limitations on fiat. You can only fiat a plan action that is directly related to the resolution. The resolution is what draws the line around the fiat powers of the affirmative. Essentially, through fiat, you are given the ability to pass your plan through the US federal government. It’s on the books.
You cannot, however, fiat your plan solving your harms. Would passing the STA Act improve infrastructure? Maybe – that’s up for debate. With fiat, we assume the STA Act passes. Now we get to debate consequences. If the affirmative could fiat solvency, the STA Act will, by fiat, solve all our transportation problems, then we enable the affirmative to win every debate. Instead, for fairness to both sides, we limit the powers of fiat to the plan action itself.
Want to run build high speed rail? OK – your plan is in effect. Now debate if high speed rail will actually improve our economy, reduce pollution, etc. The negative then argue if we adopted the plan to build high speed rail, here are the negative consequences.
Interestingly, the NFA-LD rules do not include the word fiat. It does say that the affirmative must prove
the proposed plan’s ability to solve the harm or achieve the advantage or goal claimed by affirmative.
as such, you could easily make the argument that the NFA-LD rules assume fiat because the affirmative’s job is to defend the plan’s ability to solve – not the plan’s ability to actually pass.
One justification for using fiat in debates is that before we even get to the could question it is imperative we debate the should question. For example, with high speed rail, it is beneficial in our country to engage the should question before the federal government attempts to pass high speed rail. Let’s explore the benefits and costs of high speed rail first, and then, if it seems to make sense, engage the could question.
As we have discussed previously on the funding position, I do not think the affirmative can fiat away funding implications of the plan. If your plan is going to cost billions you have to deal with the consequences of spending that much money. However, rather than argue “there is no money to do your plan” the debate revolves around the question “what happens if we spend all this money we do not have.” That’s is the funding disadvantage.
I do not see fiat as being a mechanism to assume the affirmative debater has become the federal government or anything like that. Nor is the judge magically the Congress + President and with the ballot enacts the plan. That’s silly.
Instead, it enables us to have a discussion and debate on potential consequences of policies rather than the possibilities of policies. Voting “affirmative” does not actually cause the plan to pass and I think debaters would be wise to drop that rhetoric from their speeches. Voting affirmative is a vote that the affirmative has met their stock issues and proven the desirability of their plan in light of the negative arguments – that’s it.
Here are some other resources on the web:
- Wikipedia
- Great lecture from Dr. Trapp
- Discussion of fiat and critiques
- List of analytic arguments against fiat
Your thoughts on fiat?
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
It is ironic, I suppose, that “fiat” is a four-letter word beginning with “f.”
All the fuss and fury over “fiat” is a classic example of the Debate Community’s incredible capacity to overthink a very simple concept. “Fiat” is a judicial fiction that exists ONLY to clarify the concept that, in a policy debate, “should” means “ought to, not necessarily will.” (The Plan/CP should be viewed objectively, “on its academic merits,” and not on the basis of its political expediency.)
Thus, for “purposes of debate” – literally – the debaters and judge assume that the Plan will be ENACTED exactly as the Affirmative proposes… period… no more, no less. (Except in CP rounds where both sides can rely upon “fiat” to assume that the competing plans will be ENACTED.)
Fiat does NOT extend to issues of solvency, workability, and/or disadvantages. Fiat allows the P/CP to be put – temporarily and hypothetically – on the statute books (and perhaps in the U.S. and/or State Constitutions) for purposes of test by argumentation by the competing advocates in the crucible of that single debate round. It cannot be legitmately invoked to defend the policy MERITS of either a P or CP.
Finally, addressing the 800-ton Gorilla: the “political” consequences of a P or CP are irrelevant in a debate UNLESS evidence is submitted specifically LINKING a particular P or CP to a particular political group or politician. For example, the STA of 2009 could be linked to Representative Oberstar and, by implication, possibly the Democratic Party. By contrast, just saying a P will be blamed on Obama (or whoever) simply because it is to be enacted at the time Obama is President is intellectually bankrupt.
it’s ok Nick – you can run A-Spec as much as you want. I was just saying that it would be more fun to talk about fiat then 3 t’s and an A-Spec in 1 round…
We just need to wait for Dr. Kasle to make her joke about what I like to run now.
I enjoy pre fiat implications. “HOW DARE YOU! YOU CAPITALIST PIG!!!” Hey Swanson, lets put a line through the plan text. There is no room for logocentric exclusionists! Hence I erasure you! lol
No joke – I had to dust of my erasure file with 13 carded responses and 7 analytics on erasure making the world go round!
Besides Capitalists are not pigs – pigs take care of their own…
Capitalists are more like lionesses who kill the offspring of other lionesses to protect the primacy of their young!
What happened to the idea that lincoln douglas debate is supposed to be a Value based debate.
In high school I thought the idea that there could be such a thing as a value debate made no sence, but now I understand the idea that there is a more philosophical political world that works only off of suggestion of a plan. Then the debate goes over whether that value(s) behind accepting that suggestion are more effective than the value(s) against it.
without a value argument, there would be no such thing as presidential propaganda. It can be very moving, and allows for a smooth speaker style delivery in debate rather than a speedy one. I wish that someone would make parlimentary policy based, and lincoln douglas value based, and then make a type of debate that is fact based. The “trichotemy”, confused me to no end in my first year of college debate,
as well as the idea that someone could fiat a lincoln douglas resolution, and set the criteria as net benefits.
I would like to know why the college debate community works in the ways mentioned above, because I think it would help me clear some confusion.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I can already see all these people running “Fiat Bad” at APU now…
Although, I would rather someone read fiat bad then 3 T’s and A-Spec though.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, I know what you are going to say… “if I just ran a topical aff it wouldn’t be a problem.” Who wants to be topical anyways?