Changes for page Mission San Jose Singh Neg
Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:38
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Caselist.RoundClass[1]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-10-09 00:05:19. 8711 +2016-10-09 00:05:19.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,15 @@ 1 +A. Interpretation: If the aff defends a theory of the good under consequentialism, for example, minimizing existential risk, then each framework warrant must explicitly justify that specific theory of the good, not just consequentialism. To clarify, you can’t read Nagel saying pain is bad with a standard of minimizing existential risk. 2 + 3 +B. Violation 4 + 5 +C. Standards 6 + 7 +1. Ground 8 + 9 +2. Strat Skew 10 + 11 +Drop the Debater 12 + 13 +Competing Interps 14 + 15 +No RVI’s - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-09 00:05:21.284 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Shayne Walton, Adam Bistagne - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Harker SP - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Mission San Jose Singh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Consequentialism Standard Theory - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Voices RR