Content-Manager, Administrators
209
edits
Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Structure of a Shell
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
See [[Responding to Theory]] to learn how to answer shells. | See [[Responding to Theory]] to learn how to answer shells. | ||
==== Example Shells ==== | |||
Below are a couple sample shells; they have red text explaining the different parts of the shell as outlined in the sections below this. | |||
=== Interpretation/Violation === | === Interpretation/Violation === | ||
| Line 115: | Line 119: | ||
RVIs, also known as reverse voting issues, are a reason why proving your norm is good means that you win the round. | RVIs, also known as reverse voting issues, are a reason why proving your norm is good means that you win the round. | ||
Usually, theory functions in a way where the person who runs theory can win the round off that argument, but the person who defends against theory cannot win the round off that argument. Responding to conditionality bad and winning it, for example, does not mean that you win – it means that you are allowed to run your conditional advocacy. This is under the no RVIs model. However, granting or winning that you get an RVI means that proving that your norm is best means that you can win the round of theory. With the earlier example, winning that conditional advocacies are good means that you can get a route to the ballot using theory. | Usually, theory functions in a way where the person who runs theory can win the round off that argument, but the person who defends against theory cannot win the round off that argument. Responding to conditionality bad and winning it, for example, does not mean that you win – it means that you are allowed to run your conditional advocacy. This is under the no RVIs model. However, granting or winning that you get an RVI means that proving that your norm is best means that you can win the round of theory. With the earlier example, winning that conditional advocacies are good means that you can get a route to the ballot using theory. | ||
Usually, the person running theory will not want RVIs because then they will have to either defend the shell or prove their opponent doesn’t get RVIs instead of just kicking, while the person responding to theory may want to run RVIs if they want an extra route to the ballot. | |||
'''Common Justifications''' | '''Common Justifications''' | ||