Content-Manager
37
edits
Difference between revisions of "Combo Shells"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
made it more organized
(Created page with "Combo shells are a subset of theory shells in which a conjunction of multiple things done together are bad. For example, if the affirmative makes a claim that the judge should...") |
(made it more organized) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Combo shells are a subset of theory shells in which a conjunction of multiple things done together are bad. | ==Introduction== | ||
Combo shells are a subset of theory shells in which a conjunction of multiple things done together are bad. To clarify, doing two individual things is fine, but when done together, that is abusive. | |||
For example, if the affirmative makes a claim that the judge should evaluate the theory debate after the 1ar (they decide who wins the theory flow when the 1ar is over) and that aff gets theory in the 1ar that is drop the debater (the abusive debater should lose for being abusive), then that is bad because affs can make new theory shells in the 1ar and auto-win since the 2nr can’t respond to them due to the debate being evaluated after the 1ar. | |||
Notice how the abuse is conjunctive–claiming theory in the 1ar is drop the debater is fine if you don’t evaluate the theory debate after the 1ar because then the 2nr can answer the shell. The converse also applies–evaluating the theory debate after the 1ar is fine if the 1ar does not get theory that is drop the debater, because then they can only win on arguments that have already been answered by the 1nc, not completely new 1ar arguments. | |||
== Strategically Deploying Combo Shells== | |||
Combo shells are strategic because the abuse story between them is generally true if done correctly. A few tips can be used to maximize strategic potential: | |||
1–Debaters reading a combo shell should always make an infinite abuse claim, which means that it justifies their opponent getting away with functionally anything and winning every single round. | |||
2–Remember to win a conjunctive abuse story. One common mistake that debaters often make when reading combo shells is by justifying each plank in the shell is bad, but not why reading every plank together in conjunction is bad. Looking back at the example above, the shell is saying that it’s okay to read evaluate the theory debate after the 1ar or that theory in the 1ar is drop the debater, but reading both together is specifically a bad thing. Similarly, every combo shell needs to prove why reading each plank together is uniquely bad, not just why each is individually bad. | |||
3–Don’t read multiple combo shells in one round. There may be exceptions, but generally, the responses to combo shells are the same, so there is no reason to read multiple because the responses to one shell would just respond to the other as well. | |||
==Responding to Combo Shells== | |||
1–Contest paradigm issues–win drop the argument (if you made an abusive argument, then the judge should just discount that argument instead of making you lose the whole round) and reasonability (you don’t need to prove your norm is good, but just that it isn’t super abusive) | |||
2–Answering the abusive argument solves–in the context of the shell above, yes it was abusive to say 1ar theory is drop the debater and evaluate the theory debate after the 1ar, but that just proves why it justifies a bad norm, not why the act if actively reading the two was abusive because the neg could obviously just respond to the argument. | |||
3–Critical Thinking–being forced to think in tough situations like the one put in from the abuse forces debaters to think on their feet like they would in the real world, which is good for education. | |||
4–Not Conjunctive Abuse–as explained above, if a shell justifies why each plank is bad but not why the reading of every argument in CONJUNCTION is bad, then it doesn’t solve the abuse and is generally arbitrary | |||
5–Leveraging spikes against the shell–for example, if the neg read a shell saying “must not say aff theory is drop the debater and neg theory is drop the argument,” the aff could go up in the 1ar and justify neg theory as drop the argument to take out the combo shell. | |||
==Example== | |||
To give a formal example, we can look at this shell: | To give a formal example, we can look at this shell: | ||
Interpretation: The affirmative must not deny the negative an rvi to aff theory and claim an rvi to neg theory. The standard is strat skew - affs get a 2:1 theory advantage because they can either win off of my shell or their own shell while I can only win off of my shell - that creates irreciprocal theory burdens and destroys any chance of norming since either negs have to go 7 minutes all in on theory regardless of how friv it gets since nothing else matters OR they don’t read theory at all and affs get away with infinite abuse | |||
Interpretation: The affirmative must not deny the negative an rvi to aff theory and claim an rvi to neg theory. | |||
The standard is strat skew - affs get a 2:1 theory advantage because they can either win off of my shell or their own shell while I can only win off of my shell - that creates irreciprocal theory burdens and destroys any chance of norming since either negs have to go 7 minutes all in on theory regardless of how friv it gets since nothing else matters OR they don’t read theory at all and affs get away with infinite abuse | |||
As shown, there is one standard (strat skew) but impacted to three different things. First, reciprocity (2:1 skew), second, norming (friv theory which can also be an education claim) and infinite abuse (chilling). Additionally, the abuse is conjunctive–reading no neg rvi or yes aff rvi are fine independently, but reading them in conjunction is bad because it creates a 2:1 skew. | As shown, there is one standard (strat skew) but impacted to three different things. First, reciprocity (2:1 skew), second, norming (friv theory which can also be an education claim) and infinite abuse (chilling). Additionally, the abuse is conjunctive–reading no neg rvi or yes aff rvi are fine independently, but reading them in conjunction is bad because it creates a 2:1 skew. | ||