Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[8]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[6]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[8]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-25 15:35:40.510
	1	+2016-09-25 15:35:40.0

Caselist.CitesClass[6]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,10 @@
	1	+A: IF the negative debater claims that the affirmative debater should lose for reading a utilitarian framework, they must read a competing comprehensive moral theory that explains how we ought to take action in all circumstances. To clarify – the standard may not say that certain things are bad, it must provide a metric for determining what is good and bad.
	2	+
	3	+A: Neg must disclose all topicality interpretations on the NDCA wiki at least an hour before the round.
	4	+
	5	+A: If the negative debater reads topicality, claims that topicality outweighs theory, reads offense under the aff framework, and a kritik of the aff’s view of debate, they must defend the K unconditionally.
	6	+
	7	+A: If the negative debater reads a criticism of the affirmative’s approach to the question of the resolution, then they must read an NC that justifies an alternative framework with topical offense about why we should not ban nuclear power
	8	+
	9	+A: the negative debater may not criticize the affirmative framework, and claim that their criticism of the framework is a voting issue, and read turns to the aff.
	10	+A: If the negative debater asks the affirmative debater before the round to defend implementation of the resolution, then they may not read a criticism with links about the affirmative’s use of the state

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-25 15:35:42.836

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+8

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Hunter College Potischman Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+0 - Theory Interps

Tournament

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