Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[27]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[27]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,25 +1,0 @@
1		-A: If the affirmative debater claims in the AC that they are willing to modify their advocacy in CX, they may not claim in the 1ar that CX is ambiguous since judges don’t flow it, so you ought to err aff on questions of what was said in CX.
2		-
3		-A: debaters must disclose all broken positions (including ACs, NCs, DAs, CPs and Ks) on the NDCA LD 2016-2017 wiki under their own name, school, and correct side with cites, tags, the first three and the last three words of all cards read at least an hour before the round begins.
4		-
5		-A: If debaters read theory spikes in the AC, they must disclose them on the NDCA LD 2016-2017 wiki under their own name at least an hour before the round. To clarify, a theory spike is a theoretical argument in the aff that has an interpretation and standards, that could potentially be extended as an offensive voting issue in the 1ar depending on the negative strategy.
6		-
7		-A: If the affirmative debater believes that the negative debater failed to disclose a position on the NDCA wiki, then they must ask the affirmative debater before the round to put said position on the wiki, and only read theory if the affirmative debater refuses.
8		-
9		-A: Debaters may not read theory shells in which the violation is a screenshot of a chat with another debater.
10		-
11		-A: The affirmative debater must defend that either a single country bans the production of nuclear power, or defend the resolution as a general principle.
12		-
13		-A: If the negative debater has nothing disclosed on the negative wiki, then they may not claim that it is unfair for the affirmative debater to read 1ar theory.
14		-
15		-A: Debaters must specify an agent in the form of a text in the AC who takes the aff action.
16		-
17		-A: if the affirmative debater reads an a priori in the aff, they may not put it in a spike about moral uncertainty. Rather, they must put it in a separate section explicitly labeled – independent reasons to vote aff.
18		-
19		-A: The affirmative debater may not claim presumption, claim that neg theory must be weighed against side bias, and claim that aff theory outweighs neg theory
20		-
21		-A: The affirmative debater may not claim that aff abuse outweighs neg abuse, neg may only read turns to the aff if they read theory, and that aff gets RVIs on theory.
22		-
23		-A: If the affirmative debater claims that the negative debater must accept the aff choice of paradigm as contextualized in the ac, including the role of the ballot, then they must read a consequentialist standard.
24		-
25		-A: if the negative debater shows the affirmative their speech doc, and tells them the NC strategy, then the affirmative debater must tell the negative debater if there are interpretations they would like the negative to meet.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-10-14 14:51:14.0

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		-Hunter College Potischman Neg

Title

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

Tournament

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