homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:44 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:54 pm
Posts: 838
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Southern California
inherency: why harms exist in squo.
if the answer is politics, then fiat overwhelms and this goes away because fiat is to eliminate questions of "will congress pass."
yet, this legitimizes attitudinal fiat. if an attitudinal barrier is why congress hasn't passed plan, fiat has overwhelmed the attitudinal barrier. fiat has then shifted into what effectively constitutes fiating an implied attitudinal change.
thus, either fiat doesn't apply when there's an attitudinal barrier, or fiat overwhelms the attitudinal barrier and attitudinal fiat is awesome cause it lets us evaluate impacts of such a change.

_________________
For Coaches: Download 6 free editions of Dominate cases and articles


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:37 pm 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
Isn't that the basis for politics DAs?

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:54 pm
Posts: 838
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Southern California
Yeah, which is why they might be illegitimate, really abusive and a big reason why someone should lose.
I just generally think attitudinal fiat is quite illegitimate, but it might be inevitable.

_________________
For Coaches: Download 6 free editions of Dominate cases and articles


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:54 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
Neg: "of course the USFG should change its attitude. What difference does it make?"
ldrox wrote:
yet, this legitimizes attitudinal fiat. if an attitudinal barrier is why congress hasn't passed plan, fiat has overwhelmed the attitudinal barrier. fiat has then shifted into what effectively constitutes fiating an implied attitudinal change.
Not necessarily. There could be a wall preventing me from point A to point B, but that doesn't mean that the wall automatically goes away if it is decided that I should be at point B.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Fiat just means the plan is adopted and fully in effect. It doesn't eliminate the attitudes of the plan's opponents. Any argument based on that opposition, from politics disadvantages to circumvention-based solvency arguments, is fair game.

The years and years of agitation and subversion that followed Brown v. Board of Education is a good model for thinking about this: the decision was dropped, 9-0, into a climate of extraordinarily strong opposition. In some ways it didn't accomplish its goals, in some ways it unleashed truly unfortunate consequences, and there are those today who think it shouldn't have happened, that instead desegregation should've been accomplished through other means. In other words, a good, balanced, debatable controversy.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 6:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:28 am
Posts: 39
Home Schooled: Yes
DrSraderNCU wrote:
Fiat just means the plan is adopted and fully in effect. It doesn't eliminate the attitudes of the plan's opponents. Any argument based on that opposition, from politics disadvantages to circumvention-based solvency arguments, is fair game.

The years and years of agitation and subversion that followed Brown v. Board of Education is a good model for thinking about this: the decision was dropped, 9-0, into a climate of extraordinarily strong opposition. In some ways it didn't accomplish its goals, in some ways it unleashed truly unfortunate consequences, and there are those today who think it shouldn't have happened, that instead desegregation should've been accomplished through other means. In other words, a good, balanced, debatable controversy.

If fiat has no effect on attitude, couldn't the negative team take any plan blocked solely by attitudinal barriers and argue that it would be reversed once it's passed? (I'm guessing that's what you mean by "circumvention-based solvency arguments.") To me, at least, this sounds abusive. Just trying to understand, here. Thanks, Dr. Srader.

_________________
Joshua Peña
TR wrote:
Never throughout history has a man who lived a life of ease left a name worth remembering.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
TR IV wrote:
DrSraderNCU wrote:
Fiat just means the plan is adopted and fully in effect. It doesn't eliminate the attitudes of the plan's opponents. Any argument based on that opposition, from politics disadvantages to circumvention-based solvency arguments, is fair game.

The years and years of agitation and subversion that followed Brown v. Board of Education is a good model for thinking about this: the decision was dropped, 9-0, into a climate of extraordinarily strong opposition. In some ways it didn't accomplish its goals, in some ways it unleashed truly unfortunate consequences, and there are those today who think it shouldn't have happened, that instead desegregation should've been accomplished through other means. In other words, a good, balanced, debatable controversy.

If fiat has no effect on attitude, couldn't the negative team take any plan blocked solely by attitudinal barriers and argue that it would be reversed once it's passed? (I'm guessing that's what you mean by "circumvention-based solvency arguments.") To me, at least, this sounds abusive. Just trying to understand, here. Thanks, Dr. Srader.

That would ignore the point of fiat. The point of fiat is to get past the procedurals of "will people like it?" and actually focus on the merits of the plan.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm
Posts: 1058
Home Schooled: No
Location: Texas
TR IV wrote:
DrSraderNCU wrote:
Fiat just means the plan is adopted and fully in effect. It doesn't eliminate the attitudes of the plan's opponents. Any argument based on that opposition, from politics disadvantages to circumvention-based solvency arguments, is fair game.

The years and years of agitation and subversion that followed Brown v. Board of Education is a good model for thinking about this: the decision was dropped, 9-0, into a climate of extraordinarily strong opposition. In some ways it didn't accomplish its goals, in some ways it unleashed truly unfortunate consequences, and there are those today who think it shouldn't have happened, that instead desegregation should've been accomplished through other means. In other words, a good, balanced, debatable controversy.

If fiat has no effect on attitude, couldn't the negative team take any plan blocked solely by attitudinal barriers and argue that it would be reversed once it's passed? (I'm guessing that's what you mean by "circumvention-based solvency arguments.") To me, at least, this sounds abusive. Just trying to understand, here. Thanks, Dr. Srader.


I don't think you want to go down the "reversed when passed" road that just screams neg abuse in an attempt to circumvent aff fiat. What I might argue instead are solvency problems when unpopular things are passed like black markets (potentially both solvency and DA), weak enforcement (reading the new law in the narrowest of terms), avoidance/loopholes, jury nullification if litigation is involved, basically the law will be subverted at every turn because of its unpopularity. Think local law enforcement of immigration laws rarely done because it might be seem as not popular, with a little research I'm sure you could find good examples and build a brief.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited