1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "A Prioris"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Common a Prioris
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Common a Prioris == | == Common a Prioris == | ||
=== Definitional a Prioris === | === Definitional a Prioris === | ||
Definitional a prioris | Definitional a prioris incorrectly define words of the resolution to make the statement inherently affirm or negate. For instance, take the resolution, "Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals." | ||
To affirm, an a priori might go, "South Africa has already eliminated its own nuclear arsenal, and South Africa is a State. Thus, the resolution is already true, so affirm." Notice that this a priori isn't very smart. The resolution specifies "States," which is plural, while "South Africa" is a singular. Despite this slight inconsistency, if this argument is entirely conceded, some judges might be forced to affirm. | |||
To negate, an a priori might go, "States is defined as 'a form that matter can take, including solid, liquid, or gas'. It is impossible for a solid, liquid, or gas to eliminate a nuclear arsenal, so the resolution must be false. Therefore, negate." This a priori is, similarly, not smart. However, if conceded, it could be very damaging. | |||
=== Logical a Prioris === | === Logical a Prioris === | ||
Logical a prioris comprise another type of a priori. These use syllogisms to prove the resolution true (there are very few arguments that could be categorized as solely negative logic a prioris as most fall into the category of permissibility triggers). For instance, condo (short for conditional) logic is a common affirmative a priori. The condo logic argument is something like:<blockquote>Take any conditional, for example "if it's raining, then I will use an umbrella." In the case where it is raining, it is certain that I will take an umbrella. However, if it's not raining, it doesn't matter if I take an umbrella or not because in either case I wouldn't be violating the conditional. Thus, if the antecedent (the first part of the conditional. In this case, "if it's raining") is false, then the statement will always be true. You can apply this rule to the conditional "if the aff is winning, then they get the ballot." Even if the antecedent is false (so even if the aff is losing) then you still vote aff because the conditional is still true.</blockquote>This is the type of logical syllogism that can appear as an a priori. Spoiler alert: there will always be some sort of faulty logic in these types of arguments. | Logical a prioris comprise another type of a priori. These use syllogisms to prove the resolution true (there are very few arguments that could be categorized as solely negative logic a prioris as most fall into the category of permissibility triggers). For instance, condo (short for conditional) logic is a common affirmative a priori. The condo logic argument is something like:<blockquote>Take any conditional, for example "if it's raining, then I will use an umbrella." In the case where it is raining, it is certain that I will take an umbrella. However, if it's not raining, it doesn't matter if I take an umbrella or not because in either case I wouldn't be violating the conditional. Thus, if the antecedent (the first part of the conditional. In this case, "if it's raining") is false, then the statement will always be true. You can apply this rule to the conditional "if the aff is winning, then they get the ballot." Even if the antecedent is false (so even if the aff is losing) then you still vote aff because the conditional is still true.</blockquote>This is the type of logical syllogism that can appear as an a priori. Spoiler alert: there will always be some sort of faulty logic in these types of arguments. | ||