Summary

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

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[3]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-17 18:23:22.576
	1	+2016-09-17 18:23:22.0

Caselist.CitesClass[3]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,32 @@
	1	+==Ext==
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+===1NC===
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+====1. Interpretation: Affs can only fiat that which is predictibly justifiable under the resolution. Any portions of the plan that are extra to the act of prohibiting must either have a solvency adcocate or be proven by normal means====
	8	+
	9	+
	10	+====2. Definition, Prohibit means end NOT restrict: ====
	11	+By Miriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prohibit
	12	+to order (someone) not to use or do something
	13	+: to say that (something) is not allowed
	14	+: to make (something) impossible to do
	15	+
	16	+
	17	+====3. Violation - the affirmative specifies a phasing out of nuclear power till 2030. Cross-X of the 1ac proved this date is entirely arbitrary. ====
	18	+
	19	+
	20	+====4. Standards:====
	21	+
	22	+
	23	+====A. Ground - being able to arbitrarily specify when the action of the plan will be complete allows the affirmative to sketch out of the Timeframe for the link and uniqueness for all of my DA's. EVEN IF if found a DA that had uniqueness till 2030, the arbitrary nature of the plan text means they could just spec 2031 the next debate. This makes it impossible to be negative and is a voter for education and fairness.====
	24	+
	25	+
	26	+====B. Predictability - I can't be expected to predicting arbitrary time specifications. Setting a precedent that affs have to be tied to normal means or a solvency advocate ensure clash and a literature base. Time is literally infinite meaning I can never predict all of the different arbitrary timeframes they can pass the plan in. That's a voter for fairness. ====
	27	+
	28	+
	29	+====C. Jurisdiction - the judge has NO jurisdiction to rule on parts of the plan that are not prohibitory - drop the team to set a precedent and discourage unfair aff, simply dropping the arg or letting them get away with this makes being extra-T a no risk option for the aff setting a structural DA to being negative ====
	30	+
	31	+
	32	+====D. Bright line- my interp makes it very clear what types of extraT can be OK and what is not, that solves back any possible extraT good offense they can make while still avoiding the UNIQUE predictably and ground arguments specific to arbitrary time spec ====

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-17 18:23:29.950

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Jared Woods

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard-Westlake IP

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Winston Churchill Lugo Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Extra T - Phaseout

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Greenhill