Changes for page Cambridge Rindge Sussman Aff
Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:34
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[20]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-10-16 11:46:11. 4671 +2016-10-16 11:46:11.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[21]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,13 @@ 1 +The neg can't read a theory shell that indicts potential 1ar extrapolation or shift until after that's occurred. 2 + 3 +If the neg reads a counterplan, they must read carded evidence that explicitly advocates all planks of it. 4 + 5 +If debaters argue that the role of the ballot is to endorse the best method for black-empowerment, they must specify whether we use an ends-based or means-based decision metric. 6 + 7 +If debaters justify competing interpretations, they must specify what their conception of competing interps means, specifically whether we use a norm-setting model or in-round abuse model, whether I need an explicit competitive counter-interp, and whether I can beat their shell on defense alone. 8 + 9 +A very long conjunctive interp against a NIB-y 1nc i dont remember it ask Gillian Zipursky 10 + 11 +The neg can’t read 7 reasons why the resolution is impossible. 12 + 13 +If the neg defines terms of the resolution, they must have a cite for the definition in the speech doc, which must include at least a URL. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-16 11:46:11.652 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +12 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cambridge Rindge Sussman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - broken interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all