DetectableNinja's Tournament: Sex offenders should be sterilized/chemically castrated.

TheoryBefore I run the theory argument (Theory Shell) I will explain its function in a round for non-debaters. Theory arguments debate the "theoretical rules of a debate round". When a debater believes their opponent is being abusive, they can run a theory shell in response. The theory shell must have an interpretation, which is what they believe should be a theoretical rule of debate. Then they have a violation, which is the section where they explain how that rule was violated. This is followed by standards that justify their interpretation by claiming a loss of either fairness or education or both due to the abuse. The final section is the voters where you explain why this loos of fairness/education is sufficient reason to either reject the abusive argument or to "reject the debater" by voting for the person running the shell. Interpretation: Debaters must accurately represent evidence.Violation: My opponent misrepresents his recidivism evidence. In fact, the evidence in his study NEVER talks about recidivism rates since 2002 OR 1983. The evidence speaks of prisoners released from prison in 1994. My opponent claims to have found recidivism rates in the study from 1983 and from 2002, one is over a decade before the sample group was studied and one was almost a decade after. Even more so, he claims a recidivism rate of 9% decreasing to 5.3% when the study he cited argues that 28.5% of those studied had been previously arrested for a sex crime, some of those two or three times (page 17), which is already over three times higher than the highest recidivism rate my opponent cited. My opponent also states in both of these statistics that they are represent the recidivism rate for all sex offenders since 1983 and. Leaving aside the fact that the study only counts a sample of sex offenders imprisoned in 1994, it also only includes 9,691 people, far from all sex offenders. In addition, there was only a 3-year follow up period. So effectively what his evidence states is a 5.3% recidivism rate of 9,641 individuals within 3 years of their release in 1994. This is far from the all-inclusive statistic of every sex offender from 1983-present that my opponent claims.Standards: 1. Academic Integrity: We must hold debaters to accurately represent their evidence.A. Character Limit Abuse: It takes must longer to argue that a debater has skewed the evidence's results than it does for their opponent to quote the evidence. If we do not hold debaters accountable then it would justify them citing 20 sources and misrepresenting every piece of evidence as it would be impossible for their opponent to clarify the true intention of every source and present arguments of their own. Academic integrity is key to fairness because it prevents debaters from abusing character limits and the fact that judges simply do not always have time to read every source in its entirety to create unrealistic statistics and force their debaters into an uphill battle to keep the debate honest.B. Real-World Applicability: Academic integrity is also key to education because an honest interpretation of evidence is necessary in order to fully understand the topic at hand and learn about its real-world implications. If we can make up statistics then we could never apply them to the real world.Voters: 1. Fairness is a voter because if we allow unfair debates then as the judge you cannot objectively evaluate the round. My opponent cannot simply drop his misrepresented evidence and solve for this as I won't be able to adapt my strategy of debate to honest evidence until the final round of debate where I am unable to make new arguments. Once the abuse has occurred in-round, an objective evaluation of the round becomes impossible and you must vote against my opponent because his abuse has caused that. Furthermore, this is a tournament round. If tournaments were not fair then debaters would not waste their time signing up for them and competing. We join tournaments looking for a challenge, but on fair terms. The violation of fairness is of an extremely high magnitude as my opponent did not simply make a mistake in interpreting his evidence, but completely made up new years and new recidivism rates that were NEVER mentioned in the study. It was not an honest error, but a blatant lie.2. Education is a voter because a primary reason for debating on DDO, and a motive for most voters, is to learn more about various topics. If we misrepresent evidence and take away the education aspect of the debate then that provides reason for a large amount of members to just stop debating altogether and to solely use the forums as a medium for educated argumentation. A loss of education is a reason to reject the debater because it will deter him from misrepresenting evidence again in the future, and thus prevent him from destroying the motive for reading for voting on debates. Implication (In DDO Terms)This theory shell should be a reason for you to drop the debater as stated in the voters, thus giving me all 3 argument points. It should also earn me the conduct point as I am supporting honest debate practices whilst my opponent is not and the sources point as my opponent is not accurately representing his story while I am. The way you represent your sources and implement them into the debate round should weigh in more heavily than the quantity of sources you provide.PreemptsAt this point, I have 2,600 characters left which is far from enough to respond to my opponent's case and simultaneously defend my own. It seems that theory has become an all-or-nothing issue for me in this round. With this in mind, I will attempt to preempt my opponent's responses to theory the best I can."My opponent claims that because 1 source was not accurately represented there is abuse so great that he had to resort to theory to have a fair shot at winning the round. This simply isn't true, he could have cited the correct statistic and moved on."It is not what you do, but what you justify. Theory argues the theoretical rules of debate that all debaters and judges should hold true. Your misrepresentation of the recidivism evidence justifies everybody lying about their sources. We must accept the idea that sources must be accurately represented as a rule and vote against violators in order for it to be taken to heart by all debaters. If we deny this, then it would be completely legitimate to make up 20 pieces of evidence as I stated in my character limit abuse standard of the theory shell."Fairness and education don't matter. This is a competition, you do anything to win."Even in competitions fairness and education matter. In professional sports rules are strictly enforced to preserve fairness. If the sport were not fair, people would get frustrated and stop playing. The same goes for debate. Education is uniquely important for debate as a competition as a motive for many debaters is to learn more about the topic. If we deny that education is important and exclude debaters who intend on learning, then there will not be enough debaters to "compete" with."Even if I am violating the so-called 'theoretical rules of debate' I am winning on the substantive level of the debate."Theory precludes substance. For the substantive level of the debate to matter, the judge must be able to objectively evaluate arguments in the round. My fairness voter explains that once you commit abuse it is impossible for an objective evaluation of the round to occur, thus we must vote against the source of the abuse. I also explained in my first preempt that we must vote against violators in order to legitimize this rule in the debate community. Voting against abusive strategies will also deter debaters from using them in the future.UnderviewMy opponent has bee abusive with his misrepresentation of evidence. Theory is the most important issue in the round and if I win it, then I should win the round regardless of who wins on substance.