Lexington Roy Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grapevine Classic | 3 | San Mateo AS | Georges, Joseph |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | 5 | Kenston EJ | Holden Bukowsky |
|
|
| |
| Grapevine Classic | 1 | Isidore Newman EE | Agler, Chansey |
|
|
| |
| any | 1 | any | any |
|
| ||
| any | 2 | any | any |
|
| ||
| any | 3 | any | any |
|
| ||
| any | 5 | any | any |
|
| ||
| any | 4 | any | any |
|
| ||
| lex | 1 | a | p |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Grapevine Classic | 3 | Opponent: San Mateo AS | Judge: Georges, Joseph 1ac- Delueze |
| Grapevine Classic | 5 | Opponent: Kenston EJ | Judge: Holden Bukowsky 1ac- Negative Util |
| Grapevine Classic | 1 | Opponent: Isidore Newman EE | Judge: Agler, Chansey 1ac- Hauntology topical |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
0 - Th -AS- Accessible FormattingTournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any *T A Interpretation: Debaters must disclose their aff case in an accessible format as of the first document they sent. ( for example even if you read a new aff that still doesn't mean you don't open source disclose) HOW TO 1 Open the document you wish to make accessible 6 Open Advanced Find and Replace (if unsure how to do this for your version of Word look it up) 13 Select all of the text you just pasted and use the "Condense" Verbatim tool *T To clarify they should have sent their speech doc with a version of the document with ‘cut’ cards and a version formatted as demonstrated below and on my wiki. By sending both styles of formatting it allows for better access while being able to check for evidence ethics violations if needed. | 7/7/21 |
0 - Th -AS- SpreadingTournament: any | Round: 2 | Opponent: any | Judge: any *T B violation: I put on my wiki that I would like for my rounds to have speeches that are spreading as going over 250 wpm | 7/7/21 |
0-Contact infoTournament: any | Round: 3 | Opponent: any | Judge: any | 7/7/21 |
0-Disclosure InterpsTournament: any | Round: 4 | Opponent: any | Judge: any Contact info Interpretation: Debaters must have a contact page on your 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki page. Interpretation: Debaters must on their 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki have their email to contact them. Interpretation: Debaters if they have Facebook info as a piece of contact info beforehand they must accept Facebook friend requests 30 minutes before the round if their opponent sends them one. Interpretation: Debaters must not disclose screenshots from messenger on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose tournaments on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki under the actual name of the tournament on tabroom for every round at said tournament. To clarify- when you look up the tournament name from the wiki on tab, the entry must pop up Interpretation: Debaters may not add themselves as competitors under a different school name on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki. Interpretation:Debaters on the wiki must not write idk for their opponent name Interpretation: Debaters must put their Judge’s full name as displayed on tabroom when disclosing a round on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki. Interpretation:Must disclose if you were walk over or got a bye in a round Misc Interpretation: Debaters when disclosing in the citebox must put a space between arguments that are made analytically. To clarify, each individual argument needs to be on a separate line spaced from each other. * To clarify this is mainly for those awful logcon cites and if you don’t have spacing then bad job. Interpretation: If the 2020-21 NDCA LD wiki is down both debaters must show up to the round ahead of time 30-20 minutes ahead of time. Interpretation: If the 2020-21 NDCA LD Wiki is down and the affirmative debater shows up less than 30 minutes before the round starts must provide a counter solvency advocate for the exact text of their advocacy if they defend a means-based plan that doesn’t defend the whole resolution. (To clarify, you must have an author that states we should not do your aff, insofar as the aff is not a whole res phil aff) Interpretation: If a debater loses a round on evidence ethics this season, they must disclose which piece of evidence contained an evidence ethics violation on the 2020-21 NDCA LD Wiki. Interpretation: If a judge is changed less than 10 minutes before the start of theround and the aff changes the aff they disclosed they must not read an aff that hasn’t been on the wiki or they must have CSA Non k indenity debaters Interpretation: Debaters may not break new affirmatives without first disclosing them on the NDCA wiki at least 30 minutes before the