| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,23 @@ |
|
1 |
+The neg can't read a theory shell that indicts potential 1ar extrapolation or shift until after that's occurred. |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+If the neg reads a counterplan, they must read carded evidence that explicitly advocates all planks of it. |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+If debaters argue that the role of the ballot is to endorse the best method for black-empowerment, they must specify whether we use an ends-based or means-based decision metric. |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+If debaters justify competing interpretations, they must specify what their conception of competing interps means, specifically whether we use a norm-setting model or in-round abuse model, whether I need an explicit competitive counter-interp, and whether I can beat their shell on defense alone. |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+A very long conjunctive interp against a NIB-y 1nc i dont remember it ask Gillian Zipursky |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+The neg can’t read 7 reasons why the resolution is impossible. |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+If the neg defines terms of the resolution, they must have a cite for the definition in the speech doc, which must include at least a URL. |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+The neg can't read a plan-inclusive counterplan. |
|
16 |
+ |
|
17 |
+The neg can't reserve the right to trigger presumption in the 2NR. |
|
18 |
+ |
|
19 |
+If the neg reads a kritik of Kant, they must read an explicit advocacy text in the 1NC. |
|
20 |
+ |
|
21 |
+The neg can't read an NC that says the aff has the burden to prove that it is possible for a state to impose a limitation of qualified immunity and turn the case. |
|
22 |
+ |
|
23 |
+If the neg reads a kritik, they must specify an alt actor and read a role of the ballot or standard text. |