Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[25]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,15 +1,0 @@
1		-There are obviously many more things the aff could do that may be abusive, but this often depends on context. We haven’t hit the whole gamut of abusive aff arguments. The interps below are the norms we are committed to when we affirm and strongly encourage you to commit to as well because they lead to better debates regardless of context. They aren't full text because the way it's articulated always changes depending on the round itself. We also frequently discuss theory and update our files, so our views may change as the year progresses and we reserve the right to add or subtract to this list.
2		-
3		-
4		-Theory interps we think aff’s should comply with:
5		-1. Bi-directional spikes (like RVIs, drop debater)
6		-2. Normative ethic spec
7		-3. ROTB spec
8		-4. CX checks must be indexed
9		-5. Spikes need to be fully fleshed out
10		-6. Not reading stupid spikes like neg may only have one unconditional route to the ballot
11		-7. Skep triggers bad
12		-8. NIBs bad
13		-9. Descriptive frameworks (like polls) bad
14		-10. Flash, email chain, print, or lose
15		-11. Disclose at least first 3 last 3, tags, and advocacy text(s) in a clear and easy to follow manner within 1 hour post debate

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-10-09 18:45:25.0

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		-Phoenix Country Day Whitfil Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-0 - 1NC Theory Interps

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-All