Changes for page La Canada Zhao Neg
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 1 added, 8 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[75]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-02-11 19:10:43. 01 +2017-02-11 19:10:43.741
- Caselist.CitesClass[76]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation – the affirmative may not specify a public college or group of public colleges to implement the plan. 2 - 3 -Limits - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-12 00:07:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Scoggin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook NA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -38 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 May Not Spec College - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stanford
- Caselist.CitesClass[77]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,6 +1,0 @@ 1 -The construction of "political correctness" is an attempt to dismiss the legitimate concerns of oppressed groups – the impact is racism, sexism, and ableism 2 -Serano 16 Julia Serano Author of Whipping Girl (now in 2nd edition!), Outspoken (her latest book!), and Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive. juliaserano.com. "Prejudice, 'Political Correctness,' and the Normalization of Donald Trump.” Medium. 3 -To put it another way, “political correctness” is not an ideology, nor is it a specific set of behaviors. It is simply a slur that people utter when they want to dismiss an expression of social justice activism that they do not like. One person’s “political correctness” is another person’s common decency or righteous activism. It is also crucial to note that, while many people resent activist attempts to change social norms, we are not the only ones engaged in such actions: Those who harbor prejudices are also constantly trying to assert and/or change social norms, albeit in the opposite direction. And yet, these latter attempts do not face similar scrutiny or smearing. If I promote gender-neutral restrooms or pronouns, I will be dismissed as being “politically correct,” whereas North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (who championed HB2, the law that criminalizes trans people who use public restrooms) is never described as “politically correct” (even though he has clearly engaged in political attempts to enforce a social norm of his own creation). When college students in 2015 tried to protest and no-platform Germaine Greer (an extreme and outspoken transphobe) people called it political-correctness-run-amok, but conservative protesters who attempt to protest and no-platform transgender activists (as happened to me in 2004) are never dismissed as “politically correct.” This asymmetry, along with its vagueness and inconsistent usage, is why I detest the term “political correctness,” and why I think we should all stop using it. From my vantage point, there are bigots who are pushing for social norms that conform to their beliefs, and social justice activists who are pushing for social norms that conform to our beliefs. And the population at large will have varied opinions about whether any given social norm is worthy or unworthy, advantageous or disadvantageous. 4 -The alternative is to acknowledge that political correctness is a concept that is an effective tool in identifying bigotry. 5 -Croft 15. Adam. News Editor at The Branding Iron. “Why Being ‘PC’ Matters.” The Branding Iron. MCM. 6 -These days the notion of “political correctness” carries a pretty negative connotation. Sixty-one percent of Americans believe America is becoming too politically correct, according to a poll from Rasmussen Reports, making political correctness less popular than the president, whose approval rating is just over 50 percent. On Facebook I routinely see posts claiming America is becoming too politically correct and comments railing against the fact that cultural mainstays of yesteryear have been abandoned for being offensive. People mourn the loss of the ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ while proudly referring to Caitlin Jenner as a man, all under the guise of “fighting politically correct nonsense.” A grown man on my Facebook feed defended his use of the slur “retard,” because he’s “always used that word.” Just this week one of our best writers was scorned for pointing out the overt racism in Pinedale’s Rendezvous celebration. People act as though being “PC” is an unnecessary annoyance that threatens their very way of life. They act as though it’s a disease spreading from liberal coastal states into their neat, conservative homes in landlocked vacuums. However, everyone so vehemently opposed to political correctness makes the same mistake when critiquing political correctness: they make it about themselves. You see, we as a society do not choose to remove certain words from our vernacular at random. A secret committee of liberal politicians doesn’t meet once a year and decide red-face pageants are racist just to stick it to the good people of Pinedale. In fact, we as a society remove language, symbols or practices from our societal discourse when groups identify those elements as offensive, or when they decide they don’t want to be identified by certain terminology anymore. Moreover, you do not have any say in whether or not those terms are offensive if you do not belong to the group those terms affect. At that point, you’re in a position of privilege. For example, the man on my Facebook feed that used the R-word had no right to defend that word’s use as he is not a member of the group that word affects. He comes from a background of privilege, as someone who has never dealt with the negative connotations of that term. He doesn’t know what it’s like to be bullied by the use of that word. Instead, he should have recognized he has no frame of reference when it comes to that term, and left it to disabled persons to determine whether or not it is appropriate. So, when you “take a stand” against political correctness by sharing a picture of a confederate flag, using the R-word or referring to transgender individuals by the wrong pronoun, you’re not fighting for your right to say whatever you want. That right will always be there. You’re just proving that you are inconsiderate of the wishes of subjugated groups to self-identify. