Theory!

Theory DebatingBaxterMDAW--2012

All Theory is T

It Really is There are 4 Components of a Theory

Argument Interp Violation Standards Voting Issue

You can condense parts of them

Interpretation

Should be a bright line Should be as narrowly tailored as

possible to exclude/include Try not to make it arbitrary

Evidence Logic

Violation

Do not lose debates on this portion of the argument

Standards

This is the real debate Just like T—what does the world of

debate look like under your interpretation and why is that good Limits Education Literature Ground Fairness

Voting Issue

Lets be honest, its probably not Standard Interpretations

In Round Abuse Potential Abuse Irrecoverable Abuse Reasonability

Spec

Require the affirmative to specify something they would often not specify.

99.9999999% of the time these arguments suck.

Common examples Agent Funding Implementation Epistemology/Ontology/etc Over

A-Spec

Agent usually means “one of the three branches of the USFG.”

Elmore ‘80: “Analysis of Policy choices matters

very little if the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In the Normal Case, it was about 10%, leaving 90% in the realm of Implementation. “

Status Theory

Conditionality Dispositionality

Perm Theory

Formula for a legitimate permutation Part or all of the aff plus part or all of the

neg advocacy. Severance Permutation Intrinsic Permutation Timeframe Permutations

Cheating Counterplans

Consultation Condition Extra Competitive

Veto-Cheato Steal Your Funding

K Theory

Vague Alt Utopian Alt

Framework

What types of advocacies and impact arguments should count in the judge’s determination of the debate.

Framework can primarily relate to “policy making” or “the resolution.”

Framework (2)

Aff must endorse a topical plan and the negative must defend the status quo or a competitive policy option. Resolved comes before the colon USFG means the government not the

individual debaters

Framework (3)

Framework is about winning which is more important to include: Traditional debate Fairness Ideological change Creativity