LD debate theory

I was reading OC’s interview with Eric Barnes, one of the centurions of the Legion of Doom. OC earned his $5K with that one. It’s about as long as any speech Fidel Castro’s ever given, only at least you don’t have to stand out in the sun to read it. However, there is interest over at DMV in LDEP, so OC’s questions about it are understandable. America wants to know, and all that. As a legionnaire myself, I’ve had the odd discussion with Barnes about various subjects (he’s an ex-Sailor, although not under my admiralty), with some agreement and some disagreement. I’ve never figured out the benefit of his speaker-point system, for instance, which I’ve always felt addresses a problem that doesn’t much exist. That is, since the people who get top speaker awards at tournaments are usually people who probably should get top speaker awards, why expend the energy to challenge something that is, arguably, working fine, especially when there’s plenty that isn’t?

What I got caught up in from the interview, without much satisfaction, is the question of theory arguments. I have to admit I’m at a loss here. There is little doubt in my mind that if I understood the concept of theory arguments--which I dont--I would probably categorize them with any in-round approach that doesn’t argue the actual resolution, on the premise that if one of us came here to discuss, say, capital punishment, and the other one came here to argue the meaning of a criterion, it is the former debater who would pretty much win by default, no different than if the one debater came to talk about the topic and the other debater came to discuss auto repair. It’s merely a matter of degree. But my problem is, I haven’t got a clue to what a theory argument is supposed to be. Neither did Barnes, really, and he treaded some water there until the next question came along, although I liked his point about debating with the judge rather than your opponent.

So I guess I have two questions. First, what is a theory argument? Second, presuming the answer to be what I think it is, how is a debate round the relevant place to conduct that argument? What I said about debating the resolution, although I was mostly thinking along the lines of kritiks, holds even more true here. Arguing debate theory, in a debate, doesn’t make any sense. It’s the wrong place for it. It’s like arguing legislation in a courtroom. Legislation—the making of rules—is conducted in places specifically set aside for such making. Courtrooms—the applying of the rules—is conducted in places specifically set aside for such applying. The place for the one is not equipped, intrinsically, to do the other. While, granted, a question of rules could arise in a round, and heaven knows the rules for LD are loosey-goosey at best, attempting to change the presumed rules in the middle of a game, as compared to before the game is begun, is what people do in kindergarten. If you agree to play the game, you agree to the rules. If you wish to challenge the correctness of the rules, you can’t do it while you’re playing the game because your challenge intrinsically invalidates the integrity of the game. If the game has no integrity, it might as well not happen.

It seems to me that debate theory is a fine thing. It ought to be discussed. It ought to be clear. It ought to be agreed to by the general universe of debaters. It ought to be an organic thing that can adjust when the need arises. But trying to do that in a round makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

Am I missing something here?