He read like Truth Testing and other things of the sort(
Voices
2
Opponent: Del Mar Independent | Judge: Ariel Shin
Go For Pic
Voices
4
Opponent: Santa Monica RE | Judge: Chris Harris
Won on DA Framing
Voices
5
Opponent: Brentwood ELi | Judge: David Dosche
I won on DA Framework
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
0 - Disclosure Theory
Tournament: XX | Round: 1 | Opponent: XX | Judge: XX Interp: All debaters who have attended at least 2 bid tournaments this season must disclose all broken positions on the NDCA 15-16 LD wiki. The disclosure must includes summaries, tags, cites, and first 3 last 3 words from each piece of evidence.
The disclosure must occur within 24 hours after the position is broken.
1.Resource equity:
2. Research: A. Disclosure provides a key body of accessible knowledge. Nails 13
Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Oakwood MW | Judge: Scott Wheeler Note: Sorry its on the Neg; the wiki is a cruel mistress.
Part 1 is Framework
Evaluation of energy policy requires a social context. This requires situating nuclear power in the broader context of society and the economy to understand that traditional cost benefit assessment relies on flawed technological optimism. Glover et al 06 Policy fellow at center for energy
(Policy Fellow at the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, University of Delaware, Directs the Urban Studies and Wheaton in Chicago programs, selected to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Emerging Leaders Program for 2011-2013, *2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Distinguished Professor of Energy and Climate Policy at the University of Delaware, Head of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy (Leigh Glover, Noah Toly, John Byrne, "Energy as a Social Project: Recovering a Discourse", in "Transforming Power: Energy, Environment, and Society in Conflict", p. 1-32, http://www.ceep.udel.edu/energy/publications/2006'es'energy'as'a'social'project.pdf)
From climate change … attendant social relations.
Standpoint epistemology is the best starting point for moral decisions – other methods exclude some viewpoints, which makes true analysis of reality impossible. Mills 5
Edited for ableist language Charles Mills, "Ideal Theory" as Ideology, 2005. The crucial common … male-dominated philosophical literature.
Thus, political decisions must consider citizens’ ends without abstracting from particular concerns. That entails consequentialism – only consequences are justifiable since intents can always be contested and aren’t resolvable among different people – only empirical, objective end states can be validly analyzed.
Moreover, resolving conflicting interests means the state necessary violates rights with every action it takes, so absolute side-constraints are implausible. My theory best resolves conflicting interests since it assigns equal weight to relevant preferences, whereas other theories arbitrarily value certain people by failing to sacrifice some for others sake.
Prefer government specific obligations since obligations differ by actor – police officers have a duty to arrest criminals but civilians don’t.
Thus the standards is minimizing the material conditions of social inequality.
Part 2 is The Nuclear Renaissance
We are in the midst of a global "nuclear renaissance"- corporate propaganda markets nuclear power as the only solution to climate change in order to shut down democratic deliberation about alternative energy futures. Wasserman 16 MA
Nuclear power is justified through emergency framing- this creates a nuclear state of exception. Nuclear dangers are deprioritized in favor of remote cataclysms, which systematically warps cost benefit assessment and recreates warming. Kaur 11 Phd
(Raminder, A ‘nuclear renaissance’, climate change and the state of exception, THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 22, Issue 2) Increasingly, nation-states …fhuman-centric global warming.
The nuclear state of exception bleeds into all aspects of society- it provides a model for authoritarian decision making that privileges technocratic experts and excludes the viewpoint of everyday citizens – legitimates oppression. Kaur 11 PhD
(Raminder, A ‘nuclear renaissance’, climate change andthe state of exception, THE AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 22, Issue 2)
Although Giorgio Agamben’s …, out of mind’
And, Nuclear power is centralized and an arm of state technocrats that profit off of taking away local community control over energy. Martin et. Al 84
(The main authors are Jill Bowling, Brian Martin, Val Plumwood and Ian Watson, with important contributions from Ray Kent, Basil Schur and Rosemary Walters. Strategy against nuclear power http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/86sa.html)
Why was the … it is embedded.
This reinforces all level of social division and perpetuates inequality. Martin et. Al 84
(The main authors are Jill Bowling, Brian Martin, Val Plumwood and Ian Watson, with important contributions from Ray Kent, Basil Schur and Rosemary Walters. Strategy against nuclear power http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/86sa.html)
Why was … which it is embedded.
This view of nuclear power as a "quick fix" depoliticizes the global economy and energy system perpetuating massive inequality. Maciejewska and Marszalek ’11 Professor at Wroclaw Unitersity
(Malgorzata, institute of Sociology and Faculty of Social Sciences at Wroclaw University, and Marcin, Wroclaw University (Poland), "Lack of power or lack of democracy: the case of the projected nuclear power plant in Poland," Economic and Environmental Studies Vol. 11, No.3 (19/2011), 235-248, Sept. 2011) The mainstream discourse … the modern economy.
Part 3 is the Advocacy
Plan Text: All countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power. Countries that currently produce power from nuclear reactors will immediately begin phasing out all nuclear power. Lucas 12 Leader of the Green party of England, Wales
Voting affirmative endorses a social critique of nuclear power. Only instrumental reform to the energy system can effectively spill over to broader systemic problems without being coopted. Martin et. Al, 84
(The main authors are Jill Bowling, Brian Martin, Val Plumwood and Ian Watson, with important contributions from Ray Kent, Basil Schur and Rosemary Walters. Strategy against nuclear power http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/86sa.html)
What is a … goes beyond them.
Rejecting nuclear power opens up the potential for a more decentralized grid – it also makes renewables more effective because they no longer get blocked by the nuclear industry. Lydersen ‘15
Kari Lydersen writes for publications including The Washington Post, In These Times, Punk Planet and LiP magazine and is a youth journalism instructor based in Chicago. "Why the nuclear industry targets renewables instead of gas." Midwest Energy News. 02/06/2015. http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/02/06/why-the-nuclear-industry-targets-renewables-instead-of-gas/ JJN Why attack renewables? … straight-face test."
