1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Frivolous Theory"
→Responding to Frivolous Theory
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
For example, some frivolous interps might be, "The affirmative debater must specify what role of the ballot they are using to evaluate the round," "The negative must specify the status of the counterplan in a delineated text in the 1NC," or "Debaters must specify which branch of utilitarianism they are using for their framework." Even though these interpretations are read against practices that aren't very abusive, you will notice that it is hard to come up with proactive reasons why violating the interpretation would be good, which would be necessary under competing interpretations. | For example, some frivolous interps might be, "The affirmative debater must specify what role of the ballot they are using to evaluate the round," "The negative must specify the status of the counterplan in a delineated text in the 1NC," or "Debaters must specify which branch of utilitarianism they are using for their framework." Even though these interpretations are read against practices that aren't very abusive, you will notice that it is hard to come up with proactive reasons why violating the interpretation would be good, which would be necessary under competing interpretations. | ||
== Responding to Frivolous Theory == | == Responding to Frivolous Theory == | ||
Deflating theory is usually the best route to go when attempting to answer frivolous theory. Due to its nature, winning a counter-interpretation against a frivolous shell is often difficult not worth the time investment. | [[Responding to Theory#Deflating Theory|Deflating theory]] is usually the best route to go when attempting to answer frivolous theory. Due to its nature, winning a counter-interpretation against a frivolous shell is often difficult not worth the time investment. | ||
Reasonability is often a reasonable route to go when answering frivolous theory. If you are not actually being abusive, it should be easy to win under a reasonability paradigm, especially if you justify a brightline such as "active abuse" that would answer shells that require you do something more in order to be considered fair. | Reasonability is often a reasonable route to go when answering frivolous theory. If you are not actually being abusive, it should be easy to win under a reasonability paradigm, especially if you justify a brightline such as "active abuse" that would answer shells that require you do something more in order to be considered fair. | ||
Drop the argument could be another potential route. Since many frivolous shells are some type of spec shell, dropping the argument would likely drop the nature of the entire shell since it isn't being read against any specific argument that you are running. You should also leverage generic arguments that argue for rejecting spec shells and shells that | Drop the argument could be another potential route. Since many frivolous shells are some type of spec shell, dropping the argument would likely drop the nature of the entire shell since it isn't being read against any specific argument that you are running. You should also leverage generic arguments that argue for rejecting spec shells and shells that advocate for norms that can always become more specific to the point of infinite regression. | ||
==Example == | ==Example == | ||
<u>A. Interpretation:</u> Debaters must have all text in their cases be at least 12-point font. | <u>A. Interpretation:</u> Debaters must have all text in their cases be at least 12-point font. | ||