| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,16 @@ |
|
1 |
+Just some shells I may or may not read. |
|
2 |
+1. Debaters cannot break new plans at the TOC |
|
3 |
+2. The affirmative cannot read a theoretically justified burden structure unless the burden text and the full text of all theory standards are disclosed. |
|
4 |
+3. Debaters must have round reports |
|
5 |
+4. the affirmative has to spec what conpro speech is in the 1AC |
|
6 |
+5. the affirmative has to grant DA links (i.e. concede that they defend x or y as conpro speech) if asked in CX |
|
7 |
+6. The affirmative has to have a balancing test to determine what constitutes conpro speech in the 1ac |
|
8 |
+7. the affirmative has to specify a mechanism by which to restrict conpro speech in the 1ac |
|
9 |
+8. the affirmative has to spec what the punishment is for a violation of conpro speech |
|
10 |
+9. the affirmative cannot claim the right to reclarify their advocacy in CX. 10. the aff cannot read CX checks as a meta-theory interp |
|
11 |
+11. the sufficient neg burden is to prove that there is no coherent understanding of what constitutes constitutionally protected speech |
|
12 |
+12. contigent standards are bad |
|
13 |
+13. the aff needs a single weighing mechanism back to which all their offense links |
|
14 |
+14. a prioris are bad |
|
15 |
+15. if the aff doesn't define ought in the 1ac they can't in the 1ar |
|
16 |
+16. no parallel turns in the 1ar if the 1nc reads util |