====Nuclear and renewables directly trade off – nuclear caps progress on renewables. Main 15 JD==== Ivy Main JD 11/12/15 ~Sierra Club, Power for the People VA: The Virginia Energy Blog, Ivy Main Freelance~ "Nuking clean energy: how nuclear power makes wind and solar harder"
Dominion Resources CEO … fuel-price risk.
At the heart of this renaissance is a drive to colonize other countries to sustain our nuclear addiction – Wittman PhD 11
Wittman, Nora ~Ph.D. African American Studies~ "The Scramble for Africa's Nuclear Resources" New African No.507 June 2011
THE CURRENT NUCLEAR … other African countries. …
10/8/16
Sept-Oct-CP-SSD
Tournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Marborough MC | Judge: Kris Kaya CP Text: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should designate sub-seabed disposal as the sole candidate for its permanent nuclear waste repository. Wilson 14
Wilson, founder of BuildingGreen, Inc. and executive editor of Environmental Building News, founded the Resilient Design Institute Alex, "Safe Storage of Nuclear Waste", Green Building Advisor, www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/blogs/dept/energy-solutions/safe-storage-nuclear-waste SP
The big question now is how long it will be until the plant can be decommissioned and what to do with the large quantities of radioactive waste that are being stored onsite. Terrorism risks with nuclear power My concern with nuclear power has always been more about terrorism than accidents during operation or storage. I continue to worry that terrorists could gain entry to nuclear plant operations and sabotage plants from the inside — disabling cooling systems and causing a meltdown. There is also a remote risk of unanticipated natural disasters causing meltdowns or radiation release, as we saw so vividly with the Fukushima Power Plant catastrophe in Japan in March, 2011. For more than 30 years, the nuclear industry in the U.S. and nuclear regulators have been going down the wrong path with waste storage — seeking a repository where waste could be buried deep in a mountain. Nevada’s Yucca Mountain was the place of choice until… it wasn’t. Any time we choose to put highly dangerous waste in someone’s backyard, it’s bound to cause a lot of controversy, even in a sparsely populated, pro-resource-extraction place like Nevada. NIMBY opposition can be boosted by people in powerful places, and in the case of Yucca Mountain, Nevada senator Harry Reid has played such a role. (He has been the Senate Majority Leader since 2006 and served prior to that as the Minority Leader and Democratic Whip.) Aside from NIMBYism, the problem with burying nuclear waste in a mountain (like Yucca Mountain) or salt caverns (like New Mexico’s Carlsbad Caverns — an earlier option that was pursued for a while in the 1970s) is that the maximum safety is provided at Day One, and the margin of safety drops continually from there. The safety of such storage sites could be compromised over time due to seismic activity (Nevada ranks fourth among the most seismically active states), volcanism (the Yucca Mountain ridge is comprised mostly of volcanic tuff, emitted from past volcanic activity), erosion, migrating aquifers, and other natural geologic actions. A better storage option I believe a much better solution for long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste is to bury it deep under the seabed in a region free of seismic activity where sediment is being deposited and the seafloor getting thicker. In such a site, the level of protection would increase, rather than decrease, over time. In some areas of seabed, more than a centimeter of sediment is being deposited annually. Compacted over time, such sediment deposition could be several feet in a hundred years, and in the geologic time span over which radioactive waste is hazardous, hundreds to thousands of feet of protective sedimentary rock would be formed. The oil and gas industry — for better or worse — knows a lot about drilling deep holes beneath a mile or two of ocean. I suspect that the deep-sea drilling industry would love such a growth opportunity to move into seabed waste storage, and I believe the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or other agencies could do a good job regulating such work. The waste could be placed in wells extending thousands of feet below the seabed in sedimentary rock in geologically stable regions. Let's say a 3,000-foot well is drilled beneath the seabed two miles beneath the surface of the ocean. Waste could be inserted into that well to a depth of 1,000 feet, and the rest of the well capped with 2,000 feet of concrete or some other material. Hundreds of these deep-storage wells could be filled and capped, and such a sub-seabed storage field could be designated as forever off-limits. Industry or the Department of Energy would have to figure out how to package such waste for safe handling at sea, since the material is so dangerous, but I believe that is a surmountable challenge. For example, perhaps the radioactive waste could be vitrified (incorporated into molten glass-like material) to reduce leaching potential into seawater should an accident occur at sea, and that waste could be tagged with radio-frequency emitters so that any lost containers could be recovered with robotic submarines in the event of such accidents. While I’m not an expert in any of this, I’ve looked at how much money taxpayers and industry have already poured into Yucca Mountain — about $15 billion by the time the Obama Administration terminated federal funding for it in 2010, according to Bloomberg News — and the estimates for how much more it would take to get a working waste storage facility of that sort operational had risen to about $96 billion by 2008, according to the U.S. Department of Energy at the time. I believe that sub-seabed storage would be far less expensive. Solves the aff ssd is able to isolate any radioactive nuclear waste from humans. Bala 2014
Amal Bala, Sub-Seabed Burial of Nuclear Waste: If the Disposal Method Could Succeed Technically, Could It Also Succeed Legally?, 41 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 455 (2014),SP
In general, two related methods of underwater disposal of SNF exist: dumping containers of radioactive waste into the ocean, and sub-seabed disposal. 92 The purpose of underwater disposal of SNF is the same as any other type of SNF disposal, which is to isolate radioactive waste from human contact and the environment long enough for any release of radiation to become harmless.93 The potential advantages of certain types of underwater SNF disposal for the United States could include effective containment of the waste and avoiding the controversy of a land-based national repository, such as the failed project at Yucca Mountain. 94 Underwater disposal of SNF, specifically subseabed disposal, could occur far from the coast of any state or nation and could thereby avoid the NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) syndrome, but this result is not guaranteed considering existing laws and a popular belief that Earth’s oceans are a global commons
10/8/16
Sept-Oct-DA-Elections
Tournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Marborough MC | Judge: Kris Kaya Clinton wins now but it’s close – NOW is the chance for Trump to pull ahead Russonello 9/16 Russonello, Giovanni. "Poll Shows Tight Race for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton." The New York Times. September 16, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll.html. JD *Methodology Underlined in the card Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has the support of 46 percent of likely voters nationwide, to 44 percent for Mr. Trump, the Republican, including those who said they were leaning toward a candidate. Looking more broadly at all registered voters, Mrs. Clinton holds a wider edge, 46 to 41 percent. In a four-way race, Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton are tied at 42 percent each. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, has the support of 8 percent of likely voters, and the Green Party nominee, Jill Stein, takes 4 percent. The third-party candidates draw their strongest support from younger voters. Twenty-six percent of voters ages 18 to 29 say they plan to vote for Mr. Johnson, and another 10 percent back Ms. Stein. A little more than one in five political independents say they will vote for one of the third-party candidates. Discontent with the major party candidates is widespread. Among those who say they intend to vote for Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton, slightly more than half express strong support. The rest say that they harbor reservations about their candidate, or that they are simply voting to thwart the other nominee. Over all, just 43 percent of likely voters describe themselves as very enthusiastic about casting a ballot in November. Fifty-one percent of Mr. Trump’s supporters say they are very enthusiastic about voting; 43 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters say they are very enthusiastic. The race has clearly grown tighter in recent weeks. National polling averages show that Mrs. Clinton’s margin over Mr. Trump has narrowed from eight points in early August to two points today. Mrs. Clinton found herself under attack last week for suggesting that half of Mr. Trump’s supporters held views that made them “deplorables,” and for her campaign’s attempts to conceal her pneumonia diagnosis. The Times/CBS News poll was conducted from Sept. 9 to 13, so many of those interviewed were aware of the controversies. Mr. Trump hired new campaign leadership in mid-August and has been more disciplined in his public statements. His poll numbers have been steadily rising. Mrs. Clinton continues to outpace Mr. Trump among women, nonwhites and younger voters, while Mr. Trump leads among whites, 57 to 33 percent. Among white women, the candidates are virtually tied: 46 percent for Mrs. Clinton and 45 percent for Mr. Trump. Mrs. Clinton’s support is notably strong among college graduates, particularly whites. She leads by 11 points among white likely voters with a college degree; if polling holds, she would be the first Democrat in 60 years to win among this group. This is the first Times/CBS News poll of the election cycle to include a measure of likely voters. The nationwide telephone survey reached 1,433 registered voters and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. To achieve a sample that reflected the probable electorate, these voters were weighted by their responses to questions about voting history, attention to the campaign and likelihood of voting. With Mrs. Clinton sidelined by illness this week, Mr. Trump has vigorously pressed his case. He promoted a new plan to support working parents on Tuesday, and released a partial account of his medical status on Wednesday during a taping of “The Dr. Oz Show.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A slim majority of Americans (51) now favor the use of nuclear energy for electricity in the U.S., while 43 oppose it. This level of support is similar to what Gallup found when it last measured these attitudes two years ago, but it is down from the peak of 62 five years ago. Current support is on the low end of what Gallup has found in the past 20 years, with the 46 reading in 2001 the only time that it sank lower. The high point in support for the use of nuclear power, in 2010, was recorded shortly after President Barack Obama announced that the federal government would provide loan guarantees for the construction of two nuclear reactors, the first to be built in the U.S. in three decades. Support has generally dropped since then. However, between 2011 and 2012, support was stable, with 57 favoring nuclear energy. This is notable given that Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster took place shortly after polling in 2011.
That flips the election for the GOP – our link prices in other factors and we don’t need to win that Hillary gets the blame Needham 16 Vicki, The Hill, 1/21, “Moody’s model gives Dem candidate advantage in 2016,” http://thehill.com/policy/finance/266668-moodys-model-gives-dem-candidate-advantage-in-2016 Recut by WP The Democratic presidential nominee will win the race for the presidency, but the election is shaping up as historically tight, according to a political model. Less than 11 months from Election Day, Moody’s Analytics is predicting that whomever lands the Democratic nomination will capture the White House with 326 electoral votes to the Republican nominee’s 212. Those results are heavily dependent on how swing states vote. The latest model from Moody’s reflects razor-thin margins in the five most important swing states — Florida, Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia. In each of those states, the Democratic advantage is less than 1 percentage point, well within the margin of error. The election model weighs political and economic strength in each state and determines the share of the vote that the incumbent party will win. The most important economic variable in the model is the growth in incomes in the two years leading up to the election. That factor captures the strength of the job market in each state, including job growth, hours worked, wage growth and the quality of the jobs being created. The model also factors in home and gasoline prices. So far, the strength of the economy has kept the model on track for the Democratic nominee. But the trajectory of the president’s approval rating also makes a difference in who could win the White House. If President Obama’s approval rating shifts only a little more than 4 percentage points, a bit more than the margin of error for many presidential opinion polls, the move could further cut into Democratic hopes to retain the White House. Growing concern about terrorism and other issues could dent Obama’s approval rating further. Usually, if the sitting president’s approval rating is improving in the year leading up the election, the incumbent party receives a boost. But in most elections, the president’s rating has declined in the lead-up to the election, favoring the challenger party.
The real estate mogul has made strong public statements supporting nuclear power, but tends to favor further development of natural gas. In the aftermath of the 2011 Japan Fukushima nuclear disaster, Trump told Fox News “nuclear is a way we get what we have to get, which is energy.” “I’m in favor of nuclear energy, very strongly in favor of nuclear energy,” Trump said. “If a plane goes down people keep flying. If you get into an auto crash people keep driving.” The permitting process for nuclear power needs to be reformed, Trump explained. He qualified this statement saying “we have to be careful” because nuclear power “does have issues.” Trump specified that he favored the development of natural gas over nuclear energy in the same interview: “we’re the Saudi Arabia times 100 of natural gas, but we don’t use it.”