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-16 21:27:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Knell, Merrill - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart DD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -40 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - K - Political Correctness - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[78]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,0 @@ 1 -The 50 United States and the District of Columbia state legislatures should require that public colleges and universities not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. 2 -Solves the case 3 -Leef 2/5 George Leef (law school graduate who went into teaching rather than legal practice and then began to see how badly government has mangled education at all levels. Since 1999, I have worked at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, a think tank that takes a critical view of higher education. Also, I do lots of free-lance writing and book reviews for a number of free-market organizations), "Lawmakers Haven't Protected Free Speech On Campus~-~-Here's How They Can," Forbes, 2/5/2017 AZ 4 -Much as administrators and faculty may dislike it, the fact is that public colleges are subject to both the First Amendment and the state legislatures that fund them. Legislators shouldn’t micromanage the campuses, but they must set some basic rules. One of those rules should be that free speech and open inquiry will be protected. You might find it surprising that academics need to be told to protect free speech and inquiry, but American campuses have become increasingly intolerant of speech that conflicts with “progressive” orthodoxy. I have often written about the rules imposed by campus officials that run afoul of the First Amendment, such as the speech infringement at Iowa State and the miniscule “free speech zone” at Grand Valley State. Conservative and libertarian speakers have frequently been shouted down or disinvited from giving a scheduled address; students who say something that hurts someone’s feelings are likely to face charges brought by a “bias incident” team. In one of the most shameful events of all, a speaker at the University of Wisconsin, Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity, was prevented from completing his off-campus talk when a mob of students that had been organized by a school administrator broke into the room where he was discussing the evidence of racial preferences in UW admissions. Hitting the nail squarely on the head, in his January 31 Wall Street Journal column, Professor Peter Berkowitz wrote, “The yawning gap between universities’ role as citadels of free inquiry and the ugly reality of campus censorship is often the fault of administrators who share the progressive belief that universities must restrict speech to protect the sensitivities of minorities and women. They often capitulate to the loudest and angriest demonstrators just to get controversies off the front page.” Precisely. College administrators often find it easier to allow zealous and intolerant activists to have their way. Sometimes they’re complicit. It is time for state legislators to assert themselves and restore the First Amendment and its values on the campuses they are responsible for. One of the three drafters is Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. In an article published February 1 by the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, Kurtz explained the importance of free speech. He wrote, “Freedom is not a license to attack your foes. License of that sort is the opposite of freedom. If you want to understand freedom, consider what Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court famously said in 1929: ‘If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls out for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.’” Kurtz continued, “If true freedom of speech is ‘freedom for the thought that we hate,’ then freedom is actually a form of self-mastery. Far from being license, true freedom is actually an act of self-control, a refusal to physically extinguish even the speech we abhor.” He’s right, but a lesson that too few college students ever learn is that as civilized people, they need to exert self-mastery and tolerate speech they disagree with. The bill would restore free speech on campus through several means. First and foremost, schools would have to eliminate speech codes, speech zones, and other policies that unreasonably restrict speech. They would also have to discipline students who break the free speech rules. Another provision is that state colleges and universities would have to include in their orientations a discussion of the importance of free speech and tolerance for dissenting views. While it doesn’t specify this, schools should consider assigning John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty in addition to or perhaps instead of the “summer book” they often assign to incoming students. That would be far more instructive than the usual soppy, politically-themed books they usually choose – see this report by the National Association of Scholars in that regard. And capping everything off, the bill requires the creation of a Committee on Free Expression within the board of trustees of each state