1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Structure of a Shell"
→Impact Calc (Fairness, Education, etc.)
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
The RVI, which stands for a reverse voting issues, says that offensively beating back a theory shell (assuming competing interpretations and drop the debater are true) means that the winner should win the theory shell. | The RVI, which stands for a reverse voting issues, says that offensively beating back a theory shell (assuming competing interpretations and drop the debater are true) means that the winner should win the theory shell. | ||
Usually, theory functions in a way where the person who runs theory can win the round off that argument, but the person who defends against theory cannot win the round off that argument. Responding to conditionality bad and winning it, for example, does not mean that you win – it means that you are allowed to run your conditional advocacy. This is under the no RVIs model. However, granting or winning that you get an RVI means that proving that your norm is best means that you can win the round of theory. With the earlier example, winning that conditional advocacies are good means that you can get a route to the ballot using theory. | Usually, theory functions in a way where the person who runs theory can win the round off that argument, but the person who defends against theory cannot win the round off that argument. Responding to conditionality bad and winning it, for example, does not mean that you win – it means that you are allowed to run your conditional advocacy. This is under the no RVIs model. However, granting or winning that you get an RVI means that proving that your norm is best means that you can win the round of theory. With the earlier example, winning that conditional advocacies are good means that you can get a route to the ballot using theory. | ||
Usually, the person running theory will not want RVIs because then they will have to either defend the shell or prove their opponent doesn’t get RVIs instead of just kicking, while the person responding to theory may want to run RVIs if they want an extra route to the ballot. | Usually, the person running theory will not want RVIs because then they will have to either defend the shell or prove their opponent doesn’t get RVIs instead of just kicking, while the person responding to theory may want to run RVIs if they want an extra route to the ballot. | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
No RVIs – topic ed – if there’s no RVI, we can go back to substance which outweighs since we only have two months to discuss the topic, but if there are RVIs then we’ll always have theory debates. | No RVIs – topic ed – if there’s no RVI, we can go back to substance which outweighs since we only have two months to discuss the topic, but if there are RVIs then we’ll always have theory debates. | ||
==== Impact | ==== Impact Calculus (Fairness, Education, etc.) ==== | ||
In the impact calculus section, you justify why your impacts (of the standards you read) matter. If you say that the debate is unfair, why does the debate being unfair matter? It may seem intuitive, but when running theory, you need to justify this too. | |||
The two most common justifications are fairness and education. Fairness says that something that your opponent did skewed the round and made it hard to debate, while education says that something that your opponent did prevented you from having a discussion or gaining education about debate. There are other forms of impact calc like accessibility (how safe your practices are) and tailored impact calc like disabled fairness or race-specific fairness, but those are less common. | The two most common justifications are fairness and education. Fairness says that something that your opponent did skewed the round and made it hard to debate, while education says that something that your opponent did prevented you from having a discussion or gaining education about debate. There are other forms of impact calc like accessibility (how safe your practices are) and tailored impact calc like disabled fairness or race-specific fairness, but those are less common. | ||
In [[topicality]], semantics (how grammatically correct you are to the resolution) can also be part of impact calc, although it can also be used as a standard as well. | In [[topicality]], semantics (how grammatically correct you are to the resolution) can also be part of impact calc, although it can also be used as a standard as well. | ||