Summary

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

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[1]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-16 19:44:26.519
	1	+2016-09-16 19:44:26.0

Caselist.CitesClass[1]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,33 @@
	1	+=1AC=
	2	+I affirm that countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.
	3	+I value justice, defined as giving each person their due. Justice is the most appropriate value because the resolution asks us to evaluate whether or not we should conceive of immigration as a right, that is to say whether or not it is due to all persons.
	4	+In order to evaluate justice, I offer the value criterion of maximizing societal welfare. There are two key reasons why this is the best way to promote justice:
	5	+First, governments can only behave morally by considering the best ends for all of society because it is equally as responsible for all of its citizens.
	6	+**Harries '94**, Owen Harries, editor and founder of National Interest, Senior Fellow at Centre for Independent Studies, Spring 1993/1994, "Power and Civilization," The National Interest, pg. 84
	7	+Performance is the test. Asked directly by a Western interviewer, "In principle, do you believe in one standard of human rights and free expression?", Lee immediately answers, "Look, it is not a matter of principle but of practice." This might appear to represent a simple and rather crude pragmatism. But in its context it might also be interpreted as an appreciation of the fundamental point made by Max Weber that, in politics, it is "the ethic of responsibility" rather than "the ethic of absolute ends" that is appropriate. While an individual is free to treat human rights as absolute, to be observed whatever the cost, governments must always weigh consequences and the competing claims of other ends. So once they enter the realm of politics, human rights have to take their place in a hierarchy of interests, including such basic things as national security and the promotion of prosperity. Their place in that hierarchy will vary with circumstances, but no responsible government ~~and~~ will ever be able to put them always at the top and treat them as inviolable and over-riding. The cost of implementing and promoting them will always have to be considered.
	8	+Essentially, it is impossible for the government to at all times avoid infringing on all people's rights, so to consider this an inviolable side-constraint would paralyze action and the state's ability to protect its citizens.
	9	+Second, governments cannot establish policies by measuring human beings in terms of individuals, as people are defined with a social context. Any moral theory that ignores the social aspect of humans would be unable to fully guide action.
	10	+**Christman '04**, John Christman Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition Vol. 117, No. 1/2, Selected Papers from the American Philosophical Association, Pacific Division, 2003 Meeting (Jan., 2004), pp. 143-164. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4321441.pdf?_=1469072920026
	11	+Emerging from this discussion is a view of the autonomous person that is structured so as to fully embrace this social conception of the self. "Relational autonomy" is the label that has been given to an alternative conception ~~that~~ of what it means to be a free, self-governing agent who is also socially constituted and who possibly ~~as~~ defines her basic value commitments in terms of ~~are influenced by~~ interpersonal relations and mutual dependencies. Relational views of the autonomous person, then, valuably underscore the social embeddedness of selves while not forsaking the basic value commitments of (for the most part, liberal) justice. These conceptions underscore the social components of our self-concepts as well as emphasize the role that background social dynamics and power structures play in the enjoyment and development of autonomy. However, when conceptions of relational autonomy are spelled out in detail, certain difficulties arise which should give us some pause in the utilization of such notions in the formulation of principles of justice, especially those motivated by feminist and other liberatory concerns. In this paper, I want to take a closer look at the conception of relational autonomy as it has been developed in some recent work and to suggest some friendly amendments to those views, amendments which share the call for greater attention to the social nature of the self but which, in the end (and with much qualification), direct us back to a kind of individualism in the concept of the autonomous person, a move that is necessary if that idea is to do the theoretical and normative work that both liberal theorists and some of their feminist critics want it to perform…..It is certainly true that any plausible philosophical or political theory must take into account the various ways in which humans are socially embedded, intimately related to other people, groups, institutions, and histories, that they experience themselves and their values as part of ongoing narratives and long traditions, and that they are motivated by interests and reasons that can only be fully defined with reference to other people and things. But there are a number of ways of expressing the idea that selves are "constituted" by their relations with other persons and other external factors. First, the thesis in question can be understood as a metaphysical claim, such that relations with other~~s~~ persons, institutions, traditions, and so on are seen as essentially part of the person (either at a time or over time).4 Alternatively, the social self thesis can be understood as a contingent psychological claim about a person's self-concept, value structure, emotional states, motivational set, or reflective capacities. Such views consider interpersonal interaction (or social dynamics more generally) as a constitutive element of psychological states and processes while viewing such interactions as (in principle) alterable and shifting (that is, contingent).
	12	+Thus, the best way to promote justice is by maximizing societal welfare
	13	+My first contention is that nuclear power hurts ocean wildlife
