50 State fiat stuff

This stuff was the original file-stuff, this is what Andrew said, and this color is my response-color.

1. Not real world.

No policymaker has the option or has ever passed legislation in all 50 states. This makes it impossible to
produce offense specific to the counterplan because there’s no literature that is comparative to a world
where all 50 states do the exact same thing in unison.

Nothing’s real world in debate plans. If it was, your plan would be inherent ;)

Not true. Every plan has to have basic inherency/solvency etc. evidence. That makes it real-world.
But is there anything that says

2. No literature base.
We challenge the neg to find where unanimous state action is advocated by anyone.

Impact?

This and #1 are similar. Forcing us to debate a non-real world position makes debate meaningless.

3. Not reciprocated.
The counterplan fiats multiple independent agents – this is not reciprocal because we only get one: the
USFG. The USFG is not made up of multiple independent agents but a variety of agencies working
together, unlike the states. This makes it impossible to produce offense and unfairly tilts the strategic
balance towards the negative

Impact? Where’s the line? One agency, ten agencies… no brink to this.

Dude, this is a theoretical complaint. There’s no “brink”. But if you mean what’s the brightline,
then the brightline is independent agencies. Any number. The impact is an unfair advantage to the
negative, and that advantage must be gotten rid of. Aka, no 50 state fiat.

4. Unfair research burden.

Neg has to research the USFG whereas we have to research policy in all 50 states, killing fairness.

a) So why did you have responses in the first place?

b) Also, it’s not my fault if you pick a case that has massive holes ;).
c) Also, research is a part of an AFF’s life. Deal with it ;)
d) Also, without a states CP, there’s a huge unfair research burden on NEG. If you pull some random
case (say, regulate geothermal), I won’t have any evidence. My ONLY option is to run a states CP. This
rez is wicked broad.

a) i] because it’s smart to have theory files.

ii] because it’d be stupid not to have anything against an unfair counteprlan.
iii] just because it’s unfair doesn’t mean I’m not going to be careful.

b) i] having “holes in a case” doesn’t justify 50 state fiat.

ii] just because my case has holes doesn’t mean you can be unfair.

c) i] research about my case, which I’ve done

ii] “deal with it” is a horrible response
iii] I’m supposed to research back-up for my case, not answers to unfair CPs (even
though I have to be careful and cover my back)
d) i] that’s not my problem that you haven’t researched the topic thoroughly enough. If
the case is abusive and you don’t have ev, then run T.
ii] if I win that 50 states is abusive, then you can never run it
iii] 50 states is not your “only” option, you could have researched it
iv] having a case that is T but not common isn’t abusive, but 50 state fiat is

5. Infinitely regressive in quantity.

If 50 states can pass the same plan, what’s to stop the neg from a cp that has all countries commit to
world peace? They justify unfair multiple actor advantage cps which are illegitimate.

Then do case-by-case. If you (judge) think this really is unfair, vote us down. My guess is you don’t find
this abusive because there’s TONS of literature about how the states fail.

That’s not really a response, goes conceded. That kinda kills the CP and wins aff the round

6. Infinitely regressive in quality.

50 state fiat justifies object fiat – if you can fiat 50 states you can fiat that the 50 most dangerous
countries disarm all nuclear weapons. During the Civil War, we would call for the Emancipation
Proclamation, but they’d just counterplan to have the states free the slaves

Then do case-by-case. If you (judge) think this really is unfair, vote us down. My guess is you don’t find
this abusive because there’s TONS of literature about how the states fail.

That’s not really a response, goes conceded. That kinda kills the CP and wins aff the round

7. Moving target.
There’s no guarantee on simultaneous and consistent state action, meaning disads apply to some states
but not others.
Uh, there’s no guarantee your plan won’t change after five years. Except fiat ;)

That doesn’t have anything to do with “moving target”.

a) fiat is there to allow role-playing, which has nothing to do with a moving target complaint
b) there was no on-point refutation; that means my point goes conceded.

8. Encourages Utopian fiat.

(Explain what that is) Which is bad for education and has the following impacts:
a) Education outweighs – learning about real world is a better internal link into education because it’s
the only bona fide product of debate. Utopian fiat is imaginary which hinders real-world education.
b) Destroys ground – we can literally never win a debate when the other team can just imagine away all
of life’s problems via fiat.
c) No literature – aff can’t research answers to utopian positions because they simply DON’T EXIST.

Just like AFF ;)

a) “just like aff” makes zero sense. We don’t encourage utopian fiat because we’re fiating the gov
to do something that could very well happen sometime in the future. But it’s not so far as we can
tell, so that’s why we have fiat.
b) I don’t think you know what “utopian fiat” is
c) that’s not a response.
d) another one conceded.

9. Reject the Negative.

Don’t encourage this mindset that Neg can run whatever they want that’s crazy like this CP. We need to
create a general consensus that this is unacceptable; voting affirmative communicates this effectively.

This was conceded; reject the negative no matter what they say.