Prefiat and Postfiat

Prefiat and Postfiat

By Isaac Hong

What is “fiat”?

If you are unfamiliar with the concept of Fiat in PF, you should read through the “Fiat in PF” guide, which explains what it is and how it's used.

As a quick synopsis, the phrase “Fiat” is Latin for “let it be done.” Fiat traditionally allows both the affirmative and negative teams to imagine a world in which the resolution is enacted with 100% certainty, not whether the resolution itself could be enacted in the first place.

To clarify, all Fiat “does” in PF is enact the resolution, not remove any obstacles or pre-existing barriers that would’ve supposedly hindered it in the first place.

The bottom line is, if the resolution is “Resolved: You should check out the Equality in Forensics Resource Team!”, both sides would discuss whether a world where a person joins the resource team would have benefits that outweigh the negatives, and not whether a person in question could join the team in the first place.

“Post-fiat”

We’ll start our discussion with the concept of “post-fiat” impacts.

In a debate round (especially substantive ones), post-fiat refers to arguments regarding impacts that occur after the resolution passes.

The most common arguments that are “post-fiat” include:

• General Substantive Contentions (Advantages and Disadvantages)

• Example → “After you pass this resolution, millions would lose access to healthcare”

• Counterplans/Generalized Solutions for Progressive Arguments

• Example → A negative team running Neoliberalism (a Capitalist Kritik) rejects the Affirmative’s plan (the resolution) and proposes a counterplan to be enacted instead

“Pre-fiat”

Per the definition of the prefix “pre” meaning to happen beforehand, “pre-fiat” is used to describe impacts that happen before the passing of the resolution. In other words, the main way teams gain offense from these kinds of arguments is by discussing impacts that happen in the real world (e.g. in the debate room, to real life people), regardless of the judge’s future ballot decision.

The most common “pre-fiat” arguments include:

• All Theory Arguments

• Example → A disclosure theory shell impacts to structural fairness in the round

• Kritiks/Case turns with out-of-round impacts

• Example → An Afro-pessimism kritik would discuss the world’s inherent biases against debaters of a certain ethnicity or background

• Any IVI (independent voting issue)

• Example → A Techno-Orientalism IVI would argue that reading an argument or card that misrepresents Asia through othering or essentializing rhetoric causes real-world harms to Asians in the debate space.

Weighing Pre-fiat Impacts and Post-fiat Impacts

Unlike traditional (post-fiat) impacts, which consider the hypothetical outcomes of the aff, “pre-fiat” positions concern the real-world impacts of rhetoric and arguments used in the round. These may include debate norms as a whole, the underlying assumptions behind a given resolution, or the real-world impacts of reading specific arguments.

If you are unfamiliar with the concept of weighing, check out the “Metaweighing” and “Advanced Weighing” guides located in the Intermediate PF section of the EIF Website.

Pre-fiat > post-fiat

Teams that run pre-fiat positions will argue that their impacts outweigh because Fiat is illusory, ie: regardless of the judge’s decision, the aff never truly happens. Thus, since post-fiat impacts are wholly hypothetical, pre-fiat impacts that address structural fairness or safety automatically outweigh. They will also argue that pre-fiat arguments are a “gateway” or “pre-requisite” to in-round/substantive discussion. In a K, this is through dismantling some structural assumption made by debaters or the resolution. In a shell, this is because theory controls the jurisdiction of substance.

Post-fiat > pre-fiat

Substance teams will argue that weighing post-fiat impacts against pre-fiat ones is a fundamental matter of fairness. Because there are infinite variations on pre-fiat positions (shells, Ks, IVIs), these arguments are inherently unpredictable, whereas post-fiat substance can be anticipated and prepped out. Furthermore, they can say that evaluating fiated impacts, or pretending that fiat is not illusory, is educational and the primary reason why we debate. Substance teams can also argue that post-fiat impacts are equally as illusory. For instance, one may claim that despite the popularity of Kritical arguments, the debate space has not undergone radical social change.

Additional Resources

Most progressive rounds (K, Theory, IVI) include clashes between “pre-fiat” and “post-fiat” arguments, so recordings of late elim rounds at major tournaments such as the TOC likely include examples. A great exercise to familiarize yourself with these arguments is to flow and observe these rounds.

In addition, a simple search on OpenCaselist to obtain a progressive argument shell and an attempt to identify the “pre-fiat” aspect of it and a drill to respond to the argument would also be effective.

Original guide