A Prioris

Overview

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 short 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

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 attempt to use the rules of formal logic to prove that the resolution must be true. The most common logical a priori is known as the conditional logic a priori ("condo logic"). Before getting into the argument itself, it is helpful to explain some relevant terminology.

Name	Description	Example	Logical Representation
Conditional Statement	An "If ... then ..." statement.	If it is raining, then I will bring an umbrella.	$p\rightarrow q$
Antecedent	The first part of the "If ... then ..." statement; what follows the "if."	It is raining.	$p$
Consequent	The second part of the "If ... then ..." statement; what follows the "then."	I will bring an umbrella.	$q$

Pay close attention to the Logical Representation column. It is equivalent to the Example column, except it is using a mathematical variable in place of the English statement. That is, $p$ corresponds to, "It is raining," and $q$ corresponds to "I will bring an umbrella."

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.

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.

How To Respond

General Tips

Finding the a prioris can be the most challenging part of answering them in many cases. Cross-examination (CX) is a crucial time to find all the tricks. If you suspect that an opponent read a prioris, then in CX ask: "are there any arguments in the case that auto-affirm/negate absent the framework?" Many tricks debaters will do everything possible not to divulge the location or presence of tricks (after all, 75% of tricks debaters rely on hiding arguments to win), so it is important to stay firm and prevent them from going on tangents about their case. Also, when reading through the case, don't assume that the tagline of an argument sums up all of the arguments below it. An a priori may be hidden.

One method of beating a prioris without finding them is to take out truth testing. Without truth testing, a prioris don't work.

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 s 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.

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.

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 mans that the statement is logically sound.

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

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).