| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,12 @@ |
|
1 |
+A. Counterplan text: Consult indigenous people if they want nuclear power plants on their land. |
|
2 |
+B. It competes—they ban nuclear, the counterplan leaves the option up to the people who are affected by it. |
|
3 |
+The counterplan solves the aff—they get use the power only if they see the benefit in it. |
|
4 |
+Noah Sachs 96 (Professor of Law Director, Robert R. Merhige Jr. Center for Environmental Studies at Richmond School of Law). "The Mescalero Apache and monitored retrievable storage of spent nuclear fuel: A study in environmental ethics." Natural Resources Journal 36 (1996): 641. |
|
5 |
+Second, if a community has decided for itself that the benefits outweigh the costs |
|
6 |
+AND |
|
7 |
+the intelligence to balance and protect adequately their own economic and environmental resources. |
|
8 |
+This is an independent reason to negate—they way they framed the aff is problematic which precludes any hope of the aff being able to solve for anything. |
|
9 |
+Russell 09 *Trisha Greenhaulgh, Professor of Primary Health Care at University College, London and **Jill, senior lecturer in public policy at Queen Mary University, London (“Evidence-based policymaking: a critique,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 52, no. 2, Spring 2009, Academic OneFile) |
|
10 |
+A critical reading of this debate suggests that setting priorities for health care is a |
|
11 |
+AND |
|
12 |
+theoretical framework that places central focus on language, argumentation, and discourse. |