Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[6]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[6]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-14 17:26:32.713
	1	+2016-10-14 17:26:32.0

Caselist.CitesClass[4]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,50 @@
	1	+I value justice
	2	+
	3	+Ethics devolve to the individual perspective since people constantly gain new knowledge, making their perspective the most indicative of truth.
	4	+
	5	+Anker, (Michael Anker, PhD Dissertation “The Ethics of Uncertainty: Aporetic Openings”, Atropos Press, 2009. Pg 25)
	6	+
	7	+As mentioned and affirmed, all things (concepts, words, objects, subjects, etc.) are in a state of becoming. Gaining knowledge or insight into any of these particulars thus entails an unstable terrain. If some-thing is constantly in a state of also becoming some-thing other, there is no stable ground for absolute knowledge and judgment. Furthermore, and to complicate matters even more so, it is not only the object being considered that exists in a state of transformation, but also the “subject” doing the interpretation. What we have left is a thoroughly perspectival (Nietzsche) relation to viewing and interpreting what we see and know of this world. By affirming this, knowledge becomes not a ground or an end in itself, but the means for a continual perspectival shifting. Perspectivism, as a thoroughly ungrounded and continuously shifting mode of interpretation, furthermore affirms the uncertainty of an indeterminate subject, object, and conceptual becoming.
	8	+
	9	+And, disagreement plagues objectivist systems of justice since there’s no way to resolve differences, so evaluation devolves to the first person.
	10	+
	11	+McGrath, (Sarah McGrath, Moral Disagreement and Moral Expertise, http://www.princeton.edu/~smcgrath/moraldisagreement.pdf)
	12	+
	13	+In some ways, moral disagreement seems to parallel the diversity of opinion as color to which shade of green is unique green. Unique green is that shade of green that is neither bluish nor yellowish. When asked to select the a particular shade shade which is unique green, different subjects with normal color vision will select different shades. As in the case of our controversial moral views, opinion about which shade is unique green not only fails to be unanimous, but is substantially divided. Perhaps if there were relatively widespread agreement as to which shade is unique green, then the dissenting judgments of a few who possessed otherwise normal color vision could be dismissed. But the fact that the actual division of opinion is substantial suggests that human beings are not reliable detectors of the relevant property. That relevantly similar creatures—since creatures with the same type of visual system—arrive at different verdicts when similarly situated seems to show that that kind of creature is simply not well equipped to detect the presence or absence of the property in question. That human beings are not, as a species, reliable detectors of unique green seems to tell against crediting any individual with knowledge that a certain shade is unique green, particularly if the individual knows of this general lack of reliability and has no good reason to think that he is exceptional in this respect. Note that although questions about which shade of green is unique green are hard questions for human beings, such questions do not present themselves to us as difficult ones. In fact, most subjects are quite confident of their initial judgments; each person’s view strikes her as obviously correct. This seems parallel to the moral case: in the moral case too, many find that their own views about controversial moral questions strike them as obviously correct.
	14	+
	15	+In order to reconcile our subjective beliefs, we must look towards community desires. In a first person world, community is epistemologically most likely to be true and key to identity construction.
	16	+
	17	+Christiano, (Thomas Christiano. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Jul 27, 2006. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/#NonInsVal Democracy)
	18	+
	19	+Two kinds of in instrumental benefits are commonly attributed to democracy: relatively good laws and policies and improvements in the characters of the participants. John Stuart Mill argued that a democratic method of making legislation is better than non-democratic methods in three ways: strategically, epistemically and via the improvement of the characters of democratic citizens (Mill, 1861, Chapter 3). Strategically, democracy has an advantage because it forces decision-makers to take into account the interests, rights and opinions of most people in society. Since democracy gives some political power to each more people are taken into account than under aristocracy or monarchy. The most forceful contemporary statement of this instrumental argument is provided by Amartya Sen, who argues, for example, that “no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press” (Sen 1999, 152). The basis of this argument is that politicians in a multiparty democracy with free elections and a free press have incentives to respond to the expressions of needs of the poor. Epistemologically, democracy is thought to be the best decision-making method on the grounds that it is generally more reliable in helping participants discover the right decisions. Since democracy brings a lot of people into the process of decision making, it can take advantage of many sources of information and critical assessment of laws and policies. Democratic decision-making tends to be more informed than other forms about the interests of citizens and the causal