Changes for page Polytechnic Liu Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:39

From version < 34.1 >
edited by jonathan liu
on 2017/01/14 22:38
To version < 52.1 >
edited by jonathan liu
on 2017/01/16 08:29
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[0]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,61 +1,0 @@
1 -In 1939 the power of nuclear energy was discovered – the military industrial complex prioritized its own interests and forced the scientific community to focus its research on Uranium – in doing so it marginalized research into thorium energy.
2 -Puplava, 11 President, Chief Investment Strategist at PFS Group,” Kirk Sorensen States Thorium a Million Times More Energy Dense than Fossil Fuels“ http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/james-j-puplava/kirk-sorensen-thorium-a-million-times-more-energy-dense-than-fossil-fuels
3 -
4 -Thus the counterplan: Countries should invest in generation 4 liquid fluoride thorium reactors.
5 -Warming causes Extinction
6 -Brandenberg 99 (John and Monica Paxson, Visiting Prof. Researcher @ Florida Space Institute, Physicist Ph.D., Science Writer, Dead Mars Dying Earth, Pg 232-233)
7 -
8 -
9 -Geologic history goes negative.
10 -Bushnell 10 - Chief scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center Dennis Bushnell (MS in mechanical engineering. He won the Lawrence A. Sperry Award, AIAA Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Award, the AIAA Dryden Lectureship, and is the recipient of many NASA Medals for outstanding Scientific Achievement and Leadership.) “Conquering Climate Change,” The Futurist, May-June, 2010
11 -
12 -Thorium reactors are sustainable
13 -Barton, ‘9 Charles, retired counselor, writes for Energy From Thorium, “The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Paradigm,” http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4971/
14 -
15 -And, simply eliminating nuclear power doesn’t solve – only thorium reactors eliminate current toxic waste storages.
16 -Rhodes, 12 February, Professor Chris Rhodes is a writer and researcher. He studied chemistry at Sussex University, earning both a B.Sc and a Doctoral degree (D.Phil.); rising to become the youngest professor of physical chemistry in the U.K. at the age of 34. A prolific author, Chris has published more than 400 research and popular science articles (some in national newspapers: The Independent and The Daily Telegraph) He has recently published his first novel, "University Shambles" was published in April 2009 (Melrose Books), “Hopes Build for Thorium Nuclear Energy”, http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Hopes-Build-for-Thorium-Nuclear-Energy.html
17 -Reprocessing would solve for 100 percent of the waste.
18 -Bastin 8 (Clinton, Former Chemical Engineer at the Atomic Energy Commission, 21st Century Science and Technology, “We Need to Reprocess Spent Nuclear Fuel, And Can Do It Safely, At Reasonable Cost”, 2008, http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles202008/ Summer_2008/Reprocessing.pdf,)
19 -
20 -Thorium fuel reactors can be expanded and easily mass produced.
21 -Hargraves, 12 July, Robert, Robert Hargraves has written articles and made presentations about the liquid fluoride thorium reactor and energy cheaper than from coal – the only realistic way to dissuade nations from burning fossil fuels. His presentation “Aim High” about the technology and social benefits of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor has been presented to audiences at Dartmouth ILEAD, Thayer School of Engineering, Brown University, Columbia Earth Institute, Williams College, Royal Institution, the Thorium Energy Alliance, the International Thorium Energy Association, Google, the American Nuclear Society, and the Presidents Blue Ribbon Commission of America’s Nuclear Future. With coauthor Ralph Moir he has written articles for the American Physical Society Forum on Physics and Society: Liquid Fuel Nuclear Reactors (Jan 2011) and American Scientist: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (July 2010). Robert Hargraves is a study leader for energy policy at Dartmouth ILEAD. He was chief information officer at Boston Scientific Corporation and previously a senior consultant with Arthur D. Little. He founded a computer software firm, DTSS Incorporated while at Dartmouth College where he was assistant professor of mathematics and associate director of the computation center. He graduated from Brown University (PhD Physics 1967) and Dartmouth College (AB Mathematics and Physics 1961). THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal, ISBN: 1478161299, purchased online at Amazon.com
22 -
23 -
24 -Renewables are not a viable option, investors are not interested.
