Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[9]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[23]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[9]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-26 21:53:19.744
	1	+2016-10-26 21:53:19.0

Caselist.CitesClass[23]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,25 @@
	1	+A. Interp – The advocacy text defended by the affirmative in the 1AC must constitute an enactable policy.
	2	+
	3	+B. Violation –
	4	+1. Didn’t say resolved at the beginning of the plan – don’t know if the plan is passed or not. No reason why can we can solve if it doesn’t passed or not.
	5	+2. The aff didn’t spec normal means – they have all the time in the world to – we don’t know what the plan does.
	6	+3. They said reserve the right to clarify – plan shouldn’t be open to revision, there’s no 1AR in real life.
	7	+4. They said will instead of shall which makes the plan uncertain.
	8	+Bishop ’11:
	9	+Bishop ’11 (Keith P, California Commissioner of Corporations and Interim Savings and Loan Commissioner, Current Partner at Allen Matkin’s Corporate Law, “When Shall/ Will/ Must/ May We Meet Again?,” California Corporate Law, November 29th, 2011, http://calcorporatelaw.com/2011/11/when-shallwillmustmay-we-meet-again/, TW)
	10	+Since it is hard
	11	+AND
	12	+will be.
	13	+5. They don’t spec nuclear energy in reactors which means they ban all nuclear energy which means they ban the sun which is nonsensical since you can’t ban a country from the sun.
	14	+
	15	+C. Standard
	16	+Advocacy Skills
	17	+
	18	+D. Implication
	19	+Advocacy Skills is a voter -
	20	+
	21	+No RVI's
	22	+
	23	+Drop the Debater
	24	+
	25	+Competing Interpretations

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-26 21:53:22.397

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Travis Fife

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Apple Valley KA

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+9

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Cy-Fair Welch Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1 Plan Flaw

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+St Marks