round. This includes disclosing spikes. * To anyone still saying they don't have a non-spreading case just read a lay case Interpretation: Debaters must disclose carded word pics/word k’s/ Author Reps K on the wiki 30 minutes ahead of time on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki. Interp: Debaters can’t read shells with violations premised on lack of specification unless they’re either checked in CX or before the round or disclosed on the wiki in the cites section. Interpretation: For each position on their corresponding 2020-21 NDCA LD wiki page, debaters must either disclose a summary of each analytic argument in their cases or the entire argument, either in the cite box or in an open-source doc. Interpretation: All disclosed analytics must be at minimum a complete sentence containing an explanation of the warrant of the argument. To clarify, you can’t disclose single-word previews of analytics. Interpretation: The affirmative must, upon flipping for sides, tell the negative what specific affirmative position they will be reading, within ten minutes of flipping for sides. Interpretation: If the debaters are not black, they must not disclose their side of the race war. *To further clarify it's only if you have a position or your wiki called 0-side of the race war. *also I don’t read this shell unless you read race war theory against me and you are not black Names of constructive position Interpretation: Debaters must in the constructive position’s name must specify which topic the constructive position is from. *To clarify This can be done either through abbreviation (JF) or Numbers (3) Interpretation: If cites are broken, Debaters must disclose a constructive position’s name that is in speech doc. *To clarify you can still disclose an AC as Stock or Lay Interpretation: Debaters if they have more than 1 disclosure interp must not label a cite entry disclosure unless it’s to disclose a disclosure interp. Interpretation: If Debaters have a constructive position that is a k, topicality or theory shell and have 1 card that relates to topic they must not disclose it as a generic or have the title relate to Interpretation: Debaters must in their cite entry title name specify whether the position is a generic theory interp. *To clarify this can be done through numbers or a letter. Interpretation: Debaters must create a separate citation for each constructive position on their 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki page. *To clarify, you can't make cite entries labeled by round like "R1 Yale NC." Interpretation: If citations are broken, debaters must list the changes in every version of their aff in the cite box. Changes include, which version it is most similar to, framework, RoB, theory, spikes, advantage, and advocacy text. Interpretation:Debaters must not name a constructive position a later version if they go back to reading an earlier version. Interpretation: Debaters must either make a new cite entry for every version of an argument for each topic or disclose it as a generic Disclosure interps Interpretation: Debaters must disclose disclosure interpretations on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki before pairing release. Interpretation: Debaters must follow their own disclosure interpretation on their LD NDCA wiki page, they must meet that interpretation. Interpretation: Debaters must not lie about disclosure pre round Interpretation: Debaters must not have contradicting disclosure interp Interpretation: Debaters must not endorse illegal practices on their wiki. Interpretation: If debaters disclose an interp that’s listed under a 0- or applies to everyone they must list the interpretation on both the aff and neg wiki. Interpretation: Debaters must not disclose an disclosure interp that’s impossible to meet Round reports Interpretation: Debater must not disclose round reports against debater who don’t disclose constructive positions and round reports on the wiki * To clarify you can still explain the reason on the wiki it’s just unfair that some identity k debaters don’t disclose as a check back against fairness but you can still find out what they are reading by going through others round reports Interpretation: Debaters in round reports if they read more than 1 off that is marked by a separate constructive position on the NDCA wiki they must disclose which offs they read with exceptions of CT . This includes theory shells, or separate k, disad etc. Interpretation: Debaters if they have a constructive position where they disclose all their broken interps must in the round reports specify which interp you read. