| ... |
... |
@@ -1,11
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-All reps arguments must be unconditional |
| 2 |
|
- |
| 3 |
|
-The neg may not read an advocacy that defends banning nuclear power in all countries but one. To clarify, they can read PICs, but not this specific one. |
| 4 |
|
- |
| 5 |
|
-The neg may not theoretically justify util, say extinction precludes under all theories, and justify epistemic modesty. |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
-All advocacies must be unconditional |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
-The negative may not read an advocacy of consulting indigenous people if its conditional, and they fiat that states don't intervene in consultation. |
| 10 |
|
- |
| 11 |
|
-The negative may not read a burden that they concede is not sufficient, and also read theory that denies the Aff the RVI |