Multi-Actor Fiat Theory
- Overview
- Examples
Multi-actor Fiat Bad (Affirmative)
Multi-actor fiat is a voter
- No literature base – no one defends a litany of disparate actors passing the same policy because they’re distinct agents with different goals and aims – that makes it impossible to research and generate solvency deficits
- Infinitely regressive – multi-actor fiat justifies utopian counterplans that detract from real world education, with an infinite combination of possible actors that we can’t possibly prepare for
Multi-actor Fiat Good (Negative)
We get [___] counterplans with multi-actor fiat Multi-actor fiat is good
- Logic - every aff requires multi-actor fiat with different branches of government(s), agencies, and departments, and the perm is more complicit than the counterplan
- Research – comparative literature and solvency advocates prove that the merits of a particular actor is a relevant opportunity cost – reading a better aff solves if the CP is abusive because agent key warrants should answer the CP
Reject the arg, not the team
