| ... |
... |
@@ -1,11
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-There are obviously many more things the neg could do that may be abusive, but this often depends on context. We haven’t hit the whole gamut of abusive neg arguments. The interps below are norms we are 100 percent committed to when we affirm and strongly encourage you to commit to as well because we think they lead to better debates regardless of context. We also frequently discuss theory and update our files, so our views may change as the year progresses and we 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 v whole res phil affs bad |
| 10 |
|
- |
| 11 |
|
-^Exact text of interp depends on the round. Usually the interp is synthetic to the actual debate. |