Theory: Buddha*s Gift to Debate

Report
THEORY
Matt Gomez
Ph.D in Theoretical Objections to Negative and Affirmative argumentation
(Bingham Campus)
SCFI 2011
PART ONE: WHAT IS THEORY
(IN THE DEBATE SENSE, BECAUSE CHANCES ARE THAT IF THE WORD EXISTS OUTSIDE
OF DEBATE, IT HAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MEANING BECAUSE WE DON’T TALK LIKE
NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS)
DEFINED: MATT STYLE
• Theory: An objection to the fair, educational, or competitive
nature of the opposing team’s debating – whether it be
advocacy or argumentation.
• Sounds fancy right?
• Matts Definition: Those people are filthy cheaters!
DEFINED: MATT STYLE
• Theory is nothing more than our way of saying: They were un
(fair/educational) and should lose.
• We can run theory against:
• Aff: Perms… I guess the neg kinda gets blasted on this one… theory is so
great and you only get to make it on perms… what a waste of a debate round .
• Neg: Status (Conditionality Bad = ♥), CP type, CP
competition, Alternative… but not fiat.
• Always give the neg fiat. No Neg Fiat is a terrible argument.
PART TWO: CRAFTING THE WEAPON
FACTORS
• Interpretation – an alternative way they should’ve
debated
• Conditionality – “They should run it dispo”
• Standards
SO WHATS AN IMPACT?
• Two things every theory shell should address:
• What are they doing to debate?
• And what are they doing to those who participate in
debate?
• This excludes words like fairness, education, ground –
those are just internal links
IMPACTING YOUR STANDARDS
• Fairness: What is an impact?
• 1)What does it do to debate?
• turns debate into cheap-shot tricks
• 2) What does that do to those who participate in debate?
• means we as debaters only learn to develop shallow
understanding, because rather than learn, we focus on
one-time cheap-shot tricks.
• Note: “Everyone leaves the activity” is a terrible
argument. I will debate no matter how unfair another
team is to you.
EDUCATION
• Education: Impact it
• 1) Non-educational debate destroys the value of the
activity – colleges look for it because it trains smart kids
– under their interp that’s not possible
• 2) In depth education teaches debaters to become well
versed and broaden our understanding of other’s
opinions: the impact is ignorance.
• Branches off into: Breadth/over Depth, Real World, Topic
Specific, each of which have different impacts.
• What are the impacts above an argument for?
PART THREE: GOING FOR THEORY
2AC SHELL
• Factors that make a good theory shell
• Good Interpretation
• Efficiency
• Real Impacts
• Short – 7-15 seconds
1AR EXTENSION
• Factors that make a good extension
• 1) explanation
• 2) applied to actual strat
• 3) quick – 30 seconds tops
• 4) even if you aren’t going for it, its worth extending
– 2NR’s will overcover
2AR
• If theory is any part of your 2AR (aside from answering it), it
should almost ALWAYS be all five minutes.
• If you win, round over
• If you lose, well you are probably losing line-by-line anyways if
you are deciding to go for theory
HOW DOES THE 2AR KNOW?
• Factors to take into your decision:
• Does the judge like theory?
• Was the 1AR flowable?
• Did the 2NR cover it?
• Did they drop your interp?
2NC SHELL
• Interp: X is a voter
• Two standards
• Should be read in 5 seconds
• “shell” is a stretch
2NR EXTENSION
• The only scenario in which this speech has theory is if
you are:
• 1) answering it
• 2) they dropped perm theory
• I know, its sad
PART THREE: CAPTAIN AMERICA’S SHIELD
(ANSWERING THEORY)
2NC ANSWERING
• Counter-Interp
• Example: We get one conditional advocacy in the
block
• Defense Standards
• Offense Standards
• If you know they’ll go for it, spend more time on it
1AR ANSWERING
• Normally, the jig is up if they’ve read theory against
your perm
• However, defend yourself:
• “Test of competition, not an advocacy – reject the
arg not the team”
2NR ANSWERING
• You cannot risk under covering theory in this speech
• Need your interp
• An inevitability claim on their standards
• Ex – time skew is inevitable – faster teams
• Offense
PART FOUR: DIFFERENT THEORY
ARGUMENTS AND THEIR STANDARDS
Note: The Following Theory Blox are Copyrighted to Matt V. Gomez,
formerly of Bingham High School, Current a Ph.D is Theoretical Objections
to Negative and Affirmative argumentation.
GOOD ARGUMENTS
AFF:
• Conditionality Bad (depends on neg strat)
• Consult CP Bad
• Competition Theory
• Conditions Theory
• Perf Con Bad
NEG:
• Severance Perms
• Instrinsic Perms
• Timeframe Perms
BAD ARGUMENTS
• Multiple Worlds Bad
• Dispo bad
• Un-conditionality bad
• Conditionality Bad (when there is one conditional arg)
• Neg Fiat Bad
• Any ideas?
DOIN’ IT LIVE
• Ask your questions 

similar documents