12/27-1/3: The Basics of Theory Arguments
Tournament Update
Due to the holidays, LD and PF debaters did not compete at bid tournaments this past weekend. Best of luck to everyone debating in the coming weeks, and stay tuned for future tournament results!
The Basics of Theory Arguments
by Cherie Wang
Once, a debater told me a story about when he asked a judge if she knew what disclosure theory was, to which she replied, “I know a lot of types of economic theory.”
They decided to read substance that round. But if you have a judge who does know what disclosure theory is and you want to start reading disclosure theory too, you might want to read this short breakdown of the basics of theory.
You may have heard theory arguments referred to as “shells” before. This term is based on the idea that theory is sort of like a traditional Russian doll or an onion because the argument is formed in layers. In shell format, a theory argument is written with a clearly delineated interpretation, violation, standard(s), and voter(s). It is usually then followed by implications/paradigm issues (drop the argument/drop the debater, reasonability/competing interpretations, reverse voting issues). Theory doesn’t always have to follow shell format (in which case it’s called paragraph theory) but generally will be. In this article, examples of a basic paraphrasing shell will be included (a theory argument claiming that paraphrasing should not be allowed).
Interpretation: When introducing new evidence to the round, debaters must read direct quotes and may only use brackets for grammatical fluency (ie adding [ing] or [and]) or to exclude violent language (ie gendered, racist, etc). To clarify, evidence must be read as a full cut card and not paraphrased.
The interpretation is just the debaters’ interpretation of what debate should look like; it is a rule they are attempting to enforce in this round. In this case, the rule is basically that debaters can’t paraphrase evidence and need to read cut cards. This interpretation is pretty long for such a simple concept, which is important because when establishing your rule you want to be as specific as possible in defining what direct quotes or a cut card can look like. Without doing so, opponents could use the interpretation against you. For example, if the interpretation just said “debaters must read cut cards,” opponents could argue that it does not disallow teams from reading cut cards with excessive and abusive bracketing or that the interpretation requires evidence to be read in its full cut card version every single time it’s extended, something the team reading theory probably did not do. You can think of the interpretation as being like the resolution: in this case, teams are debating whether they are pro or against allowing paraphrase/requiring cut card readings.
Violation: they paraphrase. XYZ cards/XYZ argument/their whole case is paraphrased. Check the docs/email chain for proof.
The violation is exactly what it sounds like: the team reading theory must explain exactly what the team on trial did wrong. They need to point out what the alleged abuse was and ideally suggest a form of proof (have screenshots of a lacking disclosure page, have email chains including paraphrased arguments/evidence, etc). If a team does not have proof for this, the accused team may claim that there is insufficient proof to fairly stake the round on theory.
Standards: First is Evidence Ethics: Paraphrasing reduces nuanced and in depth evidence into biased 2 sentence summaries, allowing for misconstruction. Cards ensure tags are grounded in direct quotes and make it easier to check for misrepresentation which deters cheating. Evidence ethics are key to fairness, they can make infinite arguments through misrepresentation, while we’re limited to topic literature.
The standards are the longest part of the shell and typically where the majority of the debate lies. Shells usually have multiple standards giving reasons why their interpretation is important for debate. Standards are often things like predictability, accessibility, evidence ethics, research, clash, strategy skew, ground skew, time skew, prep skew, and other things ending in skew. You can think of standards like contentions. Each one has its own link chain about how the interpretation or violation causes something good/bad.
Voters: Education is a voter because it’s the reason why schools develop debate programs and is the only portable skill of debate. Fairness is a voter because arguments presume fair evaluation of those arguments and unfairness causes quitting.
Voters are the impacts to your standards. These do not really change from shell to shell and are pretty much always fairness and education (think about it, most common shells like disclosure or paraphrase are read on the basis that these practices protect/harm things contributing to fairness and education). Sometimes, safety is a voter for an argument like trigger warning theory. Occasionally, teams will read inclusion/accessibility as a voter, but it is typically read as a standard that links into both education and fairness (it doesn’t matter too much which way you read it if you want to make an argument about accessibility). Voters are like generic impact cards like Straub (cyberattacks), Starr (nuclear war), Taylor (climate change), that pandemic one, or Borgen Project/IMF (recession). Everyone basically reads the same ones with the same warrants (it is rare for someone to respond to a shell by claiming fairness or education is not important).
All these parts of a shell need to be included in a theory argument and most likely will be required for its extension by most judges (the interpretation is typically read word for word every time). Also, note that a shell must be read with implications/paradigm issues. With the information from this article, you can write a basic shell already (paradigm issues are generic like voters so if you can write your 4 parts of a shell you just need to CTRL+C CTRL+V for the finished theory argument).
Cherie Wang debated at Westlake High School in Texas for 4 years, where she was captain her junior and senior year. Throughout her career, she has earned 3 bids to the Tournament of Champions and reached quarterfinals of Plano West, Apple Valley, and TFA State and co-championed James Logan and Grapevine.