Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,28 +1,0 @@
1		-====A. Interpretation: all substantive argumentation must assume a comparative worlds paradigm
2		-B. Violations: (truth testing, triggers, etc.)
3		-C. Net Benefits: ====
4		-
5		-====Advocacy skills – comparing advocacies only way to create solutions.====
6		-Advocacy skills is voter – tons of screwed up things in the world that we cant advocate without creating solutions to.
7		-
8		-====Drop the debater:====
9		-
10		-====1~~ Time skew puts me at a disadvantage on substance.====
11		-
12		-====2~~ Sets a precedent that debaters can't run unfair arguments.====
13		-
14		-====3~~ Dropping them is key to rectify the abuse that has already occurred in the round.====
15		-
16		-====Competing Interps over Reasonability:====
17		-
18		-====1~~ Reasonability causes a race to the bottom because debaters keep being barely reasonable.====
19		-
20		-**====2~~ Competing interpretations creates an incentive to promote fair debate because it forces debaters to defend their interpretations.====**
21		-
22		-====No RVIs:====
23		-
24		-====1~~ It's reciprocal—they could run theory and generate offense on the same layer of debate. ====
25		-
26		-====2~~ RVI's kill substance because it incentivizes both debaters to go all in on theory because it's the highest layer of the debate—outweighs because the topic only lasts two months. ====
27		-
28		-====3~~ Chilling effect—discourages checking abuse because cheap debaters will prep out common interps.====

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-09-10 14:23:43.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Abbey Chapman

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Woodlands College Park JZ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-7

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Westwood Shhah Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-0 ~-~- Theory ~-~- Comparitive Worlds

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Grapevine