Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"

== Overview ==

Theory is a useful tool for checking back against abusive practices in the debate round. All theory shells are split into the following four parts: the interpretation, violation, standards and voters. If Debater <math>A</math> is abusive and Debater <math>B</math> wants to read theory in response to the abuse, Debater <math>B</math> will propose a rule for the debate round that if followed, such abuse would not occur. You could think of such as rule as a proposed law for debate, and this rule is called the interpretation. Next, Debater <math>B</math> will explicitly show how Debater <math>A</math> has violated that rule in the form of the violation. Then, Debater <math>B</math> will advocate for why their rule is a good norm for the debate space through the standards. Finally, Debater <math>B</math> will explain why we should care about concepts like being fair and educational in debate through the voters.

That is all there is to a theory shell, and in the following sections, we will go more in-depth to the specific parts of the shell.

== Structure of a Shell ==

=== Interpretation and Violation ===

An example of an interpretation is “Interp: Debaters must not run conditional advocacies” which criticizes the use of [[Counterplans#Theory|conditional]] advocacies in the round.  

Interps for non-[[1AR Theory#Paragraph vs. “Traditional” Theory|paragraph theory]] should be constructed with an actor (typically “debaters”) and should contain words like “must” instead of “should” or “ought.”

The violation explicitly shows how the opponent fails to abide by that norm or rule.  

'''Ground''' – Ground is the type and quantity of arguments that you have access to. A topic that said “Racism is unjust” would have a lot of ground (arguments) for those affirming, for example, but no ground at all for those negating. Typically, ground is used to justify dropping arguments that have little to no legitimate responses against them, which make them hard to respond to. A common argument against [[PICs]] is that they leave the aff no ground since it is difficult to find reasons why they are bad.  

'''Clash''' – Clash is an educational impact regarding how arguments are answered. A tactic that relied on hiding arguments in case and not disclosing them would avoid clash since it would prevent people from discussing and debating (“clashing with”) those arguments. Clash can be split up into two types: breadth and depth. Breadth is about debating a large variety of arguments while depth is about closely debating one argument. Breadth and depth are also sometimes used to justify '''Limits.'''

Voters explain how the theory shell should be evaluated. These are also known as paradigm issues. Some arguments for the voters include drop the debater (meaning that your opponent loses for failing to meet the interpretation), competing interps, and impact calculus (e.g. why fairness and education should be valued by the judge). Specific voters (such as fairness before education, drop the argument over drop the debater, etc.) are often made as strategic arguments under the theory debate in order to gain advantages while debating.  

Drop the argument says that your opponent and judge should disregard the argument that you are indicting and effectively “drop” it. For example, if my opponent were to run theory on a counterplan and it was drop the argument, if I conceded the theory argument then I would no longer be able to go for the counterplan.  

Under reasonability, however, the burden is less severe – all the defending debater must do is prove that it is okay to wear formal clothing, that the theory shell would sacrifice more debate than it would help, or any other form of a brightline. For example, under the brightline “reasonability with a brightline of sufficient defense,” valid arguments would include “formal clothing is expected,” “I can’t know what formal is,” amongst others.