By Jason Luo and Andrew Lee
Although most progressive arguments spread from CX into LD and then to PF, tricks are an argument unique to LD. These arguments are arguments that either massively advantage the aff or neg or would automatically trigger an aff win or loss, usually without engaging in LARP debate.
The most commonly run trick in PF is the argument that because the word “resolved” that prefaces every resolution is defined by some dictionary as “firmly determined”, the resolution is thus determined true already. An argument of this type - defining the resolution in a certain way, then saying why that certain definition would lead to an automatic affirmative or negative ballot - is called an “a priori.”
There are other tricks, such as arguments for why the judge should evaluate the round after the first constructive/evaluate the theory debate after rebuttal/etc. These are usually justified by fairness.
Since tricks are so devastating but also very easily contested, they are usually either read quickly in large amounts in the hopes that a team drops at least one or hidden in other arguments. For example, people will hide the resolved a priori within the tag of a card on a contention. This is seen by many judges as abusive and theory that requires teams to label/number their tricks is very persuasive.
How to respond to tricks:
The most commonly run trick in PF is the argument that because the word “resolved” that prefaces every resolution is defined by some dictionary as “firmly determined”, the resolution is thus determined true already. An argument of this type - defining the resolution in a certain way, then saying why that certain definition would lead to an automatic affirmative or negative ballot - is called an “a priori.”
There are other tricks, such as arguments for why the judge should evaluate the round after the first constructive/evaluate the theory debate after rebuttal/etc. These are usually justified by fairness.
Since tricks are so devastating but also very easily contested, they are usually either read quickly in large amounts in the hopes that a team drops at least one or hidden in other arguments. For example, people will hide the resolved a priori within the tag of a card on a contention. This is seen by many judges as abusive and theory that requires teams to label/number their tricks is very persuasive.
How to respond to tricks:
- Interact with the trick. For example, for the resolved trick, there are different definitions for the word resolved that could be preferred instead of “firmly determined”. Furthermore, firmly determined could mean firmly determined true or false, which is not specified.
- Read theory. Many judges vehemently despise tricks and there are many legitimate reasons why tricks harm fairness or education.
- If you don't want to or don't know how to engage with weird premises or paradoxes, you can always win on presumption or permissibility. Remember, tricks work under truth-testing role of the ballot and typically rely on presumption ballots. If you provide reasons as to why the judge(s) should affirm/negate on presumption, you should be fine.
- Again, most tricks debaters read a truth testing role of the ballot. A good step to beating them would be to read a different role of the ballot of your choosing. Be prepared to defend your role of the ballot.