2
edits
Difference between revisions of "Frivolous Theory"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Added in infinite regress response to spec shells
(Added in infinite regress response to spec shells) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
When theory is evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm (i.e. competing interpretations), frivolous theory can often be difficult to respond to, since it will usually be true that one debater is being ''marginally'' more unfair. The debater who is responding to the theory would need to find some way to justify why their practice is actually good, which could often be difficult, especially when some frivolous theory shells aren't even arguing that one debater was being actively abusive – they instead argue that the debater ''should have done'' <math>X</math> to be more fair. | When theory is evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm (i.e. competing interpretations), frivolous theory can often be difficult to respond to, since it will usually be true that one debater is being ''marginally'' more unfair. The debater who is responding to the theory would need to find some way to justify why their practice is actually good, which could often be difficult, especially when some frivolous theory shells aren't even arguing that one debater was being actively abusive – they instead argue that the debater ''should have done'' <math>X</math> to be more fair. | ||
For example, some frivolous interps might be, "The affirmative debater must specify what role of the ballot they are using to evaluate the round," "The negative must specify the status of the counterplan in a delineated text in the 1NC," or "Debaters must specify which branch of utilitarianism they are using for their framework." Even though these interpretations are read against practices that aren't very abusive, you will notice that it is hard to come up with proactive reasons why violating the interpretation would be good, which would be necessary under competing interpretations. | For example, some frivolous interps might be, "The affirmative debater must specify what role of the ballot they are using to evaluate the round," "The negative must specify the status of the counterplan in a delineated text in the 1NC," or "Debaters must specify which branch of utilitarianism they are using for their framework." Even though these interpretations are read against practices that aren't very abusive, you will notice that it is hard to come up with proactive reasons why violating the interpretation would be good, which would be necessary under competing interpretations. It is important to point out, however, that offensive responses to frivolous theory do exist, though sometimes they are not obvious. For example, against the specification shells listed above, a common argument in response is that forcing the aff/neg to specify would lead to infinite regression of spending an entire speech specifiying. | ||
== Responding to Frivolous Theory == | == Responding to Frivolous Theory == | ||
[[Responding to Theory#Deflating Theory|Deflating theory]] is usually the best route to go when attempting to answer frivolous theory. Due to its nature, winning a counter-interpretation against a frivolous shell is often difficult not worth the time investment. | [[Responding to Theory#Deflating Theory|Deflating theory]] is usually the best route to go when attempting to answer frivolous theory. Due to its nature, winning a counter-interpretation against a frivolous shell is often difficult not worth the time investment. | ||