1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"
→RVIs/No RVIs
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
Voters explain how the theory shell should be evaluated. These are also known as paradigm issues. Some arguments for the voters include drop the debater (meaning that your opponent loses for failing to meet the interpretation), competing interps, and impact calculus (e.g. why fairness and education should be valued by the judge). Specific voters (such as fairness before education, drop the argument over drop the debater, etc.) are often made as strategic arguments under the theory debate in order to gain advantages while debating. | Voters explain how the theory shell should be evaluated. These are also known as paradigm issues. Some arguments for the voters include drop the debater (meaning that your opponent loses for failing to meet the interpretation), competing interps, and impact calculus (e.g. why fairness and education should be valued by the judge). Specific voters (such as fairness before education, drop the argument over drop the debater, etc.) are often made as strategic arguments under the theory debate in order to gain advantages while debating. | ||
==== Drop the Debater/Drop the Argument ==== | ==== Drop the Debater/Drop the Argument ==== | ||
Consider the | Consider the question: If you win your shell, how should the impact the evaluation of the round? | ||
Drop the debater says that your opponent should lose the round for violating your interp. This does not mean that the round completely stops after you make the accusation; rather, your opponent will defend their norm and you will pursue your norm (assuming that you go for theory) and if you win your shell and that your opponent should lose for violating it, the judge will use that to make their decision (once the round finishes). | Drop the debater says that your opponent should lose the round for violating your interp. This does not mean that the round completely stops after you make the accusation; rather, your opponent will defend their norm and you will pursue your norm (assuming that you go for theory) and if you win your shell and that your opponent should lose for violating it, the judge will use that to make their decision (once the round finishes). | ||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Competing interpretations (often shortened to competing interps or CI) and reasonability are the two ways how the judge should evaluate the theory debate. | Competing interpretations (often shortened to competing interps or CI) and reasonability are the two ways how the judge should evaluate the theory debate. | ||
Under competing interps, theory arguments are evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm. The side running the shell must prove that their proposed interpretation is a better norm for debate, and the side responding to the shell must prove that their counter-norm (the violation) is a better norm for debate. This necessitates that the person responding to theory develop a counter-interpretation and counter-standards to offensively argue why their own practice is good for the debate space. The structure of this counter-shell looks identical to the structure of a normal shell, except that it is directly responsive to the interpretation. Under competing interps, the winner of the theory debate is whoever’s norm is best for the round. | Under competing interps, theory arguments are evaluated under an offense-defense paradigm. The side running the shell must prove that their proposed interpretation is a better norm for debate, and the side responding to the shell must prove that their counter-norm (the violation) is a better norm for debate. This necessitates that the person responding to theory develop a counter-interpretation and counter-standards to offensively argue why their own practice is good for the debate space. The structure of this counter-shell looks identical to the structure of a normal shell, except that it is directly responsive to the interpretation. Under competing interps, the winner of the theory debate is whoever’s norm is best for the round. | ||
Under reasonability, the person responding to theory simply needs to argue that their practice was "reasonable." In other words, it might be marginally abusive, but it's still a reasonable thing to do in the debate round and should be an allowed argument. If the person responding to theory wins that their practice was reasonable, the shell would be dropped. Often, however, it becomes difficult to decide what makes a practice "reasonable." Therefore, people reading reasonability typically propose a "brightline," which is essentially a threshold of abuse that would need to be exceeded in order for an argument to be considered truly abusive. With a reasonability brightline, the judge no longer has to arbitrarily decide whether one debater's practice is reasonable, but they can see if it is within the brightline. Some examples of reasonability brightlines include “reasonability with a brightline of sufficient defense,” “reasonability with a brightline of link and impact turn ground,” and “reasonability if the education lost on substance outweighs the abuse rectified by voting on the shell.” It is important to note that under competing interps, a brightline is not needed. | Under reasonability, the person responding to theory simply needs to argue that their practice was "reasonable." In other words, it might be marginally abusive, but it's still a reasonable thing to do in the debate round and should be an allowed argument. If the person responding to theory wins that their practice was reasonable, the shell would be dropped. Often, however, it becomes difficult to decide what makes a practice "reasonable." Therefore, people reading reasonability typically propose a "brightline," which is essentially a threshold of abuse that would need to be exceeded in order for an argument to be considered truly abusive. With a reasonability brightline, the judge no longer has to arbitrarily decide whether one debater's practice is reasonable, but they can see if it is within the brightline. Some examples of reasonability brightlines include “reasonability with a brightline of sufficient defense,” “reasonability with a brightline of link and impact turn ground,” and “reasonability if the education lost on substance outweighs the abuse rectified by voting on the shell.” It is important to note that under competing interps, a brightline is not needed. | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
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. | 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/No RVIs ==== | ==== RVIs/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? | |||
The RVI, which stands for a reverse voting issues, 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 shell. | |||
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. | ||
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. | ||
| Line 122: | Line 123: | ||
Education – it’s the only reasons why schools fund debate because they value the skills you learn from it. | Education – it’s the only reasons why schools fund debate because they value the skills you learn from it. | ||
== Paragraph Theory == | == Paragraph Theory == | ||
Theory shells are sometimes ran in the form of [[1AR Theory#Paragraph vs. “Traditional” 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. | |||
== Sample Shells == | == Sample Shells == | ||
Below are a couple sample shells; they have red text explaining the different parts of the shell as outlined in the sections below this. | Below are a couple sample shells; they have red text explaining the different parts of the shell as outlined in the sections below this. | ||