| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,15 @@ |
|
1 |
+Any burden structure must require both debaters to defend just the truth or falsity of the resolution. To clarify, they can’t read a burden of: the aff burden is to prove that we an obligation to future generations, while the neg burden is to prove that we have an obligation not to be concerned with future generations. In addition, neither debater may read necessary but insufficient burdens. |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+If the aff says “No link to implementation args cause I’ll defend those – they aren’t relevant to affirming/negating the burden” in the 1AC, they can’t tell me during my prep that they won’t grant me links to disads. |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+Debaters may not represent two different passages from a scholarly source as one continuous card. |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+The aff must read a solvency advocate that explicitly advocates all planks of the plan. |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+The aff must read a solvency advocate, i.e. a piece of evidence from the topic literature, that advocates—and only advocates—for every plank of a topical plan. |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+If the aff reads a standard of “upholding the procedures of justice,” they must define what procedures of justice are. |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+Aff may not say "The role of the judge and ballot is to vote for the debater who best stops alienation." |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+If the aff reads a normatively justified framework, they cannot read reasons why philosophical education is bad in the 1AR. |