Difference between revisions of "Theory"

Theory is a type of argument that proves why a debater's practice is harmful in the debate round or debate in general. Typically, theory arguments will prove why a debater is being unfair or uneducational in the round. Although theory is intended to be used when your opponent is being unfair, abusive, or uneducational, it can be strategic more broadly by forcing your opponent to spend time answering your theory arguments, even if they were only marginally abusive. Theory is considered to come before and operate on a higher layer than substance, which means that even if you are losing the debate substantively but can successfully prove that your opponent is being unfair or uneducational, you would win the round.  

Theory (also called “theory shells” or just “shells”) are composed of four parts: the [[Structure_of_a_Shell#Interpretation.2FViolation|interpretation and violation]], which isolates what your opponent is specifically doing that is unfair or uneducational, the [[Structure_of_a_Shell#Standards|standards]], which proves how your opponent is being unfair or uneducational, and [[Structure_of_a_Shell#Voters|voters]], which articulate why the judge should care about being fair or educational in round, among other things.  

Since theory is initiated in response to abuse, it is commonly read in the [[1NC Theory|1NC]] or [[1AR Theory|1AR]] in response to something that your opponent has done. However, it can also be read preemptively in the [[1AC Theory|1AC]] to say that your opponent shouldn't do something in one of their future speeches. More rarely, it can be read in the [[2NR theory|2NR]] in response to abuse from the 1AR.

Although one can read a theory shell about anything, certain theory shells that respond to common practices in debate are accordingly read more often. See the list of [[Common Theory Shells|common theory shells]] for more.  It's useful to know and drill against these common theory shells because they are likely to come up in many of your future rounds.  

 

[[Disclosure Theory]] is another common theory shell that is read to incentivize debaters to [[Introduction to Circuit Debate#Disclosure|disclose]] on the [https://hsld.debatespaces.org HSLD wiki].  

Although theory was originally intended to check back against legitimate abusive practices in-round, some debaters read theory arguments against practices that are not very abusive in the form of [[Frivolous Theory|frivolous theory]]. Strategically, frivolous theory can be smart when theory is evaluated under an [[Introduction to Circuit Debate#Offense vs Defense|offense-defense paradigm]]. If your opponent wins that you are being even the tiniest bit abusive or that you aren't doing something that could make the round more fair, your opponent could win the round.

[[Topicality]] is a type of theory argument that proves the affirmative is not correctly defending the resolution. If the affirmative reads a [[Policy#Policy ACs|Plan]], the negative might read a topicality shell to prove both that it's unfair for the affirmative to not defend the entire resolution as stated and also that doing so is not consistent with the grammar of the resolution.

 

[[T-Framework]] is read when the affirmative is not defending the resolution at all in the form of a [[Non-topical Affirmatives|non-topical affirmative]].