Theory from Last Speech

WHY? Predictability 1. People recycle bad arguments from topic to topic Theres no innovation

12/31/2000 6:22:00 PM

2. go for same counter-interp everyround nbibs just goes for philo o determine strate based on certain voter

3. If you get good at predicting theory debate, no one else thinks this far at all wad won rounds without this shit it comes first o game over

4. People run an insane amount of theory Ability to map out theory Determine links and standards o Find links to fairness and edu Makes you think which internal links interact with which voters

Predict ways to make weak interp are divered by voters If you run plas bad, must pre-empt plans good if solvency advocate o Topic lit is silly standard since theyll just say solv. Adv. Ie. Of solvency advocate at camps. This is where trends in debate stem from Try to avoid their arguments Use camp to pre-empt speech o

Think of what voter they can win reciprocity o o Not offensive Just force them into defense

NBIBS Original shell: reciprocity No edu args unless assume moral principles exist

Encourages recycling

Only way to affirm is major and minor premise, but neg can indict any premise so they always better ground Cinerps are amost always edu o Takes out reciprocity standard

RVIs Reciprocity, deter, time-skew

Bait responses to args you have answers to Save args by reading frontlines instead of arg gen Tells you if you go all in for theory unless you need a contingency plan o Don't do this generally Known for being bad on theory Baits theory for rvi via nbibs Reciprocity, time-skew Say args are uneducational Then give yourself another out Nbibs, then he runs edu and philo standard, reasonability, and RAND o o

Just put 30 seconds for why its not educational The rvi debate is uniform across situations o o Debaters who go for rvis always go for them Fewer outs in the round Time-stretched speech in ld, 6 or 7 back reasons why rvis are bad Likely going all in for theory debate You started rvi debate earlier so weigh wirht args previously made o Justify comp. interps Reasonability means theory debate means don't give them rvi include in shells links in voter for both weighing education 1. Makes life more easier. o dropped weighing analysis So don't run ci if likely to rin Cant do justice in theory debates so start it earlier

2. If you don't read voter they go for assume you made that voter and make them link to nonexistent impact chance to respond to strength of link if you can generally predict arguments they make avoid them in original shell

if they say oth nbibs co-opt philo standards arguments

phrase ninterp around specific abuse.. exclude as much offense as possible. control possible links they have jan/feb plan:overturning a certain don't run theory A. you can only overcome avoid plans bad by solving sc decisions just need a test case If aff defends agent-based shit, specific nbibs bad use tricky implications

just RAND this entails rejecting debater since thats their advocacy only make sense if theory lost don't generally accept rvis, theory=rand but this is the onlyw a to do it

include in orig shell a reason to err aff and err neg use it in next speech to preclude ability to go or certain arguments o if they run skep, they claim fairness is irrel judes give us leeway on args they think is true if youre consistent with their beliefs they err oyour side

Should I bait common answers if frontlines or save it to next speech? Depends on if you pref line-by-line and gen overvie frame spec links so it's less turnable run cinerp with position to protect it especially if its one you always run with o 1ar theory neg gets only one speech and aff frames being abusive gives judges leeway

run cinerp in nc

answering reject the debater, since its hella blippy must spec a plan is terribad. you have to defend a specfiic advocacy. maybe affirming could entail specific advocacy o o o o o do what it takes to get rid of interps get rid of jargon norm-creation irrelevant when talking f cinrerp no spec cinerps truth-testing bad and says nbibs and a prioris should be if no nbibs and no truthtest

make textuality a constraint on arguments even if its fair, theory only tells us how to pick between args that are air and edu o put in voter key: not done now not a possible interp to adopt jurisdiction voter since it furts native Americans key: game over

pre-empt theory in aff o o make them specific

think about how theory will resolve itself generally always helps you pull ahead o o you need to approach last theory when considering theory debate

12/31/2000 6:22:00 PM

12/31/2000 6:22:00 PM