“Fiat” is a Latin word meaning “Let it bedone.” In debate, “fiat” refers to a debater’s right to assume that heradvocacy will happen. In other words, when a debater runs a plan or acounterplan, she does not have to argue that the plan is likely to happen. She needs only to argue that it would be netadvantageous if the plan wereimplemented.
To say that a plan is politically unpopularand therefore unlikely to pass is no answer. The basic logic is that in debatewe want to argue about whether an advocacy is good or bad, not whether it islikely to be implemented. On the current topic, the Affirmative might arguethat the United States should implement a single-payer healthcare system. The Negativemay argue that this is a bad idea relative to the status quo or a competitivecounterplan, but she may not argue “that would never get through Congress.” TheAffirmative debater gets to fiat thatthe plan would pass congress.
This notion is not entirely uncontroversial,and there are many complexities that are beyond the scope of this article, butthe basic idea that a debater has a right to fiat her advocacy is widelyaccepted. Despite this, I see many rounds in which there is confusion about therole of fiat. I hope to clear up a few common misconceptions.
1.Pre-Fiat versus Post-Fiat
Many LD debaters have a hard time parsing thedistinction between pre-fiat and post-fiat arguments. This is not surprising,given that the nature of fiat in more traditional LD cases is ambiguous. (For agood discussion of this issue, see Scott Phillips’ article in thevictorybriefs.com archives on fiat in Kritik debate).
A “post-fiat” impact is one that happens inthe hypothetical world where the affirmative advocacy (or a counter-planadvocacy) is implemented. “If weimplement a single-payer healthcare system, millions of people who wereotherwise uninsured will have access to healthcare services.” We don’t imaginethat this impact will actually happenby virtue of the judge voting affirmative – it’s what would happen if the agentin the resolution (in this case the United States) did what the affirmativeadvocates.
A “pre-fiat” impact is one that we imaginereally occurs as a result of something happening in the debate round itself.“If the judge votes for the Negative debater, it will teach the Affirmativedebater not to use offensive rhetoric.” “If the judge votes for the Negative,other debaters will be deterred from using the abusive tactics the Affirmativeused.” Arguments that commonly have pre-fiat impacts include:
1. Theory: Adebater should lose or an argument should be disregarded in order to preservethe fairness or educational value of the debate.
2. Kritiks: Adebater should lose or an argument should be rejected because the debater usedrhetoric which is offensive or makes problematic assumptions. Sometimesdebaters will make similar arguments without a full Kritik shell; these wecommonly call “discourse” arguments.
3. Performance: Thejudge should vote for one debater or another to affirm a praiseworthy speechact (e.g. one that helps the participants to better understand the gravity ofoppressive practices). For example, a debater may read a narrative written bysomeone struggling without health insurance to convey the seriousness ofAmerica’s uninsurance problem and inspire concrete action from fellow debatersand judges.
Debaters typically assume that pre-fiatimpacts should be lexically prior to post-fiat impacts because the former reallyhappen (supposedly). This assumption can be challenged by the idea thatresolving the substance of the post-fiat debate is more important than thepre-fiat impacts. I’ll leave it to you to fill in the details of the argumentson both sides of that issue.
2.Debaters fiat advocacies, not standards.
A common mistake in LD is to fail todistinguish between a debater’s advocacyand her standard. The standard,usually a value and criterion, is typically a moral or political rule which thedebater claims is most germane to resolving the question posed by theresolution. If I propose that Utilitarianism should be the standard on thecurrent topic, I am suggesting that whether we implement a universal healthcaresystem turns on whether doing so maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain.
An advocacy, on the other hand, is what courseof action the debater proposes for the agent of the resolution. In the presenttopic, I might advocate that the United States (the agent in the resolution)implement a single-payer healthcare system.
The standard is NOT part of the advocacy. Inother words, I don’t “fiat” the standard (assume that it will be implemented);I only fiat the advocacy (what course of action the agent will take). I don’thave to argue that the United States should adopta utilitarian mindset and then implement a single-payer system as a result.I fiat that a single-payer systemwill be implemented, and evaluatethat course of action by using the standard. The standard itself is not anargument with post-fiat impacts.
Here is a common example of this mistake:
Affirmative:
Utilitarianism is the best moraltheory for evaluating government action. The United States should implement auniversal healthcare system because doing so would save 50,000 lives everyyear, which is a huge advantage according to utilitarianism.
Negative:
Utilitarianism justifies genocide,which would kill way more than 50,000 people, so the disadvantages to affirmingoutweigh the advantages.
The Negative debater has made the mistake ofassuming that the agent (the United States) must adopt the standard, when infact the Affirmative has only argued that it should adopt the advocacy. Theargument that Utilitarianism justifies genocide might be a reason to reject itin favor of another standard for evaluating the impacts, but it does notgenerate any post-fiat impacts.
3.Debaters advancing a probabilistic claim are not exercising the power of fiat.
The only thing that is fiated (assumed) in adebate round is that a debater’s advocacy will happen. The impacts of that advocacy are notassumed. They are probabilistic claims – claims about what is likely to happen as a result of theadvocacy. For that reason they can be contested. You can’t say that an advocacy is unlikely to pass Congress,but you can say that the impacts youropponent predicts are in fact unlikely to happen.
Affirmative:
Utilitarianism is the best moraltheory for evaluating government action. The United States should implement auniversal healthcare system because doing so would save 50,000 lives everyyear, which is a huge advantage according to utilitarianism.
Negative:
My opponent fiats that 50,000 liveswill be saved, which is abusive because we don’t know for sure that this isgoing to happen.
Here the negative has confused the Affirmativeadvocacy with Affirmative impacts. The Affirmative argues that itis probable that 50,000 lives will be saved, but he does not assume it withoutargument. The Negative may argue that it is untrue that 50,000 lives will besaved, but the Affirmative has not engaged in any kind of abusive fiat.
So, remember when you are thinking throughissues of fiat to distinguish the advocacy, the standard, and the impacts of aposition. Doing so will save you big headaches down the road.