25 -Jacobius, Staff Writer, 2012
26 -Arleen, “Clean-tech investing littered with mines”, Pensions and Investments,
27 -http://www.pionline.com/article/20120917/PRINTSUB/309179992/clean-tech-investing-littered-with-mines
28 -Generation 4 liquid based thorium reactors offer significant advantages over all alternative options.
29 -Cohen 12 (Armond, Co-founder and Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force, Actively involved in CATF projects focusing on Arctic stabilization, low carbon technology innovation and coal transition, Armond led the Conservation Law Foundation's Energy Project starting in 1983, Graduate of Brown University and Harvard Law School, Served as judicial clerk for the late Harlington Wood, Jr. of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 1982-1983, Published numerous articles on climate, energy, and air pollution, and speaks and testifies frequently on these topics, Member of the Keystone Energy Board and US EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, Decarbonization: The Nuclear Option, February 13th, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/02/is-america-poised-for-nuclear.php)
30 -
31 -
32 -It’s try or die, SMRs are the only solution that addresses the cataclysmic impacts of warming before it’s too late.
33 -Palley 11 (Reese Palley, The London School of Economics, 2011, The Answer: Why Only Inherently Safe, Mini Nuclear Power Plans Can Save Our World, p. 186-90)
34 -
35 -
36 -Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Nuclear is the best choice among imperfect options.
37 -Lynas 11 (Mark, Visiting Research Associate at Oxford University’s School of Geography and the Environment, Appointed advisor on climate change to the President of the Maldives, Longlisted for the Samuel Johnson Award for Non-Fiction, and short-listed for the Guardian First Book Award, Author of The God Species: How the Planet Can Survive the Age of Humans, Why nuclear power is still a good choice, http://articles.latimes.com/print/2011/apr/10/opinion/la-oe-lynas-nukes-20110410)
38 -
39 -Fossil Fuel usage is one of the largest proximate causes of daily death in the world, nuclear is the safest option.
40 -Mike Conley, 4/17/2015 Writer and Physicist, head of the energy reality project, The Energy Reality Project, http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
41 -Nuclear energy is the cheapest method to power the country. Renewables can’t scale up
42 -Mike Conley, 4/17/2015 Writer and Physicist, head of the energy reality project, The Energy Reality Project, http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
43 -
44 -
45 -A shift to renewables is fundamentally impossible – they will always produce intermittent power while what we need is baseload power.
46 -Mike Conley, 4/17/2015 Writer and Physicist, head of the energy reality project, The Energy Reality Project, http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
47 -
48 -
49 -
50 -Generation 4 small modular reactors are better and safer.
51 -Mike Conley, 4/17/2015 Writer and Physicist, head of the energy reality project, The Energy Reality Project, http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
52 -
53 -
54 -Nuclear power k2 stable desalinization, only solution for water shortages
55 -IAEA 15 ~-~- widely known as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. Set up in 1957 as the world's centre for cooperation in the nuclear field, the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination Using Nuclear Energy,” IEAE TecDoc Series, 2015
56 -Warming is real, anthropogenic
57 -Nuccitelli 11 (Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010., Updated 2011, Originally Posted 9/24/2010, “The Big Picture”, http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html)
58 -
59 -
60 -Reducing CO2 is key before we pass the tipping point.
