Content-Manager, Administrators
209
edits
Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Standards
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) m (→Standards) |
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
For example, a standard that said “[[Conditional]] advocacies are unfair because I don’t have any responses to their argument” is not persuasive while saying that “[[Conditional]] advocacies are unfair because it is impossible to predict which advocacy they are going to collapse to which splits the 1ar” is. | For example, a standard that said “[[Conditional]] advocacies are unfair because I don’t have any responses to their argument” is not persuasive while saying that “[[Conditional]] advocacies are unfair because it is impossible to predict which advocacy they are going to collapse to which splits the 1ar” is. | ||
See [[ | See [[Standards in Shells]] for more. | ||
==== Common Standards ==== | ==== Common Standards ==== | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
'''Predictability''' – Predictability is how easy it is to predict some positions. It is commonly used with limits to criticize narrow plan affs since they can pick tiny areas of literature to create their affs. | '''Predictability''' – Predictability is how easy it is to predict some positions. It is commonly used with limits to criticize narrow plan affs since they can pick tiny areas of literature to create their affs. | ||
Clash ( | '''Clash''' – Clash is an educational impact regarding how arguments are answered. A tactic that relied on hiding arguments in case and not disclosing them would avoid clash since it would prevent people from discussing and debating (“clashing with”) those arguments. Clash can be split up into two types: breadth and depth. Breadth is about debating a large variety of arguments while depth is about closely debating one argument. Breadth and depth are also sometimes used to justify '''Limits.''' | ||
'''Critical Thinking''' – Critical thinking is an educational skill about how fast someone can think on their feet. This is typically used to justify other skews like '''Strat/Time Skew.''' For example, strat skew can be turned by saying that it promotes critical thinking, which is better for debaters since they learn more in the long term. | |||
'''Real World''' – Real world education says that an argument is good if it models the real world. For example, arguing for multiple different advocacies could be real world since policymakers propose many different types of bills. | |||
'''Phil ed/Topic ed''' – Phil and topic education state that an argument is bad if it reduces the amount of education someone can get on the philosophical and topical level. For example, an argument that said that your opponent shouldn’t be allowed to contest your framework would be bad for phil ed since there would be no debate on the philosophical level. | |||
'''Accessibility''' – Accessibility states that an argument that your opponent makes excludes people from the debate space. Making violent (sexist, racist, etc.) arguments would be bad for accessibility because they would push people out of debate. | |||
'''Shiftiness''' – Shiftiness is when people can be purposefully unclear about their stance on something in order to shift out of their original position to gain a strategic advantage. An example of shiftiness is lying in cross-ex or being intentionally vague of something. | |||
=== Voters === | === Voters === | ||