| ... |
... |
@@ -1,15
+1,0 @@ |
| 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. |