Changes for page Colleyville Wei Neg
Summary
-
Objects (0 modified, 2 added, 4 removed)
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,58 +1,0 @@ 1 -=Legalism= 2 - 3 - 4 -==Links== 5 - 6 - 7 -===1) Creates a Ruse of Solvency (this also serves as terminal defense to the aff)=== 8 - 9 - 10 -====The aff's use of civil suits focuses on punishing individual perpetrators of violence – this obscures the endemic violence of police forces==== 11 -**Feldman 15 **~~(Leonard Feldman, Hunter College, CUNY) "Police Violence and the Legal Temporalities of Immunity"~~ LADI 12 -On the same day the Department of Justice declined to prosecute Ferguson Missouri Officer Darren 13 -AND 14 -practice" investigation through consent agreements that relied on "experimentalist regulation."61 15 - 16 - 17 -====The aff assumes the police violence can be addressed by bringing it under the control of law – in fact, the law is the apparatus legitimating police violence.==== 18 -Simon **Behrman 11** ~~(Simon Behrman, ) Police killings and the law – International Socialism, 1-4-2011~~ LADI 19 -Ever since the late 1970s some on the left have declared that Britain is either 20 -AND 21 -, even at the extreme end involving the deliberate killing of innocent people. 22 - 23 - 24 -===2) Reform Discourse Grants Legitimacy=== 25 - 26 - 27 -====The legal system is fundamentally flawed. Shortcomings of laws cannot be solved with minor adjustments—they grant legitimacy to the system. Gordon '87:==== 28 -Robert W. Gordon, Professor of Law at Stanford University. "Unfreezing Legal Reality: Critical Approaches to Law", Florida State University Law Review (15 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 195), 1987. 29 -Now a central tenet of CLS work has been that the ordinary discourses of law 30 -AND 31 -taking collective action against evil without suffering the greater evil of despotic power. 32 - 33 - 34 -==Impact== 35 - 36 - 37 -====Legislative solutions mask the structural issues and enable victim-blaming==== 38 -**Delgado 91** (Richard, Charles Inglis Thomson Professor of Law, University of Colorado. J.D. 1974, University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall), "Norms and Normal Science: Toward a Critique of Normativity in Legal Thought", University of Pennsylvania Law Review (1991), pp. 933-962, Accessed 7/7/15)//LD 39 -Ordinary life is full of similar examples in which the mere pronouncement of something as 40 -AND 41 -malpractice). More instances of this sort are discussed in the next section. 42 - 43 - 44 -====Legal reforms hurt any progress– starting from the perspective of legal solutions forecloses the political imaginary and hampers radical solutions—turns the aff Kandaswamy '12==== 45 -**Kandaswamy 12 (Priya Kandaswamy; Associate Professor Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies; "THE OBLIGATIONS OF FREEDOM AND THE LIMITS OF LEGAL EQUALITY" SOUTHWESTERN LAW REVIEW Vol. 41, pg 265, 1/21/2012)** 46 -Despite a vast array of critiques that have elucidated the ways in which the U 47 -AND 48 -could look like and locate legal interventions in relation to this broader vision. 49 - 50 - 51 -==Alt== 52 - 53 - 54 -====Vote negative as to subvert the law – we ought to study the law not to use it, but to free humanity from it==== 55 -**De Boever, 2006** (Arne De Boever, Professor of American Studies at the School of Critical Studies at the California Institute of the Arts, Overhearing Bartleby: Agamben, Melville, and Inoperative Power, Parrhesia Number 1, 2006, 142-162) 56 -According to Agamben, we should aim to study the law in order to deactivate 57 -AND 58 -, show how the thought of inoperativity can also be a political practice. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 15:29:45.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Rodrigo Paramo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Appleton East MM - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville Wei Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Legalism K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Glenbrooks
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,121 +1,0 @@ 1 -Google n.d. "country" accessed 8/10/16 google.com/search?num=40andsafe=offandespv=2andq=countries+definitionandoq=countries+definition 2 - plural noun: countries 1. a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. 3 - plural adjective: more than one in number. 4 -Specificity Good 5 -Interpretation: The affirmative should be able to defend only 2 specific countries. 6 - 7 -Standards 8 -Shift: if the aff doesn't advocate for specific countries, it enables the aff to shift around, making the neg less able to attack the opponent's case. Specificity guarantee a set affirmative position, meaning the round is more fair as the neg only has to attack one rather than infinite countries. 