	14	+Nuclear reactors, due to their massive need for water as a coolant, suck in water from oceans and lakes. This cooling process, however, is extremely harmful to the environment.
	15	+**Gunter et al '01**, Linda Gunter, Paul Gunter, Scott Cullen, Nancy Burton (Safe Energy Communication Council Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Standing for Truth About Radiation and the Humane Society of the United States), "Licensed to Kill," 2001, http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/licensedtokill/LiscencedtoKill.pdf
	16	+Nuclear power plants use the once-through cooling system to save money. When presented with the opportunity to install cooling towers at the time of construction, many reactor owners declined, citing financial burdens. By this choice, the utilities passed the cost on as environmental damage. Today, with nuclear power in steep economic decline, the industry once again argues that it cannot afford to retrofit with cooling towers to curb harmful impacts on the marine environment. The nuclear industry is allowed to self-monitor and self-regulate to an unacceptable degree. Subject to lenient and often accommodating regulatory oversight, reactor operators will deliberately leave out essential information about damage to the marine ecosystem when reporting to state and federal authorities. In the case of PGandE and its Diablo Canyon site, the utility remained silent about the true extent of destruction to marine life and habitat around the reactor. In other instances, mitigation promises made at the time of licensing were quickly broken. The industry flaunts the threat of litigation to force authorities into accepting minimal penalties for repair to the environment damaged or fundamentally altered by the operation of atomic reactors. Regulatory authorities must rely on the honesty of nuclear utilities to report accurately the captures and deaths of marine wildlife at nuclear reactors. Such reporting is erratic, inconsistent, and sometimes absent altogether. Utilities often fail to report at all to NRC, preferring to provide information about the deaths of marine animals to NMFS or state departments of environmental protection. This circumvents the tenets of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act and effectively shields the industry from public scrutiny. This is compounded by NRC's own inconsistencies. At times, NRC posts information about wildlife kills and captures at reactors on its Daily Events Reports (DER) that appear on its website. At others, it records this information only in the archives of its Public Document Room. The public must therefore inquire 'on spec' to ascertain whether or not captures have taken place and not assume that the DER postings provide a full accounting. These inconsistencies, from the utilities to the federal authorities, make it extremely difficult for the public to know the true extent of the destruction of marine life at atomic reactors. The NRC, the federal authority charged with enforcing compliance with take limits, mitigation actions, and other requirements, acts more as a lapdog than a watchdog. In fact, NRC often persuades permitting agencies such as NMFS to buckle to the industry's professed economic needs by convincing the agency "not to fall on their sword" over requirements such as sea turtle entrainment studies. Under NRC's watch, the marine environment, not the nuclear industry, has paid the price for electricity generated by once-through nuclear power reactors. NRC is even willing to come up with preplanned scenarios to help NMFS "save face" when confronted with utility resistance to needed mitigation measures. Although NMFS occasionally presents nuclear utilities with convincing arguments for protective measures, it rarely stands by its original opinions once NRC-supported industry opposition has been considered. The nuclear industry makes only token gestures toward protective actions and balks at any serious repair of the environmental destruction it has caused. Instead, the industry portrays atomic reactors as environmentally friendly wildlife sanctuaries, a myth as deceptive as the industry's earlier promise of electricity "too cheap too meter." It flaunts sea turtle nest protection efforts at the same time its reactors capture egg-bearing females attempting to nest. It is left mainly to environmental watchdogs and animal protection organizations to advocate for protective measures and publicly to expose the industry's destruction of marine wildlife. Endangered species such as sea turtles, manatees, American crocodiles, and least terns, along with a wide variety of fish, other marine mammals, sea birds, and smaller, essential marine organisms, are species whose numbers are further diminished by the operation of nuclear power. The survival and safety of these animals is of negligible interest to an industry that prizes profit above all and shifts blame to other causes when confronted with the rising deaths and injuries of these creatures at its reactors. Noted scientists and oceanic experts agree that the health of the world's oceans is in jeopardy. Yet, the nuclear industry is willing to destroy significant areas of marine habitat through daily operation of its once-through coolant reactors. When presented with the opportunity to repair some of the damage, the industry instead fights back with threats of costly and protracted legal challenges. Though willing to spend millions of dollars and countless years fighting lawsuits, the industry is not willing to finance protection of the endangered species it kills or restoration of the marine environment it destroys. The nuclear industry displays a callous disregard for the importance of the oceans as a life source and marker for environmental and human health. The agencies empowered both to regulate the industry and to protect the public, wildlife, and environment from industry wrongdoing are lax at best, even negligent and collusive. Though entrusted to enforce laws largely designed for the well-being of humans, wildlife and habitat, agencies such as NRC and NMFS are in fact more inclined to favor industry needs at the expense of human and environmental health. Given the nuclear industry's refusal to install less damaging technology or to implement even the smallest of protective measures at its once-through reactors, an essential option exists that can prevent further and potentially catastrophic damage to the oceans and the life that dwells there. The precautionary principle—whereby activities that harm the environment are halted before the damage is irreversible, and the burden of proof is placed upon the polluter, not the public—is not only a timely, but an essential, approach. Consequently, we recommend that the use of once-through cooling technology be halted before more animals are harmed and further, irreversible damage is done to essential marine ecosystems. Only in this way can the marine environment be protected from one of its most aggressive predators. Additionally, nuclear utilities should adhere to the same standards of law as other industries and such laws that do apply must be implemented consistently.
