Shifting theoretical perspectives of intercollegiate policy debate, especially the changing affirmative case constructs, warrant reformulations of various strategies open to the negative case such as those developed by W. Ulrich, R. Dempsey, and D. Hartmann. Options open to the affirmative have increased, e.g., the comparative advantages case, the utilities case, and the cost benefits analysis case have developed from the stock issues case. In addition, affirmative teams have utilized goal cases, criteria cases, and alternative justification cases, providing them with various strategies for convincing judges. Analysis of the articles by Ulrich, Dempsey, and Hartmann reconsidering the alternative persuasion tactics open to the negative trigger four major arguments: (1) Mirror state counterplans can fulfill the general requirements which negative counterproposals must meet; (2) they can also fulfill the particular requisites in this specific type of policy option; (3) the recent criticisms of the mirror state counterplan by Dempsey and Hartmann rest on interrelated misconceptions concerning the nature of fiat power; and (4) the indictments of fiat power leveled by Ulrich are flawed. (JD)