9 -Ground: the affirmative has to defend every country, while the negative only has to prove one or two countries disadvantageous. It is easier to disprove something than to prove something, which puts an unfair burden on the aff as they have a disproportionate amount of ground they have to defend. This is key to fairness because the unfairness in ground skews the debate. 10 -Depth: Specifying only two countries allows us to go further in depth rather than dabbling on a variety of topics. This is key to education because knowing more on one subject equates to more practical knowledge than knowing a tiny bit about ten. For example, reading 100 pages of one book is obviously more education than reading 1 page of 100 books. 11 -Voters 12 -The first voter is fairness because debate is a competitive activity. Unfairness disincentives debaters from participating in the activity. The role of the judge is to determine the better debater, and this can only be done in a fair debate. 13 -Voter 2 is education. Education is what gives value to debate, as debaters are exposed to and respond to a variety of points, giving them out-of-round knowledge. 14 -No RVI on topicality 15 -Prefer Competing interpretations as the paradigm because reasonability invites too much judge bias and enables judges to make arbitrary decisions, which conflicts with a fair debate. Also, what one judge considers reasonable can be completely different than what another judge considers reasonable. 16 - 17 - 18 -**=Liberty NC=** 19 - 20 - 21 -==Framework== 22 - 23 - 24 -**====I negate. Because ought implies a moral obligation, I value morality.====** 25 - 26 - 27 -**====Liberty is a constitutive feature of morality. Ethical systems that do not maintain liberty as their starting point fail because they make impossible the concept of moral culpability. ====** 28 -**Uleman 10 ~~(Jennifer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Purchase College) "An Introduction to Kant's Moral Philosophy", Cambridge University Press, 1/21/2010~~ DD 29 -**We can summarize these thoughts by noticing how they fit with Kant's helpful distinction between Willkür – the capacity to choose – and Wille – the faculty of practical reason as a whole. Both, as the words themselves suggest, are part of will.24 And both contribute distinctive elements or components to human freedom. The first, Willkür, is the capacity for free choice itself, the capacity to choose 'at will' between alternatives – alter- native ends, alternative courses of action, alternative guiding principles of action. For Kant, Willkür is metaphysically necessary for morality since without it praise and blame and responsibility-holding would not make sense: to be held responsible, to be considered the author of an action, an agent must be the ultimate source of her choices. Wille, the second term, is the capacity to formulate ends, and to for- mulate action-guiding principles aimed at serving those ends. Thus does Kant call Wille 'practical reason itself':25 Wille conceptualizes and formulates in ways that actually guide practice, or intentional action. For Kant, ends and action-guiding principles formulated by Wille insofar as it seeks grounds within itself and not in external sources, that is, ends and action- guiding principles formulated by pure practical reason, count, not surprisingly, as ends and action-guiding principles that are deeply mine. Such ends and principles are grounded in interests internal, for Kant, to my deepest self, my free rational self. And by choosing to act in accordance with such purely rational ends and principles, I choose action that is given aim and shape by this self. Of course, once I choose a course of action, I am determined – I am no longer exercising a capacity to go this way or that – but if I have chosen to act toward ends and on principles that are truly my own, I am still free in the crucial sense that I am self-determined. These two components of Kantian freedom – a capacity for choice (Willkür) and a capacity to furnish ends and principles that are my own (Wille) – are not reducible to each other, but are both essential components of will, as Kant understands it. Together, they make Kantian sense of the possibility of a free will. 30 - 31 - 32 -**====All humans are entitled to their own conception of the good life. Respect for the equality of persons commits us to a system of negative rights wherein it is impossible to impose one's will coercively upon another. ====** 33 -**Fried 05 –gender modified ~~(Charles, Beneficial Professor of Law @ Harvard University) "The Nature and Importance of Liberty", Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2005~~ DD 34 -**I would say that what is important about us, what makes us moral human beings, is our individual