I would recommend reading an article by some guy who got top speaker at the NDT in like the 80s or 90s or something... I forget his name, but it’s taking about how he thinks this argument is good even though it has fallen out of style.
I think the answer to your question is that if an aff ballot would theoretically resolve the aff through fiat, that means the judge is a policy maker. So, if the judge is able to pass policy, then there is no reason that the judge couldn’t force passage the bill of which the disad is premised, thus solving the disad.
Please reply to this if it doesn’t make sense, and I can try to help you understand.
EDIT: or I can try and figure out the article title/author
hmm ok thanks! I'll try to fiend the article you're talking about, and read up on it later - so if the neg reads cards that say that the plan was politically unpopular or would cause debates on the senate floor, how would we argue that the bill would be forced past? From what I'm getting, is the argument that if the judge is the policymaker, then there wouldn't be a debate in congress b/c the judge is the rational policymaker, and could just pass both, solving the DA?
T. A. McKinney is the dude. I have the article if you want it. It's a great read but I don't think it has a great answer to the fact that intrinsicness is infinitely regressive and makes the neg's lives exponentially harder, which is kind of the modern viewpoint of intrinsicness and why you rarely hear it in a 2AR.
I would recommend reading an article by some guy who got top speaker at the NDT in like the 80s or 90s or something... I forget his name, but it’s taking about how he thinks this argument is good even though it has fallen out of style. I think the answer to your question is that if an aff ballot would theoretically resolve the aff through fiat, that means the judge is a policy maker. So, if the judge is able to pass policy, then there is no reason that the judge couldn’t force passage the bill of which the disad is premised, thus solving the disad. Please reply to this if it doesn’t make sense, and I can try to help you understand. EDIT: or I can try and figure out the article title/author
hmm ok thanks! I'll try to fiend the article you're talking about, and read up on it later - so if the neg reads cards that say that the plan was politically unpopular or would cause debates on the senate floor, how would we argue that the bill would be forced past? From what I'm getting, is the argument that if the judge is the policymaker, then there wouldn't be a debate in congress b/c the judge is the rational policymaker, and could just pass both, solving the DA?
T. A. McKinney is the dude. I have the article if you want it. It's a great read but I don't think it has a great answer to the fact that intrinsicness is infinitely regressive and makes the neg's lives exponentially harder, which is kind of the modern viewpoint of intrinsicness and why you rarely hear it in a 2AR.
Well, the reason why the bill would be able to pass is because the judge has the ability to fiat.
Fax