| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,13 @@ |
|
1 |
+**A Interpretation: the aff must not read a plan inclusive counterplan, read an NC that says the aff is not an emotive statement, and read separate hijacks to the aff framework with a delineated disad.** |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+**A Interpretation: The neg must concede the aff framework as contextualized in the 1AC.** |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+**A Interpretation: All negative advocacies must be defended as unconditional or dispositional.** |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+**A Interpretation: Debaters must read citations for all their evidence and flash it on the speech doc in the first speech.** |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+**A Interpretation: the negative must not justify both a counter-factual version of the aff as a reason to negate and that granting free speech is bad under a different normative theory.** |
|
10 |
+ |
|
11 |
+**A Interpretation: The negative must not read a framework indict that is implicated as both a presumption/permissibility trigger and a pre-fiat reason for the judge to drop them and read independent case turns to the affirmative.** |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+**A Interpretation: The negative must not read both substantive and pre-fiat justifications for why the affirmative framework ought to be rejected.** |