capacities to think, reason, choose, and value. It is what Kant called our freedom and rationality.2 Individuals, therefore, are the elementary particles of moral discourse. Our value is our taking individual responsibility for our lives, and our choices. And if a person is to count as a person—and here we have the difficult questions about the beginning and the end of life—then we are all equally valuable in this same way. It is from that base of our equal responsibility for ourselves that we choose our goods: that we choose what to make of the only life we will ever have. My liberty, then, is my ability to choose that life. No one has the right to interfere with that choice, except as it is to further his own good. But that good of the other is worth no more than mine because ~~s~~he is not worth any more than I am. There is, therefore, a right of mutual noninterference: an equal right. By the same token, nobody can interfere with or draft another person to help ~~her~~ achieve ~~her~~ own good if the other person has not chosen voluntarily to enlist in that campaign. 35 - 36 - 37 -====Thus the standard is respect for the right to non-interference. The aff world constitutes a violation because prohibiting something necessarily interferes with people's ability to perform a certain action.==== 38 - 39 - 40 -====Merriam Webster defines prohibition as "the act of not allowing something to be used or done. A law or order that stops something from being used or done."==== 41 - 42 - 43 -====¬¬First, The aff violates the right to non-interference by preventing individuals from generating nuclear reactors.==== 44 -**Danzico 10. **"Extreme DIY: Building a homemade nuclear reactor in NYC." BBC News. head of the BBC Video Innovation Lab 45 -Mr Suppes, 32, is part of a growing community of "fusioneers" 46 -AND 47 -Anne Stark, senior public information officer for California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 48 - 49 - 50 -====Second, the aff violates the right of companies to freely produce nuclear reactors, and third the aff violates the right of people to choose nuclear power.==== 51 - 52 - 53 -==Underview (maybe?)== 54 - 55 - 56 -====Nuclear power is not inherently tied to the state. ==== 57 -**Steele 79. **The Case for Nuclear Energy. Free Life: The Journal of the Libertarian Alliance. 58 -The theme running through Mueller's piece is that nuclear energy is intimately related to the 59 -AND 60 -people, through the market,to choose. This raised two points: 61 - 62 - 63 -=K= 64 - 65 - 66 -==Links== 67 - 68 - 69 -====The affirmatives use of the USFG just follows a behavioral norm in the debate community. Arguments that federal action is key is just an attempt to silence us.==== 70 -**Crawford '02 – Professor of Political Science at Boston University (Neta, Argument and Change in World Politics, p. 84-86, DWB)** 71 -International relations scholars frequently talk about "norms" but do so in ways that 72 -AND 73 -focal-point agreements) with the unique prescriptive characteristic of normative beliefs. 74 - 75 - 76 -====Public policy norms are geared to ensure stability for hegemonic powers. Following these norms just gives more power to the state.==== 77 -**Crawford '02 – Professor of Political Science at Boston University (Neta, Argument and Change in World Politics, p. 92-95, DWB)** 78 -There are several ways to think about the possible causal relationships between normative beliefs and 79 -AND 80 -account boils down to the position that normative beliefs are irrelevant/epiphenomenal. 81 - 82 - 83 -====Grounding policy decisions in ideas of morality re-entrenches societal hierarchies and eliminates any acts of dissent. Using morals as justification for laws is just a way to lie to the public==== 84 -**Crawford '02 – Professor of Political Science at Boston University (Neta, Argument and Change in World Politics, p. 83-84, DWB)** 85 -The dominant account of the role of ethics in international relations is that it is 86 -AND 87 -to 'tip the balance' in favor of stable departures from slavery."5 88 - 89 - 90 -==Impact== 91 - 92 - 93 -====Policy norms lead to structural violence, which outweighs hypothetical future conflicts – it lays the seeds for environmental degradation and war—-impact is extinction==== 94 -**Szentes 8 **(Tamás, Professor Emeritus at the Corvinus University of Budapest, and member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, "Globalisation and prospects of the world society" http://www.eadi.org/fileadmin/Documents/Events/exco/Glob.___prospects_-_jav..pdf) 95 -*edited for offensive language 96 -It's a common place that human society can survive 97 -AND 98 -mass destructive weapons, and also due to irreversible changes in natural environment. 99 - 100 - 101 -==Alt== 102 - 103 - 104 -====Alt: The United States Federal Government ends the subsidization of the nuclear industry.