Theory file? Is it worth it?

I have heard conflicting views on this one. Some people say that having a ton of pre-written, generic theory shells is a must. Others say that writing more specific shells on each topic is much better, or that tailoring your shell to the abuse is more effective. Should I write a bunch of shells over the summer to cover common abusive positions (for instance, multiple a prioris bad), or should I focus on doing this working during the year or even in round?

If I should write a file, which abuses should I definitely be ready for? Could we do a list?

a prewritten theory file is very useful. a strategy i find effective is having modular theory components - i have a file of generic theory modules (such as fairness being a voter, ground as a standard for fairness, etc.) because these arguments are the same no matter what topic you're debating. violations on the other hand are specific, so it's more effective to pre-write topic-specific links to abuse. this way, whenever i hit an abusive position i can just read the topic-specific links and then read whatever generic component is missing.

Some generic positions:
A prioris good/bad
Plans/parametrics good/bad
Counterplans good/bad
Conditional counterplans good/bad
Plan inclusive counterplans good/bad
Multiple counterplans good/bad
Education is a voter
Education > fairness
Education isn't a voter
Fairness is a voter
Fairness > education
Fairness isn't a voter
Ground good/bad
K's good/bad
K's need an alt
Multiple necessary standards good/bad
Narratives good/bad
Necessary but insufficient standards good/bad
Neg fiat good/bad
A-spec, O-spec
Potential abuse is/isn't a voter
Predictability good/bad
Reasonability or competing interpretations
Vagueness good/bad
Irony good/bad
Contradictions good/bad
Speed good/bad
Topicality is/isn't a voter
Kritik of T
FX T/ Extra-T
AT: Reject the argument not the debater
Micropolitics good/bad
Solvency necessary/unnecessary
Taint good/bad
Toolbox good/bad

You should have these (even though you probably won't need them all it can't hurt to be prepared). Also, you can give your file to your entire team, and they can have it for when their whole debate careers. You can write more specific violations for the topics like ICC spec good/bad. Also, you can edit your shells a little bit in prep time if you already have the generic shell written. You should come up with a specific violation while you're speaking, but that isn't hard to do.

Good list Old! If you don't mind, could you explain what the "taint" and "toolbox" arguments are? I am guessing that I have heard this in round, but I may be unfamiliar with the terminology.

JohnnyFontane wrote:Good list Old! If you don't mind, could you explain what the "taint" and "toolbox" arguments are? I am guessing that I have heard this in round, but I may be unfamiliar with the terminology.

Toolbox is an argument that says you don't have to prove the resolution true in all cases, just that it could be true (or the action just). The justification would be that to say something is just isn't to say that it is just in all cases. For instance, I could say that a police officer using deadly force is just, but that doesn't mean cops would be justified in shooting jay-walkers. The burden of the aff would be to prove that the action is a just tool in society's toolbox.
I've heard about taint but I forget what it is.

Toolbox talks about how something "could" be just or used in just ways. I believe it originated on the jury nullification topic and was more popular on eminent domain. Eminent domain could potentially be just if it was used to help people and took property from people who stole it, but this view of the resolution is ridiculous because it assumes eminent domain will be used perfectly. The perfect example is really talking about a tool like a hammer. A hammer doesn't have any intrinsically unjust qualities. However, it could be used for injustice by smacking people in the face, or it could be used for good by building houses for people who need them.

Taint means the neg has to prove a taint of injustice to demonstrate something is unjust. In other words, justice is perfection and 100%. If the neg can prove that even the slightest risk of something unjust can happen, then he wins. People ran this crap a lot when I was a novice. This argument was really annoying because you have to win 100% that the resolution is just and they have to win 1% that it isn't just.

Old wrote:Toolbox talks about how something "could" be just or used in just ways. I believe it originated on the jury nullification topic and was more popular on eminent domain. Eminent domain could potentially be just if it was used to help people and took property from people who stole it, but this view of the resolution is ridiculous because it assumes eminent domain will be used perfectly. The perfect example is really talking about a tool like a hammer. A hammer doesn't have any intrinsically unjust qualities. However, it could be used for injustice by smacking people in the face, or it could be used for good by building houses for people who need them.

When was jury null ever a topic? I think it was just proposed.

Taint means the neg has to prove a taint of injustice to demonstrate something is unjust. In other words, justice is perfection and 100%. If the neg can prove that even the slightest risk of something unjust can happen, then he wins. People ran this crap a lot when I was a novice. This argument was really annoying because you have to win 100% that the resolution is just and they have to win 1% that it isn't just.

This is a good explanation. Nozick talks about this very idea and i think he even uses the same analogy you do

Thanks for the help guys. Re: Poneill. Jury nullification was the November-December resolution during 2007-2008.

JohnnyFontane wrote:Thanks for the help guys. Re: Poneill. Jury nullification was the November-December resolution during 2007-2008.

No that was plea bargaining. Jury null was never picked

Poneill is right; I meant to edit the jury nullification thing out. I can't seem to remember what I was thinking then. I might of been thinking of judicial activism.

Do people actually run A-Spec and O-Spec in LD? How on earth would that work?

Db8rBoi wrote:Do people actually run A-Spec and O-Spec in LD? How on earth would that work?

Depends on the topic. It's definitely possible.

Another question:

Should I have the voter in the text of each shell, or should I have generic education/fairness voter analysis, and read one as a voter based on which standards I choose to read in a specific round?

Also:

Does anyone preflow their theory arguments? If you have a voter with several points and pre-empts, it has to be difficult to write down enough on the flow between speeches and with limited prep time.

JohnnyFontane wrote:Another question:

Should I have the voter in the text of each shell, or should I have generic education/fairness voter analysis, and read one as a voter based on which standards I choose to read in a specific round?

You can, but you should have the voter memorized after having a few theory debates.
You can have preflows typed out, but the arguments you will hear will be the same each time. If you have blocks, writing down what they say is probably sufficient if you have a good memory. However, not having your argument on the flow probably isn't the best advice.

JohnnyFontane wrote:Another question:

Should I have the voter in the text of each shell, or should I have generic education/fairness voter analysis, and read one as a voter based on which standards I choose to read in a specific round?

If I have an entire shell put together (e.g., necessary but insufficient burdens bad), then I will have the voter in the shell. If I'm kind of making up a violation in round, like what Hassin was talking about, I also have a file of standards' internal links to voters and a file of voters.

Does anyone preflow their theory arguments? If you have a voter with several points and pre-empts, it has to be difficult to write down enough on the flow between speeches and with limited prep time.

I usually backflow theory or sometimes just write out the shell in prep time with "a," "b," "c," "d," and then backflow the specific interp, vio, standards, and voters.
Whatever you find easiest is probably the way to go.

JohnnyFontane wrote:

Does anyone preflow their theory arguments? If you have a voter with several points and pre-empts, it has to be difficult to write down enough on the flow between speeches and with limited prep time.

Depends. I flow on my laptop so if it's a theory arg i've run recently and can find without a lot of work, i will. Otherwise I just jot down the important things:

example: t - intl court

gr[ound]

predict

move tgt (moving target)

comp eq (i use competitive equity as a generic voter)

Then again, i so rarely flow much detail for my own arguments in the constructive/first speech i make the arg (or really at all, especially in an ev heavy round i just write down cites and something to trigger my memory on it). In later speeches I tend to kinda shadow flow (where i flow answers to their arg as they make it and then go back during prep and fill in the rest of my args/flesh them out a bit).

Do whatever works best for you, that's the best advice.

The taint is a great argument. I recommend it to all, novices especially.

Jrob wrote:The taint is a great argument. I recommend it to all, novices especially.

LOL ROFL