Difference between revisions of "Responding to Theory"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Theory is one of the most technical styles of debate, and as such, learning how to respond can be difficult at first. Luckily, getting proficient at responding to theory is achievable for anyone who has a proper understanding of how theory operates and sufficient time to drill answering various shells. In this section, we will aim to lay out all of the most common methods of responding to theory shells with suggestions on how to conduct further drills. Although this page is organized into sections, you're recommended to read it from top-to-bottom as it is organized. | Theory is one of the most technical styles of debate, and as such, learning how to respond can be difficult at first. Luckily, getting proficient at responding to theory is achievable for anyone who has a proper understanding of how theory operates and sufficient time to drill answering various shells. In this section, we will aim to lay out all of the most common methods of responding to theory shells with suggestions on how to conduct further drills. Although this page is organized into sections, you're recommended to read it from top-to-bottom as it is organized. | ||
== Formulating a Counter-Interpretation == | == Formulating a Counter-Interpretation == | ||
Theory shells will almost always be initiated with [[Structure of a Shell#Competing Interps vs Reasonability|competing interpretations]]. Under this model, the debater who initiates theory provides an [[Structure of a Shell#Interpretation and Violation|interpretation]] which states the norm that they are defending (e.g. debaters must not read [[Counterplans#Theory|conditional advocacies]]), supported by [[Structure of a Shell#Standards|standards]] which argue why that norm is good. The debater responding to theory is expected to provide a counter-interpretation which states the alternative norm that they are defending (e.g. debaters can read conditional advocacies), supported by counter-standards which argue why that alternative norm is good. | |||
== Responding to the Interpretation == | == Responding to the Interpretation == | ||
== Deflating Theory == | == Deflating Theory == | ||
Revision as of 21:45, 17 January 2022
Overview
Theory is one of the most technical styles of debate, and as such, learning how to respond can be difficult at first. Luckily, getting proficient at responding to theory is achievable for anyone who has a proper understanding of how theory operates and sufficient time to drill answering various shells. In this section, we will aim to lay out all of the most common methods of responding to theory shells with suggestions on how to conduct further drills. Although this page is organized into sections, you're recommended to read it from top-to-bottom as it is organized.
Formulating a Counter-Interpretation
Theory shells will almost always be initiated with competing interpretations. Under this model, the debater who initiates theory provides an interpretation which states the norm that they are defending (e.g. debaters must not read conditional advocacies), supported by standards which argue why that norm is good. The debater responding to theory is expected to provide a counter-interpretation which states the alternative norm that they are defending (e.g. debaters can read conditional advocacies), supported by counter-standards which argue why that alternative norm is good.