==== 105 - 106 - 107 -====Solvency advocate says subsidization of nuclear energy ought to be ended. Levendis et al 6 says==== 108 -Nuclear Power Author(s): John Levendis, Walter Block and Joseph Morrel Source: Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 67, No. 1 (Aug., 2006), pp. 37-49 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123850 Accessed: 14-09-2016 20:38 UTC. 109 -ABSTRACT. Nuclear power has never been free from the stifling involvement of government. 110 -AND 111 -for Common Sense (Lancelot) in opposing the Price-Anderson Act. 112 - 113 - 114 -===Solvency=== 115 - 116 - 117 -====Taking away subsidies would be the most effective way to make nuclear power disappear. Koplow 11 says==== 118 -http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/nuclear-power-subsidies-report~~#.V9x1n5grK00. 119 -The nuclear power industry requires government help to stay afloat. Government subsidies to the 120 -AND 121 -for more economical and less risky alternatives like energy efficiency and renewable energy. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 15:30:24.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Chris Theis - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -West Ranch JW - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Colleyville Wei Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SO - T, Libertarian NC, and Legalism K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill
- Caselist.RoundClass[4]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 15:29:42.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Rodrigo Paramo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Appleton East MM - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC- Police Violence Militarism AC 2 -NC- Legalism K Case turns Solvency 3 -1AR- Legalism Case 4 -NR- Legalism Case 5 -2AR- Legalism Case - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Glenbrooks
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-11-19 15:30:23.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Chris Theis - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -West Ranch JW - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,121 @@ 1 +Google n.d. "country" accessed 8/10/16 google.com/search?num=40andsafe=offandespv=2andq=countries+definitionandoq=countries+definition 2 + plural noun: countries 1. a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. 3 + plural adjective: more than one in number. 4 +Specificity Good 5 +Interpretation: The affirmative should be able to defend only 2 specific countries. 6 + 7 +Standards 8 +Shift: if the aff doesn't advocate for specific countries, it enables the aff to shift around, making the neg less able to attack the opponent's case. Specificity guarantee a set affirmative position, meaning the round is more fair as the neg only has to attack one rather than infinite countries. 9 +Ground: the affirmative has to defend every country, while the negative only has to prove one or two countries disadvantageous. It is easier to disprove something than to prove something, which puts an unfair burden on the aff as they have a disproportionate amount of ground they have to defend. This is key to fairness because the unfairness in ground skews the debate. 10 +Depth: Specifying only two countries allows us to go further in depth rather than dabbling on a variety of topics. This is key to education because knowing more on one subject equates to more practical knowledge than knowing a tiny bit about ten. For example, reading 100 pages of one book is obviously more education than reading 1 page of 100 books. 11 +Voters 12 +The first voter is fairness because debate is a competitive activity. Unfairness disincentives debaters from participating in the activity. The role of the judge is to determine the better debater, and this can only be done in a fair debate. 13 +Voter 2 is education. Education is what gives value to debate, as debaters are exposed to and respond to a variety of points, giving them out-of-round knowledge. 14 +No RVI on topicality 15 +Prefer Competing interpretations as the paradigm because reasonability invites too much judge bias and enables judges to make arbitrary decisions, which conflicts with a fair debate. Also, what one judge considers reasonable can be completely different than what another judge considers reasonable. 16 + 17 + 18 +**=Liberty NC=** 19 + 20 + 21 +==Framework== 22 + 23 + 24 +**====I negate. Because ought implies a moral obligation, I value morality.