A Prioris
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 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.
Common a Prioris
Definitional a Prioris
Definitional a prioris are one type that are somewhat common. With this type of a priori, a definition is read that makes the resolution, by definition, agree with one side of the resolution. One such example would be the "resolved a priori" for the affirmative. The aff would define "resolve" as "firmly determined." The implication is that the resolution is already determined to be true, so the judge should vote for the affirmative.
On the other hand, a negative definition a priori may look like defining "states" as "a form that matter can take, including solid, liquid, and gas." The implication of this argument is that the resolution is physically impossible to do (imagine a topic where "states" are taking some sort of action) because matter can not take action. Thus, the judge should vote negative. In both cases, dropping this type of argument would be a game over issue.
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:
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).