Changes for page Harrison Piliero Aff
Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:35
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Caselist.RoundClass[22]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-10-19 14:24:51. 3121 +2016-10-19 14:24:51.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,19 @@ 1 +A. Interpretation: The neg may not read arguments that lead the judge to auto negate ~-~- to clarify, they can't make the presumption trigger on the framework or the auto negate argument on the plan text 2 + 3 +A. Interpretation: If the neg reads theory on a link of omission (i.e., something I did not specify) they must clarify in CX 4 + 5 +A. Interpretation: The neg may not read more than 5 NIBs and a counter burden and a counter role of the ballot 6 + 7 +A. Interpretation: The neg may not read an advocacy that defends banning nuclear power in all countries but one. To clarify, they can read PICs, but not this specific one. 8 + 9 +A. Interpretation: The neg may not theoretically justify util, say extinction precludes under all theories, and justify epistemic modesty. 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 +A. Interpretation: The negative may not read a burden that they concede is not sufficient, and also read theory that denies the Aff the RVI 14 + 15 +A. Interpretation: The negative may not read an advocacy of consulting indigenous people if its conditional, and they fiat that states don't intervene in consultation. 16 + 17 +A. Interpretation: All advocacies must be unconditional 18 + 19 +A. Interpretation: All reps arguments must be unconditional - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-19 14:24:52.966 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +- - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +- - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +22 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harrison Piliero Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Broken Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sept-Oct