college and university. These committees would be charged with issuing a yearly report on the status of free expression on campus, a report that would go to the governor, the state legislature, and be available to the public. This obligation would, Kurtz argues, create a counterforce to the pressure that anti-free speech agitators put on school officials. Summing up his case for the bill, Kurtz writes, “By strongly affirming the core principles of free expression, creating a discipline policy for those who interfere with the freedom of others, informing students of the principles of free speech and the penalty for disregarding it, and then holding administrators publicly accountable for failure to enforce the provisions of the bill, the model bill is designed to create a virtuous cycle that will prevent speaker shout-downs and disinvitations from ever happening in the first place.” - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-16 21:27:38.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Knell, Merrill - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Immaculate Heart DD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -40 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - CP - States - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[79]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,13 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation – the aff may only defend removing restrictions on constitutionally protected speech. 2 -Research and academic freedom are distinct from freedom of speech 3 -Post 16 (renowned legal scholar and dean of Yale Law School), "Robert C. Post on why speech at universities must be regulated," Brown University News, 11/14/2016 AZ 4 -“There are different kinds of freedoms that are related to the two different kinds of missions of a modern university — research on the one hand, teaching on the other,” he said. “But in either case, these freedoms are conceptually distinct from the kind of freedom of speech that derives from the political arena, where all are equal and all have to exist for the end of self-governance. The university is not about self-governance. The university is about the attainment of education and the attainment of knowledge.” To frame his argument, Post first defined three basic rules governing freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and defined by the Supreme Court: first, the state can’t tell a speaker that they have to speak about any particular content; second, there are no true or false opinions and all ideas are equal; and third, the state cannot compel a person to speak. He then defined the mission of most universities as being primarily two things — research, or the discovery and advancement of knowledge; and teaching, the conveying of knowledge. In order to advance these two goals, he said, universities cannot and should not follow these three basic rules of freedom of speech. Research, Post said, is ultimately based in the notion that not everyone has equal knowledge of a given topic and that expert knowledge is created through disciplinary study. “When we are talking about university research and expanding knowledge, it is resting on a disciplinary hierarchy, which is exactly opposite of the democratic equality on which freedom of speech rests,” he said. 5 -Academic freedom isn't even a constitutionally protected right – it's merely a societal norm designed to promote the common good 6 -Weinstein 13 James Weinstein (Dan Cracchiolo Chair in Constitutional Law at Arizona State University, Faculty Fellow, Center for Law, Science and Innovation 7 -Associate Fellow, Centre for Public Law, University of Cambridge, "Academic Freedom, Democracy, and the First Amendment," 2013 AZ 8 -The signal contribution that the modern American university has made to the progress of society cannot be seriously doubted. Among other measures, this enormous contribution is confirmed by the impressive number of Nobel Prizes that have been awarded to faculty at American Universities.177 Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that academic freedom has been integral to the creation and dissemination of the knowledge upon which the progress of society depends. But what is open to question is whether it is either appropriate or necessary for the judiciary to vigorously protect academic freedom as constitutional norm. The burden of this paper has been to suggest that the judiciary should have only a modest role in that enterprise. This is because academic freedom has never been conceived as a true individual right but rather as a means of promoting “the common good.” Under our Constitution, it is emphatically the province the political branches government, not the judiciary, to effectuate the common good by balancing competing and often incommensurate general welfare concerns. 9 - 10 -Ground 11 -Limits 12 - 13 -Vote neg - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-17 03:41:06.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lonam, Phillips - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Newark Science BA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -41 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - T - Not Research - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[80]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,17 +1,0 @@ 1 -Public colleges and universities ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech, especially in regards to academic freedom, with the exception of synthetic biology research. Public colleges and universities ought to prohibit research aimed at enhancing the deadliness of pathogens. 