Content-Manager, Administrators
203
edits
Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Voters
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) m (→Voters) |
|||
| 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/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. | 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. | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
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? | ||
The RVI, which stands for a reverse voting issue, says that offensively beating back a theory shell (assuming competing interpretations and drop the debater are true) means that the winner should win the theory layer on the flow, which if the highest layer, would translate into winning the round. Without the RVI, beating back the shell would simply return the debate back to substance. | The RVI, which stands for a reverse voting issue, says that offensively beating back a theory shell (assuming competing interpretations and drop the debater are true) means that the winner should win the theory layer on the flow, which if the highest layer, would translate into winning the round. Without the RVI, beating back the shell would simply return the debate back to substance. | ||
Usually, theory functions in a way where the person who runs theory can win the round off that argument, but the person who defends against theory cannot win the round off that argument. Responding to conditionality bad and winning it, for example, does not mean that you win – it means that you are allowed to run your conditional advocacy. This is under the no RVIs model. However, granting or winning that you get an RVI means that proving that your norm is best means that you can win the round of theory. With the earlier example, winning that conditional advocacies are good means that you can get a route to the ballot using theory. | Usually, theory functions in a way where the person who runs theory can win the round off that argument, but the person who defends against theory cannot win the round off that argument. Responding to conditionality bad and winning it, for example, does not mean that you win – it means that you are allowed to run your conditional advocacy. This is under the no RVIs model. However, granting or winning that you get an RVI means that proving that your norm is best means that you can win the round of theory. With the earlier example, winning that conditional advocacies are good means that you can get a route to the ballot using theory. | ||