A/T No Interp/Violation
Interp –
A) Interpretation: Theory shells all must have an explicit interpretation.
B) Violation: S/he reads a shell without an interp.
C) Standards:
Strategy skew: I can never properly engage the shell because the argument can shift in the next speech since
the interpretation was never explicitly stated. I also lose out on the strategic options of meeting his interpretation
and defensive responses so my only recourse is through competing offense. This has a gigantic impact to
fairness since mishandling his theory would be a game-over issue, structurally precluding me from winning the
round after it is read. Equitable access to strategy is key to fairness because strategies make it easier to win the
debate.
D) Fairness is a voter because the ballot makes debate a competition that must be constrained by rules as people
only compete with the knowledge that they have an equal chance of winning. Further, you must first ensure the
debate is fair in order to evaluate anything post theory as that evaluation will always be arbitrarily skewed
towards the unfair debater.
Violation –
A) Interpretation: Theory shells all have to explicitly specify a violation.
B) Violation: S/he never tells me where the abuse is occurring.
C) Standards:
Strategy Skew: The abuse story is extremely vague, I never know at what point I’m committing a violation and
how much of a violation I’m guilty of. This means I lose out on the ability to try and rectify the abuse or to meet
the interpretation. Also, the argument can shift in the next speech because it was never specified in shell. This
means that I’ll always be behind in the theory debate which is massively unfair because theory is a game over
issue; thus my abuse story outweighs his. Equitable access to strategy is key to fairness because strategies make
it easier to win the debate.
D) Fairness is a voter because the ballot makes debate a competition that must be constrained by rules as people
only compete with the knowledge that they have an equal chance of winning. Further, you must first ensure the
debate is fair in order to evaluate anything post theory as that evaluation will always be arbitrarily skewed
towards the unfair debater.