1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Structure of a Shell
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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. | 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 == | == Structure of a Shell == | ||
=== Interpretation and Violation === | === Interpretation and Violation === | ||
The interpretation ("interp") is the proposed rule, or norm, that the debate space should follow. | The interpretation ("interp") is the proposed rule, or norm, that the debate space should follow. For example, if a debater wanted to criticize the use of [[Counterplans#Theory|conditional]] advocacies in the round, they might read an interpretation of, "Interpretation: Debaters must not run conditional advocacies." | ||
The violation, then, would explicitly show how their opponent failed to abide by that norm or rule. Violations are reasons why your opponent fails to meet your interp. A violation could be as simple as, "Violation: Their [x] advocacy is conditional." When constructing a violation, make sure that it is specific and clear, otherwise your opponent might be able to argue that they are not actually violating your shell. A good way to check violations would be to ask about them in cross-ex and get your opponent to explicitly admit that they are violating your shell. | |||
=== Standards === | === Standards === | ||
Standards are reasons why your model of debate (the interpretation) is good and why their model (the violation) is bad, typically justified by fairness and/or education. | Standards are reasons why your model of debate (the interpretation) is good and why their model (the violation) is bad, typically justified by fairness and/or education. | ||
When constructing standards, you usually want to point out why their model of debate is bad – why their type of argument is bad for debate. It’s not enough to say that it’s difficult to respond to their argument; you need to explain why their argument makes the round unfair or uneducational. | When constructing standards, you usually want to point out why their model of debate is bad – why their type of argument is bad for debate. It’s not enough to say that it’s difficult to respond to their argument; you need to more specifically explain why their argument makes the round unfair or uneducational. | ||
For example, a standard that | For example, a standard that says, “Conditional advocacies are unfair because I don’t have any responses to their argument” would not be persuasive because it doesn't explain why you cannot respond to their argument. In contrast, a standard that says, “Conditional advocacies are unfair because they can read multiple conditional advocacies in the 1NC, and I cannot predict what they will collapse to in the 2NR, which makes my 1AR difficult" would be more persuasive. | ||
==== Common Standards ==== | ==== Common Standards ==== | ||
Debaters commonly use the following standards to describe the ways their opponents are being unfair or uneducational. | |||
'''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 | '''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 [[Counterplans#Common types|PICs]] is that they leave the aff no ground since it is difficult for the affirmative to turn the PIC since they include most of the affirmative's own offense. | ||
'''Reciprocity''' – Reciprocity is the argument that your opponent has access to some argument, or route to the ballot, that you lack. It is similar to ground insofar as it is about the division of arguments. An irreciprocal practice, for example, would be allowing yourself to run theory but at the same time preventing your opponent from running it. That way, you would have one more route than your opponent would. | |||
''' | '''Strat/Time Skew''' – Strat and time skew state that something your opponent did prevented you from answering or gave them a time advantage. If someone were to take ten minutes of prep instead of the usual four/five, then it would create a time skew imbalance because they would have more time to prepare than you. | ||
''' | '''Limits''' – Limits is an argument concerning the number of positions that your opponent is able to run. The practice of reading [[Non-topical Affirmatives|non-topical affirmatives]], for example, would be bad under limits because the negative would then have to prepare against an infinite number of potential affirmatives that could be read since they are not held to defending the resolution. | ||
''' | '''Predictability''' – Predictability criticizes how a certain practice is difficult for one debater since it is difficult to predict what their opponent will do. It is commonly used with limits to criticize narrow plan affs since they can pick tiny areas of literature to create their affs. | ||
''' | '''Clash''' – Clash is an education-based standard that argues a certain practice decreases the amount of interaction that can occur between arguments in the round. 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.''' | ||
''' | '''Critical Thinking''' – Critical thinking is an education-based standard that argues a certain practice fails to cultivate critical thinking, or the ability for somebody to think on their feet. This is typically used to justify abuse from other skews like '''Strat/Time Skew.''' For example, a debater might make a turn to a strat skew standard by saying, the fact that my position is more difficult to respond to means it promotes critical thinking since debaters will have to think of more creative and original responses, which benefits them in the long term. | ||
''' | '''Real World''' – Real world education says that an argument is good if it models the real world because it can promote education about real-world issues. For example, arguing for multiple different advocacies could be real world since policymakers propose many different types of bills. | ||
'''Phil ed/Topic ed''' – Phil and topic education state that an argument is bad if it reduces the amount of education someone can get on the philosophical or topical level. For example, an argument that said that your opponent shouldn’t be allowed to contest your framework would be bad for phil ed since there would be no debate on the philosophical level. | |||
'''Phil ed/Topic ed''' – Phil and topic education state that an argument is bad if it reduces the amount of education someone can get on the philosophical | |||
'''Accessibility''' – Accessibility states that an argument that your opponent makes excludes people from the debate space. Making violent (sexist, racist, etc.) arguments would be bad for accessibility because they would push people out of debate. | '''Accessibility''' – Accessibility states that an argument that your opponent makes excludes people from the debate space. Making violent (sexist, racist, etc.) arguments would be bad for accessibility because they would push people out of debate. | ||
| Line 52: | Line 40: | ||
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. | 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 Debater/Drop the Argument ==== | ==== Drop the Debater/Drop the Argument ==== | ||
Consider the following question: If you win your shell, how should the impact the evaluation of the round? | |||
Drop the debater says that your opponent should lose the round for violating your interp. This does not mean that the round completely stops after you make the accusation; rather, your opponent will defend their norm and you will pursue your norm (assuming that you go for theory) and if you win your shell and that your opponent should lose for violating it, the judge will use that to make their decision (once the round finishes). | Drop the debater says that your opponent should lose the round for violating your interp. This does not mean that the round completely stops after you make the accusation; rather, your opponent will defend their norm and you will pursue your norm (assuming that you go for theory) and if you win your shell and that your opponent should lose for violating it, the judge will use that to make their decision (once the round finishes). | ||
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. | 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 since it would be dropped. | ||
Typically, people who are running shells will want to say it’s drop the debater so that they can have a strategic route to the ballot, while people who are answering shells will want to say that it’s drop the argument so they don’t lose on theory. | Typically, people who are running shells will want to say it’s drop the debater so that they can have a strategic route to the ballot, while people who are answering shells will want to say that it’s drop the argument so they don’t lose on theory. | ||
| Line 147: | Line 135: | ||
Education – it’s the only reasons why schools fund debate because they value the skills you learn from it. | Education – it’s the only reasons why schools fund debate because they value the skills you learn from it. | ||
== Paragraph Theory == | |||
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.” | |||
== Sample Shells == | == Sample Shells == | ||