And, nuclear energy would become the key spinning factor for Republicans because of Clinton’s lack of support and Obama’s current policy – Republicans will pit nuclear power policy against Clinton regardless of her actual policy Siciliano 16John Siciliano, 1-10-2016, "The 2016 politics of nuclear energy," Washington Examiner , WP http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-2016-politics-of-nuclear-energy/article/2579855
The presidential election may offer hope for a resurgence of interest in nuclear energy. And if a Republican wins the White House, it's more likely that the centerpiece of that effort, a controversial nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, will move forward. Republicans stand for what they call the "law of the land," referring to the fact that Congress chose Yucca Mountain to be the nation's nuclear waste dump, and that has not changed despite President Obama's and congressional Democrats' success in upending the project and focusing instead on wind and solar power. But even with a president who favors nuclear energy, it will still prove difficult to build the site to take radioactive waste from nearly 100 power plants. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of electricity, yet the question of what to do with waste continues to fester. Many people see Yucca Mountain as the answer, but opponents say it's unsafe. But both sides agree that building more nuclear plants hinges on waste disposal. It pits the administration against lawmakers and exposes a rift between the pro-nuke and anti-nuke wings of the environmental movement. A big barrier to the nuclear option is price. Ben Zycher, senior energy fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said new nuclear reactors cost far too much, especially since natural gas is so cheap. That could sideline nuclear energy and Yucca Mountain this election year. Yucca Mountain's main adversary, Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, is retiring from Congress at the end of the year, but Zycher said other Nevada officials will step into the breach. "It may be a case without Reid in the Senate the path would be eased, but that's not particularly obvious," he said. David McIntyre, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, charged with licensing the dump, agrees, saying it "would be immensely difficult" to start back up after so many years of administration stalling. And Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is "not going to endorse it," Zycher said. Litigation and 2016 Rod McCullum, the Nuclear Energy Institute's director of used fuel issues, calls managing nuclear waste the "most technically simple, but politically complicated things we do." It might arise in the presidential election because President Obama has stalled longstanding nuclear waste policy, defying Congress, many states and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which designates Yucca Mountain as America's long-term nuclear waste repository. Obama's efforts to hamstring Yucca during his first term helped keep Reid loyal. But both are leaving Washington, and federal courts have ruled that the administration could not kill the Yucca project without congressional consent and while continuing to collect money from utilities and states to build it. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013 dealt a blow to the administration by ordering the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to complete its work on licensing the facility, which it recently did despite Reid having choked off the commission's funding. McCullum said the commission has been "eeking" along.
Trump win means he will nuke ISIS – results in massive civilian casualties and Middle East destabilization. Hobbus 15 R. Hobbus 15, J.D., investigative journalist specializing in international politics, “Trump: I Will Absolutely Use A Nuclear Weapon Against ISIS,” 8/10, Real News Right Now, http://realnewsrightnow.com/2015/08/trump-i-will-absolutely-use-a-nuclear-weapon-against-isis/ NEW YORK, Ny. – In response to a question regarding his policy on ISIS, Republican presidential candidate and billionaire Donald Trump told Meet the Press on Sunday that as Commander-in-Chief, he would authorize the use of nuclear weapons to combat Islamic extremism. “Let’s face it, these people are barbarians,” Trump said. “And thanks to Obama’s failed policy in Iraq and Syria, they’re beheading Christians all over the world.” Mr. Trump said he’s already conferred with a number of high-level active military officials and has put together a comprehensive strategy to defeat the Islamic State within his first one hundred days in office. “It starts with the deployment of four or five of our Ohio-class nuclear submarines to the Persian Gulf,” Trump said. “We’re going to hit them and we’re going to hit them hard. I’m talking about a surgical strike on these ISIS stronghold cities using Trident missiles.” The Trident is a submarine-launched ballistic missile equipped with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs. With a payload of up to fourteen reentry vehicles, each carrying a 362-pound thermonuclear warhead with a yield of 100 kilotons, a single Trident has roughly seventy times the destructive power of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. Trump’s plan to use thermonuclear weapons against ISIS-held areas such as the Syrian city of Al-Raqqah would result in an astronomically high number of civilian casualties, according to CNN military analyst Peter Mansoor. “Al-Raqqah alone has a population of over two hundred-thousand people, the vast majority of whom are not affiliated in any way with the Islamic State,” Mansoor said. “A strike of this magnitude would not only result in the loss of millions of innocent lives and infrastructure, but it would set diplomacy and stability in the region back at least a hundred years.”
ME war goes nuclear – causes extinction. Russel 9 Russell 9 – Senior Lecturer in the Department of National Security Affairs @ Naval Postgraduate School James, “Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Nuclear War and Escalation in the Middle East,” Online Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Iran’s response to pre-emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war – a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.
10/8/16
Sept-Oct-DA-Space
Tournament: Voices | Round: 5 | Opponent: Brentwood ELi | Judge: David Dosche
Fission Technology Exist – countries are moving back towards it WNA 16
Fission is key to exploration and mining Palaszewski 06
(October 2006, Bryan Palaszewski, Master of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering, "Atmospheric Mining in the Outer Solar System," http://mdcampbell.com/TM-2006-214122AtmosphericMining.pdf, ngoetz) WHB from File Mining in the … by the atmospheric gases.
Access to the moon and beyond is key to human survival Cheetham and Pastuf 08
(Brad and Dan, Research Associate at the Goddard Space Flight Center NASA Academy students in Department of Mechanical Aerospace Engineering at the University of Buffalo, "Lunar Resources and Development: A brief overview of the possibilities for lunar resource extraction and development," http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~~cheetham/index'files/Moon20Paper20441.pdf) WHB from file The Moon has … expansion to begin.
10/9/16
Sept-Oct-DA-Warming
Tournament: Voices | Round: 4 | Opponent: Santa Monica RE | Judge: Chris Harris
Increased electricity production from nuclear coming - Eurasia Review 9/26
Prohibiting nuclear power means we can’t cut emissions – impracticality of renewables combined with a switch to coal increases emissions . Harvey ‘12
Fiona Harvey - award-winning environment journalist for the Guardian, used to work for financial times. "Nuclear power is only solution to climate change, says Jeffrey Sachs." The Guardian. May 3, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/03/nuclear-power-solution-climate-change JJN *bracketing in original Combating climate change … scientists," he said.
