The theoretical perspectives of intercollegiate debate are constantly shifting. This paper evaluates the mirror state counterplan--a strategy open to the negative team--both generally and in light of the criticisms leveled against it by Richard H. Dempsey and David J. Hartmann in their recently published article entitled "Mirror State Counterplans: Illegitimate, Topic, or Magical?" The three areas of argumentation advanced in the paper are (1) mirror state counterplans can fulfill the general requirements which negative counterproposals must meet; (2) mirror state counterplans can fulfill the particular requisites inherent in this specific type of policy option; and (3) the recent criticisms of the mirror state counterplan by Dempsey and Hartmann rest on interrelated misconceptions concerning the nature of fiat power. The paper argues that there are two areas where this misanalysis is particularly important: the confusion of should with would, some attendant strawperson argumentation arising from this confusion, and authoritative testimony regarding the nature of fiat. The paper concludes that the theoretical perspectives of intercollegiate debate are still shifting, and the various strategies and tactics for use in convincing judges still need to be continually evaluated, but that the mirror state counterplan is no less valid today than it was in the era presaging the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Twenty-six notes are included. (MS)