Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[38]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[38]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,16 +1,0 @@
1		-There are obviously many more things the AFF could do that may be abusive, but this often depends on context. I haven’t hit the whole gamut of abusive AFF arguments. I will add interps as I break them. The interps below are norms I am 100 percent committed to when I negate and strongly encourage you to commit to as well because I think they lead to better debates regardless of context. I frequently discuss theory and update my files, so my views may change as the year progresses and I reserve the right to add or subtract to this list.
2		-
3		-Theory interps I think aff’s should comply with:
4		-
5		-Spikes must be Bi-directional (like RVIs, drop debater)
6		-2. Normative ethic required
7		-3. ROTB spec
8		-4. Spikes need to be fully fleshed out (voter, violations, paradigm issues)
9		-5. Not reading stupid spikes like neg may only have one unconditional route to the ballot
10		-6. Skep triggers bad
11		-7. NIBs bad
12		-8. Descriptive frameworks (like polls) bad
13		-9. Flash, email chain, print, or lose
14		-10. 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
15		-11. Must disclose plan-text at least 24 hours before the round.
16		-12. The affirmative must specify what constitutionally protected speech they defend in an explicit advocacy text in 1AC. To clarify, my interp doesn’t require plans, just define what speech entails.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2017-01-12 16:06:19.0

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-26

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