Empirically proven in japan a ban on nuclear triggered a shift to coal. Follett 16
Shift to coal makes it impossible to fight climate change. Kharecha and Hansen 13
Kharecha, Pushker A., and James E. Hansen ~NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute~. "Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power." Environmental science and technology 47.9 (2013): 4889-4895.
GHG Emissions. We … 240 by 500).
This causes millions of death and outweighs harms from radiation – our evidence is directly comparative between coal and nuclear. Kharecha and Hansen 13
Kharecha, Pushker A., and James E. Hansen ~NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute~. "Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power." Environmental science and technology 47.9 (2013): 4889-4895.
Mortality. We calculate …change¶ mitigation efforts.
10/9/16
Sept-Oct-PIC-Structural Violence
Tournament: Voices | Round: 2 | Opponent: Del Mar Independent | Judge: Ariel Shin We agree with the AC except the way harms are framed as “structural violence” Subpoint A: Their advantage is not about Structural violence
Structural violence is a term coined by Johan Galtung, it refers to violence where no single decision maker is responsible- like poverty which results from the global economy. Their advantage is about “institutional violence”- this means they can’t generate any offense Galtung Institute 12 (https://www.galtung-institut.de/en/network/groups/anything-galtung/forum/topic/understanding-galtungs-violence-triangle-and-structural-violence/) Theories of structural violence explore how political, economic and cultural structures result in the occurrence of avoidable violence, most commonly seen as the deprivation of basic human needs (will be discussed later). Structural theorists attempt to link personal suffering with political, social and cultural choices. Johan Galtung’s original definition included a lack of human agency; that is the violence is not a direct act of any decision or action made by a particular person but a result of an unequal distribution of resources.Here, we must also understand “institutional violence”. “Institutional violence” is often mistaken for structural violence, but this is not the case. “Institutional violence” should be used to refer to violence perpetrated by institutions like companies, universities, corporations, organisations as opposed to individuals. The fact that women are paid less at an establishment than men is an act of direct violence by that specific establishment. It is true that there is a relationship with structural violence as there is between interpersonal violence and structural violence. And Structural violence is the most problematic area to be addressed for conflict transformation.
2. This masks the violence of the nuclear industry- portraying it as structural violence makes it akin to an “accident” which ignores that nuclear violence is a conscious choice- this turns the case Chaloupka, PhD, 92 (William, Knowing Nukes) This absurd outcome may be most evident when we consider those major destabilizers in the nuclear world that come under the classification of “accidents.” The term “accident” is of obvious interest to nuclear criticism. In a discourse that allocates responsibilities pervasively, “accident” is a free spot, without cause or conspiracy. In the case of nuclear power, the notion of accident had already become visible in the late 1970s, after nuclear critics and Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials sparred over the vocabulary appropriate to Three Mile Island. To officialdom, accident was obviously an appropriate label for these events, since there was never any suggestion of malevolence or subversion. To critics, it was just as obvious that when societies produce electricity' by placing ornately complex plants around the landscape, radiation releases are so inevitable that the word “accident” reveals an evasion of responsibility. In another case, compatriots of the Iran Air 655 victims insisted that its destruction must have been intentional, simply because the powerful American technology could not possibly have “made a mistake” (or “had an accident”) of such magnitude. Meanwhile, critics in the United States —more familiar with technological failures —argued that placing a weapon such as the U.S.S. Vincennes in a place such as the Persian Gulf invited tragedy so openly as to defy the categories “mistake” and “accident.” Noting the radical reversibility of such analyses—the case with which they are inverted—we might begin to suspect that “accident” is a special term in the debate over nukes. Indeed, “accident” has even served as a sign of stability, as in the oft-repeated analysis that the paradoxes of deterrence are so stable that the real danger of nuclear war comes from the chance of accident. So-called accidents may attain this special status because of the role the rhetoric of “accident” necessarily preserves for a rhetoric of agency. To call something an “accident” is to claim (or hope) that there is no harbor for responsibility, even though we continually use rhetorical devices that allocate causality when we talk about politics. This double character gives the formulation “nuclear accident” an extraordinary power. Hypothetically, such an accident could destroy all life; if that weren’t enough, the formulation draws attention to the provisional, constituted character of American discourse about agency and authority. Richard Klein and William B. Warner presented the Korean Air Lines downing as a case that illustrates the ambivalence of accidents.36 As they suggest, we have long known that designating something an “accident” is an implement of international diplomacy. Such a designation can be (and often is) constructed after the event in question, for purposes not necessarily connected to the “facts” of the event. Statesmen make events into accidents (or, conversely, attribute a conscious purpose to an inadvertent event) depending on the geopolitical move they want to make. In the case of nuclear war, which has no “after the fact,” these determinations would have to be made very quickly, and “this determination of the character of the incident, before it happens, may itself initiate a war.”3 In such a situation, it might well be impossible for the participants to map all of the contingencies required to produce reliable clarity. Indeed, clarity on causation, responsibility, and accident has often been an artifact of “the luxurious time of diplomatic distance,” not some obvious feature of the event in question. And clarity, as it pertains to nukes, is no abstract exercise; it is a precondition for continuing at all. One failure and the rubble bounces, as the saying goes. The case of KAL 007 is illustrative. This time, there was an “after,” so we have the usual and predictable diplomatic interpretations to examine. The Soviets cried foul, charging conspiracy. The Reagan administration renewed its claim that the U.S.S.R. was an evil empire and used the event to justify weapons requests. No surprises. Klein and Warner’s point, however, is that in the heat of this particular night, it would not be even slightly implausible to suggest that hugely different interpretations of this event could have prevailed in Washington and Moscow, whatever the “actual” facts and motivations were. This is an interpretive moment, and these interpretations tend to diverge, not to converge in some safe and reassuring way. From the Soviet vantage point it hardly seems an accident that the course of KAL 007 happened to coincide with the course of a U.S. RC-135 spy plane. But from the vantage point of the U.S., the flight “deviation” of this particular plane does not seem so surprising at all; it may in fact be inevitable given the thousands