Changes for page Strake Jesuit Chen Aff
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 2 added, 3 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[74]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,15 +1,0 @@ 1 -Here's some interps I might read 2 - 3 -1. Spec status of CP in NC itself 4 -2. Prioritize K vs T in NC itself 5 -3. NIBs Bad 6 -4. Conditional PICs bad 7 -5. PICs Bad (in spec context usually) 8 -6. Must have advocacy text 9 -7. Disclosure theory 10 -8. the negative must have one stable advocacy in which they outline all conpro speech restrictions and defend those restrictions unconditionally 11 -9. for any DA the neg reads about a type of conpro speech, they must disclose a cite indicating this is indeed conpro speech before the TOC 12 -10. the negative cannot break new PICs at TOC- they need to be on the wiki before hand 13 -11. the negative must disclose round reports including all past 2nrs on their wiki 14 -12. The aff burden is to prove that speech has no intrinsic meaning and the negative burden is to prove that speech has intrinsic meaning. 15 -Obviously the interps will be more nuanced than this, but this is the general idea. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-18 21:16:54.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Judge - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Opponent - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -69 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quads - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Chen Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Possible Interps List - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tournament
- Caselist.CitesClass[75]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,13 +1,0 @@ 1 -Interp Greenhill R1: 2 -Interpretation: The negative cannot read multiple conditional advocacies and defend the status quo as a third option. 3 -Interps Greenhill Doubles: 4 -Interpretation: Debaters can only advocate for drop the argument on fairness and education voters. 5 -Interpretation: Debaters cannot read interps with abuse linking to a lack of specification without checking in CX. 6 -Interp UT R4 7 -Interpretation: The negative cannot read a counter-plan that defends abolishing qualified immunity. 8 -Interp Strake RR R4- 9 -Interpretation: If the negative reads a conditional kritik alternative, they must clarify in a delineated text in the 1N what the other possible world they defend is. 10 -Interp UH R5 11 -Interpretation – If the aff clarifies this advocacy in the form of a text in the 1AC then the negative must have an explicit text in the 1NC clarifying their advocacy. 12 -Interp HW Octas 13 -Interpretation: If the negative reads a counterplan that fiats the supreme court doing the aff, they must provide a test case. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-18 21:16:54.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Judge - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Opponent - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -69 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quads - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Strake Jesuit Chen Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Broken Interps List - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tournament
- Caselist.CitesClass[78]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-03-25 03:47:33. 1821 +2017-03-25 03:47:33.0
- Caselist.RoundClass[69]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -74,75 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-03-18 21:16:51.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Judge - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Opponent - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Quads - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tournament
- Caselist.RoundClass[72]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +78
- Caselist.CitesClass[79]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,15 @@ 1 +Here's some interps I might read 2 + 3 +1. Spec status of CP in NC itself 4 +2. Prioritize K vs T in NC itself 5 +3. NIBs Bad 6 +4. Conditional PICs bad 7 +5. PICs Bad (in spec context usually) 8 +6. Must have advocacy text 9 +7. Disclosure theory 10 +8. the negative must have one stable advocacy in which they outline all conpro speech restrictions and defend those restrictions unconditionally 11 +9. for any DA the neg reads about a type of conpro speech, they must disclose a cite indicating this is indeed conpro speech before the TOC 12 +10. the negative cannot brea k new PICs at TOC- they need to be on the wiki before hand 13 +11. the negative must disclose round reports including all past 2nrs on their wiki 14 +12. The aff burden is to prove that speech has no intrinsic meaning and the negative burden is to prove that speech has intrinsic meaning. 15 +Obviously the interps will be more nuanced than this, but this is the general idea. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-25 03:50:43.618 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Judge - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Opponent - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +73 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quads - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Chen Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Possible Interps List - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Tournament
- Caselist.RoundClass[73]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-03-25 03:50:41.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Judge - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Opponent - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Quads - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Tournament