Changes for page Strake Jesuit Singh Aff
on 2016/09/10 13:03
on 2017/08/29 03:40
Summary
-
Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)
-
Objects (0 modified, 8 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Page properties
-
- Author
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -XWiki. asingh17@mailstrakejesuitorg1 +xwiki:XWiki.Admin
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,93 @@ 1 +====My relationship to the other, although reciprocal, is irreversible and asymmetrical – meaning that I cannot know your perspective. ==== 2 + 3 + 4 +====Young==== 5 +**~~Iris Marion Young, University of Chicago, "ASYMMETRICAL RECIPROCITY: ON MORAL RESPECT, WONDER, AND ENLARGED THOUGHT". FEMINISM AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE. Constellations Volume 3, No 3, 1997~~** 6 +The theory of subjectivity Benhabib refers to in this passage holds that each person’s identity 7 +AND 8 +of experiences when I try to put myself in the other person’s place. 9 + 10 +====And, social groups and materiality are an integral part of an individual’s identity as these structures exist ontologically and temporally prior to the individual and condition them as a source of freedom and constraint; however, since they have agency, they can choose how they respond or relate to those conditions and groups. ==== 11 + 12 + 13 +====Young 2==== 14 +**~~Iris Marion Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, "INCLUSION AND DEMOCRACY", OXFORD POLITICAL THEORY, 2000~~** 15 +An important strand of social theory describes individual subjectivity and identity as constituted or ~~ 16 +AND 17 +so on, which are sources of both possibilities of action and constraint. 18 + 19 + 20 +====Since, we cannot reverse perspectives, and because we are already committed to the ethical relationship in virtue of being social agents, the only possible ethical relationship is to aim to understand meaning we must recognize difference to enhance the perspectives available.==== 21 + 22 + 23 +====Young 3==== 24 +**~~Iris Marion Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, "INCLUSION AND DEMOCRACY", OXFORD POLITICAL THEORY, 2000~~** 25 +Inclusion of and attention to socially differentiated positions in democratic discussion tends to correct biases 26 +AND 27 +can lead to a better understanding of the requirements of justice. 28 + 29 +====Thus, the standard is embracing the inclusion of difference. ==== 30 + 31 + 32 +====Prefer additionally because inclusion is a pre-requisite to solving oppression. ==== 33 + 34 + 35 +====Young 4==== 36 +**~~Iris Marion Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, "INCLUSION AND DEMOCRACY", OXFORD POLITICAL THEORY, 2000~~** 37 +Impedes political communication. In Chapter 1 I traced the circle that often goes from 38 +AND 39 +the problems they generate, and the priorities they should have for action. 40 + 41 + 42 +==Advocacy== 43 + 44 + 45 +====Resolved: Countries will phase out nuclear power by 2030. ==== 46 + 47 + 48 +====Lucas 12==== 49 +**~~Caroline Lucas 12 (MP for Brighton Pavilion and a member of the cross-party parliamentary environment audit committee). "Why We Must Phase Out Nuclear Power". The Gaurdian, 17 Feb 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/17/phase-out-nuclear-power~~ RC** 50 +The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy, as well as the related 51 +AND 52 + 53 +====Nuclear power requires that the interests of privileged groups be prioritized over those who are different from them. This not only physically marginalizes these groups, but it excludes their perspectives and ignores their voices in politics. Nuclear power is inextricably linked to the destruction of forms of knowledge. ==== 54 + 55 + 56 +====Wise 93==== 57 +**~~The WISE-Amsterdam Collective, "Environmental Racism and Nuclear Development," Nuclear Monitor Issue: ~~#387-388. March 28, 1993~~ 58 + 59 +http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/letters_emails 60 + 61 +By another irony, it happens that the majority of the world's uranium reserves are 62 +AND 63 +lives and interests of those groups of people it considers of low value. 64 + 65 + 66 +====Exploitation occurs at all phases of the nuclear power production cycle. Stopping the production of nuclear power is a necessary step in forcing the governments and societies responsible for this exclusion to recognize these groups as agents worthy of being included. ==== 67 + 68 + 69 +====Ferguson 11==== 70 +**~~Laura Ferguson, environmental activist and editorialist. "Radioactive Racism" http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/letters_emails 71 +Stewart Brand’s promotion of atomic power, ("Nuclear Power is Safe, Sound and 72 +AND 73 +such issues and not be fooled by claims of "green and clean." 74 + 75 + 76 +====Those living in poverty are likely to bear the brunt of is problems associated with nuclear power, thus certain demographics are excluded from consideration and their perspectives are rendered irrelevant. This is empirically proven in the Fukushima Disaster. ==== 77 + 78 + 79 +====Shrader-Frechette 12==== 80 +**~~Kristin Shrader-Frechette. Dr. Shrader-Frechette is O’Neill Family Endowed Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, and also the director of the Center for Environmental Justice and Children’s Health, at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. "Nuclear Catastrophe, Disaster-Related Environmental Injustice, and Fukushima, Japan: Prima-Facie Evidence for a Japanese Katrina" ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Volume 5, Number 3, 2012~~** 81 +University scientists, nuclear-industry experts, and physicians say FD radiation will cause 82 +AND 83 +are EI victims whose reactor proximity caused them also to become DREI victims. 84 + 85 + 86 +====Workers at nuclear facilities are often forced to work in dangerous conditions and face exclusion because of the nature of their work. ==== 87 + 88 + 89 +====Shrader-Frechette 2==== 90 +**~~Kristin Shrader-Frechette. Dr. Shrader-Frechette is O’Neill Family Endowed Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, and also the director of the Center for Environmental Justice and Children’s Health, at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. "Nuclear Catastrophe, Disaster-Related Environmental Injustice, and Fukushima, Japan: Prima-Facie Evidence for a Japanese Katrina" ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Volume 5, Number 3, 2012~~ ** 91 +Prima-facie evidence likewise shows buraku nuclear workers are both E~~nvironmetal~~ 92 +AND 93 +be fulfilled—a fact also suggesting prima-facie DREI toward buraku. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-14 02:57:33.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Singh Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SEPOCT - AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Grapevine