61 -Hansen et al 10 – Director of NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies Dr. James Hansen, Dr. Makiko Sato (Physicist @ NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Dr. Pushker Kharecha (Researcher of earch sciences and astrobiology @ NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies), Dr. David Beerling (Professor of Animal and Plant Sciences @ University of Sheffield), Dr. Robert Berner (Professor Geology and Geophysics @ Yale University), Valerie Masson-Delmotte (Lab. Des Sciences du Climat et l’Environnement/Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, CEA-CNRS-Universite de Versailles Saint-Quentin en Yvelines), Dr. Mark Pagani (Professor of paleoceanography and paleoclimatology @ Yale University), Dr. Maureen Raymo (Paleoclimatologist/marine geologist @ Boston University), Dr. Dana L. Royer (Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences @ Wesleyan University) and Dr. James C. Zachos ( Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences @ University of California – Santa Cruzo) “Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?” Open Atmos. Sci. J. (2008), vol. 2, pp. 217-231
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-09-10 18:48:10.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Felix Tan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Peninsula IG
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -thorium cp
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -loyola
Caselist.CitesClass[1]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@
1 -T
2 -Interpretation:
3 -The aff must defend more than one country prohibits the production of nuclear power Google n.d. “country” accessed 8/10/16
4 -google.com/search?num=40andsafe=offandespv=2andq=countries+definitionandoq=countries+definiti on plural noun: countries 1. a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
5 -Violation – aff defends one country
6 -Standard: limits,
7 -Grammar – only my interp is grammatical since it respects the plural form of the word country. Most predictable on common usage too – no one would look at your plan and think it proves countries ought to prohibit. Grammar is a constraint, it tells us what the res actually says.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-09-11 00:56:45.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Michael Harris
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Immaculate Heart
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -t-countries plural
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -loyolla
Caselist.CitesClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,10 +1,0 @@
1 -Interpretation:  Countries
2 -Websters, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/countries
3 -a political state or nation or its territory
4 -
5 -Violation
6 -the aff doesn't defend the entirety of the resolution
7 -
8 -
9 -The Affirmative interpretation is bad for debate
10 -T and Extra-T voters because they're necessary for good, well-prepared debating
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-09-11 00:56:45.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Michael Harris
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Immaculate Heart
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -t-countries
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -loyolla
Caselist.CitesClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@
1 -Intrerpretation: Prohibit
2 -Dictionary.com, 8-5-2013, "the definition of prohibit," Dictionary, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/prohibit
3 -to forbid (an action, activity, etc.) by authority or law:
4 -
5 -Violation: decommissioning is distinct from prohibition.
6 -Dictionary.com, 5-15-2009, "the definition of decommission," http://www.dictionary.com/browse/decommission
7 -to remove or retire (a ship, airplane, etc.) from active service.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-09-11 15:53:21.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -arjun tambe
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -lynbrook
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -t-decomission
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -loyolla
Caselist.CitesClass[4]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@
1 -Banning nuclear power causes a shift to coal, empirics prove
2 -Korosec 11
3 -KIRSTEN KOROSEC, Fortune journalism, “Germany's Nuclear Ban: The Global Effect” Money Watch, May 31, 2011, 4:28 PMhttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/germanys-nuclear-ban-the-global-effect/ 
4 -
5 -
6 -Coal Kills 4,000 times more people than nuclear power
7 -Roos 11 Jerome; The Breakthrough Institute (researcher); 4/11/11; "Coal Kills 4,000 Times More People Per Unit of Energy than Nuclear"; http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/coal_kills_4000_times_more_peo; JLB (9/11/16)
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-08 21:25:26.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -paras kumar
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -quarry lane
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Coal DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -voices
Caselist.CitesClass[5]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,8 +1,0 @@
1 -Nuclear power is the only way to generate sufficient energy for large-scale desalination
2 -IAEA 15 ~-~- widely known as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. Set up in 1957 as the world's centre for cooperation in the nuclear field, the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination Using Nuclear Energy,” IEAE TecDoc Series, 2015
3 -
4 -Water crises cause escalating global conflict.
5 -Rasmussen 11 (Erik, CEO, Monday Morning; Founder, Green Growth Leaders) “Prepare for the Next Conflict: Water Wars” HuffPo 4/12
6 -
7 -That goes nuclear
8 -Zahoor 12 (Musharaf, Researcher at Department of Nuclear Politics – National Defense University, Water Crisis can Trigger Nuclear War in South Asia, http://www.siasat.pk)
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-08 21:25:27.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -paras kumar
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -quarry lane
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Desal DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -voices
Caselist.CitesClass[7]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,5 +1,0 @@
1 -Prohibiting nuclear power means warming can’t be solved – impracticality of renewables combined with a switch to coal only makes warming worse. Harvey ‘12
2 -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
3 -
4 -Climate change disproportionately affects people of color. Pellow 12
5 -David Naguib Pellow 12, Ph.D. Professor, Don Martindale Endowed Chair – University of Minnesota, “Climate Disruption in the Global South and in African American Communities: Key Issues, Frameworks, and Possibilities for Climate Justice,” February 2012, http://www.jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/upload/research/files/White_Paper_Climate_Disruption_final.pdf
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-08 21:25:28.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -paras kumar
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -quarry lane
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -warming DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -voices
Caselist.RoundClass[5]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -4,5,6,7
1 +4,6,7
Caselist.RoundClass[10]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +14
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2017-01-14 22:38:08.446
1 +2017-01-14 22:38:08.0
Caselist.CitesClass[14]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,26 @@
1 +Interpretation: Bare plurals-The phrase public colleges and universities in the resolution is a generic bare plural.
