Is theory a voter?

I know this discussion started already on VBD, but I don't think a conclusion was really reached. If theory is a battle of competing interpretations, then why should theory be a voting issue in most rounds where the legitimacy of an argument or position is questioned?

In addition to the fact that the content of the interpretation is subsumed by the theory voter, I feel like this strategy effectively makes a lot of debates terrible. As theory becomes more and more common against positions that are not really abusive, I think debate will suffer. Shouldn't judges begin to check this trend by increasing their filter for voting on theory?

Here is my view on theory:

1.) Standards/Analysis/Why theory is a voter should be in AC, violations in rebuttals. The justification is that:
1, Theory is kinda blippy right now and could use more analysis (which can be done in a constructive speech)
2, New standards and new impacts to those standards in the 1AR is sketchy. That may be a subjective point, but I still think its a new arg

2.) More analysis on why theory is a voter (which I think is entirely easy to make). Think about it; debate is largely performative. Judges don't have an objective threshold for where an argument is warranted, so its largely subjective who wins a round. Speaking points, which have no bearing on analytical consistency, can allow one debater to break and another to not. Its our performance that decides the outcome of the round and not out truthiness (Otherwise, if an aff had better arguments but made a crippling strategic mistake, then we would vote for the aff). With that concern on form already present in the activity it seems easy to come up with reasons why "fairness" should be a concern.

3.) I still don't buy education as a theory standard, but I think fairness is a voter and can be well warranted that it is. Education, though important, doesn't come into play in some rounds (some rounds you hit the 1000th stock case that you facecrushed 999 times previously) and I don't think its logical to vote them down on the basis of being uneducational. I do think fairness is good as a check on ridiculously shitty strats.

I think a more persuasive theory shell would look like this:

-Why discourse is a voter
-Why fair/edu are voters under discourse
-Why theory outweighs (which you should have if you are taking the time to make the argument)
-Violation
-Standards (each with a link to fair/edu. Standards should be more developed than "ground skew=unfair")

Then that argument would kick ass.


Also, is there an official abbreviation for "theory" yet? I propose "Th" but I'm sure there are better abbreviations out there.

I don't see why the current level of analysis about theory being a voter is inadequate. I feel like there are certain norms that it is ok for debaters to understand before they come into the round. We should probably be able to presume things like the debate being in English, both debaters being held to the constructive times, a framework of some variety will be presented, etc. As long as these are paradigmatic rules, then debate can operate within that framework rather than wasting time setting up what the debate is supposed to be about.

I think the "theory is a voter" trend is one of those components of good debate that should be accepted as something of a fact. I think debaters offering some discussion of why theory is a voter is important since a lot of debaters explain the function of their argument in this part of the shell (for instance, if it becomes before everything, excludes argument x, etc.). I think going all in on theory or requiring substantial amounts of time to be put forth to explain why theory is a voter is completely unnecessary.

The ballot asks who the better debater is. A lot of people in this activity would agree that students should get some degree of education from it. We shouldn't have to spend a ton of time making statements that everyone in the room would intuitively agree with.

Theory is not necessarily a voter. Notions like fairness or competitive equity or education are axiomatically a part of debate as an activity, but the issue is determining what constitutes a sufficient violation of said principles. I guess the reason that T/Theory can be a voter is via analogy - in sports, certain conduct is deemed so inappropriate it results in an ejection or the team having to forefeit said game. In essence, the same thing is true for debate. Determining where you draw the line is, and always will be (unless we go the route of policy where we presume it's a voter unless they make the "Reject the arg not the debater" which I feel makes sense a lot of the time on theory debates. T is a different issue).

In response to Alex Bennett, debaters shouldn't have to spend their time in the 1AC explaining standards and voters. First, there's no reason they can't do that in the 1AR. You said that it's "sketchy" to have new theory in the 1AR since it's a new argument, but that makes no sense. Of course 1AR's are allowed to make new arguments if it's in response to something in the 1NC. Second, strategically, it's just stupid to waste time in your constructive to set up standards and voters that won't be used in many rounds when you could be spending that time making more nuanced substantive arguments. Third, you say 1AR theory is blippy. But if that's the case, it should be easy to beat that theory. Point that out its blippiness. Beat it straight up (which shouldn't be hard since there aren't good or varied warrants). If 2NR's consistently deal well with crappy 1AR theory, people will stop running blippy 1AR theory and make their shells more in-depth.

Second, Phelan's post takes out the whole idea of justifying why theory is a voter in the 1AC. Theory isn't necessarily a voter. It will obviously depend on the nature of the violation. Thus, you can't definitively say theory is a voter in the 1AC before you even know what the violation is.