Theory Debating Baxter MDAW--2012

 It Really is  There are 4 Components of a Theory Argument  Interp  Violation  Standards  Voting Issue  You can condense parts of them

 Should be a bright line  Should be as narrowly tailored as possible to exclude/include  Try not to make it arbitrary  Evidence  Logic

 Do not lose debates on this portion of the argument

 This is the real debate  Just like T—what does the world of debate look like under your interpretation and why is that good  Limits  Education  Literature  Ground  Fairness

 Lets be honest, its probably not  Standard Interpretations  In Round Abuse  Potential Abuse  Irrecoverable Abuse  Reasonability

 Require the affirmative to specify something they would often not specify.  % of the time these arguments suck.  Common examples  Agent  Funding  Implementation  Epistemology/Ontology/etc  Over

 Agent usually means “one of the three branches of the USFG.”  Elmore ‘80:  “Analysis of Policy choices matters very little if the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In the Normal Case, it was about 10%, leaving 90% in the realm of Implementation. “

 Conditionality  Dispositionality

 Formula for a legitimate permutation  Part or all of the aff plus part or all of the neg advocacy.  Severance Permutation  Intrinsic Permutation  Timeframe Permutations

 Consultation  Condition  Extra Competitive  Veto-Cheato  Steal Your Funding

 Vague Alt  Utopian Alt

 What types of advocacies and impact arguments should count in the judge’s determination of the debate.  Framework can primarily relate to “policy making” or “the resolution.”

 Aff must endorse a topical plan and the negative must defend the status quo or a competitive policy option.  Resolved comes before the colon  USFG means the government not the individual debaters

 Framework is about winning which is more important to include:  Traditional debate  Fairness  Ideological change  Creativity