| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,13 @@ |
|
1 |
+There are obviously many more things the neg could do that may be abusive, but this often depends on context. I haven’t hit the whole gamut of abusive neg arguments. I will add interps as I break them. The interps below are norms I am 100 percent committed to when I affirm and strongly encourage you to commit to as well because I think they lead to better debates regardless of context. I frequently discuss theory and update my files, so my views may change as the year progresses and I reserve the right to add or subtract to this list. |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+Interps we think neg’s should comply with: |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+1. Spec status of CP in NC itself |
|
6 |
+2. Prioritize K vs T in NC itself |
|
7 |
+3. NIBs Bad |
|
8 |
+4. Conditional PICs bad |
|
9 |
+5. PICs Bad (in spec context usually) |
|
10 |
+6. Disclosure |
|
11 |
+7. Hidden Spikes bad |
|
12 |
+ |
|
13 |
+^Exact text of interp depends on the round. Usually the interp is synthetic to the actual debate. |