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,73 @@ 1 +My relationship to the other, although reciprocal, is irreversible and asymmetrical – meaning that I cannot know your perspective. 2 +Young 3 +~Iris Marion Young, University of Chicago, "ASYMMETRICAL RECIPROCITY: ON MORAL RESPECT, WONDER, AND ENLARGED THOUGHT". FEMINISM AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE. Constellations Volume 3, No 3, 1997~ 4 +The theory of subjectivity Benhabib refers to in this passage holds that each person’s identity 5 +AND 6 +of experiences when I try to put myself in the other person’s place. 7 + 8 +And, social groups and materiality are an integral part of an individual’s identity as these structures exist ontologically and temporally prior to the individual and condition them as a source of freedom and constraint; however, since they have agency, they can choose how they respond or relate to those conditions and groups. 9 +Young 2 10 +~Iris Marion Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, "INCLUSION AND DEMOCRACY", OXFORD POLITICAL THEORY, 2000~ 11 +An important strand of social theory describes individual subjectivity and identity as constituted or ~ 12 +AND 13 +so on, which are sources of both possibilities of action and constraint. 14 + 15 +Since, we cannot reverse perspectives, and because we are already committed to the ethical relationship in virtue of being social agents, the only possible ethical relationship is to aim to understand meaning we must recognize difference to enhance the perspectives available. 16 +Young 3 17 +~Iris Marion Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, "INCLUSION AND DEMOCRACY", OXFORD POLITICAL THEORY, 2000~ 18 +Inclusion of and attention to socially differentiated positions in democratic discussion tends to correct biases 19 +AND 20 +can lead to a better understanding of the requirements of justice. 21 + 22 +Thus, the standard is embracing the inclusion of difference. 23 +Prefer additionally because inclusion is a pre-requisite to solving oppression. 24 +Young 4 25 +~Iris Marion Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, "INCLUSION AND DEMOCRACY", OXFORD POLITICAL THEORY, 2000~ 26 +Impedes political communication. In Chapter 1 I traced the circle that often goes from 27 +AND 28 +the problems they generate, and the priorities they should have for action. 29 + 30 +Advocacy 31 +Resolved: Countries will phase out nuclear power by 2030. 32 +Lucas 12 33 +~Caroline Lucas 12 (MP for Brighton Pavilion and a member of the cross-party parliamentary environment audit committee). "Why We Must Phase Out Nuclear Power". The Gaurdian, 17 Feb 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/17/phase-out-nuclear-power~~ RC 34 +The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy, as well as the related 35 +AND 36 + 37 +Nuclear power requires that the interests of privileged groups be prioritized over those who are different from them. This not only physically marginalizes these groups, but it excludes their perspectives and ignores their voices in politics. Nuclear power is inextricably linked to the destruction of forms of knowledge. 38 +Wise 93 39 +~The WISE-Amsterdam Collective, "Environmental Racism and Nuclear Development," Nuclear Monitor Issue: ~#387-388. March 28, 1993~ 40 + 41 +http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/letters_emails 42 + 43 + 44 +By another irony, it happens that the majority of the world's uranium reserves are 45 +AND 46 +lives and interests of those groups of people it considers of low value. 47 + 48 +Exploitation occurs at all phases of the nuclear power production cycle. Stopping the production of nuclear power is a necessary step in forcing the governments and societies responsible for this exclusion to recognize these groups as agents worthy of being included. 49 +Ferguson 11 50 +~Laura Ferguson, environmental activist and editorialist. "Radioactive Racism" http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/letters_emails 51 +Stewart Brand’s promotion of atomic power, ("Nuclear Power is Safe, Sound and 52 +AND 53 +such issues and not be fooled by claims of "green and clean." 54 + 55 + 56 +====And, the prohibition is key. Norms of exclusion depend upon the reproduction of their usage through frames, such as the manipulation and underdetermination of data. Our stance must impede upon the reproduction of this frame, which requires we recognize that nuclear power is inseparable from its norms of usage. ==== 57 + 58 + 59 +====Butler 09==== 60 +**"Frames of War" by Judith Butler 2009 UH-DD** 61 +"The frame that seeks to contain, convey, and determine what is seen 62 +AND 63 +critical and exuberant release from the force of illegitimate authority?" 10-11 64 + 65 + 66 +====And, the prohibition is key. Historical injustice commits us to historical rectification. This means we undo what has historically caused the problem. ==== 67 + 68 + 69 +====Mills 14==== 70 +**("White Time: The chronic Injustice of Ideal Theory" Du Bois Review. 2014 )** 71 +"Would it be in the least surprising, then, if the version of 72 +AND 73 +altered not metaphysically but representationally, gated out of their moral consideration." - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-17 14:43:48.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Peiris, Ashan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Katy Taylor AW - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Singh Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SEPOCT - Greenhill R1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Greenhill
