Fiat (policy debate)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fiat (Latin for `let it be done`) is a theoretical construct in policy debate—derived from the word "should" in the resolution—whereby the desirability rather than the probability of a plan is debated, allowing an affirmative team to 'imagine' a plan into being.

There are different theories regarding fiat:

"Normal Means"-- Going through the same political process comparable with normal legislative processes. This allows for politics. The disadvantages deal with the effects of partisanly controlled branches of government passing either popular or unpopular plans.

"Magic Wand" aka "Pixie Dust"-- The plan is instantly instituted and enforced. It has disadvantages because it avoids the part of the process that goes through the government and subsequently avoids any sort of political affiliation. However, such fiat is generally considered abusive and is generally not used.

[edit] Pre-fiat and Post-fiat arguments

There are 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 Topicality arguments) are pre-fiat.

Post-fiat arguments are other arguments in a round, relating to the "Magic Wand" interpretation mentioned above. Post fiat arguments assume that the affirmative plan is actually passed, and relate to the consequences of passing and enacting the affirmative plan.