Content-Manager, Administrators
209
edits
Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Competing Interps/Reasonability
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) |
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 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. | 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. | ||