2 Reasons to Prefer a Definition (When the Affirmative is Being Silly)
This post is a continuation of our conversation with Danielle. If you haven’t already, read the previous parts here:
Reader Question: Tiny Affirmatives
Why is it so Hard to Run Disadvantages Against Tiny Affirmatives?
How to Run Huge DAs Against Tiny Affirmatives
Homeschoolers Hate Topicality: A Metagame Story (Part 1)
Homeschoolers Hate Topicality: A Metagame Story (Part 2)
Resolved: The United Nations should be abolished.
1AC
“Let me start with a definition. According to Rap Dictionary 2010 (source):
‘The United Nations (also known as the Global United Nations Syndicate or G.U.N.S) is a criminal organization based in the Greater Vancouver area in British Columbia formed in the 1990s.’
The definition goes on to say:
‘Today, police believe the U.N is a structured organization that imports and distributes B.C bud [marijuana] and cocaine accumulating millions of dollars through Canada, the United States and Mexico. Police also believe they dabble in weapons trafficking, marijuana grow-ops, cross-border trafficking, extortion, kidnappings and the dealing of heroin and crystal meth.’
In the remaining seven and a half minutes, I’ll tell you why the Canadian mafia should be abolished.”
This is a real definition.
It’s also a great example of why topicality and definitions play a critical role in debate.
Topicality often comes down to which definition the judge uses. If you’re the negative in this debate, you probably have your own definition of United Nations, but it’s not enough to run it. You need to give the judge a logical reason to prefer (RTP). These are explicit, tagged arguments that you run immediately after running your counter-definition.
Before selecting an RTP, ask yourself a quick question: Does the judge already prefer my definition? If you’re negative in the UN debate above, the judge is probably staring at the affirmative in shock. You already have a big persuasive advantage. Everyone is waiting for you to run topicality. In that case, you have a few special options for RTPs.
Use These If The Judge Already Expects a Counter-Definition.
MAN ON THE STREET. If we ask a layperson what this word means, the answer they give will match my definition. If you’re choosing between an obscure, niche definition and the obvious one, you should choose the obvious one. It will give you the most accurate interpretation of the resolution.
FRAMER’S INTENT. The resolution was written by a group of people who meant something specific. They were trying to get us to debate the issues suggested by my definition. If a framer was in the room right now, they’d be shaking their head and saying: “That’s not what I meant!” My definition is what they meant.
These arguments are coherent and persuasively strong, but it’s almost impossible to get a logical advantage with them. That means you should run them only if the judge is likely to agree with them already, and disagreement would be silly.
If you don’t have the persuasive edge, don’t fret. Next time, we’ll cover RTPs you can run even when the judge liked the original definition.
Part 2 will come next week.