Summary

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

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[2]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-17 02:20:25.629
	1	+2016-09-17 02:20:25.0

Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,121 @@
	1	+====I affirm:====
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+===Part One is Framework===
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+====I value morality since "ought" implies a moral obligation====
	8	+
	9	+
	10	+====Moral theories must be able to accommodate indisputable metaphysical facts—such as the separateness of persons. People occupy separate and unique perspectives in the world. My mental states are mine alone, and cannot be weighed from person to person. ====
	11	+**Nagel 74 **, Thomas ~~Princeton Philosopher~~. "What is it Like to be a Bat?" Duke University Press, 1974.
	12	+Conscious experience is a widespread phenomenon. It occurs at many levels of animal life
	13	+AND
	14	+, or by imagining some combination of additions, subtractions, and modifications.
	15	+
	16	+
	17	+====This rules out moral theories that rely on weighing impacts between people for two reasons:====
	18	+
	19	+
	20	+====First, the separateness of persons makes aggregation nonsensical since combining disparate experiences is impossible. Ten headaches don't equal one migraine since there is no way to experience the collective pain of ten people. ====
	21	+
	22	+
	23	+====Second, aggregative moral theories are normatively wrong since they disrespect the individual worth of persons. ====
	24	+**Nozick**, Robert ~~Harvard philosopher~~. Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
	25	+Side constraints express the inviolability of other persons. But why may not one violate
	26	+AND
	27	+leads to a libertarian side constraint that prohibits aggres­ sion against another.
	28	+
	29	+
	30	+====Instead, prefer a moral theory that recognizes the right inherent in each individual to govern over herself. ====
	31	+**Quinn 89 **ACTIONS, INTENTIONS, AND CONSEQUENCES: THE DOCTRINE OF DOING AND ALLOWING' The Philosophical Review, Vol. XCVIII, No. 3 (July 1989) ~~Modified for gendered language.~~
	32	+A person is constituted by his ~~her~~ body and mind. They are
	33	+AND
	34	+moral fact of our lives, minds, and bodies really being ours.
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+====The standard is respecting people as ends-in-themselves. To clarify, nuclear power is wrong if it sacrifices some for the sake of others. ====
	38	+
	39	+
	40	+====I defend the resolution as a general principle—if the neg wants something different they should ask first; let's avoid frivolous theory and topicality.====
	41	+
	42	+
	43	+===Part Two is the Drawing Board===
	44	+
	45	+
	46	+====Despite assurances from experts that nuclear disasters are astronomically unlikely, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima are evidence that the probability of nuclear accidents defies calculation. Three warrants why nuclear safety is inherently incalculable:====
	47	+
	48	+
	49	+====First, there are an un-measurable amount of things that could go wrong or happen to nuclear plants—calculations ignore the vast majority of these ====
	50	+**Downer 1**, John (Ph.D. Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University 2007. Research Officer, London School of Economics' ESRC Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation (CARR) 2007-9; Lecturer in Science Technology and Society, and Fellow: Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC); Stanford University 2009-20012. Lecturer in Risk and Reslience, Bristol, SPAIS, since 2012.). "3 The unknowable ceilings of safety: three ways that nuclear accidents escape the calculus of risk assessments." The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the post-Fukushima Era (2015): 35. SM
	51	+A first reason to doubt the credibility of nuclear reliability assessments lies in recognizing their
	52	+AND
	53	+(Deutch and Lester 2004; Lash and Wynne 1992: 4). 9
	54	+
	55	+
	56	+====Second, accidents are inevitable in highly complex systems—a more complex system opens up more room for small mishaps to influence each other and link together to cause accidents or meltdowns====
	57	+**Downer 2**, John (Ph.D. Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University 2007. Research Officer, London School of Economics' ESRC Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation (CARR) 2007-9; Lecturer in Science Technology and Society, and Fellow: Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC); Stanford University 2009-20012. Lecturer in Risk and Reslience, Bristol, SPAIS, since 2012.). "3 The unknowable ceilings of safety: three ways that nuclear accidents escape the calculus of risk assessments." The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the post-Fukushima Era (2015): 35. SM
	58	+A second reason to doubt the credibility of nuclear reliability assessments lies in recognizing the
	59	+AND
	60	+(1982: 176). It cannot be ~~or~~ predicted either.
	61	+
	62	+
	63	+====Third, risk calculations are heavily based on theoretical models—empirical observation is impossible due to the large variety of reactors, making reliability assessments of nuclear power plants extremely inaccurate ====
