| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,17 @@ |
|
1 |
+Here's some shells I might read |
|
2 |
+1. Spec status of CP in NC itself |
|
3 |
+2. Prioritize K vs T in NC itself |
|
4 |
+3. NIBs Bad |
|
5 |
+4. Conditional PICs bad |
|
6 |
+5. PICs Bad (in spec context usually) |
|
7 |
+6. Must have advocacy text |
|
8 |
+7. Disclosure theory |
|
9 |
+Obviously the interps will be more nuanced than this, but this is the general idea. |
|
10 |
+Interp UT R4 |
|
11 |
+Interpretation: The negative cannot read a counter-plan that defends abolishing qualified immunity. |
|
12 |
+Interp Strake RR R4- |
|
13 |
+Interpretation: If the negative reads a conditional kritik alternative, they must clarify in a delineated text in the 1N what the other possible world they defend is. |
|
14 |
+Interp UH R5 |
|
15 |
+Interpretation – If the aff clarifies this advocacy in the form of a text in the 1AC then the negative must have an explicit text in the 1NC clarifying their advocacy. |
|
16 |
+Interp HW Octas |
|
17 |
+Interpretation: If the negative reads a counterplan that fiats the supreme court doing the aff, they must provide a test case. |