Theory

Topicality/Theory

• Based on Plan/CP debates
• Plan text: the USFG should stop all foreign aid. Net benefits: US giving weapons to terror groups, they go rogue, terror goes nuclear
• CP text: usfg should place conditions on aid. Net benefits: US aid k2 stopping al qaeda, plan causes more terror, goes nuclear

Interp

• Plan text - Proposed RULE for debate
• Comparative worlds logic - world in which the interp exists
• Interp flaw!
• Topicality necessitates definitions

Net benefits

• Standards are like advantages. Base claim to the interp and has an internal link
• Voters are the impacts
• Helpful to think of fairness as a big stick impact like nuclear war (single instance)
• Education as structural violence (iterative, long term)
• Weighing versus takeout - Fairness doesn’t exist = nukes are broken
• Competing interps and dtd are the framework - role of the ballot

Counter interp

• CP and disad (net benefit)
• Counter plan text - instead we should do xyz
• NEEDS A NET BENEFIT
• Voters don’t need to be the same

Takeaways - understanding how they function

A minor lie - Counterplan vs counterplan

• Conditional and infinite
• Can function as a PIC through the addition of PLANKS
• Ex: Interp: the affirmative must defend all countries the US gives aid to except israel.
• Combo interps - The affirmative may not specify type of aid AND country. This also applies to counter interps
• Disclosure and solvency advocate are very useful
• Be careful answering !!! condo bad != condo pics bad

Takeaways 2

• Mutual Exclusivity
• Generally only if someone messes up - CI are converse or a PIC
• I meets are tests of competition
• TVA - Permutation
• World of the CI can happen in the world of the interp
• Neutralizes ALL offense - terminal defense
• Game over issue
• Simplifies weighing
• Comparing strength of link
• Only 2 impacts to isolate
• How do the standards relate?

Takeaways 3

• Theory “restarts” the round
• 1N gives the first speech - unrelated to the 1ac
• 2N scripts like the 1ar
• Aff gets 1ac preempt, shell reaction, and 2ar spin - notable on theory

RVIs

• Theoryception
• Interpretation the aff may not win the debate if they win theory. standard - RVIS refocus the debate on theory. voter - that kills education
• RVIS NEED VOTERS - rarely contested
• Voter weighing gets double value
• Winning a voter doesn’t exist ALSO takes out RVIs

Reasonability

• Presumption - converts defense to offense
• Generally most useful as a time suck - vague
• Judge adaptation

Jurisdiction and Semantics

• Shifts the debate to TRUTH TESTING
• Question of a "valid interp" - must meet or provide a definition of the resolution.
• Utilized effectively on Nebel or against theory
• Definition that basically objectively only goes one way - disables any chance of counter interp offense
• SEQUENCING QUESTION
• Jurisdiction is a VOTER
• Without it Nebel T breaks down to plans bad
• PICs disad is an effective response

Closing thoughts

• T is mechanical like plan and disad debate - “perfect” rebuttals can exist
• REDOES
• Extemping practice

​

• Open mic questions

Theory

Parts

1. Interpretation
2. Violation
3. Standards/Net Benefits
4. Paradigm Issues
1. Implication
2. Competing Interps vs Reasonability
3. Voters
4. RVIs (Reverse Voting Issues)

Interpretation

• Rule for debate
• Generally worded positively
• Example: “Interpretation: The affirmative debater must specify a minimum wage for the federal jobs guarantee in a delineated text under the 1AC advocacy statement.”
• Planked interps are good - make your interp more specific and harder to answer ie condo pics bad vs condo bad and pics bad

Violation

• How the opponent “violates” your rule
• They should always violate lol otherwise just a waste of time
• Although you could read a shell bc you’re “just a fan” - although 95% sure that tarun did this on accident

​

Standards/Net Benefits

• “Advantages” to your interp (reasons your interp is good/better than theirs)
• List
• Clash – ability to engage w other arguments
• Ground – amount of arguments you can make
• Time Skew – you have x amount of time, they skew the time that you have to give speech makes debate hard boohoo
• Strat Skew – similar to above – except your strat gets messed up instead of time
• Predictability – arguments unpredictable – usually an internal link to things like ground/clash
• Reciprocity – you doing something is not reciprocal (I cant do it too so its unfair/uneducational)
• Topic Lit – there’s not a lot of topic literature about it or my interp is best for utilizing the topic lit
• Real world applicability – how much it applies to the real world (we use certain things in real world so we train best for it)
• Depth – going in depth is good
• Breath – learning more than less issues more in depth is good
• Should always have an internal link to a voter

Voters/Impacts

1. Education – what we learn
• Legal – stuff about laws
• Substantive – actually learning
• Real world – educational stuff we can use in the real world
• Philosophical – education about phil stuff
2. Fairness – your interp makes debate unfair
3. Advocacy Skills – learning how to advocate for something (basically an education voter)
4. Info Processing - how you process information like you kill our ability to do that well
5. Evidence ethics - not like an ethics challenge but like your model justifies terrible evidence practices (kinda an education voter)
1. Should always weigh between voters ie edu ow fairness

​

​

Other Paradigm Issues

• Competing Interps vs Reasonability (CI vs R)
• Frontline to way to answer shell
• Competing interps - aff/neg must provide a counter interpretation (counter-rule) and justify it
• Reasonability - aff/neg proves that they were reasonably abusive or that their specific way of something is fine (kinda like a competing interp bc it usually has a brightline, but doesnt need to have one)
• Drop the Debater/Team vs Drop the Argument (DTD vs DTA)
• Implications to the shell
• Drop the debater = vote for me/vote against them
• Drop the argument = get rid of the argument and no longer evaluate this specific argument
• Generally doesnt make sense in the context of T or something that indicts the entire practice of the aff, but fine in other instances and pretty strategic
• RVIs - next slide bc ugh

RVIs

• Reverse Voting Issue - pretty much unique to LD does not exist in policy bc it’s pretty silly but a way to win is a way to win
• Person reading shell will say RVIs bad, person answering will say RVIs good
• Need to win the shell to win an RVI - cannot win rvi if you don't win the shell
• only makes sense if implication of shell is dtd

Answering Theory

• Answer most parts
• Should pretty much always have a counter interp w some kind of plank
• Should solve some of their theory offense
• Should make some kind of I meet unless you like super obviously dont meet
• “I meets” super strategic - terminal defense to interp and take like 5 seconds to read - concession = debate over
• Need a net benefit to your counter interp (counter standards)
• Indict their internal links (does predictability really harm edu? etc.)
• Turn their stnadards - ALWAYS put offense on shell
• WEIGH!!!!!!
• Between voters
• Between internal links to voters
• Can impact turn voters - generally only makes sense from K aff perspective (fairness bad, education bad, etc.

Answering Theory Ctd.

• Answer implication
• Dtd vs dta
• RVIs
• If you want - generally takes up a lot of time but making a singular justification and moving on is strategic bc it forces 2nr/2ar to spend time on T/theory flow even if they’re not going for it

Strategy

• Time is the fundamental basis for strategy
• Utilized like currency
• Offense is buying food - necessary to survive
• Defense is WEIGHING
• Look for POSITIVE TIME TRADEOFFS
• Permutations, presumption, 1ar theory
• Offense and impact turns - forces an answer
• Multi use args - both advantages impact out to nuke war - nuke war survivable
• Time recovery arguments
• RVIs and presumption - converts defense to offense
• Independent voters
• Evaluate what you’re scared of, judge pref, opponent pref