2 +Nebel 14, Jake, AB in philosophy at Princeton and the BPhil at Oxford, NYU,20 14, http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/
3 +I believe that debaters shouldn’t specify a government on the living wage topic. The standard argument for this is simple: “just governments” is a plural noun phrase, so it refers to more than one just government. Most debaters will stop there. But there is much more to say. (Some seem not to care about the plural construction. I plan to address this view in a later article about the parametric conception of topicality.) Some noun phrases include articles like “the,” demonstratives like “these,” possessives like “my,” or quantifiers like “some” or “all.” These words are called determiners. Bare plurals, including “just governments,” lack determiners. There’s no article, demonstrative, possessive, or quantifier in front of the noun to tell you how many or which governments are being discussed. We use bare plurals for two main purposes. Consider some examples: Debaters are here. Debaters are smart. In (1), “debaters” seems equivalent to “some debaters.” It is true just in case there is more than one debater around. If I enter a restaurant and utter (1), I speak truly if there are a couple of debaters at a table. This is an existential use of the bare plural, because it just says that there exist things of the relevant class (debaters) that meet the relevant description (being here). In (2), though, “debaters” seems to refer to debaters in general. This use of the bare plural is generic. Some say that generics refer to kinds of things, rather than particular members of their kinds, or that they refer to typical cases. There is a large literature on understanding generics. Here my aim is not to figure out the truth conditions for the generic reading of the resolution; I shall simply work with our pre-theoretical grip on the contrast between sentences like (1) and (2). This distinction bears importantly on the resolution. If “just governments” is a generic bare plural, then the debate is about whether just governments in general ought to require that employers pay a living wage. If it is an existential bare plural, then the debate is about whether some just governments—i.e., more than one—ought to require that employers pay a living wage. Only the second interpretation allows one to affirm by specifying a few governments.
4 +‘In’ means throughout
5 +
6 +Words and Phrases, 1959
7 +(p. 546 (PDNS3566))
8 +
9 +In the Act of 1861 providing that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction “in” their respective counties to hear and determine all complaints, the word “in” should be construed to mean “throughout” such counties. Reynolds v. Larkin, 14, p. 114, 117, 10 Colo. 126.
10 +
11 +Second, The United States includes all the territories and land over which it has jurisdiction
12 +
13 +Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 5
14 +(Dictionary of Military, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/United+States, 2005)
15 +
16 +Includes the land area, internal waters, territorial sea, and airspace of the United States, including the following: a. US territories, possessions, and commonwealths; and b. Other areas over which the US Government has complete jurisdiction and control or has exclusive authority or defense responsibility.
17 +
18 +Standard: Limits
19 +Multiple impacts to loss of limits
20 +1. Competitive equity. There’s no way for the neg to prepare against the thousands of universities that exist which means that the aff will always win the case debate. Gives a significant research advantage to the aff because they have had weeks to prep for their specific case whereas the neg only has a few minutes of pre round prep.
21 +2. Absolutism. The aff explodes research burdens forcing neg debaters to resort to either extreme K’s or disads that don’t really link which is terrible for our education because it teaches us to look solely into nihilistic and extremist literature as opposed to generating clash about the affirmative. . Also creates a substantive side bias because the aff will have an easier time beating generic arguments.
22 +3. Grammar. The affirmative does not affirm the resolution as it is which means you can probably vote negative on presumption.
23 +4. Topic education. the affirmative model of debate is bad because it results in dogmatism as the negative can’t make objections to the case debate itself which results in a lack of truth testing which is the key educational impact of debate.
24 +Prefer competing interpretations over reasonability. Reasonability leads to a race to the bottom, justifies judge intervention, and produces hella arbitrary brightlines.
25 +Competing interps coopts reasonability because reasonability begs the question of how we determine what is reasonable which is through the competing interps debate. If I win that the interpretation creates a better model of debate, then theirs should be considered unreasonable.
26 +Default to potential abuse, it’s not a question of what the aff does, but rather what the aff’s model of debate justifies.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-14 22:38:10.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +john scoggin
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +lynbrook hh
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +10
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +3
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +T-bare plurals
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +harvard westlake
Caselist.CitesClass[15]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,35 @@
1 +Policies of restraint towards competing powers is zero sum.
