|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| == Overview == | | == Overview == |
| A common reason [[truth testing]] is read in round is to allow “a prioris” to function. An a priori is any argument that auto-affirms or auto-negates if dropped. Usually, an a priori is a definition of some word or phrase in the resolution, or it describes some rule of logic, that when accepted, reframes the resolution to inherently affirm or negate absent any substantive debate. Moreover, it is typically only a couple of seconds long and hidden in other arguments. For this reason, a prioris can be very dangerous, as dropping one tiny argument could instantly end the round. A prioris often reside on a [[Introduction to Circuit Debate#Layer|layer]] higher than substance but slightly lower than kritiks and much lower than theory. One fact worthy of note about a prioris is that they require truth testing to be offensive. Under a different role of the ballot, such as comparative worlds, a prioris fail because winning the round requires that you prove your world to be better than your opponent's, which a prioris don't do.
| | An a priori is a short, tricky argument which shows that the resolution is inherently a true or false statement. A prioris are strategic (and abusive) because if dropped, one debater could immediately win the round by proving the resolution either true or false under a [[truth testing]] role of the ballot, even if they are losing all other substantive aspects of the debate. A prioris are particularly abusive since they can be extremely and hidden in speeches with the hope that opponents will not flow them or forget to respond. One weakness of an a priori, however, is that it requires a truth testing role of the ballot to function since it solely proves the resolution true or false. |
| == Common a Prioris == | | == Common a Prioris == |
| === Definitional a Prioris === | | === Definitional a Prioris === |