- Caselist.CitesClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,68 @@ 1 +Framework 2 +Mutual recognition is a pre-requisite to ethical interactions. This entails that I recognize that to you I am “other” just as you are other to me– put simply; it requires that I recognize you as an agent and vice-versa. This structure of recognition is a necessary condition for communicative interaction, which is an intrinsic feature of ethics because these are inherently inter-subjective. 3 + 4 +My relationship to the other, although reciprocal, is irreversible and asymmetrical – meaning that I cannot know your perspective. 5 +Young 6 +Iris Marion Young, University of Chicago, “ASYMMETRICAL RECIPROCITY: ON MORAL RESPECT, WONDER, AND ENLARGED THOUGHT”. FEMINISM AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE. Constellations Volume 3, No 3, 1997 7 +The theory of subjectivity Benhabib refers to in this passage holds that each person’s identity is a product of her interactive relations with others. Through my interaction with others I experience how I am an “other” for them, and I internalize this objectification to myself through others in the formulation of my own self-conception. By this knowledge that they have a perspective on me that is different from my immediate experience of myself, I experience them as subjects, as ‘I’s. This relation of self and other, however, is specifically asymmetrical and irreversible, even though it is reciprocal. The reciprocal recognition by which I know that I am other for you just as you are other for me cannot entail a reversibility of perspectives, precisely because our positions are partly constituted by the perspectives each of us has on the others. Who we are is constituted to a considerable extent by the relations in which we stand to others, along with our past experience of our relations with others. Thus the standpoint of each of us in a particular situation is partly a result of our experience of the other people’s perspectives on us. It is hard to see how any of us could suspend our perspective mediated by our relations to others, in order to adopt their perspectives mediated by their relation to us. The infinity of the dialectical process of selves in relation to others both makes it impossible to suspend our own positioning, and leaves an excess of experiences when I try to put myself in the other person’s place. 8 + 9 +This means that there is no neutral point of view since our relation to the others always influences our perspective. Even in trying to understand the other by identifying common features and experiences we are relating them to our own experience and perspective. This means it is not similarity that is important in understand, rather difference is what is relevant to gaining insight on the perspective of the other and undergoing mutual recognition with them. It is how we are able to identity ourselves in relation with the other. 10 + 11 +Additionally, any attempt to reverse perspectives is an attempt at impartiality because it requires the agent ignore their own biases and recognize the differences of all others, which is impossible. Only an oppressor is in a position that allows them to impose their partial view as impartial. Thus, attempting to reverse perspectives is an attempt to dominate. 12 + 13 +And, social groups and materiality are an integral part of an individual’s identity as these structures exist ontologically and temporally prior to the individual and condition them as a source of freedom and constraint; however, since they have agency, they can choose how they respond or relate to those conditions and groups. 14 +Young 2 15 +Iris Marion Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, “INCLUSION AND DEMOCRACY”, OXFORD POLITICAL THEORY, 2000 16 +An important strand of social theory describes individual subjectivity and identity as constituted or is conditioned by the social relations into which a person is born and grows up, and through which he or she moves in his or her life. Social relationships, institutions, and structures are prior to individual subjects, both temporally and ontologically. A person encounters an already structured configuration of power, resource allocation, status norms, and culturally differentiated practices. Particular individuals occupy particular positions in these fields. The positioning of individuals occurs through processes of communicative interaction in which persons identify one another as belonging to certain social categories, as standing in specific relations to themselves or others, and enforce norms and expectations in relation to one another. While no individual is in exactly the same position as any other, agents are ‘closer’ or ‘farther’ from one another in their location with respect to the relations that structure that field. Agents who are similarly positioned experience similar constraints or enablements, particular modes of expression and affinity, in social relations. Persons are thrown into a world with a given history of sedimented meanings and material landscape, and interaction with others in the social field locates us in terms of the given meanings, expected activities, institutional rules, and their consequences. We find ourselves positioned in relations of class, gender, race, nationality, religion, and so on, which are sources of both possibilities of action and constraint. 17 + 18 +Since, we cannot reverse perspectives, and because we are already committed to the ethical relationship in virtue of being social agents, the only possible ethical relationship is to aim to understand meaning we must recognize difference to enhance the perspectives available. 