2 +Machiavelli, Renaissance man (historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist, and writer), 1532
3 +Niccolò, The Prince, Chapter III: Concerning Mixed Principalities, GW ***We do not endorsed gendered language***
4 +Again, the prince who holds a country differing in the above respects ought to make himself the head and defender of his powerful neighbours, and to weaken the more powerful amongst them, taking care that no foreigner as powerful as himself shall, by any accident, get a footing there; for it will always happen that such a one will be introduced by those who are discontented, either through excess of ambition or through fear, as one has seen already. The Romans were brought into Greece by the Aetolians; and in every other country where they obtained a footing they were brought in by the inhabitants. And the usual course of affairs is that, as soon as a powerful foreigner enters a country, all the subject states are drawn to him, moved by the hatred which they feel against the ruling power. So that in respect to these subject states he has not to take any trouble to gain them over to himself, for the whole of them quickly rally to the state which he has acquired there. He has only to take care that they do not get hold of too much power and too much authority, and then with his own forces, and with their goodwill, he can easily keep down the more powerful of them, so as to remain entirely master in the country. And he who does not properly manage this business will soon lose what he has acquired, and whilst he does hold it he will have endless difficulties and troubles. The Romans, in the countries which they annexed, observed closely these measures; they sent colonies and maintained friendly relations with the minor powers, without increasing their strength; they kept down the greater, and did not allow any strong foreign powers to gain authority. Greece appears to me sufficient for an example. The Achaeans and Aetolians were kept friendly by them, the kingdom of Macedonia was humbled, Antiochus was driven out; yet the merits of the Achaeans and Aetolians never secured for them permission to increase their power, nor did the persuasions of Philip ever induce the Romans to be his friends without first humbling him, nor did the influence of Antiochus make them agree that he should retain any lordship over the country. Because the Romans did in these instances what all prudent princes ought to do, who have to regard not only present troubles, but also future ones, for which they must prepare with every energy, because, when foreseen, it is easy to remedy them; but if you wait until they approach, the medicine is no longer in time because the malady has become incurable; for it happens in this, as the physicians say it happens in hectic fever, that in the beginning of the malady it is easy to cure but difficult to detect, but in the course of time, not having been either detected or treated in the beginning, it becomes easy to detect but difficult to cure. Thus it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils that arise have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they can be quickly redressed, but when, through not having been foreseen, they have been permitted to grow in a way that every one can see them. there is no longer a remedy. Therefore, the Romans, foreseeing troubles, dealt with them at once, and, even to avoid a war, would not let them come to a head, for they knew that war is not to be avoided, but is only put off to the advantage of others; moreover they wished to fight with Philip and Antiochus in Greece so as not to have to do it in Italy; they could have avoided both, but this they did not wish; nor did that ever please them which is for ever in the mouths of the wise ones of our time:— Let us enjoy the benefits of the time — but rather the benefits of their own valour and prudence, for time drives everything before it, and is able to bring with it good as well as evil, and evil as well as good.
5 +
6 +cp:The United States federal government should develop and deploy Prompt Global Strike systems
7 +
8 +The PGS system’s speed increases rapid deployment capabilities and trades off with nukes. It’s going to be fantastic for heg and fighting terror
9 +Grossman 6 (Elaine, reporter with Global Security Newswire, July 1, http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090701_5635.php AD: 6/28/10)JM
10 +Under the conventional
11 +postures to work."