2 -Synthetic biology at colleges specifically is risky – releasing blueprints for crafting new diseases leads to extinction 3 -Myhrvold 13 Nathan, PhD in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics from Princeton, and founded Intellectual Ventures after retiring as Chief Strategist and Chief Technology Officer of Microsoft Corporation, July, "Stratgic Terrorism: A Call to Action," http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-Terrorism-Myhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf 4 -A virus genetically engineered to infect its host quickly, to generate symptoms slowly—say, only after weeks or months—and to spread easily through the air or by casual contact would be vastly more devastating than HIV. It could silently penetrate the population to unleash its deadly effects suddenly. This type of epidemic would be almost impossible to combat because most of the infections would occur before the epidemic became obvious. A technologically sophisticated terrorist group could develop such a virus and kill a large part of humanity with it. Indeed, terrorists may not have to develop it themselves: some scientist may do so first and publish the details. Given the rate at which biologists are making discoveries about viruses and the immune system, at some point in the near future, someone may create artificial pathogens that could drive the human race to extinction. Indeed, a detailed species-elimination plan of this nature was openly proposed in a scientific journal. The ostensible purpose of that particular research was to suggest a way to extirpate the malaria mosquito, but similar techniques could be directed toward humans.16 When I’ve talked to molecular biologists about this method, they are quick to point out that it is slow and easily detectable and could be fought with biotech remedies. If you challenge them to come up with improvements to the suggested attack plan, however, they have plenty of ideas. Modern biotechnology will soon be capable, if it is not already, of bringing about the demise of the human race— or at least of killing a sufficient number of people to end high-tech civilization and set humanity back 1,000 years or more. That terrorist groups could achieve this level of technological sophistication may seem far-fetched, but keep in mind that it takes only a handful of individuals to accomplish these tasks. Never has lethal power of this potency been accessible to so few, so easily. Even more dramatically than nuclear proliferation, modern biological science has frighteningly undermined the correlation between the lethality of a weapon and its cost, a fundamentally stabilizing mechanism throughout history. Access to extremely lethal agents—lethal enough to exterminate Homo sapiens—will be available to anybody with a solid background in biology, terrorists included. The 9/11 attacks involved at least four pilots, each of whom had sufficient education to enroll in flight schools and complete several years of training. Bin laden had a degree in civil engineering. Mohammed Atta attended a German university, where he earned a master’s degree in urban planning—not a field he likely chose for its relevance to terrorism. A future set of terrorists could just as easily be students of molecular biology who enter their studies innocently enough but later put their skills to homicidal use. Hundreds of universities in Europe and Asia have curricula sufficient to train people in the skills necessary to make a sophisticated biological weapon, and hundreds more in the United States accept students from all over the world. Thus it seems likely that sometime in the near future a small band of terrorists, or even a single misanthropic individual, will overcome our best defenses and do something truly terrible, such as fashion a bioweapon that could kill millions or even billions of people. Indeed, the creation of such weapons within the next 20 years seems to be a virtual certainty. The repercussions of their use are hard to estimate. One approach is to look at how the scale of destruction they may cause compares with that of other calamities that the human race has faced. 5 -Specifically, research into deadly disease is dangerous and should be banned – accidents or terrorists could release contagious pathogens 6 -Horgan 12 John Horgan, "Let's Ban Research That Makes the Bird-Flu Virus and Other Pathogens Deadlier," Scientific American, 2/6/2012 AZ 7 -D: Ban all research, open or classified, aimed at making pathogens deadlier. This is my "least-bad" choice, because I believe that the risks of research like the recent H5N1 experiments outweigh potential benefits. In general, I favor unrestricted research and communication, just as I favor free speech. But if scientists keep introducing more lethal pathogens into the world, the odds grow that one of them will be unleashed intentionally or accidentally. Moreover, if the U.S. keeps pursuing research into new strains of infectious disease, other nations and groups are more likely to do so as well. My fears stem in part from the history of biological-warfare research, as detailed in accounts such as A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret History of Chemical and Biological Warfare, by Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman (Random House, 2002). Such research, which has been carried out at least since World War II by the U.S., United Kingdom, Soviet Union, Japan and other states, has repeatedly led to releases of pathogens. In 1979, biological-warfare experiments in a Soviet facility in Sverdlovsk triggered an anthrax epidemic that killed 70 people. 