1AR Theory Bad

Does anyone still run this argument? If so, when and is it effective? I'm confused about how you can weigh your position against the inevitable turns that will be put on it in the 2AR. Particularly, I don't know how you can answer the response "this justifies infinite abuse because the aff could never run theory." Since there is no 3rd neg speech, it seems that negs will either always lose this position because of inability to compare arguments after the shell has been refuted, or the neg will always win the position because of the "I don't have a 3NR" argument." I see this position as particularly risky because the I don't think a lot of judges buy the latter and the "infinite abuse" argument seems to outweigh everything.

Old wrote:Does anyone still run this argument? If so, when and is it effective? I'm confused about how you can weigh your position against the inevitable turns that will be put on it in the 2AR. Particularly, I don't know how you can answer the response "this justifies infinite abuse because the aff could never run theory." Since there is no 3rd neg speech, it seems that negs will either always lose this position because of inability to compare arguments after the shell has been refuted, or the neg will always win the position because of the "I don't have a 3NR" argument." I see this position as particularly risky because the I don't think a lot of judges buy the latter and the "infinite abuse" argument seems to outweigh everything.

I'm not really sure when it's effective or strategic. Like you said, under this interpretation the aff is never allowed to read theory meaning they have no way to check back abusive neg strats.

1AR theory sucks. I feel like judges ought to be receptive to arguments as to why 1AR theory is generally unfair. If someone goes all in on theory in the 1AR, that is a different story in my book since the 2N can reasonably predict what the 2AR strategy will be. The fact that a 30 second shell can turn into a 3:00 speech in the 2AR is a severe disadvantage to the debater without a 3N. For that reason, I think judges should have some sympathy for the neg who has to shape a strategy based on a lot of strategy uncertainty.

Db8rBoi wrote:1AR theory sucks. I feel like judges ought to be receptive to arguments as to why 1AR theory is generally unfair. If someone goes all in on theory in the 1AR, that is a different story in my book since the 2N can reasonably predict what the 2AR strategy will be. The fact that a 30 second shell can turn into a 3:00 speech in the 2AR is a severe disadvantage to the debater without a 3N. For that reason, I think judges should have some sympathy for the neg who has to shape a strategy based on a lot of strategy uncertainty.

i don't think this is true at all. if the negative lets the aff explode the 30 second shell then it is his fault. if the argument is short and crappy, the neg should have no trouble answering it, and if it's good then there probably was abuse. "going all out" is not a standard for legit 1ar theory because it's fairly difficult to talk about 1nc abuse for the entirety of four minutes - a strong and concisely written theory argument indicting, say, 1nc a prioris could easily be made in about a minute.

and it goes without saying that 1ar theory is necessary to combat the profusion of abusive 1nc strategies that exists

How is it his fault? If I am debating you, and you read a 30 second shell in the 1AR, I can spend 2 minutes on it in the 2N (which is a huge chunk of time), and you could still spend 3 minutes on it and have the advantage. An even worse problem is the possibility of them not going for it in the 2AR, which means that they have created an enormous time suck.

I feel like there really is no way to battle back against this. The neg has few options for being abusive (they don't define the terms of the debate), so when neg is abusive, a 1AR should be willing to dig in.

Db8rBoi wrote:How is it his fault? If I am debating you, and you read a 30 second shell in the 1AR, I can spend 2 minutes on it in the 2N (which is a huge chunk of time), and you could still spend 3 minutes on it and have the advantage. An even worse problem is the possibility of them not going for it in the 2AR, which means that they have created an enormous time suck.

I feel like there really is no way to battle back against this. The neg has few options for being abusive (they don't define the terms of the debate), so when neg is abusive, a 1AR should be willing to dig in.

granted, i think that crappy 1ar theory against completely non-abusive neg strats is shitty. but judges are often unwilling to vote on that sort of theory anyhow and are developing higher thresholds for what constitutes an abuse story. i also agree that 4-minute 1ar theory shells are underused; debaters should be more willing to go all in on abuse stories if that's the best possible strategic option.

but i mean, are you really going to defend that when the neg runs multiple conditional counterplans or a tourville-style dump of a prioris, the aff can't run theory unless it's for four minutes? that seems pretty indefensible. the abuse story is crystal clear, and it's overly restrictive if the aff's only offensive outlet in the debate is going all in on theory.

also, regarding the time trade-off: the debate about abuse can often be reconciled more quickly than you think. against a "true" theory position, it might be harder, but hey--you shouldn't be running "ought = logical consequence" in the first place. but if you're running something like an agency case and the aff's theory arg is "deontology bad," it takes only a few knock-down arguments to beat their shell, because it's probably "false."