A few weeks ago I was discussing some area of public policy with my mom (I don't remember what). In response to something I said, Mom said, "Well, that will never happen." So I said, "Yes, but I'm not telling you what will happen; I'm telling you what should happen."
That made me think about "fiat power" in debate. Now, I may be missing something (after all, I don't debate), but it seems that fiat power is totally unnecessary. The resolution states that a given change should happen, so arguing that the change won't happen is non-responsive and entirely irrelevant. We don't need "fiat power" to tell us this. Can't debaters just say what I said to my mom - "I'm not telling you what will happen; I'm telling you what should happen"?
Edit: In response to DebaterPrime's comment.
What I was "missing" is that fiat power doesn't attempt to give the affirmative team any new power. It just clarifies and formalizes an existing power. I think I understand!
2 comments:
It is because the resolution says "should" that the affirmative team has the fiat power to say, "lets pretend that our plan is passed so we can talk about pros/cons of it. Fiat power is drawn though the word "should" in policy resolutions.
Also it is helpful to have this power clear, and well defined for the clarity of the debate.
absoultely right
Post a Comment