| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,16 @@ |
|
1 |
+There are obviously many more things the AFF could do that may be abusive, but this often depends on context. I haven’t hit the whole gamut of abusive AFF arguments. I will add interps as I break them. The interps below are norms I am 100 percent committed to when I negate 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 |
+Theory interps I think aff’s should comply with: |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+Spikes must be Bi-directional (like RVIs, drop debater) |
|
6 |
+2. Normative ethic required |
|
7 |
+3. ROTB spec |
|
8 |
+4. Spikes need to be fully fleshed out (voter, violations, paradigm issues) |
|
9 |
+5. Not reading stupid spikes like neg may only have one unconditional route to the ballot |
|
10 |
+6. Skep triggers bad |
|
11 |
+7. NIBs bad |
|
12 |
+8. Descriptive frameworks (like polls) bad |
|
13 |
+9. Flash, email chain, print, or lose |
|
14 |
+10. Disclose at least first 3 last 3, tags, and advocacy text(s) in a clear and easy to follow manner within 1 hour post debate |
|
15 |
+11. Must disclose plan-text at least 24 hours before the round. |
|
16 |
+12. The affirmative must specify what constitutionally protected speech they defend in an explicit advocacy text in 1AC. To clarify, my interp doesn’t require plans, just define what speech entails. |