Difference between revisions of "Frivolous Theory"

Frivolous Theory (view source)

Revision as of 23:52, 16 January 2022

243 bytes added , 23:52, 16 January 2022

no edit summary

Zsiegel

Content-Manager, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

1,166

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Overview ==
-Frivolous theory, often subjective, is simply put, theory that is often egregious and unnecessary–theory read for the sake of theory.
+Frivolous theory refers to theory being read against practices that aren't very abusive. Frivolous theory is often considered unnecessary, but it allows the debater reading it to have an additional route to the ballot. Debaters who are proficient at theory might try to find any violation that is even marginally unfair just so that they can read theory.
-Many debaters often find theory strategic, so they try to find a violation at all costs. Frivolous theory can often be strategic because:
+When theory is evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm (i.e. competing interpretations), frivolous theory can often be difficult to respond to, since it will usually be true that one debater is being ''marginally'' more unfair. The debater who is responding to the theory would need to find some way to justify why their practice is actually good, which can often be difficult.
-–Debaters are generally not prepared for it given that the shell is obscure and not what debaters would expect to be called abusive for
-–Frivolous shells are often true in the sense that there is no reason that it is false–there is small abuse story for why the shell is true but not genuine abuse.
-–Frivolous shells are usually short, making them a good time tradeoff
-To respond to frivolous theory, debaters can either:
-–Respond to it on face by making reasons the shell is false (generate offense)
-–Use deflationary tactics such as drop the argument (don't make the debater lose, just don't evaluate the abusive argument), reasonability (if the abuse is minimal, then we should focus on more important things like the topic), and defense on the shell (reasons you weren't THAT abusive)
+For example, some frivolous interps might be, "The affirmative debater must specify what role of the ballot they are using to evaluate the round," "The negative must specify the status of the counterplan in a delineated text in the 1NC," or "Debaters must specify which branch of utilitarianism they are using for their framework." Even though these interpretations are read against practices that aren't very abusive, you will notice that it is hard to come up with proactive reasons why violating the interpretation would be good, which would be necessary under competing interpretations.
 == Responding to Frivolous Theory ==
 ==Example ==
 Interpretation: The affirmative must specify a framework to evaluate the round through