19 +Young 3 20 +Iris Marion Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, “INCLUSION AND DEMOCRACY”, OXFORD POLITICAL THEORY, 2000 21 +Inclusion of and attention to socially differentiated positions in democratic discussion tends to correct biases and situate the partial perspective of participants in debate. Confrontation with different perspectives, interests, and cultural meanings teaches each the partiality of their own and reveals to them their own experience as perspectival. Listening to those differently situated from myself and my close associates teaches me how my situation looks to them, in what relation they think I stand to them. Such a contextualizing of perspective is especially important for groups that have power, authority, or privilege. Those in structurally superior positions not only take their experience, preferences, and opinions to be general, uncontroversial, ordinary, and even an expression of suffering or disadvantage, as we all do, but also have the power to represent these as general norms. Having to answer to others who speak from different, less privileged, perspectives on their social relations exposes their partiality and relative blindness. By including multiple perspectives, and not simply two that might be in direct contention over an issue, we take a giant step towards enlarging thought. Where there are differences in interests, values, or judgements between members of two interdependent but differently positioned groups, the fact that both must be accountable to differently situated others further removed from those relations can motivate each to reflect on fairness to all. Where such exposure to the public judgement and criticism of multiply situated others does not lead them to shut down dialogue and instead leads some to try to force their preferences on policy, this process can lead to a better understanding of the requirements of justice. 22 + 23 +Thus, the standard is embracing the inclusion of difference. 24 + 25 +Standard Analysis: The framework isn’t concerned with consequences; rather it values our efforts to orient ourselves to a more inclusive mindset. It is concerned with the removal of structural barriers that exclude certain perspectives. 26 + 27 +The role of the ballot is to endorse the best methodology for including difference. 28 +Young 4 29 +Iris Marion Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, “INCLUSION AND DEMOCRACY”, OXFORD POLITICAL THEORY, 2000 30 +As I indicated earlier, the third major question this book takes up concerns the scope of the polity. I agree that societies and political institutions enact some of their most grievous exclusions by the way they define political jurisdictions themselves—who has a right to influence their operations and who does not. Chapter 6 examines how local politics often perpetuates segregation and other harms by allowing discrete autonomous municipalities within regions of significant interdependence. Chapter 7 argues along with Goodin and others that the nation-state is an inappropriately exclusive political form, and that inclusive politics in our world normatively requires a more open system of global regulation and local and regional interaction. There is also some point to the objection that much of the way contemporary social critics call for inclusion seems to cover too much. Especially in Europe a myriad of problems seem to come under the general umbrella of ‘social exclusion’, and this language of exclusion sometimes seems to be a euphemism for the presence of misfits, particularly immigrants experienced as racially or culturally different and unemployed youth. The promotion of inclusion in some of this discourse, or ‘social cohesion’, as it is sometimes called, refers to a diverse set of policies, social services, and civic education aimed to support such populations and ease their interaction with better-off citizens. Policies and policy proposals in this context, however, sometimes appear to aim at making social and economic deviants fit into dominant norms and institutions, as well as to give them opportunities for political participation, educational development, and welfare benefits. Suspicion of such attitudes that require adjustment returns us to the first objection. The concepts of exclusion and inclusion lose meaning if they are used to label all problems of social conflict and injustice. Where the problems are racism, cultural intolerance, economic exploitation, or a refusal to help needy people, they should be so named. My subject in this book is political exclusion and marginalization in particular, and I aim to theorize principles and ideals of political inclusion based on common critical reactions to such political exclusion. I focus on political processes that claim to be democratic but which some people reasonably claim are dominated by only some of those whose interests are affected by them. If inclusion in decision-making is a core of the democratic ideal, then, to the extent that such political exclusions exist, democratic societies do not live up to their promise. Cultural intolerance, racism, sexism, economic exploitation and deprivation, and other social and economic inequalities help to account for these political exclusions. For the most part this book assumes such causal relations between social and economic inequality, on the one hand, and political in equality, on the other, without theorizing those other inequalities in any detail. 31 + 32 +Prefer additionally because inclusion is a pre-requisite to solving oppression. 33 +Young 5 34 +Iris Marion Young, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, “INCLUSION AND DEMOCRACY”, OXFORD POLITICAL THEORY, 2000 35 +Impedes political communication. In Chapter 1 I traced the circle that often goes from structural social inequality to political inequality, so that a formally democratic process often operates to reinforce structural inequality. Formally democratic processes do seem often to reinforce rather than undermine the harms of segregation, partly because the processes exclude and marginalize members of segregated groups from political influence.21 To the extent that privileged groups often dominate the public policy process, these policies often fail to notice and address the harms of segregation; as we have seen above, often public policies sometimes even magnify the harms of segregation. In earlier chapters I have argued that inclusive communicative democracy is one of the only ways to break this circle by which formally democratic politics reinforces structural social inequality. The theory of communicative democracy says that policy change to undermine structural inequality is more likely to occur if subordinated groups are politically mobilized and included as equals in a process of discussing issues and problems that lead to decisions. If some people suffer injustices, the first step in redressing them is being able to make claims upon others in a shared public forum that together they should take action to address these problems. If those with such claims can participate equally with members of dominant groups in political discussion and decision-making, they may be able to change the way others see the social relations in which they stand together, the problems they generate, and the priorities they should have for action. 