of flighrs along this Pacific route. . . . Thus, what seems a telling coincidence to the collective subjectivity defined by Soviet leadership seems merely accidental to observers . . . who do not share the same national subjectivity. Klein and Warner use literary interpretations to show how utterly incomprehensible this “fact” may have been in its unfolding. One can even imagine that KAL 007’s James Bond-like name imparted confusion. That name could have been seen as proof that this was no spy mission (obviously, they wouldn’t have named it that), or proof that it was such a mission (they’d never suspect this), or evidence or a classic spy’s slip, be (rayed by “what he has taken every conceivable rational precaution to conceal.”,y The indeterminacy of language and the characteristically linguistic, interpretive nature of such politics take away any reassurance we could be offered that, despite all our critical complaints, we have only “accidents” to fear now. Or, in slightly different form, we can imagine an interpretive moment —fraught w'ith levels and complexities —far more difficult, even, than an episode in which one had to “get the facrs.” “The injured party' will not enjoy the luxurious time of diplomatic distance from the event that allows one to choose" a course of action. Instead, the injured party finds himself in an almost inevitably catastrophic position, trying “to determine in these swiftly passing moments, before the end, whether he is not actually already at war," knowing, perhaps, that his attempts to determine “the character of the incident . . . may itself initiate a war.”40 To demarcate something as “an accident” is to imply that it is outside the rationalist realm of planning and decision that supposedly lies at the core of the national defense. Actual events, however, fail to honor such demarcations; a successful political actor manipulates them and gains benefit. The “accident,” then, exposes the presumptions of nuclearist positions that propose that such events are all that remain to fear. Indeed, we should have long ago seen through the rhetoric of “accident.” As Garry Wills has explained, the entire nuclearist project suffers from a reversal of Clausewitz, who “understood that the very conditions of war tend to break down the effective conduct of war.”41 Presuming that “everything works” ignores Clausewitz’s adv ice that a sizable margin of error must be assumed. On the battlefield, even the most dependable moves will break down. “Danger, of itself, takes a toll, in apprehension or despair, in heightened alertness or the racing of one’s pulse. And danger, says Clausewitz, is the very air one breathes in war. It charges die atmosphere, giddying a person, unsettling judgment.”42 Nuclear strategy has veered sharply away from the master strategist’s insight, even while our intimacy with danger has intensified.43 Not only do we presume that our devices will W'ork (and SD1 raises that presumption to new levels), we even base our strategy —in the case of “w'indow' of vulnerability” scenarios—on the assumption that the Soviets also will act on the assumption that their own weaponry is infallible.44 Seeking managerial control in the form of deterrence, nuclearism strays off course, elevating the “accident” to a new, reified status. In this new context, accidents will happen—continually taunting the managers’ forgetfulness of Clausewitz’s most obvious points. It is not technological bugs, then, that deliver us to perilous times, so much as it is confusions of agency and misunderstandings about the role of plans and strategies. Citizens and nuclear strategists alike have blithely ignored some long-understood tenets of politics and war, and the traces of that forgetfulness can be identified within nuclearist discourse itself, as the case of “accident” shows. This gives the era a hallucinatory quality, when the master-in-control reveals his own foibles. And, as Klein and Warner conclude, “Hallucinatory effects and effects of coincidence acquire, in this space, uncanny pow'er to become the bases for fateful decisions.”45 (13-16) Subpoint B: Structural violence is a counterproductive concept
Structural violence obscures analysis necessary to reduce poverty and violence- this card is on fire. Boulding 77 Kenneth Boulding, Prof Univ. of Michigan and UC Boulder, Journal of Peace Research 1977; 14; 75 p. Boulding p. 83-4 Finally, we come to the great Galtung metaphors of ’structural violence’ and ’positive peace’. They are metaphors rather than models, and for that very reason are suspect. Metaphors always imply models and metaphors have much more persuasive power than models do, for models tend to be the preserve of the specialist. But when a metaphor implies a bad model it can be very dangerous, for it is both persuasive and wrong. The metaphor of structural violence I would argue falls right into this category. The metaphor is that poverty, deprivation, ill health, low expectations of life, a condition in which more than half the human race lives, is ’like’ a thug beating up the victim and taking his money away from him in the street, -or it is ’like’ a conqueror stealing the land of the people and reducing them to slavery. The implication is that poverty and its associated ills are the fault of the thug or the conqueror and the solution is to do away with thugs and conquerors. While there is some truth in the metaphor, in the modem world at least there is not very much. Violence, whether of the streets and the home, or of the guerilla, of the police, or of the armed forces, is a very different phenomenon from poverty. The processes which create and sustain poverty are not at all like the processes which create and sustain violence, although like everything else in the world, everything is somewhat related to everything else. There is a very real problem of the structures which lead to violence, but unfortunately Galtung’s metaphor of structural violence as he has used it has diverted attention from this problem. Violence in the behavioral sense, that is, somebody actually doing damage to somebody else and trying to make them worse off, is a ’threshold’ phenomenon, rather like the boiling over of a pot. The temperature under a pot can rise for a long time without its boiling over, but at some threshold boiling over will take place. The study of the structures which underlie violence are a very important and much neglected part of peace research and indeed of social science in general. Threshold phenomena like violence are difficult to study because they represent ’breaks’ in the system rather than uniformities. Violence, whether between persons or organizations, occurs when the ’strain’ on a system is too great for its ‘strength’. The metaphor here is that violence is like what happens when we break a piece of chalk. Strength and strain, however, especially in social systems, are so interwoven historically that it is very difficulty to separate them. The diminution of violence involves two possible strategies, or a mixture of the two; one is the increase in the strength of the system, the other is the diminution of the strain. The strength of systems involves habit, culture, taboos, and sanctions, all these things, which enable a system to stand Increasing strain without breaking down into violence. The strains on the system are largely dynamic in character, such as arms races, mutually stimulated hostility, changes in relative economic position or political power, which are often hard to identify. Conflict of interest are only part of the strain on a system, and not always the most important part. It is very hard for people to know their interests, and misperceptions of interests take place mainly through the dynamic processes, not through the structural ones. It is only perceptions