====** 25 + 26 + 27 +**====Liberty is a constitutive feature of morality. Ethical systems that do not maintain liberty as their starting point fail because they make impossible the concept of moral culpability. ====** 28 +**Uleman 10 ~~(Jennifer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Purchase College) "An Introduction to Kant's Moral Philosophy", Cambridge University Press, 1/21/2010~~ DD 29 +**We can summarize these thoughts by noticing how they fit with Kant's helpful distinction between Willkür – the capacity to choose – and Wille – the faculty of practical reason as a whole. Both, as the words themselves suggest, are part of will.24 And both contribute distinctive elements or components to human freedom. The first, Willkür, is the capacity for free choice itself, the capacity to choose 'at will' between alternatives – alter- native ends, alternative courses of action, alternative guiding principles of action. For Kant, Willkür is metaphysically necessary for morality since without it praise and blame and responsibility-holding would not make sense: to be held responsible, to be considered the author of an action, an agent must be the ultimate source of her choices. Wille, the second term, is the capacity to formulate ends, and to for- mulate action-guiding principles aimed at serving those ends. Thus does Kant call Wille 'practical reason itself':25 Wille conceptualizes and formulates in ways that actually guide practice, or intentional action. For Kant, ends and action-guiding principles formulated by Wille insofar as it seeks grounds within itself and not in external sources, that is, ends and action- guiding principles formulated by pure practical reason, count, not surprisingly, as ends and action-guiding principles that are deeply mine. Such ends and principles are grounded in interests internal, for Kant, to my deepest self, my free rational self. And by choosing to act in accordance with such purely rational ends and principles, I choose action that is given aim and shape by this self. Of course, once I choose a course of action, I am determined – I am no longer exercising a capacity to go this way or that – but if I have chosen to act toward ends and on principles that are truly my own, I am still free in the crucial sense that I am self-determined. These two components of Kantian freedom – a capacity for choice (Willkür) and a capacity to furnish ends and principles that are my own (Wille) – are not reducible to each other, but are both essential components of will, as Kant understands it. Together, they make Kantian sense of the possibility of a free will. 30 + 31 + 32 +**====All humans are entitled to their own conception of the good life. Respect for the equality of persons commits us to a system of negative rights wherein it is impossible to impose one's will coercively upon another. ====** 33 +**Fried 05 –gender modified ~~(Charles, Beneficial Professor of Law @ Harvard University) "The Nature and Importance of Liberty", Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2005~~ DD 34 +**I would say that what is important about us, what makes us moral human beings, is our individual capacities to think, reason, choose, and value. It is what Kant called our freedom and rationality.2 Individuals, therefore, are the elementary particles of moral discourse. Our value is our taking individual responsibility for our lives, and our choices. And if a person is to count as a person—and here we have the difficult questions about the beginning and the end of life—then we are all equally valuable in this same way. It is from that base of our equal responsibility for ourselves that we choose our goods: that we choose what to make of the only life we will ever have. My liberty, then, is my ability to choose that life. No one has the right to interfere with that choice, except as it is to further his own good. But that good of the other is worth no more than mine because ~~s~~he is not worth any more than I am. There is, therefore, a right of mutual noninterference: an equal right. By the same token, nobody can interfere with or draft another person to help ~~her~~ achieve ~~her~~ own good if the other person has not chosen voluntarily to enlist in that campaign. 35 + 36 + 37 +====Thus the standard is respect for the right to non-interference. The aff world constitutes a violation because prohibiting something necessarily interferes with people's ability to perform a certain action.==== 38 + 39 + 40 +====Merriam Webster defines prohibition as "the act of not allowing something to be used or done. A law or order that stops something from being used or done."==== 41 + 42 + 43 +====¬¬First, The aff violates the right to non-interference by preventing individuals from generating nuclear reactors.==== 44 +**Danzico 10. **"Extreme DIY: Building a homemade nuclear reactor in NYC." BBC News. head of the BBC Video Innovation Lab 45 +Mr Suppes, 32, is part of a growing community of "fusioneers" 46 +AND 47 +Anne Stark, senior public information officer for California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 48 + 49 + 50 +====Second, the aff violates the right of companies to freely produce nuclear reactors, and third the aff violates the right of people to choose nuclear power.