Responding to Theory

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

Background

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.

Choosing a Counter-Interpretation

The counter-interpretation will often, but not necessarily, be the opposite of the interpretation that is read, because if the interpretation is arguing that $X$ is bad, the counter-interpretation should argue that $X$ is actually good. Most importantly, the violation must be allowed under the world of the counter-interpretation because the debater responding to theory needs to argue why their violation should be permitted.

Sometimes, it can be strategic the read a counter-interpretation that is not explicitly the opposite of the interpretation. For example, if the interpretation reads, "debaters must not read conditional advocacies," a viable counter-interpretation might be "debaters can read at most one conditional advocacy." Notice that the counter-interpretation is not the exact opposite of the interpretation, but if the violation was that the negative only read one conditional advocacy, this violation would be permitted under the world of the counter-interpretation. Such a counter-interpretation could be strategic because allows the negative to avoid defending that conditionality is good no matter what. That is, if the counter-interpretation was simply, "debaters can read conditional advocacies," the negative would have to defend that the practice of reading ten conditional advocacies is good, which is certainly harder than defending that the practice of reading one conditional advocacy is good. As a general rule of thumb, the more specific you can make your counter-interpretation to the abuse committed in the round, the better, because it reduces the scope of the abuse that you need to defend.

Forming Counter-Standards

After you have a counter-interpretation, you must choose counter-standards that support why your counter-interpretation is a good norm. Importantly, you counter-standards must be offensive reasons why your counter-interpretation is desirable, not defensive reasons why the interpretation itself is bad. That is, if the interpretation is, "debaters must not read conditional advocacies," and your counter-interpretation is "debaters can read conditional advocacies," your counter-standards would need to be proactive reasons why conditionality is good for debate.

The counter-standards are typically drawn from the same list of common standards. Being able to generate counter-standards on-the-fly can seem difficult at first, but it is a skill that will come with practice. Certain theory shells are also commonly read (e.g. topicality, conditionality bad, PICs bad), and many debaters have blocks with prepared counter-standards to make this process easier.

Finally, it is of vital importance to weigh your counter-standards against your opponent's standards. You should be giving specific reasons why your counter-standards outweigh your opponent's standards – especially if you are collapsing to your shell – otherwise, there is no way for the judge to objectively determine who is ahead on the flow. This weighing can take the form of arguments like "ground outweighs clash because of $X$," or "limits comes before predictability because of $Y$."