Presumption for Parli Debaters: The Trichotomy
Tricots are one of the most strategically potent arguments in the policy arsenal. They allow you to reject the entire affirmative case without actually disagreeing with it.
Trichotomy: A Presumption argument claiming that the affirmative is running the wrong kind of case.
Trichotomies are run the same regardless of resolution type. If you see a policy case in an LD round, this is your recourse. However, they are most common in parli debate by a wide margin because parli offers all 3 resolution types.
Standard: The kind of case that the resolution calls for.
The Standard tag should be either “Policy,” “Value,” or “Fact.” Don’t get fancy with it; tricots only work if they’re simple.
Some resolutions can be interpreted multiple ways. If the aff has a valid interpretation of the resolution, the tricot won’t work. The judge won’t throw out the entire affirmative case if it is arguably valid.
Resolved: The American legal system should uphold utilitarianism over deontology.
You could interpret this as a value resolution assigning worth to utilitarianism in relation to deontology in the context of the American legal system. Or you could interpret it as a policy resolution proposing that the American legal system be changed from the deontological status quo to something more utilitarian. We prefer the first interpretation, but the second isn’t wrong. If the aff runs a policy or value case for this res, you’re better off with other strategies against it. You can still run a tricot against a fact case, however. In that case, your standard would need to acknowledge that policy OR value cases would have been accepted.
Many people get tangled up in details when looking at a resolution. They might say that a kind of resolution has to have a specific detail. Remember that resolution types can look very different. Details are often more confusing than helpful. Look at the entire statement to see clearly
Resolved: The American legal system is better than the Swedish legal system.
This may be hard to pin down because it’s so grounded and practical. But it can’t be a policy resolution because it’s not proposing a course of action. It’s assigning worth to the American legal system (better than the alternative), so it’s a value resolution.
Resolved: Gen Z uses social media too much.
This resolution has two elements. First, it asserts the correct amount of social media use. Perhaps: “It’s unhealthy to use social media for more than a half hour per day.” That’s a value statement. Then it asserts how much Gen Z uses social media in relation to the correct amount. “Gen Z uses social media more than a half hour per day.” That’s a fact statement. So this is a hybrid value-fact resolution.
If you’re in parli debate, analyzing each resolution to find all valid interpretations should be one of your first steps in prep. If you’re in another format, you go into the round knowing what to expect. You should still have tricot in your back pocket in case your opponent tries to avoid defending the resolution.
Violation: The case the affirmative actually ran.
This is usually obvious from the terms used; for example, you’re in a policy round and your opponents ran a value. If they recoded their case to look like the correct kind, slow down here to really explain exactly what went wrong.
Don’t get too tangled up in each argument the aff ran; the important thing is to focus on what they didn’t run.
Impact: What this means for the affirmative case.
The best value case in history is incapable of proving a policy resolution. We can cross-apply some arguments, and we can certainly make inferences. But the affirmative needs to explicitly advocate for the resolution if they want the judge to vote for them.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially change its policy toward American Indians.
Affirmative: American Indians are mistreated in many ways. This is terrible. Something must be done.
Standard: Policy. The resolution says that the government should make some actual change in its course of action.
Violation: Fact. The affirmative presented a lot of verifiable information about the world, but they didn’t advocate a change. “Something must be done” is not advocacy; we need to hear that Something proposed and supported.
Impact: No Advocacy. Voting affirmative means the affirmative team did their job and convinced you to support the resolution. They fundamentally failed to do that; they didn’t even try to defend it. Since no one in the room supports the resolution, your decision is easy.
Like all Presumption arguments, Tricots have some significant weaknesses - especially in the Team Policy format. But that is a topic for another day. For now, just know that you should have them in your arsenal. You need to know them if you want to master debate and go into any round against any opponent with a strong chance of winning.
Up next: Topicality.