36 + 37 +Advocacy 38 +Resolved: Countries will phase out nuclear power by 2030. 39 +Lucas 12 40 +Caroline Lucas 12 (MP for Brighton Pavilion and a member of the cross-party parliamentary environment audit committee). “Why We Must Phase Out Nuclear Power”. The Gaurdian, 17 Feb 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/17/phase-out-nuclear-power RC 41 +The inherent risk in the use of nuclear energy, as well as the related proliferation of nuclear technologies, can and does have disastrous consequences. The only certain way to eliminate this potentially devastating risk is to phase out nuclear power altogether. Some countries appear to have learnt this lesson. In Germany, the government changed course in the aftermath of Fukushima and decided to go ahead with a previously agreed phase out of nuclear power. Many scenarios now foresee Germany sourcing 100 of its power needs from renewables by 2030. Meanwhile Italian citizens voted against plans to go nuclear with a 90 majority. The same is not yet true in Japan. Although only three out of its 54 nuclear reactors are online and generating power, while the Japanese authorities conduct "stress tests", the government hopes to reopen almost all of these and prolong the working life of a number of its ageing reactors by to up to 60 years. 42 +However, implementation is irrelevant to the framework, so I’ll be willing to concede any reasonable interps in CX to avoid frivolous theory. 43 +Offense 44 +Nuclear power requires that the interests of privileged groups be prioritized over those who are different from them. This not only physically marginalizes these groups, but it excludes their perspectives and ignores their voices in politics. Nuclear power is inextricably linked to the destruction of forms of knowledge. 45 +Wise 93 46 +The WISE-Amsterdam Collective, “Environmental Racism and Nuclear Development,” Nuclear Monitor Issue: #387-388. March 28, 1993 https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/387-388/about-issue 47 +https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/387-388/about-issue 48 +By another irony, it happens that the majority of the world's uranium reserves are on traditional lands. In the US, on what land is left to the Navajos, there were at one time a total of 42 uranium mines in operation, in addition to seven uranium mills. Shiprock Mine, formerly operated by the Kerr-McGee corporation, employed Navajo miners at two-thirds the normal pay rate. By 1960 radiation levels in the Shiprock mine were 90 times the permissible level. 'Diseconomies' of uranium closed the mine in 1970, causing the loss of any health insurance the miners might have had. A world glut of uranium supplies then closed most of the other mines. But the damage had already been done. By 1980, of the 150 Navajo miners employed by Kerr-McGee 38 were already dead of cancer and another 95 had cancer and lung diseases. Meanwhile, Kerr-McGee had left behind 70 acres of raw uranium tailings (which retain 85 of their radioactivity) just 60 feet from the community's only significant water supply. People continue to sicken and die. They lose the ability to bear children. Reproductive cancer among Navajo teenagers is 17 times the national average. This same scenario is elsewhere being played out again and again. On Aboriginal lands in Australia, the Kokotha are fighting exploitation and development of uranium resources on their lands by Australian and French mining companies. In Namibia, while still under illegal occupation by South Africa, uranium was mined and other resources plundered with the help of the British-based multinational Rio Tinto Zinc. Even now, three years after independence from occupation by South Africa, the mining continues. In Canada, because of destruction of their lands from uranium mining by Canadian corporations, Adele Ratt of the Cree Nation in La Ronge declared the entire north of Saskatchewan to be in a state of emergency. In the Pacific, the Tahitians and other Pacific Islanders are still feeling the devastating effects of French nuclear weapons testing, despite the current moratorium. Elsewhere in the Pacific, in the Marshall Islands, already devastated by US nuclear tests, the islanders' homes are being considered by the US as a dump site for nuclear wastes from the US mainland. In the former Soviet Union information is slowly coming to light about the effects of its nuclear weapons testing program on the Kazakh minority living near the Semipalatinsk test site, and on tribal societies such as the Samoyeds, Khanty, Mansi, Evenks and Chukchee, among others, living to the north of the Novaya Zemlya test site in Siberia. In addition, it only recently became known that there had been a secret nuclear weapons testing site in Chukotka during the 1950's and 1960's, further exposing the Chukchee people to fallout. The mortality rate resulting from cancer among the Chukchee is thought to be the highest in the world. The fact that the much of the information concerning the effects on these peoples has only recently come to light is not surprising. Racism produces disinformation ~-~- precisely about those groups that it marginalizes. How much more do we not know, for instance about the conditions in the uranium mines in Argentina, in the Andes (the last refuge for traditional land holders in that region)? Or in Columbia, where holes drilled by companies exploring for uranium were left open, but only the local people know about it because the companies simply forgot about it when they found they could not exploit the uranium economically? Or in Brazil? In Morocco? At any rate, all of the above examples clearly illustrate the term "environmental racism" as it is currently defined. But we would like to broaden that definition, thereby broadening the discussion. Racism, by itself, is a symptom of the deep sickness at the heart of our society. But racism never exists by itself. The sickness of which it is a symptom is rooted in the shattering of what was once a strong connection the people who walked the earth had with the land and all living systems. To understand this rupture ~-~- a