By the Equality in Forensics Contributor Team

Theory debate seeks to enforce fair, educational, and reasonable norms in the debate space by punishing debaters for committing some sort of offense. Public Forum has adapted this type of argumentation from events like Lincoln-Douglas and Policy debate. It’s important to understand how and why these arguments work.

This is a lesson created by Equality In Forensics. You can view all of our lessons, blog posts, and additional resources on our website (and maybe even sign up to join our staff as well)!

Equality In Forensics

Equality In Forensics

You can also join our Discord community of hundreds of Forensics competitors to receive additional help and even one-on-one coaching!

Theory

Theory is a non-topical form of debate that deals with the pre-fiat implications of the round being debated, and oftentimes argues against the fairness and education of the round happening in the first place.

While not all theory is presented in the standard “shell” form, it is easy to identify it because it will still diverge from the content debate.

• When someone intends to run theory against you — or if you would like to initiate the theory — they might tell you that “it will be one off, then case”. This just means that they will be reading one **off-case position (theory, k, or ivi) before their case.
• Team will mostly do this, but in case they don’t, ASK THEM TO SEND YOU A SPEECH DOC

Common Types of Theory

Disclosure: teams should disclose all previously read case positions and corresponding information on the wiki

Paraphrasing: teams should not paraphrase their evidence

Trigger Warning: teams should read trigger warnings before they read graphic and potentially triggering content

Theory Shell

Theory shells are composed of the interpretation, the violation, the standards, the voters, and the implications.

1. Interpretation: this is how you would start the shell. An interpretation will establish what the shell is about and the rule they are proposing (the more specific the better).
2. Violation: this explains why the opposing team does not meet the interpretation (you should always be meeting your own interp).