Content-Manager, Administrators
203
edits
Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Competing Interps/Reasonability
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) (→Voters) |
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
Under competing interps, arguments are evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm – the side running the shell must prove that their norm is good for debate, and the side responding must prove that their counter-norm is good for debate. The winner of the theory debate is whoever’s norm is best for the round. However, under reasonability, the side who is responding just needs to prove that their model is sufficient enough to use in the round – it is “reasonable.” The winner of the theory debate is whether the defending debater’s actions were reasonable. If they were, the shell is dropped, and if they weren’t, they lose. | Under competing interps, arguments are evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm – the side running the shell must prove that their norm is good for debate, and the side responding must prove that their counter-norm is good for debate. The winner of the theory debate is whoever’s norm is best for the round. However, under reasonability, the side who is responding just needs to prove that their model is sufficient enough to use in the round – it is “reasonable.” The winner of the theory debate is whether the defending debater’s actions were reasonable. If they were, the shell is dropped, and if they weren’t, they lose. | ||
Typically, reasonability requires what is known as a “brightline.” Brightlines are a threshold that arguments must meet to be sufficient. Brightlines help make reasonability less arbitrary – they quantify exactly what it means to be reasonable in the first place. That way, instead of the judge randomly deciding if they think that the norm the defending debater defends is sufficient, they have a metric to evaluate by. | Typically, reasonability requires what is known as a “brightline.” Brightlines are a threshold that arguments must meet to be sufficient. Brightlines help make reasonability less arbitrary – they quantify exactly what it means to be reasonable in the first place. That way, instead of the judge randomly deciding if they think that the norm the defending debater defends is sufficient, they have a metric to evaluate by. | ||
Some examples of reasonability brightlines include “reasonability with a brightline of sufficient defense,” “reasonability with a brightline of link and impact turn ground,” and “reasonability if the education lost on substance outweighs the abuse | Some examples of reasonability brightlines include “reasonability with a brightline of sufficient defense,” “reasonability with a brightline of link and impact turn ground,” and “reasonability if the education lost on substance outweighs the abuse rectified by voting on the shell.” It is important to note that under competing interps, a brightline is not needed. In the context of theory, abuse refers to the negative consequences of the other debater’s actions on the round. For example, if you run a conditional advocacy and I ran theory on you, the abuse could be that conditional advocacies skewed my time. This is often referred to as an abuse story – the “loss” that one debater suffers. | ||
An example of when reasonability is useful is for the following shell: “Interp: Debaters must not wear formal clothing.” The standards for that shell are that formal clothing affects judgement and is inaccessible to less-privileged debaters. However, it’s obvious that this shell is frivolous – it’s impossible to find a clear distinction between “formal” and “informal” clothing and at some tournaments formal clothing is expected. | An example of when reasonability is useful is for the following shell: “Interp: Debaters must not wear formal clothing.” The standards for that shell are that formal clothing affects judgement and is inaccessible to less-privileged debaters. However, it’s obvious that this shell is frivolous – it’s impossible to find a clear distinction between “formal” and “informal” clothing and at some tournaments formal clothing is expected. | ||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
The person running a shell usually wants to defend competing interps – forcing your opponent to prove that they are actively good is much harder than proving that they are sufficient enough for the round. Likewise, the person defending the shell usually wants to defend reasonability. With the earlier example of formal clothes theory, it is easy to prove that wearing formal clothing is “okay” for a round, but it is hard to prove that it is a good norm to set. | The person running a shell usually wants to defend competing interps – forcing your opponent to prove that they are actively good is much harder than proving that they are sufficient enough for the round. Likewise, the person defending the shell usually wants to defend reasonability. With the earlier example of formal clothes theory, it is easy to prove that wearing formal clothing is “okay” for a round, but it is hard to prove that it is a good norm to set. | ||
'''Common Justifications''' | '''Common Justifications''' | ||
| Line 99: | Line 97: | ||
Reasonability – competing interps incentivizes people to run as many frivolous shells as they want because they know that I’ll need to prove offense. | Reasonability – competing interps incentivizes people to run as many frivolous shells as they want because they know that I’ll need to prove offense. | ||
Reasonability – competing interps allows for over punishing because you’ll vote on even the smallest amounts of abuse. | Reasonability – competing interps allows for over punishing because you’ll vote on even the smallest amounts of abuse. | ||
Reasonability – substance tradeoff – you’ll always choose a more marginal interpretation of what is good for debate because it can win you rounds, but that means we never get to talk about the topic if you’re always running theory. | Reasonability – substance tradeoff – you’ll always choose a more marginal interpretation of what is good for debate because it can win you rounds, but that means we never get to talk about the topic if you’re always running theory. | ||
==== RVIs/No RVIs ==== | ==== RVIs/No RVIs ==== | ||
==== Impact Calc (Fairness, Education, etc.) ==== | ==== Impact Calc (Fairness, Education, etc.) ==== | ||