Difference between revisions of "Frivolous Theory"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Frivolous theory, often subjective, is simply put, theory that is often egregious and unnecessary–theory read for the sake of theory. Many debaters often find theory strategic, so they try to find a violation at all costs. However, frivolous theory can often be strategic because (1) debaters are generally not prepared for it given that the shell is obscure and not what debaters would expect to be called abusive for and (2) frivolous shells are often true in the sense that there is no reason that it is false–there is small abuse story for why the shell is true but not genuine abuse. This means the most common strategy to answering frivolous theory, if done well through an inability to generate offense to, is to go for reasonability and drop the argument. The frivolous theory debater is put in a good spot because these arguments throw their opponents off, their responses are predictable, AND either they overcover a bad argument or undercover it, so you can just win the paradigm issues. An example of a frivolous shell is given here (this was on the september-october intellectual property topic)-- | Frivolous theory, often subjective, is simply put, theory that is often egregious and unnecessary–theory read for the sake of theory. Many debaters often find theory strategic, so they try to find a violation at all costs. However, frivolous theory can often be strategic because (1) debaters are generally not prepared for it given that the shell is obscure and not what debaters would expect to be called abusive for and (2) frivolous shells are often true in the sense that there is no reason that it is false–there is small abuse story for why the shell is true but not genuine abuse. This means the most common strategy to answering frivolous theory, if done well through an inability to generate offense to, is to go for reasonability and drop the argument. The frivolous theory debater is put in a good spot because these arguments throw their opponents off, their responses are predictable, AND either they overcover a bad argument or undercover it, so you can just win the paradigm issues. An example of a frivolous shell is given here (this was on the september-october intellectual property topic)-- | ||
| Line 8: | Line 7: | ||
Clearly, this shell is probably false on a truth level and the abuse is not that significant. While not the best example (because it’s relatively easy to generate offense against it), it can still be considered strategic for a theory debater because it’s a somewhat defensible and short shell that a lot of affs would violate. | Clearly, this shell is probably false on a truth level and the abuse is not that significant. While not the best example (because it’s relatively easy to generate offense against it), it can still be considered strategic for a theory debater because it’s a somewhat defensible and short shell that a lot of affs would violate. | ||
Revision as of 00:15, 28 December 2021
Frivolous theory, often subjective, is simply put, theory that is often egregious and unnecessary–theory read for the sake of theory. Many debaters often find theory strategic, so they try to find a violation at all costs. However, frivolous theory can often be strategic because (1) debaters are generally not prepared for it given that the shell is obscure and not what debaters would expect to be called abusive for and (2) frivolous shells are often true in the sense that there is no reason that it is false–there is small abuse story for why the shell is true but not genuine abuse. This means the most common strategy to answering frivolous theory, if done well through an inability to generate offense to, is to go for reasonability and drop the argument. The frivolous theory debater is put in a good spot because these arguments throw their opponents off, their responses are predictable, AND either they overcover a bad argument or undercover it, so you can just win the paradigm issues. An example of a frivolous shell is given here (this was on the september-october intellectual property topic)--
Interpretation: The affirmative must only defend that one member nation of the WTO ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines 1–Real World - decisionmakers can only choose from options open to them - an Israeli policymaker can’t control what India does. 2–Clash - each country has different politics that can’t be generalized which requires looking on the in depth particularities of individual actors for more nuanced discussions of them - outweighs breadth since different rounds and out of round research expose us to different topics but clash is unique to the process of debating 3–Shiftiness - you’ll just shift advocacies throughout the round since you’ll just extend any actor I undercovered which also makes the debate irresolvable since we’ll just go for different actors so there’s no clash.
Clearly, this shell is probably false on a truth level and the abuse is not that significant. While not the best example (because it’s relatively easy to generate offense against it), it can still be considered strategic for a theory debater because it’s a somewhat defensible and short shell that a lot of affs would violate.