Structure of a Shell

Structure of a Shell

See Responding to Theory to learn how to answer shells.

Interpretation/Violation

The interpretation (also known as “interp”) is the norm that debate should have, and the violation is why they fail to meet that norm.

An example of an interpretation is “Interp: Debaters must not run conditional advocacies” which criticizes the use of conditional advocacies in the round.

Interps for non-paragraph theory should be constructed with an actor (typically “debaters”) and should contain words like “must” instead of “should” or “ought.”

Violations are reasons why your opponent fails to meet your interp.

An example of a violation to the earlier shell is “Violation: Their [x] advocacy is a conditional advocacy.”

Violations can run from being just “Vio: They do” to screenshots and more detailed explanations. A good way to check violations if you’re unsure of them being legitimate is to check in cross-ex.

Standards

Standards are reasons why your model of debate (the interpretation) is good and why their model (the violation) is bad, typically justified by fairness and/or education.

When constructing standards, you usually want to point out why their model of debate is bad – why their type of argument is bad for debate. It’s not enough to say that it’s difficult to respond to their argument; you need to explain why their argument makes the round unfair or uneducational.

For example, a standard that said “Conditional advocacies are unfair because I don’t have any responses to their argument” is not persuasive while saying that “Conditional advocacies are unfair because it is impossible to predict which advocacy they are going to collapse to which splits the 1ar” is.

Common Standards

The following are some common examples of standards:

Ground – Ground is the type and quantity of arguments that you have access to. A topic that said “Racism is unjust” would have a lot of ground (arguments) for those affirming, for example, but no ground at all for those negating. Typically, ground is used to justify dropping arguments that have little to no legitimate responses against them, which make them hard to respond to. A common argument against PICs is that they leave the aff no ground since it is difficult to find reasons why they are bad.

Reciprocity – Reciprocity is the argument that your opponent has more routes to the ballot than you do. It is similar to ground insofar as it is about the division of arguments. An irreciprocal practice, for example, would be allowing yourself to run theory but at the same time preventing your opponent from running it. That way, you would have one more route than your opponent would.

Strat/Time Skew – Strat and time skew state that something your opponent did prevented you from answering or gave them a time advantage. If someone were to take ten minutes of prep instead of the usual four/five, then it would create a time skew because they would have more time to prepare than you.

Limits – Limits is an argument about the unfairness of having unlimited positions to run. A non-topical aff, for example, would be unfair under limits because if you didn’t have to follow the resolution you could choose any literature base you wanted.

Predictability – Predictability is how easy it is to predict some positions. It is commonly used with limits to criticize narrow plan affs since they can pick tiny areas of literature to create their affs.

Clash – Clash is an educational impact regarding how arguments are answered. A tactic that relied on hiding arguments in case and not disclosing them would avoid clash since it would prevent people from discussing and debating (“clashing with”) those arguments. Clash can be split up into two types: breadth and depth. Breadth is about debating a large variety of arguments while depth is about closely debating one argument. Breadth and depth are also sometimes used to justify Limits.

Critical Thinking – Critical thinking is an educational skill about how fast someone can think on their feet. This is typically used to justify other skews like Strat/Time Skew. For example, strat skew can be turned by saying that it promotes critical thinking, which is better for debaters since they learn more in the long term.

Real World – Real world education says that an argument is good if it models the real world. For example, arguing for multiple different advocacies could be real world since policymakers propose many different types of bills.

Phil ed/Topic ed – Phil and topic education state that an argument is bad if it reduces the amount of education someone can get on the philosophical and topical level. For example, an argument that said that your opponent shouldn’t be allowed to contest your framework would be bad for phil ed since there would be no debate on the philosophical level.

Accessibility – Accessibility states that an argument that your opponent makes excludes people from the debate space. Making violent (sexist, racist, etc.) arguments would be bad for accessibility because they would push people out of debate.

Shiftiness – Shiftiness is when people can be purposefully unclear about their stance on something in order to shift out of their original position to gain a strategic advantage. An example of shiftiness is lying in cross-ex or being intentionally vague of something.

Voters

Voters explain how the theory shell should be evaluated. 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).

Drop the Debater/Drop the Argument

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 argument says that your opponent and judge should disregard the argument that you are indicting and effectively “drop” it. For example, if my opponent were to run theory on a counterplan and it was drop the argument, if I conceded the theory argument then I would no longer be able to go for the counterplan.

Common justifications:

Drop the debater (often abbreviated to DTD) – their abuse was so bad that it completely skewed the rest of the round. DTD – if they lose, it’ll encourage good norms in the future since people will fear punishment. DTD – there isn’t enough time for me to run theory and also go for other arguments – by reporting abuse my time is skewed and DTD compensates for it.

Drop the argument (often abbreviated to DTA) – it’s the most real-world since you wouldn’t give the death penalty to someone for shoplifting just like how you shouldn’t punish me for marginal abuse. DTA – DTD encourages frivolous theory since people can lose the round on minor abuses. Frivolous theory is bad – it delegitimizes real abuse and distracts from substance since nobody will want to go for case. DTA – DTD incentivizes people to go all out on theory because nothing else matters so we never talk about substance.