Academy Of Classical Christian Studies Miller Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Wiki InfoTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - | 9/4/21 |
1 - Potential InterpsTournament: - | Round: Finals | Opponent: - | Judge: - DisclosureInterpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source in an accessible format on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them in conjunction with a highlighted version. Interpretation: The aff must disclose the plan text, framework, and advantage area 30 minutes before the round. To clarify, disclosure can occur on the wiki or over message. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all constructive positions on open source with highlighting on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki after the round in which they read them. Interpretation: For each position on their corresponding 2021-22 NDCA LD Interpretation: If debaters disclose full text, they must not post the full text of the cards in the cite box, but must upload an open source document with the full text of their cards. To clarify, you don’t have to disclose highlighting or underlining, you just need an open source document with minimally the full, un-underlined text of cards. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2021-22 NDCA LD wiki for every round they have debated this season. Round reports disclose which positions (AC, NC, K, T, Theory, etc.) were read/gone for in every speech. Interpretation: if the aff reads an advocacy other than the current NSDA resolution, then they must disclose the advocacy on the 2021-2022 NDCA LD wiki before the round. To clarify, if you do not defend the topic, you must disclose the aff before the round. MiscInterpretation: The affirmative debater may not defend fiat for more than one Interpretation: Debaters may not defend implementation of the resolution through state or location action. They must defend either federal legislation, an executive order, or a reversal of current decisions through the Supreme Court. Interpretation: If either debater reads a truth testing role of the ballot, they must explicitly specify in a text how the round ought to play out under the role of the ballot. Interpretation: If debaters disclose multiple disclosure interpretations, then those interpretations must not conflict with one another. Interpretation: The affirmative debater must articulate a distinct ROB in the form of a delineated text in the first affirmative speech. Interpretation: All theory paradigms in the aff must be phrased as proactively bidirectional. Interpretation: If the affirmative debater claims that the rule following paradox is a relevant problem ethical theories must be able to resolve, and claim that social practices solve the rule following paradox, they must clarify in the form of a text in the AC what counts as an ethical practice verified by the community. Interpretation: All arguments concerning fairness or education that the negative could violate must be read first in the affirmative speech. To clarify, theory arguments must be read at the top of the affirmative case before all substantive arguments. Interpretation: If the aff claims they get to choose the framework for the round, they get to defend the framework they justify in the 1AC but must choose a different theoretically legitimate framework for the neg. Interpretation: The aff must defend theory interpretations and arguments unconditionally as presented in the 1AC. Interpretation: Debaters who make presumption arguments must articulate the set of conditions under which presumption can become relevant in the evaluation of the round. Interpretation: Debaters may not read affirming is harder arguments to justify any theoretical or substantive paradigm issues in the aff. Interpretation: Debaters may not read affirming is harder arguments. Interpretation: If the affirmative reads affirming is harder arguments, they may not specify more than one implication. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends anything other than the exact text of the resolution, then they must provide a counter-solvency advocate for their specific advocacy. Interpretation: If the affirmative defends a consequentialist framework, they must explicitly delineate which theory of the good they defend in the form of a text in the 1AC. Interpretation: All evidence that derives claims from historical events must have a citation. To clarify, this isn’t saying that you should cite that something like WWII happened, but nuanced empirical claims about historical projects and society’s reactions to those projects should have a citation. Interpretation: Debaters may not read epistemic modesty. Interpretation: Debaters may not justify both epistemic modesty and extinction outweighs. Interpretation: Debaters may not read extinction first under any framework. Interpretation: The neg may not derive a route to the ballot premised on the flaws of the aff framework. To clarify, framework Ks are bad. Interpretation: On the 2021-2022 September-October LD Topic, the affirmative may not gain offense from outside the scope of the resolution. Interpretation: Debaters must ask everyone in the room if they are okay with spreading before their first speech. Interpretation: If the aff differs from the conventional truth testing model, they must explicitly 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. Interpretation: If the affirmative reads graphic depictions of ableism, they must give a content warning before their speech. Interpretation: If the affirmative reads an offensive theoretical argument that claims that the negative must concede the affirmative framework, they must provide a list of potential violations and permissible practices under that interpretation. Interpretation: Debaters cannot impose race specific burdens. To clarify, they can’t set certain conditions that are contingent based on the racial identity of the debater. Interpretation: Debaters cannot impose disability specific burdens. To clarify, they can’t set certain conditions that are contingent based on the ability status of the debater. Interpretation: Debaters cannot impose queerness specific burdens. To clarify, they can’t set certain conditions that are contingent based on the sexual orientation or gender of the debater. Clarification about the three shells above, this is NOT saying identity based arguments are bad, but rather that you shouldn't make arguments like "disabled debaters get RVIs." Interpretation: The affirmative must use personal knowledge, organic intellectuals, and academic intellectuals, to garner offense. Interpretation: Debaters may not read offensive theoretical interpretations in the 1AC. Interpretation: Debaters may not defend implementation of the resolutional action. Interpretation: Debaters may not defend the resolution in active voice. Interpretation: The Aff must present a concrete strategy for the operationalization of their advocacy through specific institution outside of debate. Interpretation: The affirmative debater may not read multiple necessary burdens for themselves but is also an insufficient burden for me. To clarify more than one NIBs bad. Interpretation: The affirmative must explicitly indicate their standards conception of the subject or their identity if it exists in a delineated text in the 1AC. Interpretation: Debaters may not read descriptive frameworks. Interpretation: If debaters read evidence whose text is modified with brackets, for each affected card the debater must say out loud that the evidence is bracketed and for what purpose, either immediately before or after reading the evidence. Interpretation: Debaters cannot have graphs, images, or charts used to garner offense in their speech doc. Interpretation: All offense proving the resolution true or false must impact to a necessary and sufficient standard. Standards must have only one evaluative mechanism, which is a comprehensive normative theory that entails all true normative propositions. Interpretation: All theoretical interpretations must be worded proactively to indicate what debaters must do. Note: I reserve the right to read shells contextual to the round in order to check for abuse if I feel as though the violation is particularly egregious. | 9/4/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|