| ... |
... |
@@ -1,13
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-A: If the affirmative debater claims in the AC that they are willing to modify their advocacy in CX, they may not claim in the 1ar that CX is ambiguous since judges don’t flow it, so you ought to err aff on questions of what was said in CX. |
| 2 |
|
- |
| 3 |
|
-A: debaters must disclose all broken positions (including ACs, NCs, DAs, CPs and Ks) on the NDCA LD 2016-2017 wiki under their own name, school, and correct side with cites, tags, the first three and the last three words of all cards read at least an hour before the round begins. |
| 4 |
|
- |
| 5 |
|
-A: If debaters read theory spikes in the AC, they must disclose them on the NDCA LD 2016-2017 wiki under their own name at least an hour before the round. To clarify, a theory spike is a theoretical argument in the aff that has an interpretation and standards, that could potentially be extended as an offensive voting issue in the 1ar depending on the negative strategy. |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
-A: If the affirmative debater believes that the negative debater failed to disclose a position on the NDCA wiki, then they must ask the affirmative debater before the round to put said position on the wiki, and only read theory if the affirmative debater refuses. |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
-A: Debaters may not read theory shells in which the violation is a screenshot of a chat with another debater. |
| 10 |
|
- |
| 11 |
|
-A: The affirmative debater must defend that either a single country bans the production of nuclear power, or defend the resolution as a general principle. |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
-A: If the negative debater has nothing disclosed on the negative wiki, then they may not claim that it is unfair for the affirmative debater to read 1ar theory. |