Lexington Roy Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | 1 | EbeHug Angelina Hu | STEPHEN SCOPA |
|
|
| |
| 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | 3 | Noam Levinsky | JOSEPH GEORGES |
|
|
| |
| any | 1 | any | any |
|
| ||
| any | 2 | any | any |
|
| ||
| any | 3 | any | any |
|
| ||
| any | 5 | any | any |
|
| ||
| any | 4 | any | any |
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | 1 | Opponent: EbeHug Angelina Hu | Judge: STEPHEN SCOPA 1ac- Hegel Harassment IDV (wtf was this ) |
| 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | 3 | Opponent: Noam Levinsky | Judge: JOSEPH GEORGES 1ac- Levinas |
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 | 7/8/21 |
0-NavigationTournament: any | Round: 5 | Opponent: any | Judge: any | 7/7/21 |
1- Accessible FormattingTournament: 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | Round: 3 | Opponent: Noam Levinsky | Judge: JOSEPH GEORGES *T B Violation: Their document is difficult for visually impaired people to access. They only disclose a copy of their documents with “cut” cards where they read the parts of evidence they have highlighted. This is inaccessible for two reasons. *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. And, simply disclosing the document absent accessible formatting beforehand isn’t enough, if opponents want engagement they must take steps to make their arguments accessible. Dolmage 17 And the interpretation is key, changing formatting on a per round basis places the burden of access on the disabled and treats disability reactively rather then proactively. Kroeger 10 And, this shell is a game over issue. Don’t let them stand up in the next speech and apologize for not knowing they were being ableist. This is a strategy used to distance themselves from the ableism they committed and exonerates them from responsibility. Individuals must actively resist ableism otherwise they are complicit in disguising it. Dolmage 2 Accessibility is key to fairness and education D. Voters: | 7/8/21 |
1- spreadingTournament: 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | Round: 3 | Opponent: Noam Levinsky | Judge: JOSEPH GEORGES *T To clarify the shell is not a question of whether speed is acceptable in this round, but rather the practice of using speed without ensuring that it is accessible for the round participants. The shell is not a speed good bad debate and does not mean that debaters can never spread but rather that they should only spread if it is accessible to those in the round. *T B violation: I put on my wiki that I would like for my rounds to have speeches that are spreading as going under 250 wpm *T C standard: *T 1 Accessibility : I have speech impediments, dyslexia and struggle to engage in a debate with spreading. The practice of spreading makes it near impossible to engage in the debate space as 1. because of my stutter and my dyslexia it’s possible for me to spread 2. My dyslexia make it hard to read speech docs which can make it impossible for me to follow along with fast speeches 3. My dyslexia can make hard for flow at high speeds | 7/8/21 |
2-KTournament: 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Ethan Wu | Judge: ABBY MORRIS | 7/9/21 |
NSD- Case vs LevinasTournament: 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | Round: 3 | Opponent: Noam Levinsky | Judge: JOSEPH GEORGES evaluating who is, national circuit LD OV Not defining what Strikes means that states can just circumvent the aff because they can define Strikes as anything so vote neg on presumption. A2 offense Their first piece of offense make no sense. Worker even in the status quo are not functions because of the relationship between happy worker = more productive work | 7/8/21 |
NSD- Disability KantaismTournament: 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Ethan Wu | Judge: ABBY MORRIS we should think, virtue of her autonomy Now negate – Strikes in essential services hurt the patient but not the employer which reduces the patient to a mere means to an end. | 7/9/21 |
NSD- Mollow vs HegelTournament: 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | Round: 1 | Opponent: EbeHug Angelina Hu | Judge: STEPHEN SCOPA 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. case Their theorization of community idealizes the capacity for constant self-management, which causes the exclusion and scapegoating of disabled people. | 7/8/21 |
NSD- PIC vs healthcare workerTournament: 2021 NSD CAMP TOURNAMENT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Ethan Wu | Judge: ABBY MORRIS 2001, at QEC, then defend them? Extinction comes first under any framing – future value, magnitude, risk parity | 7/9/21 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
7/8/21 | aavedonroy@gmailcom |
| |
7/8/21 | aavedonroy@gmailcom |
|