mechanisms necessary to advance those interests. Furthermore, the broad based discussion typical of democracy enhances the critical assessment of the different moral ideas that guide decision-makers. Many have endorsed democracy on the basis of the proposition that democracy has beneficial effects on character. Many have noted with Mill and Rousseau that democracy tends to make people stand up for themselves more than other forms of rule do because it makes collective decisions depend on them more than monarchy or aristocracy do. Hence, in democratic societies individuals are encouraged to be more autonomous. In addition, democracy tends to get people to think carefully and rationally more than other forms of rule because it makes a difference whether they do or not. Finally, some have argued that democracy tends to enhance the moral qualities of citizens. In Addition When they participate in making decisions, they have to listen to others, they are called upon to justify themselves to others and they are forced to think in part in terms of the interests of others. Some have argued that when people find themselves in this kind of circumstance, they come genuinely to think in terms of the common good and justice. Hence, some have argued that democratic processes tend to enhance the autonomy, rationality and morality of participants. Since these beneficial effects are thought to be worthwhile in themselves, they count in favor of democracy and against other forms of rule (Mill 1861, p. 74, Elster 2002, p. 152).Some argue in addition that the above effects on character tend to enhance the quality of legislation as well. A society of autonomous, rational, and moral decision-makers Democracy is more likely to produce good legislation than a society ruled by a self-centered person or small group of persons who rule over slavish and unreflective subjects.
	20	+
	21	+
	22	+
	23	+We should frame the debate in terms of US society because
	24	+We all have epistemic boundaries that force us to understand the topic locally
	25	+ The US has yet to ban nuclear power, making it one of the best hypothetical scenarios to discuss
	26	+The US offers a wide demographic in perspectives, allowing for accuracy in polls.
	27	+As the United States grows more diverse, the Census Bureau reported, it is becoming a “plurality nation”. “The next half century marks key points in continuing trends — the U.S. will become a plurality nation, where the non-Hispanic white population remains the largest single group, but no group is in the majority,” the bureau’s acting director, Thomas L. Mesenbourg, said in a statement. The new projections — the first set based on the 2010 Census — paint a picture of a nation whose post-recession population is growing more slowly than anticipated, where the elderly are expected to make up a growing share of the populace, and that is rapidly becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. All of these trends promise to shape the nation’s politics, economics and culture in the decades to come.
	28	+And 4. this isn’t a theoretical issue, I will accept impacts unrelated to the US under the standard.
	29	+
	30	+
	31	+The US is a federal republic defined as “a state in which power rests with the people or their representatives” (CIA.gov), so the US definitionally ought to do what its people will, making it justified. This means not only that democracy is the only way to say what the US should do in terms of justice, but also that any other ethical system would change the agent we are talking about, and is thus incoherent, so textually it precedes other justifications.
	32	+
	33	+Thus, the standard is consistency with communal norms, defined as looking towards what the majority of Americans view on an issue.
	34	+
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+
	38	+Next is offense:
	39	+
	40	+Americans oppose nuclear energy- by a wide margin
	41	+Riffkin March 2-6, 2016 For First Time, Majority in U.S. Oppose Nuclear Energy by Rebecca Riffkin
	42	+STORY HIGHLIGHTS 54 of Americans oppose nuclear energy, 44 in favor First time in Gallup's trend that majority oppose nuclear energy Both major parties less likely to favor nuclear energy than in 2015 WASHINGTON, D.C. ~-~- For the first time since Gallup first asked the question in 1994, a majority of Americans say they oppose nuclear energy. The 54 opposing it is up significantly from 43 a year ago, while the 44 who favor using nuclear energy is down from 51.
	43	+Gallup asks Americans as part of its annual Environment poll if they favor or oppose the use of nuclear energy as one way to provide electricity. Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted March 2-6, 2016, with a random sample of 1,019 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points at the 95 confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.
	44	+Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 60 cellphone respondents and 40 landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.
	45	+Prefer my evidence because
	46	+Counter studies are biased; the gallup conducted this poll in 2016 with the aim of understanding the public’s opinion. A private polling institution doesn’t have an agenda to endorse through a descriptive poll- they profit from being unbiased.
	47	+My evidence is the most recent poll on the subject
	48	+
	49	+
	50	+Because the American public supports the plan, you affirm.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-14 17:26:35.702

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+North Crowley Reed Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Polls AC

Tournament

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