of interest which affect people’s behavior, not the ’real’ interests, whatever these may be, and the gap between perception and reality can be very large and resistant to change. However, what Galitung calls structural violence (which has been defined by one unkind commentator as anything that Galltung doesn’t like) was originally defined as any unnecessarily low expectation of life, an that assumption that anybody who dies before the allotted span has been killed, however unintentionally and unknowingly, by somebody else. The concept has been expanded to include all the problems off poverty, destitution, deprivation, and misery. These are enormously real and are a very high priority for research and action, but they belong to systems which are only peripherally related to the structures which, produce violence. This is not to say that the cultures of violence and the cultures of poverty are not sometimes related, though not all poverty cultures are culture of violence, and certainly not all cultures of violence are poverty cultures. But the dynamics of poverty and the success or failure to rise out off ’it are of a complexity far beyond anything which the metaphor of structural violence can offer. While the metaphor of structural violence performed a ’service in calling attention to a problem, it may have done a disservice in preventing us from finding the answer. 2. The concept of structural violence shuts down democratic debate and justifies violent lash outs to combat inequality. . Maley 98 William Maley, Professor and Director of the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy at The Australian National University , Australian Journal of International Affairs 42, 1988 The deployment of a notion of positive peace has been a far from innocuous development in peace research. A comprehensive theory of needs, where needs are not defined simply as necessary means to an agreed end, can be the basis for a suppression of both democratic and liberal aspirations. Democracy and Liberty are both concerned with personal desires, the former in the sphere of the polity, and the latter in the sphere of the individual. Needs theory subjugates both the individual and the polity to the abstract ideology of the needs theorist. When Maxim Litvinov remarked in Geneva in the 1930s that peace is indivisible, he was referring to the negative sense of the term. 'Negative peace' is one of the few social values in whose name crimes can be committed only at the cost of self-contradiction. However, if 'negative peace' must be associated with 'positive peace' to give rise to peace in totality, then peace is no longer indivisible —since direct violence may be defended as a means of eliminating `structural violence'. This defence is a familiar one, resembling the classic liberal justification for rebellion, and even in certain circumstances intervention. Christian Bay has argued that structural violence `may be so extreme that a limited war must be deemed a lesser evil, if there is no other way to end or mitigate the structural violence, and if the war is sure to remain limited and brief in duration.'" This blithe assumption — that there could ever be circumstances in which one could be absolutely sure that a war would remain limited and brief in duration — is a splendid illustration of Bay's detachment from the real world. Nonetheless, the greatest danger in his claim stems from the extraordinary elasticity of the notion of structural violence. This is best brought out by the Danish peace researcher Lars Dencik, although using slightly different terminology. He defines conflicts as `incompatible interests', and goes on to remark that 'incompatible interests are here defined objectively, i.e. by the observing scientist according to his theory and is sic independent of the actual subjective consciousness of the actors involved. This means that incompatible interests are conceived of as structural (actor indepen-dent), the structure defined according to the theory of the scientist.'" He draws the predictable conclusion that 'in certain situations "revolutionary violence" may be the necessary means to obtain conflict resolution proper'." This is irresistibly reminiscent of the conclusion of Georges Sorel's Reflections on Violence, that it is `to violence that Socialism owes those high ethical values by means of which it brings salvation to the modern world'20, and it is instructive, though for peace educators perhaps not very comforting, to recall that Sorel's ideas eventually were used in justification of Italian Fascism." (p. 30)
Subpoint C: “Structural violence” is educationally destructive
Blurring the distinction between war and peace creates analytical confusion which prevents effective policy making. Quester 89 George H. Quester is chair of the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, ANNALS, AAPSS, 504, July 1989 A third major problem to be raised about some forms of peace research and peace studies, again related to what we have al- ready discussed, arises in the tendency to define peace as much more than an absence of the organized violence of warfare, to define it indeed as the elimination also of poverty and injustice and of prejudice and tyranny, and so on-namely, to define peace simply as a synonym for what is good, for what an economist would call utility. Sometimes we are thus told that an op- position to violence must include an oppo- sition to "structural violence,"7 with the latter phrase presumably meaning any or- ganizational or power relationships that vi- olate the moral standards of the beholder, or we are also told that we must be in favor of "positive peace," which will include all of these good things, accomplished some- how simultaneously, rather than being con- tent with a "negative peace," limited merely to an absence of warfare. Surely there is a great deal that is lost from all of these definitional innovations, but what is there to be gained? If someone assumed, as noted previously, that con- sciousnesses somehow have to be raised, then it may well seem important. as an educational and motivational vehicle, to insist that peace includes an end to poverty or racism. If one assumes that there can never be an avoidance of war unless one simultaneously has an avoidance of pov-erty or racism or other social evils, then this causal link will also suggest a definitional link. But, if there is indeed no such one-to- one link in causal relationships and if mo- tivation is not the entirety of the problem of war and peace, then we surely will have thrown away a great deal of clarity if we insist on calling everything bad "war" or "violence" and if we insist on referring to everything we favor as "peace." This would be a little like telling the American Cancer Society that every disease now has to be referred to as "cancer," including heart disease and cholera and meningitis. Can medicine make any progress at all if it is not allowed to use different words for different ailments? Is it really true that to use different words for war and dictator- ship and poverty is to weaken our motiva- tion or to accept the inevitability of some evils or actually to favor the existence of such evils? If one goes far enough in accepting the definitional innovations produced by some peace studies curricula, it becomes possi- ble then to define violent attacks as peace- ful, as long as they are intended to eliminate racism or injustice, because these attacks are to oppose "structural violence." At the worst, this kind of redefinition is deliberately misleading, as war and vio- lence are defined as being inappropriate for any cause except one's own. At a less du- plicitous level, we simply have some need- less confusion brought into the process, by some relatively honest and well-meaning people.
