| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,16 @@ |
|
1 |
+A. Interpretation: the affirmative may not defend a prohibition on uranium mining. |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+A. Interpretation: the affirmative should defend the desirability of topical action. To clarify, the aff must defend that countries prohibit the production of nuclear power via a postfiat policy. |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+A. Interpretation: the affirmative may not defend nuclear phase-out. |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+A. Interpretation: In order to be topical on the 2016 September-October NDCA Lincoln-Douglas topic, affirmative debaters may not specify a single country or group of countries that ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power; rather, they must defend the resolution as a general principle. |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+A. Interpretation: On the September-October 2016 LD resolution, affirmative debaters must only defend a prohibition on the production of energy produced by an atomic reaction capable of producing an alternative source of electrical power. |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+A. Interpretation: During the November-December 2016 LD topic, affirmative debaters may only defend that the United States Federal Government eliminate qualified immunity. |
|
12 |
+San Fellipo, 1992 |
|
13 |
+131. The author understands "limit" as used in OR. ADMIN. R. 860-21-505(8) (1991) to mean cancel, as opposed to the word "curtail" used in section (7), meaning only a partial restriction. |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+ |
|
16 |
+A. Interpretation: In order to be topical on the 2016 September-October NDCA Lincoln-Douglas topic, affirmative debaters may not specify a subset of police officers that ought to limit qualified immunity. |