Changes for page Strake Jesuit Li Neg
Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:40
Change comment:
There is no comment for this version
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[41]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2017-01-07 01:12:14. 5291 +2017-01-07 01:12:14.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[42]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,14 @@ 1 +Interpretation: If the affirmative reads a standard of voting for the debater whose advocacy best enables stealing away, they must specify a comprehensive role of the ballot and clarify how the round will play out under that role of the ballot in the form of a text in the 1AC. To clarify, the aff must: 2 +1) Clarify how we determine what a legitimate advocacy is, such as whether topicality constrains the aff advocacy or not. 3 +2) Every plank of the ROB must be warranted, just like the standard next for a normative ethical theory. 4 +3) Clarify what theoretical objections do and do not link to the aff, and whether or not the aff comes before theory. 5 +4) Describe how to weigh and compare between competing advocacies. 6 + 7 +B. Violation 8 + 9 +C. Standards 10 +1. Resolvability 11 +2. Strategy Skew 12 + 13 + 14 +Fairness, Education, DTD, CI, No RVI - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2017-01-07 01:12:15.222 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Kevin Si - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Johns AW - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +30 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Li Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Theory - ROB Spec v2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +UH Cougar Classic