| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,13 @@ |
|
1 |
+A. Interpretation: The Aff may not normatively justify their framework, theoretically justify their framework, and read a single country plan. |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+A. Interpretation: The Aff may not say the neg burden is to prove there's no obligation to future people, but that proving nuclear power good isn't offense |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+A. Interpretation: The aff may not say the neg must concede to the burden if they also say the neg may not have multiple routes to the ballot |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+A. Interpretation: The Aff may not justify their framework both theoretically and normatively |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+A. Interpretation: The Aff may not say the neg must quantify all abuse against side bias, and also read spikes with offensive implications in the AC |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+A. Interpretation: The Aff must concede that the neg can respond to spikes when extended in the 2NR |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+A. Interpretation: The Aff must only justify their framework normatively and may not justify it by appealing to topic specificity. To clarify, no theoretically justified frameworks. |