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.

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!

We just need to wait for Dr. Kasle to make her joke about what I like to run now.

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.

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?