Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,19 +1,0 @@
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.
14		-
15		-The neg can't read a plan-inclusive counterplan.
16		-
17		-The neg can't reserve the right to trigger presumption in the 2NR.
18		-
19		-If the neg reads a kritik of Kant, they must read an explicit advocacy text in the 1NC.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-11-05 00:01:46.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-all

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-all

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-14

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Cambridge Rindge Sussman Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-1 - broken interps

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-all