We spent a lot of time exploring Presumption earlier in this series because it creates an impact for most arguments that aren’t part of the impact calculus. Let’s take a tour of the main four argument classes.

Trichotomy: A Presumption argument claiming that the affirmative is running the wrong kind of case.

It’s called Trichotomy because the affirmative made the wrong choice between the three possible resolution types. The word is often shortened to Tricot.

These are mostly seen in parliamentary debate, where any resolution type might appear. Suppose the resolution is

• Resolved: In the United States, felons should have a right to vote.

This is a policy resolution, since it’s proposing that we change a status quo in which they generally don’t. If the affirmative runs a value case explaining the importance of voting rights, you’d do well to point out that the resolution hasn’t been affirmed yet.

A Tricot severs the impact of the entire affirmative case, which returns us to the state we were in before the case was run: a default negative win. That makes Tricot a Presumption argument.

Topicality: A Presumption argument claiming that the Plan is not an example of the resolution.

Maybe the affirmative did run a policy case, but it’s not an instance of the resolution.

• Plan: Reduce Voting Age. The minimum voting age for federal elections will be reduced from 18 to 16.

This doesn’t give felons the right to vote. Regardless of its merits, it doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not the resolution is true. A Topicality argument severs the impact of the entire aff case and gets us back to a default negative win. That makes Topicality a Presumption argument.

Specification: A Presumption argument claiming that the Plan was not presented in enough detail in the first speech that it can be fully evaluated in subsequent speeches.

This is often shortened to Spec.

Spec arguments argue that if the judge didn't hear a full debate's worth of argumentation over the Plan, they can't have confidence that it was tested sufficiently to vote for it. These arguments can be complex and they’re easy to abuse. That said, they fill an important niche in functional policy theory.

Spec severs the impact of the entire affirmative case and gets us back to a default negative win. That makes Spec a Presumption argument.

Objection: A form of refutation arguing that the claim cannot possibly be true, regardless of its current support.

This is the most niche of them all. Objections are potent and readily available in value and fact resolutions. For policy, they’re still an option, but they’re very advanced. We’ll explore them in-depth soon.

For now, we’ll just say this: a resolutional objection convinces the judge to throw out the entire affirmative case because it cannot possibly be affirmed. This restores the default negative win, making the Objection a Presumption argument.

What about Kritiks? Well, they’re the exception to everything. We’ll get there soon.

But first, a step-by-step guide to each Presumption argument class. Stay tuned.