A Prioris?

I know some of the people on this board probably support a prioris, but I don't understand how they are still tolerated in debate rounds. Honestly, outside of their strategic potential, how is there anything educational or even persuasive about these arguments? It seems like they are just one of the shitty byproducts of the truth testing paradigm. Anyone agree/disagree?

I don't even think a prioris are strategic any more. Everyone has an a priori bad block. Although, I guess a syllogistic AC is technically an a priori, so I would support that kind of "a priori." I also think necessary but insufficient standards are legit, but those too are technically pre-standard. They make logical sense to me because if a conception of justice says we cannot do X, and the resolution does X, then the resolution can't be just even if the AC is true. Although, most people running these kinds of positions have pretty much thrown away the criterion and made it a burden structure which is probably better.
I think the crappy a priori arguments are the ones that say "X doesn't exist," so the resolution is false. That seems pretty unwarranted and turnable to me.

A Prioris can be run well if they the following components:

-Negation Analysis (Neg has no propositional burden)
-Why the argument comes prestandard (This argument precludes everything because justice is predicated on equity)
-Links to res (Res says just, AC links in the following ways...)
-Establishing some burden (AC must defend X feature of justice because they must demonstrate the res to be true)
-Demonstrating a failure to meet such a burden (Justice doesn't exist, or X features of justice are contradictory etc.)
-Voter (Usually has impacts to incoherency and reasons why thats a voter)

A Prioris can be well developed, analytical cases and can make for a good debate. But what most people mean when they say prestandard or apriori is the ubiquitous "multiple a prioris", which go like this:

-Assertion that argument is precludes aff offense
-"justice doesn't exist"
-"impact is incoherency and thats a voter because an incoherent statement can't be true"
-^That X7 with no weighing structure

I think the problem is not with the core of the argument itself but that judges have such a low threshold for the warrants in these arguments. Judges should be harder on the missing gaps people have in multi aprioris. I think there is a hypothetical world where people run a prioris well and it makes for good debate, to make that happen, however, we must become as hard as possible on shitty multi a priori. Make it so that if you go multi a priori thats all you go for in the NCR.

Old wrote:I don't even think a prioris are strategic any more. Everyone has an a priori bad block. Although, I guess a syllogistic AC is technically an a priori, so I would support that kind of "a priori." I also think necessary but insufficient standards are legit, but those too are technically pre-standard. They make logical sense to me because if a conception of justice says we cannot do X, and the resolution does X, then the resolution can't be just even if the AC is true. Although, most people running these kinds of positions have pretty much thrown away the criterion and made it a burden structure which is probably better.
I think the crappy a priori arguments are the ones that say "X doesn't exist," so the resolution is false. That seems pretty unwarranted and turnable to me.

Yeah, I've run a prioris in the past, and i've started to notice that the actual value one can get out of them is very small. Granted, a well warranted one is fine, but in general, judges do not reward debaters who use a prioris as a crutch with very high speaks

Alex Bennett wrote:A Prioris can be run well if they the following components:

-Negation Analysis (Neg has no propositional burden)
-Why the argument comes prestandard (This argument precludes everything because justice is predicated on equity)
-Links to res (Res says just, AC links in the following ways...)
-Establishing some burden (AC must defend X feature of justice because they must demonstrate the res to be true)
-Demonstrating a failure to meet such a burden (Justice doesn't exist, or X features of justice are contradictory etc.)
-Voter (Usually has impacts to incoherency and reasons why thats a voter)

A Prioris can be well developed, analytical cases and can make for a good debate. But what most people mean when they say prestandard or apriori is the ubiquitous "multiple a prioris", which go like this:

-Assertion that argument is precludes aff offense
-"justice doesn't exist"
-"impact is incoherency and thats a voter because an incoherent statement can't be true"
-^That X7 with no weighing structure

I think the problem is not with the core of the argument itself but that judges have such a low threshold for the warrants in these arguments. Judges should be harder on the missing gaps people have in multi aprioris. I think there is a hypothetical world where people run a prioris well and it makes for good debate, to make that happen, however, we must become as hard as possible on shitty multi a priori. Make it so that if you go multi a priori thats all you go for in the NCR.

Alex, I think your rules governing good a prioris are rarely followed by debaters who choose to run them (which you concede). Even if I though that these standards for a prioris could become a norm, I still don't see why it would be educational in any way for people to run these positions.

Can someone explain to me why in the real world you could answer a question like, "do you want to play basketball" with "what if the basketball court doesn't exist?" I think the only types of critical thinking skills that a prioris emphasize (if there are any) are probably far less beneficial, in the long run at least, when compared to the skills one builds by researching real positions, learning to compare arguments, and providing persuasive reasons as to why certain issues should grant you the ballot (instead of, aff has a categorical burden. He doesn't meet it. I win).

I just don't think a prioris should have a place in LD.

Db8rBoi wrote:

Alex Bennett wrote:A Prioris can be run well if they the following components:

-Negation Analysis (Neg has no propositional burden)
-Why the argument comes prestandard (This argument precludes everything because justice is predicated on equity)
-Links to res (Res says just, AC links in the following ways...)
-Establishing some burden (AC must defend X feature of justice because they must demonstrate the res to be true)
-Demonstrating a failure to meet such a burden (Justice doesn't exist, or X features of justice are contradictory etc.)
-Voter (Usually has impacts to incoherency and reasons why thats a voter)

A Prioris can be well developed, analytical cases and can make for a good debate. But what most people mean when they say prestandard or apriori is the ubiquitous "multiple a prioris", which go like this:

-Assertion that argument is precludes aff offense
-"justice doesn't exist"
-"impact is incoherency and thats a voter because an incoherent statement can't be true"
-^That X7 with no weighing structure

I think the problem is not with the core of the argument itself but that judges have such a low threshold for the warrants in these arguments. Judges should be harder on the missing gaps people have in multi aprioris. I think there is a hypothetical world where people run a prioris well and it makes for good debate, to make that happen, however, we must become as hard as possible on shitty multi a priori. Make it so that if you go multi a priori thats all you go for in the NCR.

Alex, I think your rules governing good a prioris are rarely followed by debaters who choose to run them (which you concede). Even if I though that these standards for a prioris could become a norm, I still don't see why it would be educational in any way for people to run these positions.

Can someone explain to me why in the real world you could answer a question like, "do you want to play basketball" with "what if the basketball court doesn't exist?" I think the only types of critical thinking skills that a prioris emphasize (if there are any) are probably far less beneficial, in the long run at least, when compared to the skills one builds by researching real positions, learning to compare arguments, and providing persuasive reasons as to why certain issues should grant you the ballot (instead of, aff has a categorical burden. He doesn't meet it. I win).

I just don't think a prioris should have a place in LD.

They generally involve linguistical analysis and stress greater emphasis on the resolution. I agree that generally they don't encourage much critical thinking, but that should be a reason to raise our threshold for warrants for them. I've heard really intriguing a prioris that lasted 2-3 pages before, and I think it is arbitrary to exclude them because people don't know how to run them.