8 -College youth are uniquely vulnerable to radicalization 9 -Fox Boston 15 "Islamic State recruiting older teens, college students," 8/29/2015 AZ 10 -College students are heading back to the dorms and lecture halls. They are adjusting to life away from home and finding a new identity for themselves. While it may seem far-fetched, for some that makes them the perfect target for something sinister and it's happening more than you think. FOX25 investigates the way ISIS is recruiting on campus. A MOTHER'S PLEA Nineteen year old Mohammed Hamzah Khan is accused of trying to support ISIS and is facing serious terror charges. His mother, Zarine, has a public plea to the terror group to stop recruiting children: "Without the internet, without social media this would never had happened and my son would not be in this situation he is in today. Leave our children alone. Please. That's my only message. Just stop recruiting these children. They're too young they don't know what's going on . They're vulnerable. Their thinking skills have not completely developed and these people are preying on that" ISIS RECRUITMENT TACTICS AND SOCIAL MEDIA ISIS is changing it's recruitment tactics. Experts say propaganda videos are less bloody and produced professionally. Social media is a high priority and they're taking online communication to the next level to catch the eye of college students. The number of websites, forums, Twitter accounts, Facebook pages that belong to ISIS and other similar organizations have increased . Professor Dana Janbek of Lasell College studies global terrorism and new media. She says the online magazine ISIS publishes is an example of how the terror group is trying to get their message across by seeming more legitimate in an attempt at luring young people with higher skill sets. Janbek says the magazine includes current events, making it relevant and it is professionally written. ISIS RECRUITING COLLEGE STUDENTS Professor Dana Janbek tells FOX25 that even though ISIS is viewed as a extremist terror organization, they see themselves as a legitimate government and they are aiming high when recruiting college students. They rely on people with different backgrounds and different skill sets including students and professionals who have a medical backgrounds. 11 -Studies prove 12 -Greer 14 Scott Greer (deputy editor), "Study: Spoiled, wealthy college students more likely to support terrorism," Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/20/study-spoiled-wealthy-college-students-more-likely-to-support-terrorism/#ixzz4VsjULps 13 -According to the study conducted by Queen Mary University in London found that youth, wealth and a full-time education are significant risk factors for violent radicalization. The researchers worked from the belief that radicalization is a process and focused on the factors that define the pre-radicalization phase and make individuals susceptible to the messaging of extremist groups in their study. 14 -Synth bio research is protected by academic freedom 15 -Miller 7 Seumas Miller (Professor of Philosophy at Charles Sturt University, and Senior Research Fellow, 3TU Centre for Ethics and Technology), Michael J. Selgelid, "Ethical and Philosophical Consideration of the Dual-use 16 -Dilemma in the Biological Sciences," 2007 AZ 17 -The dual-use dilemma is obviously a dilemma for researchers, viz. those researchers involved in biological research that has the potential to be misused by bioterrorists, criminal organisations and governments engaged in biowarfare. But it is also a dilemma for the private and public institutions, including universities, that fund or otherwise enable research to be undertaken. The dilemma is made more acute for university-based researchers and for universities, given their commitments to such values as academic freedom and the unfettered dissemination of research findings; and for private companies, given their commitment to free-enterprise. More generally, it is a dilemma for the individual communities for whose benefit or, indeed, to whose potential detriment, the research is being conducted, and for the national governments who bear the moral and legal responsibility of ensuring that the security of their citizens is provided for. Finally, in the context of an increasingly interdependent set of nation-states—the so-called, global community— the dual-use dilemma has become a dilemma for international bodies such as the United Nations. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-17 03:41:07.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lonam, Phillips - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Newark Science BA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -41 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -La Canada Zhao Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB - CP - Synth Bio - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal RR
- Caselist.RoundClass[37]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -75
- Caselist.RoundClass[38]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -76 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-12 00:07:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Scoggin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook NA - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stanford
- Caselist.RoundClass[39]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-13 16:27:48.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Jaden Lessnick - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Hawken HG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Emory
- Caselist.RoundClass[41]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -79,80 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-17 03:41:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lonam, Phillips - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Newark Science BA - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal RR
- Caselist.RoundClass[32]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-28 13:46:31.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Jaden Lessnick - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Hawken HG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Emory