1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Voters
m (→Sample Shells) |
(→Voters) |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
'''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. | Voters explain how the theory shell should be evaluated. These are also known as paradigm issues. If you are reading theory, you ''must'' justify your voters at the end of the shell. Typically, this will be: Drop the debater, competing interpretations, no RVIs, and fairness or education. | ||
If you are responding to theory, you might contest the voters of the shell by going for: Drop the argument, reasonability, or RVIs. | |||
==== Drop the Debater vs Drop the Argument ==== | ==== Drop the Debater vs Drop the Argument ==== | ||
Consider the question: If you win your shell, how should the impact the evaluation of the round? | Consider the question: If you win your shell, how should the impact the evaluation of the round? | ||
| Line 125: | Line 127: | ||
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 ==== | ||
The distinction between norms setting and in-round abuse is a more technical part of the theory debate which is not brought up in most theory rounds, but it is worth mentioning here because it can still be very strategic in certain cases. Note that the distinction between norms setting and in-round abuse is only relevant under a competing interps model of theory. | The distinction between norms setting and in-round abuse is a more technical part of the theory debate which is not brought up in most theory rounds, but it is worth mentioning here because it can still be very strategic in certain cases. Note that the distinction between norms setting and in-round abuse is only relevant under a competing interps model of theory. | ||
The norm-setting model of theory argues that the purpose of theory debates are to set good norms across all rounds, whereas the in-round abuse model of theory argues that the purpose of theory is to mitigate abuse in this round, specifically. In debate, many judges and debaters seem to assume that theory operates under a norms setting model, but this is certainly up to contestation. | The norm-setting model of theory argues that the purpose of theory debates are to set good norms across all rounds, whereas the in-round abuse model of theory argues that the purpose of theory is to mitigate abuse in this round, specifically. In debate, many judges and debaters seem to assume that theory operates under a norms setting model, but this is certainly up to contestation. | ||