Changes for page Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg
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[13]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-09-19 03:34:26. 6481 +2016-09-19 03:34:26.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[14]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,5 @@ 1 +Any burden structure must require both debaters to defend just the truth or falsity of the resolution. To clarify, they can’t read a burden of: the aff burden is to prove that we an obligation to future generations, while the neg burden is to prove that we have an obligation not to be concerned with future generations. In addition, neither debater may read necessary but insufficient burdens. 2 + 3 +If the aff says “No link to implementation args cause I’ll defend those – they aren’t relevant to affirming/negating the burden” in the 1AC, they can’t tell me during my prep that they won’t grant me links to disads. 4 + 5 +Debaters may not represent two different passages from a scholarly source as one continuous card. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-19 03:34:26.836 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +6 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Cambridge Rindge Sussman Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - broken interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all