Theory
Simply put, theory is a debate about how debate itself should work, and what norms should exist in the debate space. Theory operates on a fundamentally higher level than substance, since it grants the debater pre-fiat offense: offense that does not require the resolutional policy/program to be passed. For that reason, theory is fairly easy to weigh against substance arguments, and most technical judges will evaluate it first (if run correctly). Now, the structure of theory can be a little bit confusing at first, but once understood, theory is fairly simple to follow and comprehend.
On this page, we'll first go over the basic structure of theory, and then look at specific theory shells (arguments) that are most common on the public forum national circuit to put the structure into basic context.
Structure of Theory
Theory can be simply broken up into a few basic parts, all of which are read in a theory shell:
​
A) The Interpretation:
The interpretation, also referred to as the "interp," is the norm that the team reading the shell believes should exist in the debate space. In other words, this is the debater's interpretation of what SHOULD happen in the debate space.
​
B) The Violation:
​
The violation is how the opposing team violated the interpretation - how they did not adhere to the norms of the interpretation.
​
C) Standards:
​
Standards are the reason(s) as to why promoting the interpretation/norm is beneficial. Think of these as warrants/links as to why their violation actively harms the activity.
​
D) Voters:
​
Voters are the implications of setting such norms on the activity - such as expanding education, accessibility, or fairness. Think of voters almost as impacts of the theory shell/debate.
​
Drop the Debater:
​
Generally, teams will make the argument that the judge should "drop the debater" (the opposing side should lose) as a result of the theory shell.
​
Reverse Voting Issues:
​
A reverse voting issue (R.V.I.) is the idea that a theory shell can be turned by a counter-interpretation -- a different interpretation made by the other side in response to the theory shell. Most teams running the shell in the first place will advocate against R.V.I.s (since they do not want to have the potential to lose off of the theory debate), whereas most teams responding to the shell will advocate for R.V.I.s (since they do not want to waste time in a debate that cannot grant them offense).
​
All of this may seem confusing, so lets look at some examples and apply these concepts...
​
Disclosure Shell
Trigger Warning Shell
Paraphrase Shell
No-Theory-First Shell
"There is no footprint too small to leave an imprint on this world"
- Unknown
