Jump to content
harper231

Intro to thoery

Recommended Posts

Alright so I'm working on my making my first theory file. A few basic questions.

 

1. What shells should I include?

 

2. What should the basic shells look like?/ How many standards should be included in the shell?

 

3. What extensions are suggested?

 

4.  What is the easiest way to make theory offensive?

 

5. What's the community opinion on the different specs?

 

6. How common is condo bad/good?

 

7. Finally, what is some of the most common language (title of standards) used in theory debates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright so I'm working on my making my first theory file. A few basic questions.

 

1. What shells should I include?

 

So this is policy or LD?

Edited by ARGogate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. They are mostly a joke unless very specific and relevant to the particular aff. ASPEC and OSPEC and the like will almost never win debates unless they are totally mishandled.

 

6. Very very common. Almost every round in the 2ac where a conditional advocacy is run in the 1nc, which is around 80-90% of rounds in most national circuit regions.

 

 

 

For 1, 2, 3, and 7 go to openevidence and get a theory core from a big camp (sdi/hss, umich or northwestern are best) and look through that.

Edited by KTricksfordays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aspec and pspec (plan spec) are probably worth making shells for.  Note that the goal isn't necessarily to win on the specs, but to make them concede links or competition on other off-case positions.  ie, you use aspec when there are multiple federal agencies that could do plan and the aff doesn't specify which, and you want to CP with a specific agency.  You use pspec to secure links to DAs when their plan is vague to the point of unknowable.  (Usually such plans look a lot like a statement of goals rather than a way to reach those goals).  You only really go for these specs when they refuse to give you these things - saying the plan is the CP is abuse on aspec; using their vagueness to specify details in the 2AC that take out a link is abuse on pspec.  

 

You should also ask specific questions in your first CX, and only run the spec arguments if they're evasive.  If you can get them to grant competition or a link in CX (or make it obvious enough what they're doing so you know you won't have competition or a link and can run something else instead), that's a lot better.  It's where they refuse to give you enough information to create an applicable 1NC that the abuse happens.

 

Better than shells of course is to be able to tailor such arguments on the fly so it's specific to what the problem is at more than just the violation level.  (I frequently find there are plan-problem-specific implications or standards that wouldn't have gone on a general shell).

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aspec , i hate to say sounds awful idea but it has done something once in a while  . BUT serious arguement to start off with : Condtionality (mutiple-off ) bad , Contradictions Bad (not necessarily perf-con ) but when a team is being a dildo bout their arguementation like idk A BioDiversity Good DA and bioD bad turns on case .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aspec , i hate to say sounds awful idea but it has done something once in a while  . BUT serious arguement to start off with : Condtionality (mutiple-off ) bad , Contradictions Bad (not necessarily perf-con ) but when a team is being a dildo bout their arguementation like idk A BioDiversity Good DA and bioD bad turns on case .

how does one become a "dildo bout their arguementation [sic]?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...