Difference between revisions of "1AR Theory"

From Circuit Debater LD
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
==Overview==
==Overview==
Theory is often read in the 1AR [[1AR Theory#Paragraph Theory|either in the form of a traditional shell or as paragraph theory]].  
Theory is often read in the 1AR either in the form of a traditional shell or as [[1AR Theory#Paragraph Theory|paragraph theory]]. Unlike 1NC theory, however, since the 1AR is far more time constrained, the theory shells read in the 1AR will often be far shorter than the types of shells read in the 1NC. If the affirmative wants to have the option of collapsing to either substance or theory by the 2AR, they should probably spend no more than 1:30 of the 1AR on theory. Sometimes, however, the affirmative may choose to [[1AR Restart]]. In this case, it would be appropriate to spend more time, perhaps up to 3:00 on 1AR theory.  
== 1AR Strategy==
1AR theory is strategic because it gives the aff a new out that the 2nr has to spent a significant chunk on to match the 3 minute 2ar.


However, sometimes 1ar theory is used too much, which results in the aff losing a substantive layer (proving the resolution true) that could have been won. Even when 1ars go for theory, they should always have a substantive out to fall back on mainly because theory debates are often techy (lots of small arguments that have to be answered) and the 6 minute 2nr obviously gets an advantage against a 3 minute 2ar–if they doubled down on paradigm issues (how to evaluate theory; explained on other pages) or did very good line by line (responded to every argument in the 1ar), the 2ar would have a very hard time if they were forced into going for theory.
1AR theory can be strategic because it gives the aff a new out for the 2AR, and the negative has to spend a significant amount of their 2NR responding to the theory. Since the 2AR could choose to spend all 3:00 collapsing to a 1AR theory shell, a smart 2NR would spend at least 3:00 responding to the 1AR shell, which is a worthwhile tradeoff considering the affirmative could spend under 1:00 justifying the shell in the 1AR to begin with.  


Often, shells are very similar so negs can cross apply arguments from one shell to another, meaning they can make arguments on one shell, and it will answer the other one as well. For this reason, reading too many shells is not very strategic, but reading the right amount and allocating time properly can make 1ar theory one of the most cracked arguments in debate.
However, it is easy to over-allocate too much time in the 1AR on theory, which makes it easy for the aff to lose the substantive layer. When 1AR's go for theory, they should aim to have a substantive out to fall back on, largely because theory debates can get technically very quickly, and the 6 minute 2NR could overwhelm the 2AR on theory if it is clear the affirmative can not realistically collapse to substance by the 2AR.  
==Theory Hedge==
== Paragraph Theory ==
To prevent 1ar theory, debaters have read a “theory hedge,” which is a prewritten block in the 1NC for why affs don’t get 1ar theory, it’s drop the argument (not a reason neg should lose for being abusive, but the judge should just not evaluate the abusive argument), etc to pre-empt the 1ar. These are often strategic and deter many debaters from reading 1ar theory.
Since the 1AR is time constrained, debaters often read theory in the form of "paragraph theory" instead of in the traditional shell structure. Traditionally, a theory shell needs to have an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters that are all explicitly delineated. Paragraph theory has all four of these components, but these parts are often not explicitly separated to save time in the 1AR. Consider the shell that critiques the use of [[Counterplans#Theory|plan inclusive counterplans]]. The voters have been omitted from the example shell, but you can assume they were justified in the 1AC or elsewhere in the 1AR.
 
==== Traditional Shell ====
Interpretation: The negative's advocacy must exclude the entirety of the affirmative's advocacy. To clarify, they must not read a plan inclusive counterplan.


However, affs also do a similar thing in the 1ac, where they justify why they do get 1ar theory, it’s drop the debater, etc so that if conceded, they don’t have to justify paradigm issues in the 1ar.
Violation: They read a plan inclusive counterplan.
== Paragraph Theory ==
The last distinction to make is between paragraph theory and “traditional” theory. Paragraph theory, often accepted in 1ars due to the time constraint of only having four minutes to speak, is where debaters, as per the name, read theory as a paragraph, whereas traditional theory is where they read it in the official format (interpretation, violation, standards, voters). Some judges have preferences for one or the other, so it is important to be ready to read both forms in the 1ar. An example to clarify the distinction is given below–(disclaimer: these shells are underdeveloped and solely meant to get a point across–would not recommend actually reading these)


'''PARAGRAPH:'''
Standards:


PICs are a voting issue–moots the entirety of the 1ac forcing a 1ar restart.
[1] Ground – PICs scoop the entirety of the 1AC's offense since they make it a part of their own advocacy, which makes almost impossible for the affirmative to turn the PIC or get recourse.


'''TRADITIONAL:'''
[2] Predictability – There are an infinite number of potential PICs that the negative could read which would make it difficult for the affirmative to prepare for.