rupture which underlies the entwined oppressions of race, sex, class and ecological destruction ~-~- we need to look at two things: first, at the current model of development, then at the history of the last 500 years which led to this model. The current model of development includes a system that benefits a relatively small part of the world's population who can be found in the industrialized countries and in the local elites of Central and Eastern Europe and the South. For this model to operate, political choices have to be made. In the case of nuclear development, one of the choices has been to ignore the social costs. When social costs are ignored, selected groups of people are made victims. This is marginalization. More is involved here than even the marginalization of people. Knowledge is also marginalized, set aside, lost. Traditional ways of thinking and practical knowledge disappear forever. With the development of a nuclear (nuclearized?) society, we are becoming poorer in knowledge and solutions. We have lost wisdom, impoverishing ourselves by cutting ourselves off from receiving what Starhawk, author of Dreaming the Dark, calls "the rich gifts of vision that come from those who see from a different vantage point." This model also compartmentalizes and divides. It restricts our thinking and our actions for change. To illustrate this in relation to environmental racism and nuclear development, it gives us two movements: the anti-racist movement and the environmentalist movement. With its specialization and compartmentalization, the current model pushes us to be nuclear and racist, or anti-nuclear, or anti-racist. By accepting its divisions, we find ourselves still caught within its confines. In this way we play the game of those enforcing this model, of those in power. We need to be creative and change the rules. We must redefine power and reshape it. We must see that it becomes something shared with others, something empowering, and not something exercised over them or used against them. And we need to link these two movements, now separated under the current model, and move together to create a healthy society, based on justice, equality and sustainability, where people are no longer afraid of differences in others, or afraid to be different. But to do that, we first have to make the connections between all systems of domination. And we must recognize that the dominant culture is willing ~-~- to a frightening extent ~-~- to write off the lives and interests of those groups of people it considers of low value. 49 + 50 +Exploitation occurs at all phases of the nuclear power production cycle. Stopping the production of nuclear power is a necessary step in forcing the governments and societies responsible for this exclusion to recognize these groups as agents worthy of being included. 51 +Ferguson 11 52 +Laura Ferguson, environmental activist and editorialist. “Radioactive Racism” http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/letters_emails 53 +Stewart Brand’s promotion of atomic power, (“Nuclear Power is Safe, Sound and Green,” Plus/Minus, Winter) fails to recognize or address one of the most significant problems of nuclear energy: environmental racism. In order to have nuclear energy, you have to have three things: uranium, nuclear power plants, and a place to store the waste. Where do these exist? Overwhelmingly, on or near Native American reservations. Look at the history of nuclear development in the United States and you will find that throughout the West, Native American reservations (or lands adjacent to them) They are the main places where uranium is mined, power plants are located, and nuclear waste is stored. Why? Because there are fewer people per square mile, meaning is less potential for political resistance; because, as a whole, Native Americans on reservations are impoverished to a much greater extent than other Americans and, therefore, more vulnerable to development deals that promise economic benefits; and because they are “expendable” populations in the eyes of the United States. While coal does need to be phased out – no arguments there – creating new, harmful energy sources at the expense of Native Americans and their culture, livelihood, and natural environments is not the answer. Indigenous peoples depend up on their natural environments being intact for their continued cultural and spiritual existence – in other words, for their continued existence as Indigenous peoples. I hope environmentalists and Earth Island Institute will take a strong stand against environmental racism and work to educate people about such issues and not be fooled by claims of “green and clean.” 54 + 55 +Those living in poverty are likely to bear the brunt of is problems associated with nuclear power, thus certain demographics are excluded from consideration and their perspectives are rendered irrelevant. This is empirically proven in the Fukushima Disaster. 56 +Shrader-Frechette 12 57 +Kristin Shrader-Frechette. Dr. Shrader-Frechette is O’Neill Family Endowed Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, and also the director of the Center for Environmental Justice and Children’s Health, at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. “Nuclear Catastrophe, Disaster-Related Environmental Injustice, and Fukushima, Japan: Prima-Facie Evidence for a Japanese Katrina” ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Volume 5, Number 3, 2012 58 +University scientists, nuclear-industry experts, and physicians say FD radiation will cause at least 20,000- 60,000 premature-cancer deaths. Japanese poor people are among the hardest hit by FD DREI because, like those abandoned after Hurricane Katrina, Japan’s poor they received inadequate post-FD-disaster assistance. Abandoned by government and ‘‘marooned’’ for weeks without roads, electricity, or water, many poor people had no medical care, transportation, or heat—despite frigid, snowy conditions. At least four reasons suggest prima-facie evidence that Japanese poor near FD have faced DREI. One prima-facie reason is that because poor people tend to live near dangerous facilities, like reactors, they face the worst accident risks. Within weeks after the FD accident began, long-lived cesium-134 and other radioactive isotopes had poisoned soils at 7.5 million