==== 51 + 52 + 53 +==Underview (maybe?)== 54 + 55 + 56 +====Nuclear power is not inherently tied to the state. ==== 57 +**Steele 79. **The Case for Nuclear Energy. Free Life: The Journal of the Libertarian Alliance. 58 +The theme running through Mueller's piece is that nuclear energy is intimately related to the 59 +AND 60 +people, through the market,to choose. This raised two points: 61 + 62 + 63 +=K= 64 + 65 + 66 +==Links== 67 + 68 + 69 +====The affirmatives use of the USFG just follows a behavioral norm in the debate community. Arguments that federal action is key is just an attempt to silence us.==== 70 +**Crawford '02 – Professor of Political Science at Boston University (Neta, Argument and Change in World Politics, p. 84-86, DWB)** 71 +International relations scholars frequently talk about "norms" but do so in ways that 72 +AND 73 +focal-point agreements) with the unique prescriptive characteristic of normative beliefs. 74 + 75 + 76 +====Public policy norms are geared to ensure stability for hegemonic powers. Following these norms just gives more power to the state.==== 77 +**Crawford '02 – Professor of Political Science at Boston University (Neta, Argument and Change in World Politics, p. 92-95, DWB)** 78 +There are several ways to think about the possible causal relationships between normative beliefs and 79 +AND 80 +account boils down to the position that normative beliefs are irrelevant/epiphenomenal. 81 + 82 + 83 +====Grounding policy decisions in ideas of morality re-entrenches societal hierarchies and eliminates any acts of dissent. Using morals as justification for laws is just a way to lie to the public==== 84 +**Crawford '02 – Professor of Political Science at Boston University (Neta, Argument and Change in World Politics, p. 83-84, DWB)** 85 +The dominant account of the role of ethics in international relations is that it is 86 +AND 87 +to 'tip the balance' in favor of stable departures from slavery."5 88 + 89 + 90 +==Impact== 91 + 92 + 93 +====Policy norms lead to structural violence, which outweighs hypothetical future conflicts – it lays the seeds for environmental degradation and war—-impact is extinction==== 94 +**Szentes 8 **(Tamás, Professor Emeritus at the Corvinus University of Budapest, and member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, "Globalisation and prospects of the world society" http://www.eadi.org/fileadmin/Documents/Events/exco/Glob.___prospects_-_jav..pdf) 95 +*edited for offensive language 96 +It's a common place that human society can survive 97 +AND 98 +mass destructive weapons, and also due to irreversible changes in natural environment. 99 + 100 + 101 +==Alt== 102 + 103 + 104 +====Alt: The United States Federal Government ends the subsidization of the nuclear industry.==== 105 + 106 + 107 +====Solvency advocate says subsidization of nuclear energy ought to be ended. Levendis et al 6 says==== 108 +Nuclear Power Author(s): John Levendis, Walter Block and Joseph Morrel Source: Journal of Business Ethics , Vol. 67, No. 1 (Aug., 2006), pp. 37-49 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123850 Accessed: 14-09-2016 20:38 UTC. 109 +ABSTRACT. Nuclear power has never been free from the stifling involvement of government. 110 +AND 111 +for Common Sense (Lancelot) in opposing the Price-Anderson Act. 112 + 113 + 114 +===Solvency=== 115 + 116 + 117 +====Taking away subsidies would be the most effective way to make nuclear power disappear. Koplow 11 says==== 118 +http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power/nuclear-power-subsidies-report~~#.V9x1n5grK00. 119 +The nuclear power industry requires government help to stay afloat. Government subsidies to the 120 +AND 121 +for more economical and less risky alternatives like energy efficiency and renewable energy. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-17 21:09:50.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Chris Theis - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West Ranch JW - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Colleyville Wei Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +TLibertarian NCLegalism K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Greenhill
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-17 21:09:48.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Chris Theis - OpenSource
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/download/Colleyville/Wei+Neg/Colleyville-Wei-Neg-Greenhill-Round1.docx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +West Ranch JW - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Greenhill