Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"

For example, a standard that says, “Conditional advocacies are unfair because I don’t have any responses to their argument” would not be persuasive because it doesn't explain why you cannot respond to their argument. In contrast, a standard that says, “Conditional advocacies are unfair because they can read multiple conditional advocacies in the 1NC, and I cannot predict what they will collapse to in the 2NR, which makes my 1AR difficult" would be more persuasive.  

'''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 [[Counterplans#Common types|PICs]] is that they leave the aff no ground since it is difficult for the affirmative to turn the PIC since they include most of the affirmative's own offense.

'''Reciprocity''' – Reciprocity is the argument that your opponent has access to some argument, or route to the ballot, that you lack. 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.  

'''Limits''' – Limits is an argument concerning the number of positions that your opponent is able to run. The practice of reading [[Non-topical Affirmatives|non-topical affirmatives]], for example, would be bad under limits because the negative would then have to prepare against an infinite number of potential affirmatives that could be read since they are not held to defending the resolution.  

'''Predictability''' – Predictability criticizes how a certain practice is difficult for one debater since it is difficult to predict what their opponent will do. 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 education-based standard that argues a certain practice decreases the amount of interaction that can occur between arguments in the round. 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.'''

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 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.  

Reasonability can be especially strategic when your opponent reads a [[Frivolous Theory|frivolous shell]] that is hard to generate offense against; in other words, it is hard to come up with a proactive reason why your practice is good, even if it is barely abusive. For instance, consider the shell, “Interp: Debaters must not wear formal clothing.” The standards for that shell are that formal clothing affects judgement and is inaccessible to less-privileged debaters. However, it’s obvious that this shell is frivolous – it’s impossible to find a clear distinction between “formal” and “informal” clothing and at some tournaments formal clothing is expected. Under competing interps, the debater who wore formal clothing would actively have to prove an offensive reason why wearing formal clothing (a reason why you are good for the debate round = offense, while a reason why you shouldn’t lose for not meeting their norm = defense) is good. Under reasonability, however, the burden is less severe – all the defending debater must do is prove that it is okay to wear formal clothing, that the theory shell would sacrifice more debate than it would help, or any other form of a brightline. For example, under the brightline “reasonability with a brightline of sufficient defense,” valid arguments would include “formal clothing is expected,” “I can’t know what formal is,” amongst others. If the judge uses competing interps, the winner of the theory debate will be who has proved that formal clothing is good or bad. If the judge uses reasonability, the winner of the theory debate will be whether the defending debater meets the brightline they set and if that brightline is good.  

The person running a shell usually wants to defend competing interps – forcing your opponent to prove that they are actively good is much harder than proving that they are sufficient enough for the round. Likewise, the person defending the shell usually wants to defend reasonability. With the earlier example of formal clothes theory, it is easy to prove that wearing formal clothing is “okay” for a round, but it is hard to prove that it is a good norm to set. For those running theory, it is important to put competing interps in the speech you are introducing the shell – it helps preempt responses to it while also preventing the round from being late-breaking. Giving the judge multiple speeches to evaluate the debate makes it easier to evaluate compared to each debater having one speech on the issue since it gives rise to new arguments and intervention. Like with competing interps/reasonability, it is important to preemptively put no RVIs in your voters section when running theory to make it harder for your opponent to justify yes RVIs.