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)

In the last article, we showed you two reasons to prefer (RTP) a definition. While efficient, they only work if the judge was surprised by the original definition. Sometimes, you need to reject a definition that sounds reasonable. When that happens, your best bet is to argue that your dictionary is a better source.

Remember, it’s not enough to say that your definition is good. You have to say it’s better than your opponent’s. Always contrast the two sources.

Use These if The Judge was Fine with the Original Definition

1) CREDIBLE SOURCE. The original definition is from an inferior dictionary: an online dictionary, a glossary, an open-source project, a kid’s dictionary, a student/collegiate dictionary. Mine is from a superior dictionary: prestigious, well-established, grown-up. If these two dictionaries disagree, you’ll get a more accurate definition by choosing mine.

2) RECENT SOURCE. Language changes over time. In ancient times, the word “Idiot” meant: “Someone who is not politically active.” Now, all too often, it means the opposite. My opponent’s definition is from the late 1800s. Mine is from last year. My dictionary gives you the most recent and therefore most accurate interpretation.

3) TOPICAL SOURCE. My opponent’s definition is from a generic English language dictionary. Mine is from a dictionary specific to the topic area. The resolution is about fiscal policy and I’m reading from the Ultimate Dictionary of Fiscal Terms. That means my definition is more accurate.

4) MAINSTREAM SOURCE. My opponent’s definition is from a dictionary specific to the wrong topic area. The resolution is about fiscal policy and they’re reading from the Emergency Surgery Glossary. My definition is not topic specific, making it less inaccurate. 

5) INDEPENDENT SOURCE. My opponent’s source has a stake in the issues. The resolution is about energy policy and the definition is from the personal blog of Exxon-Mobil’s CEO. My definition is from an independent dictionary with no stake in this debate. 

6) MULTIPLE SOURCES. The word means X. Now here are 3-5 definitions that all say X. The only one that doesn’t is my opponent’s. You should prefer the consensus of my multiple dictionaries. 

Having a definitions brief really helps with this last one. You’ve already gathered every possible definition of the resolution, so you can scan through the list and determine if you have a source advantage. The last thing you want is your opponent to come back with 7 additional sources. If you actually have a source advantage, this is very difficult to refute.  

All of these RTPs can give you a logical advantage. Even if you’re running one of the RTPs from the last article, adding one from this list will make your press stronger. 

In the next article, we’ll talk about some reasons to prefer that you should avoid running.