Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Structure of a Shell (view source)

Revision as of 20:07, 17 January 2022

892 bytes added ,  20:07, 17 January 2022
→‎Common Justifications
Line 48: Line 48:


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.  
===== Common Justifications =====
===== Common Justifications =====
Drop the debater (often abbreviated to DTD) – their abuse was so bad that it completely skewed the rest of the round.
Drop the debater (often abbreviated to DTD) – their abuse was so bad that it completely skewed the rest of the round.
DTD – if they lose, it’ll encourage good norms in the future since people will fear punishment.
DTD – if they lose, it’ll encourage good norms in the future since people will fear punishment.


Line 70: Line 70:


The person running a shell usually wants to defend competing interps – forcing your opponent to prove that they are actively good is much harder than proving that they are sufficient enough for the round. Likewise, the person defending the shell usually wants to defend reasonability. With the earlier example of formal clothes theory, it is easy to prove that wearing formal clothing is “okay” for a round, but it is hard to prove that it is a good norm to set. For those running theory, it is important to put competing interps in the speech you are introducing the shell – it helps preempt responses to it while also preventing the round from being late-breaking. Giving the judge multiple speeches to evaluate the debate makes it easier to evaluate compared to each debater having one speech on the issue since it gives rise to new arguments and intervention. Like with competing interps/reasonability, it is important to preemptively put no RVIs in your voters section when running theory to make it harder for your opponent to justify yes RVIs.  
The person running a shell usually wants to defend competing interps – forcing your opponent to prove that they are actively good is much harder than proving that they are sufficient enough for the round. Likewise, the person defending the shell usually wants to defend reasonability. With the earlier example of formal clothes theory, it is easy to prove that wearing formal clothing is “okay” for a round, but it is hard to prove that it is a good norm to set. For those running theory, it is important to put competing interps in the speech you are introducing the shell – it helps preempt responses to it while also preventing the round from being late-breaking. Giving the judge multiple speeches to evaluate the debate makes it easier to evaluate compared to each debater having one speech on the issue since it gives rise to new arguments and intervention. Like with competing interps/reasonability, it is important to preemptively put no RVIs in your voters section when running theory to make it harder for your opponent to justify yes RVIs.  
===== '''Common Justifications''' =====
Competing Interps – Norms setting: it ensures we have a debate over which practice is better for the debate space as a whole rather than this round in particular. Norms setting outweighs A. longevity – it ensures the most amount of debate rounds will be fair and educational, not only this one B. the constitutive purpose of theory is to set good rules for the debate space.
Competing Interps – Reasonability is self-serving because you will always choose a brightline to prove you are reasonable which means you can never be held accountable for abuse. That outweighs and justifies infinite abuse.
Competing Interps – Reasonability collapses: debating what the brightline ought to be is debating over degrees of abuse which concedes to the validity of a competing interps model.
Competing Interps – Reciprocity: competing interps ensures that the opponent can derive offense on the theory level rather than a defensive model which would be much harder to win, key to fairness.


===== '''Common Justifications''' =====
Reasonability – Education: if I’ve proven my practices are reasonable, then it means no abuse has been committed so we should drop down to the substance.  
CI – Reasonability incentivizes a race to the bottom of judge intervention – people can push the brightline for what is reasonable lower and lower until it hits rock bottom.
CI – Reasonability is arbitrary – nobody knows what a judge considers reasonable which allows for infinite judge intervention.


CI – Norm setting – only competing interps can set models for debater because it allows for us to find the best models.
Reasonability – Infinite regress: there are an infinite amount of ways I could be marginally fairer, but the disad to reading theory and losing out on all substance education outweighs the marginal increase in fairness you might get out of a competing interps model.


Reasonability – competing interps incentivizes people to run as many frivolous shells as they want because they know that I’ll need to prove offense.
Reasonability – Collapses: proving I’m reasonable means I wasn’t unfair which functions as terminal defense to their standards under a competing interps model.


Reasonability – competing interps allows for over punishing because you’ll vote on even the smallest amounts of abuse.  
Reasonability – Competing interps fails to set norms, it just shows who the best theory debater is contextually to this round and this judge. Reasonability solves – it rewards the winner who does the best job articulating they weren’t unfair in this round.


Reasonability – substance tradeoff – you’ll always choose a more marginal interpretation of what is good for debate because it can win you rounds, but that means we never get to talk about the topic if you’re always running theory.
==== RVIs vs No RVIs ====
==== RVIs vs No RVIs ====
Consider the question: Under a competing interpretations model, what should happen if the person responding to theory wins that their norm is better?  
Consider the question: Under a competing interpretations model, what should happen if the person responding to theory wins that their norm is better?  
Line 90: Line 96:


Usually, the person running theory will not want RVIs because then they will have to either defend the shell or prove their opponent doesn’t get RVIs instead of just kicking, while the person responding to theory may want to run RVIs if they want an extra route to the ballot.
Usually, the person running theory will not want RVIs because then they will have to either defend the shell or prove their opponent doesn’t get RVIs instead of just kicking, while the person responding to theory may want to run RVIs if they want an extra route to the ballot.
===== '''Common Justifications''' =====
===== '''Common Justifications''' =====
RVIs – Reciprocity: otherwise theory comes a NIB and impossible for me to win, which justifies them reading many shells since I do not have recourse.
RVIs – Reciprocity: otherwise theory comes a NIB and impossible for me to win, which justifies them reading many shells since I do not have recourse.  


RVIs – Substance skew: I can’t return to the substance debate because I’m already behind by spending time on the theory flow, which kills fairness.
RVIs – Substance skew: I can’t return to the substance debate because I’m already behind by spending time on the theory flow, which kills fairness.
Line 103: Line 108:


No RVIs – RVIs encourage abusive practices A. they encourage people to read abusive affs to bait theory and win on the RVI b. they disincentivize people from reading theory for fear of losing on the RVI which allows abusive practices to go unchecked
No RVIs – RVIs encourage abusive practices A. they encourage people to read abusive affs to bait theory and win on the RVI b. they disincentivize people from reading theory for fear of losing on the RVI which allows abusive practices to go unchecked
==== Impact Calculus (Fairness, Education, etc.) ====
==== Impact Calculus (Fairness, Education, etc.) ====
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.
Line 121: Line 125:


Education – We take away educational benefits out of debate to use later in life which outweighs on real world usage.
Education – We take away educational benefits out of debate to use later in life which outweighs on real world usage.
==== Norms Setting vs In-Round Abuse ====
==== Norms Setting vs In-Round Abuse ====
== Paragraph Theory ==
== Paragraph Theory ==
Theory shells are sometimes ran in the form of [[1AR Theory#Paragraph Theory|paragraph theory]]. While functionally identical to normal theory, paragraph theory often condenses the structure of a shell into one paragraph and makes it faster to run, especially useful for the 1AR.  
Theory shells are sometimes ran in the form of [[1AR Theory#Paragraph Theory|paragraph theory]]. While functionally identical to normal theory, paragraph theory often condenses the structure of a shell into one paragraph and makes it faster to run, especially useful for the 1AR.  
Retrieved from "https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php/Special:MobileDiff/2199"

Navigation menu