1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "A Prioris"
→Definitional s Prioris
| Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
Making overview arguments about tricks can be extremely useful too. Including arguments such as "give new 2NR responses against a prioris because they don't have fully explained implications yet" at the beginning of a 1NR can win rounds. Even if one a priori is dropped, this argument allows new arguments against the a priori to be made in later speeches. Similarly to answering truth testing, general a priori/tricks take-outs are vital so that missing one a priori doesn't end your chances of winning the round. | Making overview arguments about tricks can be extremely useful too. Including arguments such as "give new 2NR responses against a prioris because they don't have fully explained implications yet" at the beginning of a 1NR can win rounds. Even if one a priori is dropped, this argument allows new arguments against the a priori to be made in later speeches. Similarly to answering truth testing, general a priori/tricks take-outs are vital so that missing one a priori doesn't end your chances of winning the round. | ||
=== Definitional | === Definitional a Prioris === | ||
Against definitional a prioris, the best method to answering them is to read a counter definition. Continuing the "state" example from above, read a counter definition such as "state" is defined as "a governing body." Then explain why this definition is better than the opponent's. For instance, "when speaking about policy action, the policy definition of state is the most educational and intuitive to use." This method will allow you to answer all the definitional a prioris in a timely manner. Just find a regularly used definition of the word and outweigh their silly definition. | Against definitional a prioris, the best method to answering them is to read a counter definition. Continuing the "state" example from above, read a counter definition such as "state" is defined as "a governing body." Then explain why this definition is better than the opponent's. For instance, "when speaking about policy action, the policy definition of state is the most educational and intuitive to use." This method will allow you to answer all the definitional a prioris in a timely manner. Just find a regularly used definition of the word and outweigh their silly definition. | ||
=== Logical a Prioris === | === Logical a Prioris === | ||
Logic a prioris can be slightly more difficult to answer because the logic behind them can be difficult to understand. However, rest assured that there will always be at least one faulty piece of logic in the argument. If you can find it, then just explain what is missing, and win the argument. If your answer is true and explained well enough, then there is no chance that they can win on the a priori. For example, the logical gap in condo logic is that the antecedent being false only proves the statement as a whole true, not the result. Following the rain situation.<blockquote>In the conditional "if it's raining, then I will use an umbrella", if it's not raining, then not bringing an umbrella doesn't prove the conditional false. However, that doesn't mean that the second part of the conditional is true. So in the statement, "if the aff is winning, then they get the ballot." If the aff is losineg, then that doesn't mean they get the ballot. It just | Logic a prioris can be slightly more difficult to answer because the logic behind them can be difficult to understand. However, rest assured that there will always be at least one faulty piece of logic in the argument. If you can find it, then just explain what is missing, and win the argument. If your answer is true and explained well enough, then there is no chance that they can win on the a priori. For example, the logical gap in condo logic is that the antecedent being false only proves the statement as a whole true, not the result. Following the rain situation.<blockquote>In the conditional "if it's raining, then I will use an umbrella", if it's not raining, then not bringing an umbrella doesn't prove the conditional false. However, that doesn't mean that the second part of the conditional is true. So in the statement, "if the aff is winning, then they get the ballot." If the aff is losineg, then that doesn't mean they get the ballot. It just means that the statement is logically sound.</blockquote>The logical answer to an a priori can be very difficult to follow and even more difficult to find. An alternative, if there is little time to come up with a response, is to provide an argument that showcases the absurdity of the a priori. With condo logic, such an argument could look something like "if the aff were actually always true, then activities like debate wouldn't have ever been created. Quite obviously, the affirmative can be false. There is faulty logic in this argument." In some cases, this argument can work just as well as actually pointing out what the faulty logic is (especially if the judge doesn't like tricks to begin with). | ||
=== What Not To Do === | === What Not To Do === | ||
A common issue when answering a prioris is to get stuck on one argument because it has some weird logic or strange implication. Upon first viewing, it's very difficult to completely understand an a priori based on logic. Rather than wasting a lot of time, try employing another strategy such as answering truth testing or making overview anti-tricks arguments. Also, try just point out the absurdity of the conclusion (instead of leaving no ink on the flow). The worst thing to do is over analyze and over answer one trick and miss five others. At the end of the day, a prioris are super silly and require very few answers (one relatively well explained answer is usually enough as long as it's paired with some other strategies) to adequately defend against them (most judges hate tricks to begin with). | A common issue when answering a prioris is to get stuck on one argument because it has some weird logic or strange implication. Upon first viewing, it's very difficult to completely understand an a priori based on logic. Rather than wasting a lot of time, try employing another strategy such as answering truth testing or making overview anti-tricks arguments. Also, try just point out the absurdity of the conclusion (instead of leaving no ink on the flow). The worst thing to do is over analyze and over answer one trick and miss five others. At the end of the day, a prioris are super silly and require very few answers (one relatively well explained answer is usually enough as long as it's paired with some other strategies) to adequately defend against them (most judges hate tricks to begin with). | ||