What is debate theory

Public school districts across the United States, in liberal and conservative counties alike, have insisted that they do not teach the theory. Still, two Tennessee teachers told Reuters that they and some of their colleagues are unsure how to teach accurately about slavery and other painful chapters of American history that could make some students uncomfortable about race, a potential violation of the new legislation.

Tennessee's Department of Education has proposed revoking the teaching licenses of instructors who repeatedly run afoul of the law. Subscribe for our daily curated newsletter to receive the latest Reuters legal news and headlines delivered to your inbox. More from Reuters. Sign up for The Daily Docket Subscribe for our daily curated newsletter to receive the latest Reuters legal news and headlines delivered to your inbox. Sign up. The most common objection to this is that the content of theory debate is inconsequential in the real world, but there are two clear responses to this claim: First, the content of theory debates, if we are to believe my previous norm setting advantage, is indeed valuable insofar as it encourages debaters to think about the structure of debate itself, and creates students, coaches, and teachers that have a better understanding of what a good model of debate looks like.

Secondly, even absent the content of these debates, the nature of theory debates requires a particular extemporaneous ability that has become increasingly absent in modern debate. While it is theoretically possible to script a response to some interpretations, the majority of theory debates should not be, and students gain important debate skills that are heightened in these debates, namely, critical thinking, efficiency, and extemporaneous speaking. If debaters chose to read theory against genuinely abusive practices, those practices would die down, but because theory in general has become somewhat taboo, the abusive use of theory itself has become the new bad norm.

With no theory debaters to capitalize on the easy shell, these practices go unchecked and proliferate. It should also be noted that these frivolous shells fail the test of norms creation. Therefore, the response to bad practice should simply be utilizing theory against these debaters, both through the norms creation challenge, and the reading of new, inventive, or simply just true theory shells.

These arguments seemed to start in response to theory in general, as affs tried to avoid having to deal with a theory debate at all, and used these arguments to avoid actual engagement in defending their model of debate. This seems like an easy way to circumvent losing to a theory debater, but this is precisely the problem. As affs began reading side bias, aff flex, and affirming is harder, negatives had to adapt and begin reading negating is harder arguments to compensate.

This has led to demonstratively bad and generic theory debates, as it has become people spamming each side is harder arguments, rather than actually debating why specific practices are bad. This is horrible for the most important aspect of theory, norm setting, as the aff being harder has nothing to do with the specific practice the aff has done that is abusive.

It also removes the ability to garner any educational benefit or enhancement of debate skill from theory debates, as these arguments are generally pre-written, and do not require any thought about the content of the norms within debate.

It is a statement of the rule that you are advocating for debate. The interpretation is similar to an advocacy text; debaters endorse that LD should have specific norms just as they support government action in plan texts. Since the interpretation is a rule for debate, there are a few things to keep in mind when writing one. First, interpretations are prescriptive and not descriptive.

The job of the interpretation is to tell us what we should do in debate. This is especially important because theory debate is comparative. Even if nibs are harmful in some ways, it could be the case that a world without nibs is even worse. Thus, theory interpretations always include a description about what debaters should do and not a claim that an argument as good or bad.

Interpretation — All substantive burdens must be necessary and sufficient for both debaters. Another important part to crafting interpretations is to be as specific as possible. The violation section of a theory shell establishes the ways in which your opponent did not follow or deviated from the interpretation in the round. The term itself is self-explanatory; the violation is what your opponent did that violates the rule you advocate for.

There are two main ways to warrant a violation in round. The first is to refer to something explicitly read in their speech. In addition to referring to parts of their case, cross-examination is a good way to get violations.

Going back to the nibs example, if your opponent concedes that they can win off of a specific burden, but that you need to both meet the burden and win on other parts of the flow, then they have given you a concession that they are running a nib. Having very specific violations makes this strategy a lot more difficult. The neg also concedes in CX that the aff needs to prove that affirming is possible, but that the aff debater cannot win by showing this alone.

This creates a violation from both the negative case and CX discussion. So in round the nibs shell would look like:. First, in their case they say that I need to prove that both the affirmative is possible AND that we ought to take the aff action, while they win if they win on either layer. The standards section come after the violation. The job of the standards is show why the interpretation is good. Standards are a lot like contentions in an affirmative case.

Just as contentions detail the benefits or reasons to affirm, standards show why adopting the theory interpretation is good for debate. Standards themselves are divided into three subsections: the tag, the warrant, and the internal link. The tag is designed to give a catchphrase summary of your argument. The second part of a standard is the warrant. The warrant justifies why something will happen in a world with or without the interpretation.

Perhaps their authors are towards the end of a general google scholar search on the topic or there is only one article written about their case. The warrant in theory arguments serves the same function as the vaccination warrant in the contention. Additionally, theory standards are very malleable and there are a wide variety of standard arguments you can make. The third and final part of a standard is the internal link.

Thus the job of the internal link is to explain why your standard is important, and why debate is harmed when the standard is. The internal link most commonly comes in the form. Standard tag is key to voter because of X reason. While most internal links are self evident and probably unnecessary, you should always include them. Combining the standard with the other sections, the nibs shell now looks like:.

Reciprocity the tag — Nibs skew reciprocity by giving one debater more paths to the ballot than the other. My opponent can win the round by winning on any layer, while I have to win all of them to access the ballot. The Loop Write for The Loop. PS Matters Digital content from across our activities and community: lectures, seminars and discussions available on demand or to stream via podcast channels.

PS Matters. Membership Our members are universities across the globe and the scholars who work and study within them; membership benefits both the individual and the institution. Funding We have a range of funding schemes to help progress individual careers and to support the wider development of the discipline. Prizes From distinguished scholars to exceptional PhD students, our prizes recognise service and achievement across the profession.

Our Organisation. Charles University Information Local Organisers. Presenter s. Honkit Chao Queen's University at Kingston. Author s.