Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[40]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[31]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[40]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-16 22:04:10.473
	1	+2016-10-16 22:04:10.0

Caselist.CitesClass[31]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,21 @@
	1	+If debaters read aff paradigm choice, they must clarify in a delineated text in the AC a method by which we weigh between the discursive reasons to vote aff against the plan text, and how the negative can link in offense in order to win.
	2	+
	3	+If debaters read a plan, it must have a solvency advocate. To clarify, the solvency advocate must minimally advocate for the mandates of the aff plan.
	4	+
	5	+If debaters read say the neg should engage them on the role of the ballot for theoretical reasons, they may not say that consequences aren’t relevant underneath their framework.
	6	+
	7	+The aff cannot read arguments that require the negative to “explicitly propose all T interpretations about my advocacy such as specification and implementation”.
	8	+
	9	+Debaters must read cites for statistics and evidence.
	10	+
	11	+The aff plan text must constitute a policy that could be enacted.
	12	+
	13	+If debaters claim they get an RVI, they must specify in their speech the conditions under which it can be triggered. To clarify, whether the RVI requires offense to a counter interp vs. I meets, drop the argument vs. debater, competing interps vs. reasonability.
	14	+
	15	+Debaters may not say “thus the plan” in the AC, read an advocacy text and then claim in the 1AR it was just a "rhetorical flair."
	16	+
	17	+Debaters can't say that death is good in the 1AR if they read an aff with death impacts in the AC and the neg read disads linking to death.
	18	+
	19	+The aff may not say the judge should accept util, that the judge has an obligation to protect the environment, and that the judge should minimize extinction risk in the AC if they do not clarify in the AC or when asked in CX how to weigh between them and which framework comes first.
	20	+
	21	+The affirmative may not read a burden structure that requires the neg to prove we have an absolute obligation to protect future generations.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-16 22:04:12.654

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+40

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Oakwood Wareham Neg

Title

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

Tournament

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