THEORY

Dobson [Initials]
[Full Name]

NECESSESARY/INSUFFICIENT BURDENS BAD

A) is the interpretation:
All burdens must be sufficient to affirm or negate the resolution.
B) is the violation:
C) is the standards:
First is reciprocal ground. Necessary but insufficent burdens skew the
balance of the round. If my opponent wins one of these burdens, he automatically wins,
while I am forced to win offence under all of them. The burdens are fundamentally
unreciprocal because they have less work to do in order to win. This structurally skews
access to the ballot because the decision calculus of the round favors my opponent. For
my opponent, it is easier to gain access to the ballot because it is easier for them to win
one argument than it is for me to win multiple.
Second is strategy skew. Necessary/insufficent standards skew my strategy
because I am forced to invest substatial time in each standard while my opponenet can
only go for whichever is easiest or least covered. This means issue selection in rebuttals
are skewed because I have less options and am forced to do more work in less time.
Strategy skew is detrimental to fairness because it gives a massive advantage to one side.
If Im not free to make stategic decisions them I dont have much access to the ballot
because the effectiveness and strategic utility of my speech is greatly undermined. Plus,
because speech time is the only stable dimension of the round, it has the paramount and
clearest link to fairness.
D) is the impact:
Vote on fairness. Debate as a competitive activity is axiomatically predicated
upon competitive equity. The reason we have a ballot is because each debater has a
reasonable chance to win the round otherwise we would just have a conversation that
wasnt judged. The only way to avoid making debate a non-competitive and therefore
uneducational activity is to vote down unfair practices. Theory functions as a unique,
pre-standard procedural check against ruptures of competitive equity. Positions that
are detrimental to the activity will proliferate if they win rounds and disappear if they
cause losses.
1

Plus, the abuse has already occurred and I had to read this violation to keep them
accountable. Kicking out of the argument in the next speech does not get out of the strategic
skew that has already occurred.
Last, theory is an issue of competing interpretations. If my opponent doesnt defend their
interpretation as good in general, not just good in this case, then you cannot endorse it. Its not what you
do, its what you justify. Potential abuse matters because you can deter it.

Dobson Speech and Debate | Lincoln-Douglas Debate | Charles Riley Wanless