9 Responses to “Dartmouth’s Ken Strange Lectures on Fiat”

1. dc
   Posted from: 68.238.148.91
   
   June 26th, 2008 17:03
   1

   the wiki link is broken

2. some guy
   Posted from: 76.233.84.240
   
   June 26th, 2008 17:41
   2

   K, he doesn’t explain what “FIAT” is….so we can’t understand him…

3. Earl
   Posted from: 71.236.138.137
   
   June 26th, 2008 18:52
   3

   Fiat comes from Latin (I believe) and means let it be.
   Fiat in debate though is the concept in Policy that we assume the Plan will pass so that we can debate. So at it’s most basic level, it means the affirmative gets a guaranteed link that the US. Gov. will do w/ever the plan says.

   However, Fiat gets more complicated beyond the most basic level. Should the affirmative be able to FIAT an action normally impossible? Should they be able to Fiat the courts doing X? Does the negative get to Fiat their counterplans? Some of these issues have been more or less resolved by the policy community but many are still being debated out in rounds.

4. Robert Parker
   Posted from: 24.176.180.161
   
   June 26th, 2008 19:41
   4

   Following what earl said, some other major issues with fiat concern not what but who should be fiat-ed. For example many think it’s abusive to fiat UN action because it gives the opponent the ability to dictate to all of the worlds major powers and no one really has that authority. Another example is object fiat (whether debaters should be allowed to fiat the object of the resolution) which would involve fiat-ing not the actor acting in the resolution but the one being acted upon.

   To add to what Earl said, in addition to allowing debaters to ‘debate’ (not that solvency arguments aren’t debate), the idea is that it allows debaters to discuss if something should be done rather than will it be done.

   If you want a more basic understanding of fiat, think of it like the magical power to solve for the plan/case/etc.

5. bietz
   Posted from: 75.82.132.122
   
   June 26th, 2008 23:12
   5

   does anyone think this is useful when thinking about affirming in LD?

6. Robert Parker
   Posted from: 24.176.180.161
   
   June 27th, 2008 05:01
   6

   As in running fiat on aff?

   If so I think it would result in a lot of theory debates. I’m not opposed to theory, but I think some judges are so that could be problematic. Also, I think it would depend on the resolution because a lot of LD topics talk about what should be done anyway, and running fiat to say x will be done has a good shot at committing the is/ought fallacy. I think you could do it better on a topic like the indigenous peoples and reparations topic better than the conscription or killing innocents topics.

7. bietz
   Posted from: 75.82.132.122
   
   June 27th, 2008 07:07
   7

   what is the difference between saying something “should” be done (like in policy debate) and something “ought” to be done.

8. Robert Parker
   Posted from: 24.176.180.161
   
   June 27th, 2008 08:02
   8

   I don’t think there is one (notice I used should as a replacement for ought in post 6 in sentence 3). What I was saying was that there is a distinction between will be done/and should be done.

   Also, I’m not saying it’s the evaluative term in the resolution that makes it problematic to fiat certain LD resolutions, it’s more like what that term asks you to do. I just think it’d be easier to fiat giving reparations to descendants of slaves rather than something like killing an innocent person (mostly because the fiat claim is both more unrealistic on the latter).

   I’m also not sure how you could fiat something being unjust (as with the conscription topic), but I’m pretty sure how fiat-ing Native American policy would work.

9. Robert Parker
   Posted from: 24.176.180.161
   
   June 27th, 2008 08:03
   9

   *is more unrealistic

Leave a Reply