	64	+**Downer 3**, John (Ph.D. Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University 2007. Research Officer, London School of Economics' ESRC Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation (CARR) 2007-9; Lecturer in Science Technology and Society, and Fellow: Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC); Stanford University 2009-20012. Lecturer in Risk and Reslience, Bristol, SPAIS, since 2012.). "3 The unknowable ceilings of safety: three ways that nuclear accidents escape the calculus of risk assessments." The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the post-Fukushima Era (2015): 35. SM
	65	+A third and final reason to doubt the credibility of nuclear reliability assessments lies in
	66	+AND
	67	+what I have elsewhere called an "Epistemic Accident" (Downer 2011).
	68	+
	69	+
	70	+===Part Three is the Experiment ===
	71	+
	72	+
	73	+====The fact that nuclear power involves incalculable risks makes its use in society a social experiment where experts implement technology to find out how it will work====
	74	+**Van de Poel 11**, Ibo (Ibo van de Poel is Antoni van Leeuwenhoek professor at TU Delft; an exclusive professorship for excellent young researchers. He is an internationally leading scholar in Design for Values, responbility issues in engineering, and in technology as a form of social experimentation.) . "Nuclear energy as a social experiment." Ethics, Policy and Environment 14.3 (2011): 285-290. SM
	75	+As the Fukushima accident shows, the risks of nuclear energy are only predictable to
	76	+AND
	77	+bring back some necessary differentiations and refinements in the debate about nuclear energy.
	78	+
	79	+
	80	+====This has 3 impacts: ====
	81	+
	82	+
	83	+====Nuclear power uses people as a means to an end. As a social experiment, the innocent people exposed to the risks of nuclear disaster are the human subjects. Even if nuclear power ends up being a useful tool for providing clean energy, the only way to achieve that goal is to test it on innocent people. This makes it immoral—And, even if people never end up being harmed, its wrong to expose them to immoral risks ====
	84	+
	85	+
	86	+====Informed consent—Experimentation must never violate a subject's informed consent. Three warrants. ====
	87	+**Eyal 12**, Nir, "Informed Consent", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
	88	+The 1970s saw the ascent of a second rationale, autonomy, as the predominant
	89	+AND
	90	+way seems best to him ~~her~~" (Donagan 1977, 31).
	91	+
	92	+
	93	+====Three ways nuclear power violates informed consent:====
	94	+
	95	+
	96	+====First, even if there is consent for nuclear power, its not informed—experts deliberately assert probability calculations of nuclear safety despite the fact that they're inherently flawed====
	97	+**Downer 4**, John (Ph.D. Science and Technology Studies, Cornell University 2007. Research Officer, London School of Economics' ESRC Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation (CARR) 2007-9; Lecturer in Science Technology and Society, and Fellow: Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC); Stanford University 2009-20012. Lecturer in Risk and Reslience, Bristol, SPAIS, since 2012.). "3 The unknowable ceilings of safety: three ways that nuclear accidents escape the calculus of risk assessments." The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the post-Fukushima Era (2015): 35. SM
	98	+In March 2012, the one year anniversary of the Fukushima meltdowns, several US
	99	+AND
	100	+limitation of nuclear reliability calculations and explain why it necessarily undermines their credibility.
	101	+
	102	+
	103	+====Second, there's no consent—people are generally against nuclear power====
	104	+**Black 11**, Richard. "Nuclear Power 'gets Little Public Support Worldwide'" BBC News. N.p., 25 Nov. 2011. Web. 12 Sept. 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15864806.
	105	+In countries with nuclear programmes, people are significantly more opposed than they were in
	106	+AND
	107	+and will continue to mature as the world's premier non-carbon technology."
	108	+
	109	+
	110	+====Third, there could be no consent—nuclear power is inherently undemocratic and fosters elitism. ====
	111	+**Davis 07'**, Tracy C. Stages of Emergency: Cold War nuclear civil defense. Duke University Press, 2007.
	112	+The problem of inevitable nuclear proliferation leads to a still more frightening question. Is
	113	+AND
	114	+they regard peacetime uses as necessities and military weaponry as a different sphere.
	115	+
	116	+
	117	+====Experiments are immoral when they harm their subjects. Nuclear power does this: it exploits Indigenous peoples. ====
	118	+**Lopez 04 **, Bayley. "Radioactive Reservation: The Uphill Battle to Keep Nuclear Waste Off Native American Land." Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. N.p., 02 Sept. 2004. Web. 29 Aug. 2016. https://www.wagingpeace.org/radioactive-reservation-the-uphill-battle-to-keep-nuclear-waste-off-native-american-land/.
	119	+Nuclear waste is not just an issue for those who live near a nuclear reactor
	120	+AND
	121	+to reverse this trend, beginning with the government's policies on nuclear waste.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-17 02:20:26.887

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Diganta Rashed

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Randolph AP

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Southlake Carroll Mohsin Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPOCT-Aff Experiments

Tournament

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