	17	+And, ocean life and diversity are key to maximizing societal welfare – the atmosphere, aquatic ecosystems, and food sources will be obliterated if we continue with the use of nuclear power.
	18	+**Craig '03** ~~Robin Kundis, Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund Professor at Florida State University College of Law and leading environmental law scholar, Winter 2003, "Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and Hawaii," Lexis~~ WD
	19	+The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. "Occupying more than seventy percent of the Earth's surface and ninety-five percent of the biosphere," oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes , including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate." Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. In addition, many people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. (It continues...) More generally , "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living organisms , carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorous, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but necessary elements". In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable. (It continues...) We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: If we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us . The Black Sea is almost dead, 863 its once-complex and productive ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." 864 Mo re importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique.
	20	+Thus, because nuclear power uniquely hurts ocean life which therefore hurts societal welfare, we must prohibit nuclear power.
	21	+My second contention is that nuclear power hurts the development of renewable energy
	22	+Multiple studies confirm that nuclear power and renewable forms of energy are mutually exclusive. Specifically, there are 5 key reasons why a world in which we have nuclear, we cannot have effective renewables
	23	+**Verbruggen '08**, Verbruggen, Energy and Environmental Economics professor, University of Antwerp, '08 (Aviel, Energy and Environmental Economist Professor at the University of Antwerp, "Renewable and nuclear power: A common future?" 7-29-08, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421508003030, accessed 7-29-12, ara)
	24	+For realizing a low carbon electricity supply, there are not a thousand options. Only two antagonists are now in the ring: nuclear power and the twin efficiency/renewable power. What could be the ultimate backstop power generation technology? First the 'unlimited source' aspect of the backstop supply technology has to be extended with the criteria of sustainability (WCED, 1987). On the sustainability balance, the performance of nuclear power weighs very light (Table 2), contrary to efficiency/ renewable power technologies (Table 3). Therefore it is quite rational that a large majority of the population prefers the latter above the former (Eurobarometer, 2007). For getting a third chance for nuclear power, its advocates want to arrange a marriage with the renewable energy sector. There are five arguments as to why the efficiency/renewable power option should reject the nuclear advances. First, nuclear power is architect of the business-as-usual that has to be changed urgently and drastically. Second, nuclear and renewable power need a very different add-on by fossil-fuelled power plants; for nuclear the add-on is bulky and expansive, and for renewable power it is distributed, flexible and contracting over time. Third, the power grids for spreading bulky nuclear outputs are of another kind than the interconnection between millions of distributed power sources requires. Fourth, the risks and externalities of nuclear power make this technology non-sustainable and therefore without a future, while efficiency/renewable power are still in their infancy. Fifth, the antagonist options also fight for RDandD resources and for production capacities. Now that the skewed distribution in favour of nuclear starts to be adjusted somewhat, it is time to stop wasting money on the expensive and dangerous water cookers that nuclear reactors are. Better to turn to the real future-oriented technologies that drive efficiency and renewable power. Summarizing, nuclear and efficiency/renewable power have no common future in safeguarding ''Our Common Future''. The nuclear technology has had two chances of unseen means in human history to prove its validity, and failed. Giving nuclear a third chance will waste the scarce RDandD resources and solidify barriers against its sustainable antagonist: electricity efficiency and renewable power technologies.
	25	+And, renewables are key to maximizing societal welfare – they are much better than nuclear because they are cheaper, safer, and don't have the issue of waste disposal. There's a laundry list of reasons why we should shy away from nuclear
	26	+**PSR no date**, Physicians for Social Responsibility, "Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power," http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-
