Summary

• Objects (2 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[5]
  • Caselist.RoundClass[6]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[5]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[5]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-08 20:12:46.973
	1	+2016-10-08 20:12:46.0

Caselist.RoundClass[6]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-08 20:15:01.157
	1	+2016-10-08 20:15:01.0

Caselist.CitesClass[5]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,18 @@
	1	+Liberty is a constitutive feature of morality. Ethical systems that do not maintain liberty as their starting point fail because they make impossible the concept of moral culpability.
	2	+Uleman 10 (Jennifer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Purchase College) “An Introduction to Kant’s Moral Philosophy”, Cambridge University Press, 1/21/2010 DD
	3	+We can summarize these thoughts by noticing how they fit with Kant’s helpful distinction between Willkür – the capacity to choose – and Wille – the faculty of practical reason as a whole. Both, as the words themselves suggest, are part of will.24 And both contribute distinctive elements or components to human freedom. The first, Willkür, is the capacity for free choice itself, the capacity to choose ‘at will’ between alternatives – alter- native ends, alternative courses of action, alternative guiding principles of action. For Kant, Willkür is metaphysically necessary for morality since without it praise and blame and responsibility-holding would not make sense: to be held responsible, to be considered the author of an action, an agent must be the ultimate source of her choices. Wille, the second term, is the capacity to formulate ends, and to for- mulate action-guiding principles aimed at serving those ends. Thus does Kant call Wille ‘practical reason itself’:25 Wille conceptualizes and formulates in ways that actually guide practice, or intentional action. For Kant, ends and action-guiding principles formulated by Wille insofar as it seeks grounds within itself and not in external sources, that is, ends and action- guiding principles formulated by pure practical reason, count, not surprisingly, as ends and action-guiding principles that are deeply mine. Such ends and principles are grounded in interests internal, for Kant, to my deepest self, my free rational self. And by choosing to act in accordance with such purely rational ends and principles, I choose action that is given aim and shape by this self. Of course, once I choose a course of action, I am determined – I am no longer exercising a capacity to go this way or that – but if I have chosen to act toward ends and on principles that are truly my own, I am still free in the crucial sense that I am self-determined. These two components of Kantian freedom – a capacity for choice (Willkür) and a capacity to furnish ends and principles that are my own (Wille) – are not reducible to each other, but are both essential components of will, as Kant understands it. Together, they make Kantian sense of the possibility of a free will.
	4	+
	5	+All humans are entitled to their own conception of the good life. Respect for the equality of persons commits us to a system of negative rights wherein it is impossible to impose one’s will coercively upon another.
	6	+Fried 05 –gender modified (Charles, Beneficial Professor of Law @ Harvard University) “The Nature and Importance of Liberty”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2005 DD
	7	+I would say that what is important about us, what makes us moral human beings, is our individual capacities to think, reason, choose, and value. It is what Kant called our freedom and rationality.2 Individuals, therefore, are the elementary particles of moral discourse. Our value is our taking individual responsibility for our lives, and our choices. And if a person is to count as a person—and here we have the difficult questions about the beginning and the end of life—then we are all equally valuable in this same way. It is from that base of our equal responsibility for ourselves that we choose our goods: that we choose what to make of the only life we will ever have. My liberty, then, is my ability to choose that life. No one has the right to interfere with that choice, except as it is to further his own good. But that good of the other is worth no more than mine because she is not worth any more than I am. There is, therefore, a right of mutual noninterference: an equal right. By the same token, nobody can interfere with or draft another person to help her achieve her own good if the other person has not chosen voluntarily to enlist in that campaign.
	8	+Thus the standard is respect for the right to non-interference.
	9	+
	10	+I contend that prohibiting the production of nuclear energy is inconsistent with the right to non-interference.
	11	+
	12	+The aff prevents individuals from generating nuclear reactors.
	13	+Danzico 10. “Extreme DIY: Building a homemade nuclear reactor in NYC.” BBC News. head of the BBC Video Innovation Lab
