Combo Shells
Combo shells are a subset of theory shells in which a conjunction of multiple things done together are bad. For example, if the affirmative makes a claim that the judge should evaluate the theory debate after the 1ar, meaning they decide who wins the theory flow when the 1ar is over, and that aff gets theory in the 1ar that is drop the debater, then that is bad because affs can make new theory shells in the 1ar and auto-win since the 2nr can’t respond to them due to the debate being evaluated after the 1ar. These shells are strategic because the abuse story between them is generally true when hitting the right positions (specifically, tricks ACs/NCs). When reading a combo shell on either side, debaters should always make an infinite abuse claim on why it justifies their opponent getting away with anything and winning, which consequently links into fairness and education as well because the other side always wins regardless of what we clash about. One big mistake that debaters often make when reading combo shells is by justifying each plank in the shell is bad, but not why reading every plank together in conjunction is bad. For example, negs can win that evaluating the theory debate after the 1ar is bad and that 1ar theory as drop the debater is bad, but if they don’t prove why reading both together is bad, then the interp generally does not solve the abuse and is arbitrary. However, when a combo shell is done properly, it can be very strategic given that the responses to it are often the same. Common responses to combo shells include (1) contesting paradigm issues such as drop the debater and reasonability in conjunction with some defense on the shell (2) making an argument that answering the spikes solves the offense on the combo shell–combo shells do not prove that the reading of the spikes were inherently abusive, but just that the aff made a bad argument (3) critical thinking–tough situations like the one a debater is put in forces debaters to think on their feet and (4) leveraging spikes against the combo shell, such as affirmatives extending “neg interps are counter interps” as a reason that neg doesn’t get theory.
To give a formal example, we can look at this shell: Interpretation: The affirmative must not deny the negative an rvi to aff theory and claim an rvi to neg theory. The standard is strat skew - affs get a 2:1 theory advantage because they can either win off of my shell or their own shell while I can only win off of my shell - that creates irreciprocal theory burdens and destroys any chance of norming since either negs have to go 7 minutes all in on theory regardless of how friv it gets since nothing else matters OR they don’t read theory at all and affs get away with infinite abuse
As shown, there is one standard (strat skew) but impacted to three different things. First, reciprocity (2:1 skew), second, norming (friv theory which can also be an education claim) and infinite abuse (chilling). Additionally, the abuse is conjunctive–reading no neg rvi or yes aff rvi are fine independently, but reading them in conjunction is bad because it creates a 2:1 skew.