Pranav Pradeep is a sophomore at Mira Loma High School in Sacramento, CA. He debates under the code Mira Loma PM and is the second speaker for his team.

Introduction to Theory in Public Forum

What is Theory?

Theory is a style of argumentation that seeks to engage with the opponent's standards and norms of debate rather than a particular case or argument. Theory-based arguments often challenge the rules surrounding how we debate and different constraints that affect a debate round or the debate space. In essence, Theory is simply a debate about debate rules and regulations.

When Do You Read Theory?

The beauty of Theory arguments is that they can be read in any debate round and can be read at any time during a debate, the constructive, rebuttal, summary, etc.

Most commonly, debaters will read Theory arguments during their team's first speech or after an in-round violation of debate rules occurs, for example, a team reads evidence they did not quote, a team reads a graphic or triggering argument, a team makes a blatant offensive or racist statement in a round, etc. A Theory argument can challenge any one of these issues and can act as offense for a team in the round if read and executed correctly.

How Do You Read Theory?

Theory arguments may seem confusing or intimidating, however, Theory arguments are very similar to topical arguments and can often be written, attacked, and defended using logic and warranting.

Unlike a topical Public Forum argument which is structured through uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact, Theory arguments are structured in shell form and are often referred to as “shell” in a debate round. A common shell is composed of four parts, an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters or voting issues.

Common shell structure:

A - Interpretation

B - Violation

C - Standards

D - Voters

Interpretation

The interpretation is the rule or norm you are proposing by reading the shell. It is the guideline that the opponent must follow either in the respective round or during future rounds. For example, suppose your opponent ate a bag of Cheetos during the round. In that case, the interpretation could be “Debaters may only eat Doritos during a debate round” or “Debaters must not eat Cheetos during a debate round”. Both interpretations accomplish the same thing. In a more technical or practical sense, if a debater introduces evidence in the round and a cut card is not provided, the interpretation could be “When debaters introduce evidence, they must have a cut card readily available”.

When constructing or writing an interpretation, specificity is critical and can make or break a Theory argument. For example, if an opponent reads an offensive or triggering argument without a trigger warning, the interpretation “Debaters must read trigger warnings” is vague and flimsy. What is considered triggering? What content warrants a trigger warning? These questions are ones the opponent could present in response to your interpretation to poke holes or prove the interpretation wrong. A stronger more definitive interpretation would be “Debaters must verbally disclose if their speech discusses nongraphic or graphic potentially triggering subject matters, including [what they read]”. This interpretation narrows down the rule or guideline that the opponents must abide by and leaves little to no ambiguity for the opponents to contest. The interpretation is the most important part of a Theory shell and sets up the rest of the shell, so a specific and strong interpretation is key.

Violation

The violation is the way in which the opponent breaks the rule or guideline you are proposing in your interpretation. A violation can occur both in and out of a debate round such as disclosure. However, violations most commonly occur during the debate round. For example, referring back to the interpretation of “Debaters must not eat Cheetos during a debate round” a violation claim could be “Violation: They eat Cheetos during the round”. In the example of the trigger warning a violation claim could be “Violation: They do not read a content warning for [what they read]”. The violation is the simplest component of the shell but plays a huge role in the shell's construction.

Standards

Standards are reasons or individual warrants as to why your interpretation or model of debate based on the shell is good for debate or the round. Debaters often refer to standards as the “links” of a Theory shell as they prove why the shell is significant and critical to the round. Standards vary depending on the interpretation and violation that occurred but are normally written in the order of tag-warrant or link. Standards may seem obvious based on the violation that occurred, however, they should still be written well in order to set up voting issues and bolster the shell.