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose round reports on the 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki for every round they have debated this season. Round reports should at least disclose which positions were read in the constructives and any new positions read in the rebuttals. Identity k debaters Interpretation: Debaters if aren't disclosing positions for a specific reason (identity k's or such) they must specify the reason beforehand their 2020-2021 NDCA LD wiki. *To clarify this is not saying you have to disclose you just should explain the reason why. Interpretation: Debaters must provide a method of disclosure for the 1ac on their wiki. *To provide some examples Zion and Philimon have people pay people to disclose. Some debaters ask them to talk to you beforehand. Some debater if they are flight 2 can have someone disclose 1 hours before the round and have the neg disclose 30 minutes before the round * To clarify this is just a matter of accessibility as some debaters need to have rounds disclosed ahead of time Interpretation: Debater must disclose the role of the ballot/ role of the judge of the 1ac 30 minutes ahead of the round. Interpretation: Debaters must disclose all spikes/ analytical arguments ahead of the round. Interpretation: Debaters reading a performance aff that they are uncomfortable disclosing must still disclose all cards | 7/18/21 |
0-NavigationTournament: any | Round: 5 | Opponent: any | Judge: any | 7/7/21 |
1- Evidence ethicsTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: San Mateo AS | Judge: Georges, Joseph | 9/11/21 |
1- Round ReportsTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Kenston EJ | Judge: Holden Bukowsky what you want to go for from the start. | 9/16/21 |
5- Nukes CPTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Kenston EJ | Judge: Holden Bukowsky Nuke war causes extinction – 3,000 scientists agree – ignore pseudoscientific ‘nuke war good’ | 9/16/21 |
SO - K - CriptopiaTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 1 | Opponent: Isidore Newman EE | Judge: Agler, Chansey The aff’s expansion of the medical complex is not an expansion of care, but rather, an expansion of an industry that labors to eradicate all diseases, which results in lethal eradication of difference, conceptualizing of bodies into medical objects, and accepts death if a cure is possible. Historical analysis fails and doesn’t account for the factors that shape disability Metaphors of haunting facilitate ableist narratives-~--they distract our attention away from the historical reality of institutions that prioritized violence against disabled bodies *T And The role of the ballot is to challenge ableism. Assumptions of ableism are inherent in systems of knowledge production thus ableism is an a priori question *A Campbell 13*C The alternative methodology is to imagine CripTopia, a disability utopia, to uncover the lived experiences of disabled bodies. To clarify the advocacy calls for us to imagine CripTopia in this round. Campbell 12 Difference can be a vexed, subjectification of disability. disability subjectivities create, visions of utopia imagining accessible futures, the constituencies involved. | 9/16/21 |
SO - K - MadnessTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 5 | Opponent: Kenston EJ | Judge: Holden Bukowsky Internalized oppression is, in their demise *T And The role of the ballot is to challenge ableism. Assumptions of ableism are inherent in systems of knowledge production thus ableism is an a priori question *A Campbell 13*C Thus, vote neg to delve into madness – refuse rationalist frames of enlightened humanism in favor of recognizing disability as the ground state of life. | 9/16/21 |
SO- CripessTournament: Grapevine Classic | Round: 3 | Opponent: San Mateo AS | Judge: Georges, Joseph The 1ACs belief of a better future is tied to rehabilitation where the signifier of the Child is placed forward which deems the disabled child a threat to society and is thus eradicated. The only ethical alternative is to affirm crippessimism – only a refusal of the world can disrupt the current notion of optimism. Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best disrupts notions of progress within civil society. If we win the starting point is ableist they cannot weigh the consequence of it. Framework Wall 6 Affect theory re-centers an ablebodyminded subject – policing of normative affect is rooted in medicalization of disability. 7 There are two outcomes of an affective encounter between subjects 1 the successful sensory motor relationship – affect is internalized to produce action, or 2 The Sensory-Motor Break – affect is too intense for the subject to produce action, incapacitating them. Case | 9/11/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
9/11/21 | aavedonroy@gmailcom |
| |
9/16/21 | aavedonroy@gmailcom |
| |
9/16/21 | aavedonroy@gmailcom |
|