| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,23 @@ |
|
1 |
+A Interpretation: The Aff may not defend a ban on nuclear weapons – they may only defend a ban on nuclear power |
|
2 |
+Nuclear power isn’t the same as nuclear weaponry – international treaties prove |
|
3 |
+Higgin: Higgin, Diana Contributor, CND “The links between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.” CND, April 2006. RP |
|
4 |
+The U.K.’s part |
|
5 |
+AND |
|
6 |
+ to do so. |
|
7 |
+B Violation |
|
8 |
+C Net Benefits |
|
9 |
+1 Common Usage ~-~- most people who support nuclear power are often against weapons – they situate the topic in the wrong direction |
|
10 |
+NEIS: Nuclear Energy Information Service Illinois Nuclear Power Watchdog “Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons.” Nuclear Energy Information Service, 2004. RP |
|
11 |
+There is an |
|
12 |
+AND |
|
13 |
+ a different conclusion. |
|
14 |
+ |
|
15 |
+2 Real World Education – bomb making uses entirely different materials than electricity based reactors do |
|
16 |
+Marder: Marder, Jenny Contributor, PBS News “Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear Bombs: What Defines the Differences?” PBS News, April 2011. RP |
|
17 |
+A nuclear reactor |
|
18 |
+AND |
|
19 |
+possible,” Caracappa said. |
|
20 |
+ |
|
21 |
+3 Limits – they allow an absurd number of affs. Banning nuclear weapons allows prolif positions, affs about international treaties, deterrence, Iran deal Affs, and creates a whole new angle to the topic that nobody else has researched. |
|
22 |
+ |
|
23 |
+D Fairness is a voter |