Common Standards include: (All standards referenced from PF Forward)

1. Skews (Time skew, Strategy skew): Does your opponent’s practices make a strategy for you harder? Does your opponent’s practices force you to spend more speech time responding than they spent making the argument even at the same assumed efficiency? (PF Forward)

2. Topic Education: Does your model of debate allow for more education about the topic? (PF Forward)

3. Clash: Does your model of debate foster more clashes and interactions between debaters and their positions? (PF Forward)

4. Ground: What ground do you have to make arguments upon? Does your opponent unfairly limit your ground or gain access to more ground than they should? (PF Forward)

5. Inclusivity: Is your model of debate more inclusive? (PF Forward)

6. Predictability: Does your opponent do something unfairly unpredictable? (PF Forward)

For example, in the scenario of the team eating Cheetos during the round, the standard could be fairness, as maybe it is harder to hear the opponents speaking if one of them is crunching down on Cheetos, thus decreasing fairness in the round. Topic Education is also a common standard read in a plethora of Theory shells, maybe the cheesy aroma of Cheetos is distracting you from engaging in the debate, thus decreasing the educational value of the round and the education you gain from debating.

You can easily pick and choose standards depending on the shell and violation that occurs or write your own standards (make sure to follow the tag-warrant format). However, make sure the standard correlates to the interpretation and violation and adds significance to the shell. Remember, shells often contain multiple standards, however, a singular standard if strong is perfectly fine to read.

Voters

Voters or voting issues are the impacts of the Theory shell. They are contextualized and terminalized reasons as to why your interpretation benefits debate and the impact your interpretation has on the debate space.

Education, fairness, and inclusivity all have quite obvious impacts, however, many Theory shells utilize obscure or “out of the box” impacts that traditional Public Forum debaters might mishandle.

Common warrants for why education is good: (PF Forward)

1. It’s the only portable skill we take from debate into real life

2. Schools wouldn’t fund debates if it wasn’t educational

3. People wouldn’t join debate if it wasn’t educational

Common warrants for why fairness is good: (PF Forward)

1. All arguments presume fair evaluation by the judge of the arguments.

2. Debate is a competitive activity, so fairness is constitutive of it.

3. Debaters would quit if they keep unfairly losing.

Similar to topical impacts in Public Forum, Theory argument impacts can be anything as long as they have some type of correlation to the standards and interpretation. Theory argument impacts can also be weighed against each other and often follow common weighing mechanisms that traditional arguments use such as scope, probability, magnitude, etc.

How Do You Respond To Theory?

In the event that you face a Theory argument in a round, do not panic or feel intimidated. Often, debaters forget that Theory arguments are very similar to topical arguments and can be taken down using a combination of logic and analytics. Use your knowledge of the structure of Theory shells to poke holes and find weaknesses in your opponent's shell. Do not be afraid to defend your model of debate, remember your opponent's shell advocates for their perfect model of debate, not yours, stand your ground and present logical reasons as to why your model of debate is acceptable or as to why the opponents model of debate is an extreme. Finally, in some cases, the best way to avoid debating Theory or running into a Theory debate is to abide by the interpretation(s) the opponent requires, disclose your case, have good evidence practices, maintain good ethics in the round, be respectful, etc.

Why is Learning Theory a Must?

Arguably the greatest challenge novice and small school debaters face in Public Forum is progressive argumentation. More often than not, large-scale funded schools have access to backfiles upon backfiles of progressive arguments and months to prepare in-depth arguments and shells. As someone from a small school who has faced Theory based arguments and read Theory based arguments before, I understand the necessity of being equipped with skills to win Theory rounds and effectively read Theory based arguments. I advise everyone to practice writing a Theory shell and practice debating with a Theory shell, as you never know when you might be stuck in a close Theory debate at your next important tournament.

Example Shells

Theory Templates - Pranav Pradeep Mira Loma

Remember, these are just templates or guidelines for how to write basic shells. Ideally, you should write your own shells or Theory arguments.

Other Resources I Recommend

This article is only a mere introduction to the vast world of Theory based argumentation and progressive arguments. If you would like to learn more about Theory based arguments or take a deeper dive into the world of Theory I recommend these resources and articles.

PF Forward - Theory

VBI - Dangers of Theory in PF

Beyond Resolved - Theory Small Schools

References

“Theory.” PF Forward, https://pfforward.weebly.com/theory.html.

Contact Info

Have any questions or comments? Contact me: Pranav P. (He/Him) pranavprad7@gmail.com Facebook Messenger: Pranav Pradeep

Thus marks the end of this post. If you have any further questions, please feel free to email us via our email: resources.debate@gmail.com. Please spread the word to other debaters who you think may find this website useful! Make sure to check out our other posts, as they're guaranteed to help.