|
Fiat (Latin for "let it be done") is a theoretical construct in policy debate—derived from the word ''should'' in the resolution—whereby the substance of the resolution is debated, rather than the political feasibility of enactment and enforcement of a given plan, allowing an affirmative team to "imagine" a plan into being. For example: a student at a high school debate argues that increases in United States support of United Nations peacekeeping may help to render the United States more multilateral. Such an increase is very unlikely to occur from the debate judge voting affirmative, but fiat allows the student to side-step this practicality, and argue on the substance of the idea, as if it could be immediately enacted. There are different theories regarding fiat: "Normal Means"—Going through the same political process comparable with normal legislative processes. There is no overarching, accepted definition of the legislative pathways which constitute "normal means," but clarification about what an affirmative team regards as "normal means" can be obtained as part of cross-examination by the negative team. "Infinite" or "Durable" Fiat — the degree to which an imagined, or "fiated," action is considered permanent. In many policy debates, debaters argue about the reversibility "fiated" actions. For example, in a debate about whether the United States Federal Government should implement new regulations designed to reduce climate change, a Negative team might argue that regulations would be repealed if the Republican Party gained control of the Presidency or Congress. Various interpretations of fiats have been constructed in order to promote more realistic policy debates. == Pre-fiat and post-fiat arguments == There are generally two types of negative arguments that can be made during a debate: ''pre-fiat'' and ''post-fiat''. ''Pre-fiat'' arguments are arguments that relate to in-round issues. Examples include: abuse topicality arguments (the affirmative is not within the resolution, therefore preventing the negative from running an argument they would have otherwise been able to run) and language kritiks (kritiks condemning the affirmative for using inappropriate or dangerous language). The team making a pre-fiat argument will argue that the pre-fiat argument should be evaluated before any other argument in the round. This is also what makes Topicality a "voter" issue, as abuse (and other procedural arguments) are pre-fiat. ''Post-fiat'' arguments attempt to show that the consequences of passing and enacting the affirmative plan would be in some way worse than the harms described by the affirmative. Such arguments are labelled ''post-fiat'' because they require the supposition of a world where the plan is passed and implemented. Though this has been very popular in policy debate, some debaters have fought against this distinction arguing that the effects of the plan exist once it is "examined." In other circles, the notion of "pre" and "post" fiat seems to make little sense, as fiat is not an event that happens, but rather a hypothetical world of plan passage. Nothing occurs before or after fiat in a linear sense; instead, these terms merely indicate whether we should observe the potential implications of the plan over the discursive implications of the debate round. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Fiat (policy debate)」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|