Changes for page Oakwood Wareham Aff
Summary
-
Objects (0 modified, 2 added, 3 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interpretation: at least an hour before the round begins, 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. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-09 22:03:09.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quads - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Oakwood Wareham Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - Disclosure Theory - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x
- Caselist.CitesClass[12]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,11 +1,0 @@ 1 -Debaters may not say that all shells should be evaluated at the end of the 2NR, not the 2AR, AND say that the aff can’t read theory spikes in the aff. 2 - 3 -Topicality interpretations must be disclosed on the NDCA LD wiki under the debater’s name at last ten minutes before the round. 4 - 5 -Debaters may not read counterplans that fiat an increase in nuclear power from the government. To clarify, the CP can still result in an increase, but it can’t necessarily happen because of the way the CP fiats. 6 - 7 -Debaters may not read extinction impacts, or read weighing arguments that say extinction impacts should be preferred. 8 - 9 -All theory interpretations must have an interpretation advocate, defined as an author who has publicly defended the interp in writing. 10 -Palmer 15 Chris (coach for Lexington) “A theory of theory” azuen 3-3-15 http://www.azuen.net/2015/03/03/a-theory-of-theory/ JW 11 -So I propose ... do the same. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-26 21:53:34.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -13 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Oakwood Wareham Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - Broken Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -12 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-26 21:53:25.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -all
- Caselist.CitesClass[20]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,19 @@ 1 +Debaters may not say that all shells should be evaluated at the end of the 2NR, not the 2AR, AND say that the aff can’t read theory spikes in the aff. 2 + 3 +Topicality interpretations must be disclosed on the NDCA LD wiki under the debater’s name at last ten minutes before the round. 4 + 5 +Debaters may not read counterplans that fiat an increase in nuclear power from the government. To clarify, the CP can still result in an increase, but it can’t necessarily happen because of the way the CP fiats. 6 + 7 +Debaters may not read extinction impacts, or read weighing arguments that say extinction impacts should be preferred. 8 + 9 +All theory interpretations must have an interpretation advocate, defined as an author who has publicly defended the interp in writing. 10 +Palmer 15 Chris (coach for Lexington) “A theory of theory” azuen 3-3-15 http://www.azuen.net/2015/03/03/a-theory-of-theory/ JW 11 +So I propose ... do the same. 12 + 13 +Debaters may not say that legal actions are not binding, universal bans are morally prohibited because of particularism, and that the aff violates self-ownership by shutting down nuclear reactors which is bad because of humanity’s intrinsic worth. 14 + 15 +If the neg reads a kritik of the aff advocacy, assumptions, or representations, they must have a text in the 1nc that clarifies their alternative advocacy 16 + 17 +Debaters must link their role of the ballot warrants to a normative theory that determines what counts as good and bad. To clarify, they may not say that the role of the ballot prevents x without warranting why x is normatively bad. 18 + 19 +Debaters may not defend a rejection of capitalism without a) specifying in their speech what this rejection entails, or b) specifying an alternate system to capitalism. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-16 22:08:40.461 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +22 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Oakwood Wareham Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Broken Interps - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all
- Caselist.RoundClass[22]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-16 22:08:37.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +9 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +all