Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[20]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[20]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,11 +1,0 @@
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		-The aff plan text must constitute a policy that could be enacted.
10		-
11		-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.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-09-26 21:49:01.0

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-24

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-9

Team

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

Title

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

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-all