The Theory Shell Template

A theory argument, or "shell," is how a debater argues that an opponent violated a fair or educational norm of the debate itself, separate from the substance of the resolution. Here is the standard four-part structure.

The four parts

1. Interpretation: state the rule you believe should govern the round. "The interpretation is that ___[the norm, e.g., debaters must disclose their case on the wiki before the round]___."

2. Violation: state exactly how the opponent broke that rule. "The violation is that my opponent ___[specific action]___, which breaks the interpretation because ___."

3. Standards: explain why your interpretation is the better rule for debate generally, not just better for you in this round. Common standards include fairness (the violation created an unfair advantage) and education (the violation undermines what debate is supposed to teach). Name which standard(s) you are running and explain each specifically, do not just say "it's unfair."

4. Voters: tell the judge explicitly why this should be weighed as a reason to vote, independent of who "won" the substantive arguments. Common voters are fairness and education, mirrored from your standards, plus sometimes "drop the debater" versus "drop the argument" as the remedy you are asking for.

When to actually run one

Theory is a real time investment and can read as evasive if used to dodge a substantive argument you are simply losing. Run a shell when a genuine norm was violated in a way that affected the fairness or educational value of the round, not as a reflexive response to being behind on the flow.