Changes for page Cambridge Rindge Sussman Aff
Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:34
Change comment:
Rollback to version 160.1
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 0 added, 2 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[31]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 22:03:25. 01 +2016-11-19 22:03:25.362
- Caselist.CitesClass[32]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation: Debaters may only read positions that are disclosed before the debate on their NDCA wiki page under their own name with full citations, tags, and first three/last three words. 2 - 3 -Interpretation: Debaters must disclose previously run constructive positions – all cases, off cases and theory arguments – at least 30 minutes before the round on the NDCA wiki or when asked. This means providing proper citations for all evidence including first three and last three words and tags as well as advocacy, standard, and interpretation texts. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 22:03:25.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -20 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cambridge Rindge Sussman Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - disclosure theory - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all
- Caselist.CitesClass[33]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,21 +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. 20 - 21 -The neg can't read an NC that says the aff has the burden to prove that it is possible for a state to impose a limitation of qualified immunity and turn the case. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 22:03:25.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -20 - 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
- Caselist.RoundClass[20]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -31,32,33