here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Fiat for politics:
I think that fiat means the government gets their plan passed now. This “debate” about
politics should begin after the passage of the plan. So politics links that argue about who
voted for what and by what margin make little sense to me. Note: that also means that
most “political capital” links seem either out of place or incorrectly argued in many
debates. EG., Why would the president spend political capital to pass a plan that he
never liked in the first place Why would it be seen as an olive branch He NEVER
would have done the plan (that’s inherency). I think most opposition teams are asserting
(actually fiating) these links, and they seem ridiculous to me. Fiat doesn’t mean you get a
link to politics automatically because legislation was passed. Make some arguments
about the specific government plan and the political ramifications of it being passed. I
think fiat means the plan was passed. The government gets to fiat it into existence. So
debate the political process that happens AFTER the passage of the plan. That still leaves
plenty of political process disads.
For parliamentary debate, I will follow what seems to be the norm for counterplans.
They are unconditional (just like plans) unless otherwise noted. This consistency of
advocacy and arguments seems more appropriate for parliamentary debate, given no CX
and fewer rebuttals.
New arguments: Points of order are part of parliamentary debate. They allow both sides
to explain why arguments are new or why they are legitimate extensions. Without these
explanations that follow points of order, I cannot know for certain if an argument is new.
Therefore, without a point of order, I will assume all arguments originated in a previous
speech. If I end up voting on an argument that might be new in the rebuttal, it is not my
fault for not noticing it, but the opposing team’s fault for not pointing it out. Don’t
expect me to do the work for you.
T debates are fine. Plans should be topical.
Spec debates are okay, but harder to win in parliamentary debate given the limited
amount of prep time the government team has to write their plan. It would be nice if the
plan specified whatever it needs to. Opposition debaters need to show some actual abuse
in order to win them. Burdens are higher for spec debates. But sometimes a spec
argument makes sense.
71