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)

6 Ways to Win with Topicality in the 2020s (Part 1)

6 Ways to Win with Topicality in the 2020s (Part 2)

2 Reasons to Prefer a Definition (When the Affirmative is Being Silly)

6 Reasons to Prefer a Definition that Really Work 

The last two articles offered reasons to prefer that will win rounds when used correctly. Here are a few that need to be retired from debate forever.

Fairness.

If you use my opponent’s definition, my chances of winning are low in a way that I consider unfair. You should use this neutral definition instead. 

Fairness arguments should always be avoided, for reasons we’ll explore in-depth in a future article. For now, know this: the judge isn’t personally invested in your success. They shouldn’t be asked to throw out an argument just because it’s hurting your chances of winning. 

Calling something unfair because it hurts you is the least unique argument you can make. If your opponents do their job, every word out of their mouths hurts your chances of winning. Your opponents’ arguments are supposed to be true, but they shouldn’t be fair. The definitions are no exception.

Instead of complaining about how you’re losing, roll up your sleeves and earn the judge’s vote.

GROUNDS.

If we use my opponent’s definition, the resolution is obviously true and I don’t get to make any arguments. You should use this definition instead, because it lets me run my prepared arguments. 

All the problems above apply here, along with some new ones.

Grounds is not a judge-level consideration. It’s something for the resolution framers to worry about, and for the league members to vote on (if you’re in a league that votes on resolutions). Judges ask if the resolution is TRUE, not if it gives both sides chances to run good arguments.

Grounds concerns are a sign of over-dependence on research. You should be able to win any debate, even in a topic you’re not prepared for. Remember: every affirmative case contains all the information needed to defeat it. Listen closely, ask smart questions in cross-examination, apply a dose of common sense. You are never so cornered that complaining about grounds is appropriate. 

SLIGHT RECENCY.

My definition is from 2015; my opponent’s is from 2005. The English language is always changing, so we need the most up-to-date definition possible.

In a perfect tie – which never happens – an RTP like this might make a difference. But the language doesn’t change so much that we can expect a definition to be less accurate because it’s 10 years older. You’ll need more analysis. Perhaps the specific word in question was part of an internet meme in 2010 and the meaning changed. Barring that, you’ll need a bigger gap in dates. There’s no hard-and-fast rule here, but anything less than a 4-year advantage will be hard to use. 

Note for advanced debaters: many of the RTPs in the last three articles are kritiks. Can you spot them?