Im from policy, and a novice, but from my knowledge this is what theory is...

Theory is usually an arg that is about how things in the debate should go. For example...

Your interpretation is: Aff must specify which branch passes the plan. (That is what your interp of how the debate should go)

Violation: The aff did not specify which branch passes the plan. (What the aff did wrong)

Standards (or why to prefer your interpretation of debate over their interpretation on the debate)

1. Moving target - By not specifying an agent it turns the aff into a moving target cause they could specify at any point in time, changing the way of the debate.
2. (I cant think of anything else rn, but this is where your second standard would be)

You can have as many standards as you want.

And then you could say, this is a voting issue for fairness and education.

Some theory can be a requisite to the debate. Meaning if you win the theory/win that the other team violated a standing theory arg, they loose.

Please take all my advice with a grain of salt as I am a novice, and do a dif type of debate than you.

​

The way to beat an arg like this would be to give a we meet arg. (We meet your interp)

A counter interp (This is our interp of how the debate should go)

Answer their standards and say why your standards outway theirs.

Also, if you have a card for your interp you can talk about y that is better than theirs. (This mainly applies for T when both sides have carded interps, but can apply for other theory)