Fiat is good – necessary for fair debate rounds and discussions about the resolution

https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii64/articles/michael-hardt-militant-life.pdf)// [King K]

Fiat (in general :P)

The debate term fiat, Latin for “let it be done,” is greatly misunderstood and explained even more poorly. People say it means “the plan will be passed upon an affirmative ballot,” or that it means “Congress’ minds will be immediately changed on the issue so it is passed without opposition.” Again, the correct interpretation lies in the answer “why?” Why is fiat necessary?

The resolution is normative (asking what ought to be done rather than what is); thus, the debate should focus on IF the resolution should be affirmed and IF it should be passed rather than whether or not it WILL pass. The plan isn’t actually passed after an affirmative ballot. Rather, fiat is a “tool” to shift the discussion from descriptive to normative. It also is necessary for fairness. I enjoy the following analogy (which is easily understood by anyone) after explaining the normative argument.

Fiat is necessary so negatives don’t win every single round by arguing the plan would never pass. If fiat didn’t exist, in years when the political administration stood against the plan and resolutional action, negatives could always win using this strategy. If the resolution was “the US should ban cookies,” and Congress was composed of Cookie Monsters, negatives could always win by saying Cookie Monsters would never vote for the plan. The power of fiat is shifting the debate to whether or not the plan SHOULD be passed or resolution SHOULD be affirmed, to follow resolutional bounds and create a fair debate.

In all these example arguments, what is evident is that unpacking why something is true confirms the truth. Analogies serve to make the argument concrete and appealing to all audiences. There are many more misunderstood arguments in debate. Don’t be afraid to seek the true and reasonable arguments. Start by asking “why?”