1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Interpretation and Violation
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
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 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: | 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: <math>X</math> 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. | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
'''Shiftiness''' – Shiftiness is when people can be purposefully unclear about their stance on something in order to shift out of their original position to gain a strategic advantage. An example of shiftiness is lying in cross-ex or being intentionally vague of something. | '''Shiftiness''' – Shiftiness is when people can be purposefully unclear about their stance on something in order to shift out of their original position to gain a strategic advantage. An example of shiftiness is lying in cross-ex or being intentionally vague of something. | ||
=== Voters === | === Voters === | ||
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. | ||
| Line 111: | Line 110: | ||
In the impact calculus section, you justify why your impacts (of the standards you read) matter. If you say that the debate is unfair, why does the debate being unfair matter? It may seem intuitive, but when running theory, you need to justify this too. | In the impact calculus section, you justify why your impacts (of the standards you read) matter. If you say that the debate is unfair, why does the debate being unfair matter? It may seem intuitive, but when running theory, you need to justify this too. | ||
The two most common justifications are fairness and education. Fairness says that something that your opponent did skewed the round and made it hard to debate, while education says that something that your opponent did prevented you from having a discussion or gaining education about debate. There are other forms of impact calc like accessibility (how safe your practices are) and tailored impact calc like disabled fairness or race-specific fairness, but those are less common. | The two most common justifications are fairness and education. Fairness says that something that your opponent did skewed the round and made it hard to debate, while education says that something that your opponent did prevented you from having a discussion or gaining education about debate. There are other forms of impact calc like accessibility (how safe your practices are) and tailored impact calc like disabled fairness or race-specific fairness, but those are less common. | ||
In [[topicality]], semantics (how grammatically correct you are to the resolution) can also be part of impact calc, although it can also be used as a standard as well. | In [[topicality]], semantics (how grammatically correct you are to the resolution) can also be part of impact calc, although it can also be used as a standard as well. | ||