Structure of a Shell

Structure of a Shell

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.

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).