	14	+Mr Suppes, 32, is part of a growing community of "fusioneers" - amateur science junkies who are building homemade fusion reactors, for fun and with an eye to being part of the solution to that problem. He is the 38th independent amateur physicists in the world to have achieve nuclear fusion from a homemade reactor, according to community site Fusor.net. Others on the list include a 15-year-old from Michigan and a doctoral student in Ohio. "I was inspired because I believed I was looking at a technology that could actually work to solve our energy problems, and I believed it was something that I could at least begin to build," Mr Suppes told the BBC. While they might un-nerve the neighbours, fusion reactors of this kind are perfectly legal in the US. "As long as they obtain that material legally, they could do whatever they want," says Anne Stark, senior public information officer for California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
	15	+
	16	+The aff violates the right of companies to freely produce nuclear reactors
	17	+Piquepaille 08. “A micro nuclear reactor in your garden?” ZD Net. Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends, and a former software engineer at Silicon Graphics and Cray Research.
	18	+Imagine a nuclear reactor small enough to be carried by truck and buried in a garden... According to The Guardian, a U.S. company based in New Mexico, Hyperion Power Generation, has designed mini nuclear plants to power 20,000 homes. The company has already received firm orders and expects to deliver about 4,000 'individual' plants between 2013 and 2023. It also said that it has a six-year waiting list. So if you want such a micro nuclear reactor, don't expect to receive it by 2014. But read more... The HPM will have multiple applications. (Credit: Hyperion Power Generation) Some of them include industrial ones, such as oil shale and sands drilling and processing or powering U.S. Military facilities. But "the one that would offer the most basic and direct positive impact on populations in need, is that of providing a power source to remote communities, both for electricity and to pump and process water." You'll find a larger version of the above illustration by clicking on the "Community" tab from the applications link mentioned earlier. John Deal, the Hyperion CEO, says that such micro nuclear reactors should cost about $25 million each.more In the U.S., where people spent more energy than in other parts of the world, such a reactor should be able to deliver power to only 10,000 households, for a cost of $2,500 per home. But in developing nations, one HPM could provide enough power for 60,000 homes or more, for a cost of less than $400. This is quite reasonable if you agree with Hyperion, which states that the energy from its HPMs will cost about 10 cents/watt. On its home page, Hyperion gives additional details about these reactors and their safety. "Small enough to be transported on a ship, truck or train, Hyperion power modules are about the size of a "hot tub" — approximately 1.5 meters wide. Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail. Like a power battery, Hyperion modules have no moving parts to wear down, and are delivered factory sealed. They are never opened on site. Even if one were compromised, the material inside would not be appropriate for proliferation purposes. Further, due to the unique, yet proven science upon which this new technology is based, it is impossible for the module to go supercritical, 'melt down' or create any type of emergency situation. If opened, the very small amount of fuel that is enclosed would immediately cool. The waste produced after five years of operation is approximately the size of a softball and is a good candidate for fuel recycling." In "Truck-delivered Micro-Nuclear Reactor for Clean Energy Within Five Years," Edwin Black agrees. "Unlike giant nuclear reactors requiring ten years to construct under daunting conditions, these concrete 'nuclear batteries' have no moving parts, no potential to go supercritical or meltdown, and reportedly cannot be easily tampered with. The extremely small amount of hot nuclear fuel—too hot to handle~-~-would immediately cool if exposed to air, technical sources assert. Moreover, it would take prodigious resources wielded by a government infrastructure to attempt to enhance the weak radioactive core into a weapons-grade component. The fact is the radioactive fuel is so weak it will have to be replaced within seven to ten years. The nuclear waste after five years of spent fuel is so negligible it will reportedly produce a mass no bigger than a softball, and that will be easily recycled, according to atomic energy sources." (The Cutting Edge News, November 10, 2008)

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-08 20:15:02.689

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Jackson Lallas

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+North Hollywood JS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+6

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Immaculate Heart Dosch Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Libertarianism NC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Voices Invitational