Interp–The negative must not read plan inclusive counterplans.
Voters:


Violation–they do.
==== Paragraph Theory ====
PICs are a voting issue – they scoop the entirety of the 1AC's offense since they make it a part of their own advocacy, and there are an infinite number of potential PICs that could be read which makes it difficult to prepare for.


Standards–
=== Drawbacks ===
Clearly, paragraph theory is much faster to read than traditional theory. However, keep in mind that some judges are predisposed to vote against paragraph theory if they prefer the traditional shell format, and some judges might also not appreciate the brevity of paragraph theory since it makes it more difficult to develop a persuasive abuse story. Reading paragraph theory too quickly might also cause the judge to not flow your arguments properly, making it a more risky decision to collapse to by the 2AR.


1–Strat skew–they moot the entirety of the 1ac forcing a 1ar restart
It is worth noting however, that paragraph theory can be an especially useful trick when answering tricks – it is easy to make multiple, short paragraph theory arguments against tricks so that you do not need to spend the time to develop a fully fleshed out shell, and since many judges dislike tricks, they might be sympathetic to your paragraph theory.


2–Predictability–can’t predict infinite exceptions
==Theory Hedge==
To prevent 1AR theory, some debaters opt to read a "theory hedge" which is a prewritten block in the 1NC that contains many arguments that all argue why the affirmative should not get access to theory in the 1AR. These are often strategic and deter many debaters from reading 1AR theory.

Revision as of 04:16, 15 January 2022

Overview

Theory is often read in the 1AR either in the form of a traditional shell or as paragraph theory. Unlike 1NC theory, however, since the 1AR is far more time constrained, the theory shells read in the 1AR will often be far shorter than the types of shells read in the 1NC. If the affirmative wants to have the option of collapsing to either substance or theory by the 2AR, they should probably spend no more than 1:30 of the 1AR on theory. Sometimes, however, the affirmative may choose to 1AR Restart. In this case, it would be appropriate to spend more time, perhaps up to 3:00 on 1AR theory.

1AR theory can be strategic because it gives the aff a new out for the 2AR, and the negative has to spend a significant amount of their 2NR responding to the theory. Since the 2AR could choose to spend all 3:00 collapsing to a 1AR theory shell, a smart 2NR would spend at least 3:00 responding to the 1AR shell, which is a worthwhile tradeoff considering the affirmative could spend under 1:00 justifying the shell in the 1AR to begin with.

However, it is easy to over-allocate too much time in the 1AR on theory, which makes it easy for the aff to lose the substantive layer. When 1AR's go for theory, they should aim to have a substantive out to fall back on, largely because theory debates can get technically very quickly, and the 6 minute 2NR could overwhelm the 2AR on theory if it is clear the affirmative can not realistically collapse to substance by the 2AR.

Paragraph Theory

Since the 1AR is time constrained, debaters often read theory in the form of "paragraph theory" instead of in the traditional shell structure. Traditionally, a theory shell needs to have an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters that are all explicitly delineated. Paragraph theory has all four of these components, but these parts are often not explicitly separated to save time in the 1AR. Consider the shell that critiques the use of plan inclusive counterplans. The voters have been omitted from the example shell, but you can assume they were justified in the 1AC or elsewhere in the 1AR.

Traditional Shell

Interpretation: The negative's advocacy must exclude the entirety of the affirmative's advocacy. To clarify, they must not read a plan inclusive counterplan.

Violation: They read a plan inclusive counterplan.

Standards:

[1] Ground – PICs scoop the entirety of the 1AC's offense since they make it a part of their own advocacy, which makes almost impossible for the affirmative to turn the PIC or get recourse.

[2] Predictability – There are an infinite number of potential PICs that the negative could read which would make it difficult for the affirmative to prepare for.

Voters:

Paragraph Theory

PICs are a voting issue – they scoop the entirety of the 1AC's offense since they make it a part of their own advocacy, and there are an infinite number of potential PICs that could be read which makes it difficult to prepare for.

Drawbacks

Clearly, paragraph theory is much faster to read than traditional theory. However, keep in mind that some judges are predisposed to vote against paragraph theory if they prefer the traditional shell format, and some judges might also not appreciate the brevity of paragraph theory since it makes it more difficult to develop a persuasive abuse story. Reading paragraph theory too quickly might also cause the judge to not flow your arguments properly, making it a more risky decision to collapse to by the 2AR.

It is worth noting however, that paragraph theory can be an especially useful trick when answering tricks – it is easy to make multiple, short paragraph theory arguments against tricks so that you do not need to spend the time to develop a fully fleshed out shell, and since many judges dislike tricks, they might be sympathetic to your paragraph theory.

Theory Hedge

To prevent 1AR theory, some debaters opt to read a "theory hedge" which is a prewritten block in the 1NC that contains many arguments that all argue why the affirmative should not get access to theory in the 1AR. These are often strategic and deter many debaters from reading 1AR theory.

Retrieved from "https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/index.php?title=1AR_Theory&oldid=2160"