2.This destroys education- it makes all discussions two ships passing in the night William Maley, Professor and Director of the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy at The Australian National University , Australian Journal of International Affairs 42, 1988 This statement of assumptions is unsatisfactory not because of its programmatic content but because of its emptiness. Terms such as 'injustice' notoriously cry out for elucidation.23 The nature of justice has intrigued and perplexed political theorists since the time of Plato. Hardy, by contrast, seems to regard such terms as clear and uncontroversial, and while to someone of his ideological persuasion they may be, this is scarcely a solid basis upon which to structure a field of inquiry for others to explore. The ballooning of the notion of peace illustrates how by seeking 'richer' concepts, one may end up producing an impoverished discourse. A notion of peace as broad as Hardy's denies the analyst the opportunity to draw all sorts of distinctions which it might be important to make. This is something, incidentally, which Giovanni Sartori's discussion of the phenomenon of 'conceptual stretching' shows to be a ubiquitous problem in social theorising. The net result of conceptual stretching is that 'our gains in extensional coverage tend to be matched by losses in connotative precision.'24 Seemingly objective terms such as `need' are deployed in a fashion which is covertly ideological, and this, together with the ambiguity of terms such as 'injustice', is the very reason why the redefinition of 'peace' by radical peace researchers has been so disastrous in intellectual terms. (p. 31)
10/8/16
Sept-Oct-T-Generics
Tournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Marborough MC | Judge: Kris Kaya A. Interp: The aff must defend that all countries prohibit the production of nuclear power. To clarify, they can’t advocate that a certain country or subset of countries prohibit nuclear power.
Counterplans that prohibit nuclear power for all countries except for one country or a subset of countries are theoretically illegitimate.====
Generic nouns such as “countries” without an article are the most common type of generalization, used in all contexts of writing and speech. Byrd “Generic Meaning,” Georgia State University, Transcript of lecture given by Pat Byrd (Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL). Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad, two of the authors of the Longman Grammar, have written about what they call "seemingly synonymous words." They have shown how the adjectives big, great, and large are used differently in academic writing from in fiction. Their point is that when a language has forms that seem to be synonyms--the forms are likely to be used in different ways in different settings. One can't just be substituted for another without a change in meaning or a violation of style. A big toe isn't the same as a large toe. And I don't think I know what a great toe might be. Or, for another example, a political scientist would call Georgia a large state but not necessarily a great state. But a politician from Georgia is likely to talk about the great State of Georgia.¶ A similar process is at work with the use of these generic forms in context. We have a set of sentences that seem to have very much the same meaning. It is probable that the uses of these forms do not entirely overlap. However, we do not yet have a complete picture of how generic forms are used. But the use of computers for linguistic research is a new field, and we get more information all the time. ¶ Here are some things that we do know about these generic noun phrase types when they are used in context:¶ 1. The + singular: The computer has changed modern life. ¶ This form is considered more formal than the others--and is not as likely to be used in conversation as the plural noun: Computers have changed modern life. ¶ Master (1987) found in the sample that he analyzed that this form with the was often used to introduce at topic--and came at the beginning of a paragraph and in introductions and conclusions.¶ 2. Zero + plural: Computers are machines. Computers have changed modern life. ¶ Probably the most common form for a generalization. It can be used in all contexts--including both conversation (Basketball players make too much money) and academic writing (Organisms as diverse as humans and squid share many biological processes). ¶ Perhaps used more in the hard sciences and social sciences than in the humanities. ¶ 3. A + singular: A computer is a machine. ¶ This generic structure is used to refer to individual instances of a whole group and is used to classify whatever is being discussed.¶ The form is often used for definitions of terms. ¶ It is also often used to explain occupations. My sister is a newspaper reporter. I am a teacher. ¶ Use is limited to these "classifying" contexts. Notice that this form can't always be subtituted for the other: *Life has been changed by a computer. *A computer has changed modern life. ¶ 4. Zero + noncount: Life has been changed by the computer. ¶ The most basic meaning and use of noncount nouns is generic--they are fundamentally about a very abstract level of meaning. Thus, the most common use of noncount nouns is this use with no article for generic meaning. ¶ Zero Article and Generic Meaning¶ Most nouns without articles have generic meaning. Two types are involved.¶ 1. Zero + plural: Computers are machines. Computers have changed modern life.¶ 2. Zero + noncount: Life has been changed by the computer. Determining semantics comes before other standards: A. It’s the only stasis point we know before the round so it controls the internal link to engagement, and there’s no way to use ground if debaters aren’t prepared to defend it. B. Grammar is the most objective since it doesn’t rely on arbitrary determinants of what constitutes the best type of debate – it’s the only impact you can evaluate. C. The AFF isn’t topical regardless of fairness or education since it doesn’t affirm the text - we wouldn’t debate rehab again just because it was a good topic. Regardless of theory, you negate substantively because they fail their resolutional burden. B. Violation: They specify C. Standards:
Limits – they allow way too many affs. In addition to the 45 countries with plants or plants under-construction, there are over 45 additional countries considering nuclear power – some of which don’t even have government level consideration – exploding NEG prep burden and predictability which kills fairness and engagement. Procedurally, if I can’t access their education it doesn’t matter. T version of the AFF solves their offense – they can read advantages specific to any country which ensures NEG responses Even if there are some turns, that AFF is massively over prepared for them since it limits their prep burden. Generics don’t solve – agent CPs or state bad Ks aren’t persuasive vs a nuanced AFF.
D. Vote on substantive engagement: otherwise we’re speaking without debating and there’s nothing to separate us from dueling oratory. It also creates the most valuable long-term skills since we need to learn how to defend our beliefs in any context, like politics. Drop the debater on T:
A. Hold them accountable for their interp – a topical advocacy frames the debate - drop the arg lets them jump ship to a new layer killing NEG ground. B. Drop the arg on T is the same thing as drop the debater since T indicts their advocacy
Competing interps since reasonability invites arbitrary judge intervention based on preference rather than argumentation and encourages a race to the bottom in which debaters exploit a judge’s tolerance for questionable argumentation.==== No RVIs: A. They incentivize debaters to go all in in theory and bait it with abusive practices, killing substantive clash on other flows. B. They can run theory on me too if I’m unfair so 1) theory is reciprocal because we’re both able to check abuse and 2) also cures time skew because they can collapse in the 2ar to their shell.
