| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,15 @@ |
|
1 |
+Here's some interps I might read |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+1. Spec status of CP in NC itself |
|
4 |
+2. Prioritize K vs T in NC itself |
|
5 |
+3. NIBs Bad |
|
6 |
+4. Conditional PICs bad |
|
7 |
+5. PICs Bad (in spec context usually) |
|
8 |
+6. Must have advocacy text |
|
9 |
+7. Disclosure theory |
|
10 |
+8. the negative must have one stable advocacy in which they outline all conpro speech restrictions and defend those restrictions unconditionally |
|
11 |
+9. for any DA the neg reads about a type of conpro speech, they must disclose a cite indicating this is indeed conpro speech before the TOC |
|
12 |
+10. the negative cannot break new PICs at TOC- they need to be on the wiki before hand |
|
13 |
+11. the negative must disclose round reports including all past 2nrs on their wiki |
|
14 |
+12. The aff burden is to prove that speech has no intrinsic meaning and the negative burden is to prove that speech has intrinsic meaning. |
|
15 |
+Obviously the interps will be more nuanced than this, but this is the general idea. |