12 +
13 +US leadership prevents great power war and existential governance crises
14 +Brooks et al 13 (Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth ’13) (Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College “Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment,” International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51)
15 +
16 +A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences, however, undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts that the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and security dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers, but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure security ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition, one would see overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional proxy wars and arming of client states—all of which would be concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades, as states such as Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more proliferation. Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate over the stability of proliferation changes as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences. In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of “unforeseen crisis dynamics” that could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that China’s rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, “The United States will have to play a key role in countering China, because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves.” 81 Therefore, unless China’s rise stalls, “the United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing. 83 In sum, the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of scholarship, including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difficult. Bringing together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which the case for retrenchment misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, the United States lowers security competition in the world’s key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties dissuade partners from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the United States’ formidable military machine may deter entry by potential rivals. Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the “focused enmity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S. military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85
17 +Heg solves terrorism
18 +Walt, international affairs professor at Harvard, 2002
19 +(Stephen, “American primacy: its prospects and pitfalls - prominence of United States in economic, international affairs”, Naval War College Review, Spring, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JIW/is_2_55/ai_88174226/pg_2/, ldg)
20 +
21 +Perhaps the most obvious reason why states seek primacy~-~-and why the United States benefits from its current position~-~-is that international politics is a dangerous business. Being wealthier and stronger than other states does not guarantee that a state will survive, of course, and it cannot insulate a state from all outside pressures. But the strongest state is more likely to escape serious harm than weaker ones are, and it will be better equipped to resist the pressures that arise. Because the United States is so powerful, and because its society is so wealthy, it has ample resources to devote to whatever problems it may face in the future. At the beginning of the Cold War, for example, its power enabled the United States to help rebuild Europe and Japan, to assist them in developing stable democratic orders, and to subsidize the emergence of an open international economic order. (7) The United States was also able to deploy powerful armed forces in Europe and Asia as effective deterrents to Soviet expansion. When the strategic importance of the Persian Gulf increased in the late 1970s, the United States created its Rapid Deployment Force in order to deter threats to the West's oil supplies; in 1990-91 it used these capabilities to liberate Kuwait. Also, when the United States was attacked by the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in September 2001, it had the wherewithal to oust the network's Taliban hosts and to compel broad international support for its campaign to eradicate Al-Qaeda itself. It would have been much harder to do any of these things if the United States had been weaker. Today, U.S. primacy helps deter potential challenges to American interests in virtually every part of the world. Few countries or nonstate groups want to invite the "focused enmity" of the United States (to use William Wohlforth's apt phrase), and countries and groups that have done so (such as Libya, Iraq, Serbia, or the Taliban) have paid a considerable price. As discussed below, U.S. dominance does provoke opposition in a number of places, but anti-American elements are forced to rely on covert or indirect strategies (such as terrorist bombings) that do not seriously threaten America's dominant position. Were American power to decline significantly, however, groups opposed to U.S. interests would probably be emboldened and overt challenges would be more likely.
22 +
23 +
24 +Hegemony decline causes prolif.
25 +Rosen, professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard University, 2003
26 +(Stephen, “An Empire, If you Can Keep It”, National Interest, Spring, lexis, ldg)
27 +
28 +Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems, the United States could give up the imperial mission, or pretensions to it, now. This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the Middle East, Europe and mainland Asia. It may be that all other peoples, without significant exception, will then turn to their own affairs and leave the United States alone. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile, and be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. Current friends would feel less secure and, in the most probable post-imperial world, would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protect themselves. This would imply the relatively rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq and perhaps Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia and others. Constraints on the acquisition of biological weapons would be even weaker than they are today. Major regional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. This would not be a pleasant world for Americans, or anyone else. It is difficult to guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States. They would probably not put the end of the United States in prospect, but they would not be small. If the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive.
29 +
30 +Proliferation guarantees massive nuclear escalation and war
31 +Utgoff, Institute for Defense Analyses deputy director, 02
32 +Victor A., former National Security Council staff, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions,” Survival, vol. 44, p85-102
33 +
34 +Once a conflict reaches the point where nuclear weapons are employed, the stresses felt by the leaderships would rise enormously. These stresses can be expected to further degrade their decision-making. The pressure to force the enemy to stop fighting or to surrender could argue for more forceful and decisive military action, which might be the right thing to do in the circumstances, but maybe not. And the horrors of the carnage already suffered may be seen as justification for visiting the most devastating punishment possible on the enemy.7 Again, history demonstrates how intense conflict can lead the combatants to escalate violence to the maximum possible levels. In the Second World War, early promises not to bomb cities soon gave way to essentially indiscriminate bombing of civilians. The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other's cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other.
35 +Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants beforehand.8 Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 08:29:06.945
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Daniel Park
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AM
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +11
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Polytechnic Liu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Machiavellian IR
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake
Caselist.RoundClass[11]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-16 08:29:04.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Daniel Park
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harker AM
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,3 @@
1 +1ac-war on terror
2 +1nc-7 off
3 +1nr-machiavellian ir endowments da
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Harvard Westlake

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)