	27	+ It is extremely difficult to get accurate information about the health effects from Chernobyl. Government agencies in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus estimate that about 25,000 of the 600,000 involved in fire-fighting and clean up operations have died so far because of radiation exposure from the accident.(4) According to an April 2006 report commissioned by the European Greens for the European Parliament, there will be an additional 30,000 to 60,000 fatal cancer deaths worldwide from the accident.(5) In 1979, the United States had its own disaster following an accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Reactor in Pennsylvania. Although there were no immediate deaths, the incident had serious health consequences for the surrounding area. A 1997 study found that those people living downwind of the reactor at the time of the event were two to ten times more likely to contract lung cancer or leukemia than those living upwind of the radioactive fallout.(6) The dangers of nuclear power have been underscored more recently by the close call of a catastrophic meltdown at the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio in 2002, which in the years preceding the incident had received a near-perfect safety score.(3) Climate change may further increase the risk of nuclear accidents. Heat waves, which are expected to become more frequent and intense as a result of global warming, can force the shut down or the power output reduction of reactors. During the 2006 heat wave, reactors in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Minnesota, as well as in France, Spain and Germany, were impacted. The European heat wave in the summer of 2003 caused cooling problems at French reactors that forced engineers to tell the government that they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country's 58 nuclear power reactors.(3) Proliferation, Loose Nukes and Terrorism The inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is arguably the greatest danger of nuclear power. The same process used to manufacture low-enriched uranium for nuclear fuel also can be employed for the production of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. As it has in the past, expansion of nuclear power could lead to an increase in the number of both nuclear weapons states and 'threshold' nuclear states that could quickly produce weapons by utilizing facilities and materials from their 'civil' nuclear programs a scenario many fear may be playing out in Iran. Expanded use of nuclear power would increase the risk that commercial nuclear technology will be used to construct clandestine weapons facilities, as was done by Pakistan. In addition to uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. Plutonium, which is found only in extremely small quantities in nature, is produced in nuclear reactors. Reprocessing spent fuel to separate plutonium from the highly radioactive barrier in spent fuel rods, as is being proposed as a 'waste solution' under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, increases the risk that the plutonium can be diverted or stolen for the production of nuclear weapons or radioactive 'dirty' bombs. Reprocessing is also the most polluting part of the nuclear fuel cycle. The reprocessing facility in France, La Hague, is the world's largest anthropogenic source of radioactivity and its releases have been found in the Arctic Circle. In addition to the threat of nuclear materials, nuclear reactors are themselves potential terrorist targets. Nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand attacks using large aircraft, such as those used on the September 11, 2001.(7) A well-coordinated attack could have severe consequences for human health and the environment. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that a major attack on the Indian Point Reactor in Westchester County, New York, could result in 44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within 50 miles of the reactor.(8) Nuclear Power Doesn't Mean Energy Independence Assertions that nuclear power can lead us to energy independence are incorrect. In 2007, more than 90 percent of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear power reactors was imported.(9) The U.S. only has the ninth largest reasonably assured uranium resources in the world.(10) Most of it is low to medium grade, which is not only more polluting but also less economical than uranium found in other nations. The U.S.'s high-priced uranium resources and world uranium price volatility mean that current dependence on foreign sources of uranium is not likely to change significantly in the future. One country that the U.S. continues to rely on for uranium is Russia. The Continuing Resolution signed into law in September 2008 extended and expanded the program to import Russian highly enriched uranium that has been down-blended for use in U.S. commercial reactors. This program, which was set to expire in 2013, has been extended through 2020 and expanded to allow more uranium imports per year from Russia. While the program is an important non-proliferation measure (highly enriched uranium can be used to make a nuclear weapon), it means that the U.S. will continue to rely on Russia for a significant amount of uranium for commercial nuclear reactors. Nuclear is Expensive In 1954, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Lewis Strauss promised that the nuclear industry would one day provide energy "too cheap to meter."(5) More than 50 years and tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively expensive. Even among the business and financial communities, it is widely accepted that nuclear power would not be economically viable without government support.(11) Despite this poor economic performance, the federal government has continued to pour money into the nuclear industry the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included more than $13 billion in production subsidies, tax breaks and other incentives for nuclear power. The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U.S. taxpayers comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the nuclear utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is "very high well above 50 percent."