Changes for page Brentwood Younger Neg
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 5 added, 5 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[67]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-12-20 07:18:17. 01 +2016-12-20 07:18:17.624
- Caselist.CitesClass[68]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation – The aff must defend that constitutionally protected speech ought not be restricted, not prohibited. Oxford Dictionary defines restrict: 2 -https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/restrict 3 -put a limit on; keep under control. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-20 07:18:18.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Shivane Sabharwal, Anne-Marie Hwang, Michael Harris - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Mountain View VP - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -31 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Doubles - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brentwood Younger Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Restrict T - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -CPS
- Caselist.CitesClass[69]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Email me at ryounger@bwscampus.com or Facebook message Jackson Lallas for info about cites and positions. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-20 07:19:40.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -32 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brentwood Younger Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - Contact Info - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any
- Caselist.CitesClass[70]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,33 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation: The aff cannot require the negative to clarify 1AC advocacy during cross ex and/or ask the neg to check theory interps in cross examination 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 -Interpretation: The aff cannot defend a plan that will not be inherent in ten years. 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 -Interpretation: The aff must specify and delineate in the text of the AC a roll of the ballot, standard, or metric by which the judge evaluates the round and how to weigh and evaluate offense under it and cannot simply state “Evaluation of energy policy requires a social context.” 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 -Interpretation: Debaters can only garner offense through the efficacy of critical advocacies and impacts and cannot get offense from initiating or participating in a discussion. 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 -Interpretation: if the aff reads the spike “PIC’s are a voting issue against whole res affs,” they must specify and define what a PIC is in the text of the AC and cannot put the theory argument at the bottom of the case. 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 -Interpretation: The affirmative cannot read the following spikes in conjunction: “Drop neg theory not weighed against the side bias,” “Drop the neg on theory,” and “Only drop the arg on theory for violations out of the AC and recontextualize AC offense under T”. To clarify, each spikes is permissible, but all three in conjunction is not. 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 -Interpretation: if the negative introduces a role of the ballot of to embrace a pedagogy of world opening, they must specify and define what it means to embrace a pedagogy of world opening and clarify how to weigh and evaluate offense under the role of the ballot with minimally a sentence in their role of the ballot. 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 -Interpretation: The aff cannot require the neg to weigh abuse against presumption or side bias and claim that neg abuse outweighs aff abuse. 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 -Interpretation – the aff must specify which constitutionally protected speech they prohibit. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-20 07:19:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -32 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brentwood Younger Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -any
- Caselist.CitesClass[71]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation – The aff must defend that all public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech and may not specify to a single public college or university or subset of colleges or universities. 2 -Debois 16: Danny DeBois (Harvard ’18) debated for Harrison High School in New York for 4 years. He won the TOC, NCFL Grand Nationals, the Minneapple, the Glenbrooks, and the Harvard Invitational (twice), coaches Harvard Westlake.. “Topic Analysis by Danny DeBois” January-February 2017 LD Brief. Victory Briefs. 2016. p.17 3 -First, “public colleges and universities” is a bare plural—i.e. there’s no article or demonstrative in front of public colleges and universities like “the” or “these” indicating which ones the resolution is talking about. Bare plurals indicate that the resolution is a generic statement, and consequently, in order to textually affirm, aff advocacies would have to prove why public colleges and universities in general ought not limit constitutionally protected speech, not why certain public colleges and universities should have certain procedures. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 23:12:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tom Kadie - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook VV - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -33 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brentwood Younger Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - Nebel T - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Berkeley
- Caselist.RoundClass[31]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -67,68
- Caselist.RoundClass[33]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -71 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 23:12:01.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tom Kadie - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook VV - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Berkeley
- Caselist.CitesClass[17]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Open Source - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-17 17:42:30.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +John Scoggin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lynbrook AP - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +8 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brentwood Younger Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Nebel T - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Loyola
- Caselist.CitesClass[47]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Email me at ryounger@bwscampus.com or Facebook message Jackson Lallas for info about cites and positions. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-30 03:33:56.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +21 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brentwood Younger Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Contact Info - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any
- Caselist.CitesClass[48]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,29 @@ 1 +Interpretation: The aff cannot require the negative to clarify 1AC advocacy during cross ex and/or ask the neg to check theory interps in cross examination 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 +Interpretation: The aff cannot defend a plan that will not be inherent in ten years. 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 +Interpretation: The aff must specify and delineate in the text of the AC a roll of the ballot, standard, or metric by which the judge evaluates the round and how to weigh and evaluate offense under it and cannot simply state “Evaluation of energy policy requires a social context.” 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 +Interpretation: Debaters can only garner offense through the efficacy of critical advocacies and impacts and cannot get offense from initiating or participating in a discussion. 14 + 15 + 16 + 17 +Interpretation: if the aff reads the spike “PIC’s are a voting issue against whole res affs,” they must specify and define what a PIC is in the text of the AC and cannot put the theory argument at the bottom of the case. 18 + 19 + 20 + 21 +Interpretation: The affirmative cannot read the following spikes in conjunction: “Drop neg theory not weighed against the side bias,” “Drop the neg on theory,” and “Only drop the arg on theory for violations out of the AC and recontextualize AC offense under T”. To clarify, each spikes is permissible, but all three in conjunction is not. 22 + 23 + 24 + 25 +Interpretation: if the negative introduces a role of the ballot of to embrace a pedagogy of world opening, they must specify and define what it means to embrace a pedagogy of world opening and clarify how to weigh and evaluate offense under the role of the ballot with minimally a sentence in their role of the ballot. 26 + 27 + 28 + 29 +Interpretation: The aff cannot require the neg to weigh abuse against presumption or side bias and claim that neg abuse outweighs aff abuse. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-30 03:33:57.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +21 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Brentwood Younger Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +47,48 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-30 03:33:55.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +any
- Caselist.RoundClass[25]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +56 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-12-18 06:38:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x