1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Theory"
no edit summary
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Initiating Theory == | == Initiating Theory == | ||
Since theory is initiated in response to abuse, it is commonly read in the [[1NC Theory|1NC]] or [[1AR Theory|1AR]] in response to something that your opponent has done. However, it can also be read preemptively in the [[1AC Theory|1AC]] to say that your opponent shouldn't do something in one of their future speeches. More rarely, it can be read in the [[2NR theory|2NR]] in response to abuse from the 1AR. | Since theory is initiated in response to abuse, it is commonly read in the [[1NC Theory|1NC]] or [[1AR Theory|1AR]] in response to something that your opponent has done. However, it can also be read preemptively in the [[1AC Theory|1AC]] to say that your opponent shouldn't do something in one of their future speeches. More rarely, it can be read in the [[2NR theory|2NR]] in response to abuse from the 1AR. | ||
== Topicality == | |||
[[Topicality]] is a type of theory argument that proves the affirmative is not correctly defending the resolution. If the affirmative reads a [[Policy#Policy ACs|plan]], the negative might read a topicality shell to prove both that it's unfair for the affirmative to not defend the entire resolution as stated and also that doing so is not consistent with the grammar of the resolution. | |||
[[T-Framework]] is read when the affirmative is not defending the resolution at all in the form of a [[Non-topical Affirmatives|non-topical affirmative]]. | |||
== Common Shells == | == Common Shells == | ||
Although one can read a theory shell about anything, certain theory shells that respond to common practices in debate are accordingly read more often. See the list of [[Common Theory Shells|common theory shells]] for more. It's useful to know and drill against these common theory shells because they are likely to come up in many of your future rounds. | Although one can read a theory shell about anything, certain theory shells that respond to common practices in debate are accordingly read more often. See the list of [[Common Theory Shells|common theory shells]] for more. It's useful to know and drill against these common theory shells because they are likely to come up in many of your future rounds. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 17: | ||
== Frivolous Theory == | == Frivolous Theory == | ||
Although theory was originally intended to check back against legitimate abusive practices in-round, some debaters read theory arguments against practices that are not very abusive in the form of [[Frivolous Theory|frivolous theory]]. Strategically, frivolous theory can be smart when theory is evaluated under an [[Introduction to Circuit Debate#Offense vs Defense|offense-defense paradigm]]. If your opponent wins that you are being even the tiniest bit abusive or that you aren't doing something that could make the round more fair, your opponent could win the round. | Although theory was originally intended to check back against legitimate abusive practices in-round, some debaters read theory arguments against practices that are not very abusive in the form of [[Frivolous Theory|frivolous theory]]. Strategically, frivolous theory can be smart when theory is evaluated under an [[Introduction to Circuit Debate#Offense vs Defense|offense-defense paradigm]]. If your opponent wins that you are being even the tiniest bit abusive or that you aren't doing something that could make the round more fair, your opponent could win the round. | ||
== Combo Shells == | == Combo Shells == | ||
[[Combo Shells]] prove why some ''combination'' of arguments that your opponent is reading is abusive. Combo shells are often contextual to the given round and might be exempted on-the-spot. Combo shells are particularly strategic against tricky affirmatives that attempt to get you to concede some combination of arguments that causes you to lose the round. | [[Combo Shells]] prove why some ''combination'' of arguments that your opponent is reading is abusive. Combo shells are often contextual to the given round and might be exempted on-the-spot. Combo shells are particularly strategic against tricky affirmatives that attempt to get you to concede some combination of arguments that causes you to lose the round. | ||
== Responding to Theory == | == Responding to Theory == | ||
[[Responding to Theory]] is an important skill to know as a debater, no matter your argumentative style. | [[Responding to Theory]] is an important skill to know as a debater, no matter your argumentative style. | ||