(12) The nuclear industry is demanding $122 billion in federal loan guarantees for 21 reactors. If these guarantees were authorized, taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $61 billion. Making the Safe, Sustainable Investment It is clear that alternatives to fossil fuels must be developed on a large scale. However, nuclear power is neither renewable nor clean and therefore not a wise option. Even if one were to disregard the waste problems, safety risks and dismal economics, nuclear power is both too slow and too limited a solution to global warming and energy insecurity. Given the urgent need to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the long lead times required for the design, permitting and construction of nuclear reactors render nuclear power an ineffective option for addressing global warming. Taxpayer dollars would be better spent on increasing energy conservation, efficiency and developing renewable energy resources. In fact, numerous studies have shown that improving energy efficiency is the most cost-effective and sustainable way to concurrently reduce energy demand and curb greenhouse gas emissions. Wind power already is less expensive than nuclear power. And while photovoltaic power is currently more expensive than nuclear energy, the price of electricity produced by the sun, as with wind and other forms of renewable energy, is falling quickly. Conversely, the cost of nuclear power is rising.(3,11) When the very serious risk of accidents, proliferation, terrorism and nuclear war are considered, it is clear that investment in nuclear power as a climate change solution is not only misguided, but also highly dangerous. As we look for solutions to the dual threats of global warming and energy insecurity, we should focus our efforts on improving energy conservation and efficiency and expanding the use of safe, clean renewable forms of energy to build a new energy future for the nation. Call the Capital Switch Board (1-202-224-3121) to ask for your Congressional Representative and your Senators and urge them to oppose subsidies to the dirty, dangerous and expensive nuclear industry.
	28	+Thus, because nuclear energy prevents the development of renewable forms of energy which are much better at promoting societal welfare, we must affirm.
	29	+My third contention is that nuclear power is uniquely vulnerable to terrorist attacks at civilian reactors
	30	+Not all nuclear power reactors are used to produce energy for the grid. In fact, many of them are used in order to study nuclear physics. However, these nuclear reactors pose a unique threat because they are inherently less secure and more vulnerable to terrorist attacks
	31	+**Laflure '13**, Rebecca Laflure, 8-21-2013, "Are civilian nuclear plants vulnerable to terror attacks?," Center for Public Integrity, https://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/08/21/13190/are-civilian-nuclear-plants-vulnerable-terror-attacks
	32	+Protection barriers for nuclear fuel in research reactors vs. those for power reactor fuel. Both irradiated and fresh nuclear fuel are likely to be less well protected from terrorist attacks at university research reactors, than at power reactors — for many reasons: First, typical research reactor fuel elements are much smaller than those for power reactors. The large size (perhaps ten feet long) and weight of power reactor fuel 8 assemblies (perhaps one ton) mean a crane or other heavy machinery is needed to move an assembly. Taking the fuel assembly apart is not easy. Research reactor fuel elements may be four feet long, and weigh a few tens of pounds. They can be disassembled, and can typically be moved by one person, properly shielded. Second, university research reactors tend to be located in or near cities, — in places where there are many people going back and forth. Government and industry research reactors are more likely to be somewhat removed from populations, though some are not. Power reactors tend to be both farther from cities and more likely to be surrounded by fences and open areas, which provide some opportunity to observe potential attackers at a distance. Third, power reactors are ordinarily in operation except for maintenance or when the fuel needs to be changed. Operating personnel are likely to be present during the day even when the reactor is shut down, and guards are present both day and night. Many university research reactors are shut down and left unused for significant periods with only skeleton staff nearby. Power reactors are typically guarded by professional guards hired and trained for the purpose. That may also be true of government and industry research reactors which are often in operation most of the time. University reactors, with intermittent operation, may rely on the university campus police who are usually present elsewhere. When the research reactor is not in operation, they are not likely to check it often. Fourth, as we have seen, the irradiated fuel removed from university research reactors could be less radioactive than that discharged from power reactors. Moreover, many research reactors are not used as much as their suppliers or owners originally expected or are operated at a lower power level than originally anticipated. Indeed, many university reactors are no longer operated. If the fuel has been removed, as is the practice in the US, they are not likely to constitute a risk. But, this is not a uniform practice. There is probably a great deal of irradiated research reactor fuel around the world that is stored in or near research reactors, fuel that is not too hot to handle for some terrorists.
	33	+And, this puts pronuclear positions in a double bind: either you don't research nuclear in order to minimize the danger that civilian reactors possess in which case nuclear energy will continue to be unsafe or you continue to research nuclear power in civilian reactors which drastically increases the risk of a terrorist attack on a plant. Thus, because the only way to solve this dilemma and ensure we do the just action, we must ban the production of nuclear power and affirm.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-16 19:44:30.190

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+All

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+All

ParentRound

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

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Quads

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Gilmour Williams Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPOCT Util 1AC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Wake Forest