times the regulatory limit; radiation outside plant boundaries was equivalent to getting about seven chest X-rays per hour. Roughly 19 miles Northwest of FD, air-radiation readings were 0.8 mSv per hour; after 10 days of this exposure, IARC dose- response curves predict 1 in 5 fatal cancers of those exposed would be attributable to FD; two-months exposure would mean most fatal cancers were caused by FD. Such exposures are likely because many near-Fukushima residents were too poor to evacuate. Farther outside the evacuation zone—less than two weeks after the accident began—soil 25 miles Northwest of FD had cesium-137 levels ‘‘twice as high as the threshold for declaring areas uninhabitable around Chernobyl,’’ suggesting ‘‘the land might need to be abandoned. Not until a month after US and international agencies recommended expanding FD evacuation zones, did Japanese-government officials consider and reject expanding evacuation. A second prima-facie reason for Fukushima DREI is that poor people, living near reactors, have higher probabilities of being hurt by both normal and disaster-related radiation releases. Reactors normally cause prima facie EI because they release allowable radiation that increases local cancers and mortality, especially among infants/ children. Because zero is the only safe dose of ionizing radiation (as the US National Academy of Sciences warns), its cumulative LNT (Linear, No Threshold for increased risk) effects are worst closer to reactors, where poor people live. The US EPA says even normal US radiation releases, between 1970–2020, could cause up to 24,000 additional US deaths. A third prima-facie reason for Fukushima DREI is that although nearby (poor) people bear both higher preaccident and post-accident risks, others receive little/no risks and most benefits. Wealthier Tokyo residents—140 miles away—received virtually all FD electricity, yet virtually no EI or DREI. A fourth prima-facie reason for DREI burdens on FD poor is that their poverty/powerlessness arguably forced them into EI and accepting reactor siting. Companies hoping to site nuclear facilities target economically depressed areas, both in Japan and elsewhere. Thus, although FD-owner Tokyo Electric Company (TECO) has long-term safety and ‘‘cover-up scandals,’’ Fukushima residents agreed to accept TECO reactors in exchange for cash. With Fukushima $121 million in debt, in 2007 it approved two new reactors in exchange for ‘‘$45 million from the government.60 percent’’ of total town revenue. Yet if economic hardship forced poor towns to accept reactors in exchange for basic-services monies, they likely gave no informed consent. Their choice was not voluntary, but coerced by their poverty. Massive Japanese-nuclear-industry PR and media ads also have thwarted risk-disclosure, thus consent, by minimizing nuclear risks. 60–62 Scientists say neither industry nor government disclosed its failure to (1) test reactor-safety equipment; (2) thwart many natural-event disasters; (3) withstand seismic events worse than those that already had occurred; (4) withstand Fukushima-type disasters; (5) admit that new passive-safety reactors require electricity to cool cores and avoid catastrophe; or (6) and base reactor safety on anything but cost-benefit tests. Thus, because prima facie evidence suggests Fukushima poor people never consented to FD siting, they are EI victims whose reactor proximity caused them also to become DREI victims. 59 + 60 +Workers at nuclear facilities are often forced to work in dangerous conditions and face exclusion because of the nature of their work. 61 +Shrader-Frechette 2 62 +Kristin Shrader-Frechette. Dr. Shrader-Frechette is O’Neill Family Endowed Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and Department of Philosophy, and also the director of the Center for Environmental Justice and Children’s Health, at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. “Nuclear Catastrophe, Disaster-Related Environmental Injustice, and Fukushima, Japan: Prima-Facie Evidence for a Japanese Katrina” ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Volume 5, Number 3, 2012 63 +Prima-facie evidence likewise shows buraku nuclear workers are both Environmetal Injustice and DREI victims. Internationally, nuclear workers are prominent EI victims because even without accidents, they are allowed to receive ionizing radiation doses (50 mSv annually) 50 times higher than those received by the public. Yet, only low socioeconomic-status people—like buraku—tend to take such risks. This double standard is obviously ethically questionable, given that many developed nations (e.g., Germany, Scandinavian countries) prohibit it because it encourages EI—workers’ trade trading health for paid work, and innocent worker-descendants’ (future generations’) dying from radiation-induced genomic instability. Thus, both buraku children and their distant descendents face EI—higher radiation-induced death/disease. Prima-facie evidence shows, second, that FD-buraku nuclear workers also are EI and DREI victims because they likely consented to neither normal, nor accident level, radiation exposures. Why not? Under normal conditions, 90 percent of all 83,000 Japanese nuclear workers are temporary-contract workers who receive about 16 times more radiation than the already-50-times-higher than-public doses received by normal radiation workers. For non-accident exposures, buraku receive $350–$1,000 per day, for several days of high-radiation work. They have neither full-time employment, nor adequate compensation, nor union representation, nor health benefits, nor full dose disclosure, yet receive the highest workplace-radiation risks. Why? Industry is not required to ‘‘count’’ temporary workers’ radiation exposures when it calculates workers’ average-radiation doses for regulators. However, even if buraku were told their nonaccident doses/risks, they could not genuinely consent. They are unskilled, socially shunned, temporary laborers who are forced by economic necessity to accept even deadly jobs. This two-tier nuclear-worker system—where buraku bear most (unreported) risks, while highly-paid employees bear little (reported) risk—’’ ‘is the hidden world of nuclear power’ said a former Tokyo University physics professor.’’ In 2010, 89 percent of FD nuclear workers were temporary-contract employees, ‘‘hired from construction sites,’’ local farms, or ‘‘local gangsters.’’ With a ‘‘constant fear of getting fired,’’ they hid their injuries/ doses—to keep their jobs. Among post-FD-accident buraku, lack of adequate consent also caused prima-facie DREI because government raised workers’ allowable, post-accident-radiation doses to 250 mSv/year—250 times what the public may receive annually. Yet IARC says each 250-MSv FD exposure causes 25 percent of fatal cancers. Two-years’ exposure (500 MSv) would cause 50 percent of all fatal cancers. Given such deadly risks and the dire economic situation of buraku, their genuine consent is unlikely. Still another factor thwarting FD-buraku consent—and indicating prima-facie DREI—is that FD workers likely received higher doses than government admitted. ‘‘The company refused to say how many FD contract workers had been exposed to post-disaster radiation’’; moreover, nuclear-worker-protective clothing and respirators, whether in the US or Japan, protect them only from skin/lung contamination; no gear can stop gamma irradiation of their entire bodies. Neither TECO, nor Japanese regulators, nor IAEA has released statistics on post-FD radiation exposures, especially to buraku inside the plant. IAEA says merely: ‘‘requirements for occupational exposure of remediation workers can be fulfilled’’ at FD, not that they have been or will be fulfilled—a fact also suggesting prima-facie DREI toward buraku. 64 + 65 +And, the prohibition is key. Norms of exclusion depend upon the reproduction of their usage through frames, such as the manipulation and under-determination of data. Our stance must impede upon the reproduction of this frame, which requires we recognize that nuclear power is inseparable from its norms of usage. 66 +Butler 09 67 +“Frames of War” by Judith Butler 2009 UH-DD 68 +“The frame that seeks to contain, convey, and determine what is seen (and sometimes, for a stretch, succeeds in doing precisely that) depends upon the conditions of reproducibility in order to succeed. And yet, this very reproducibility entails a constant breaking from context, a constant delimitation of new context, which means that the "frame" does not quite contain what it conveys, but breaks apart every time it seeks to give definitive organization to its content. In other words, the frame does not hold anything together in one place, but itself becomes a kind of perpetual breakage, subject to a temporal logic by which it moves from place to place. As the frame constantly breaks from its context, this self-breaking becomes part of the very definition. This leads us to a different way of understanding both the frame's efficacy and its vulnerability to reversal, to subversion, even to critical instrumentalization. What is taken for granted in one instance becomes thematized critically or even incredulously in another. This shifting temporal dimension of the frame constitutes the possibility and trajectory of its affect as well. Thus the digital image circulates outside the confines of Abu Ghraib, or the poetry in Guantanamo is recovered by constitutional lawyers who arrange for its publication throughout the world. The conditions are set for astonishment, outrage, revulsion, admiration, and discovery, depending on how the content is framed by shifting time and place. The movement of the image or the text outside of confinement is a kind of "breaking out," so that even though neither the image nor the poetry can free anyone from prison, or stop a bomb or, indeed, reverse the course ofthe war, they nevertheless do provide the conditions for breaking out of the quotidian acceptance of war and for a more generalized horror and outrage that will support and impel calls for justice and an end to violence. Earlier we noted that one sense of "to be framed" means to be subject to a con, to a tactic by which evidence is orchestrated so to make a false accusation appear true. Some power manipulates the terms of appearance and one cannot break out of the frame; one is framed, which means one is accused, but also judged in advance, without valid evidence and without any obvious means of redress. But if the frame is understood as a certain "breaking out," or "breaking from," then it would seem to be more analogous to a prison break. This suggests a certain release, a loosening of the mechanism of control, and with it, a new trajectory of affect. The frame, in this sense, permits-even requires-this breaking out. This happened when the photos of Guantanamo prisoners kneeling and shackled were released to the public and outrage ensued; it happened again when the digital images from Abu Ghraib were circulated globally across the internet, facilitating a widespread visceral tum against the war. What happens at such moments? And are they merely transient moments or are they, in fact, occasions when the frame as a forcible and plausible con is exposed, resulting in a critical and exuberant release from the force of illegitimate authority?” 10-11 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-24 20:55:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Theis, Chris - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lexington LE - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Singh Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SEPOCT - Valley R1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Valley
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,53 @@ 1 +St. Marks R4 2 +AC 3 +Framework 4 +1:11 5 +Government obligations necessitate tradeoffs—that means util. Woller 97 6 +Gary Woller BYU Prof., “An Overview by Gary Woller”, A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, June 1997, pg. 10 7 +“Moreover, virtually all public policies entail some redistribution of economic or political resources, such that one group's gains must come at another group's ex- pense. Consequently, public policies in a democracy must be justified to the public, and especially to those who pay the costs of those policies. Such but justification cannot simply be assumed a priori by invoking some higher-order moral principle. Appeals to a priori moral principles, such as environmental preservation, also often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense, and since public policies inherently imply winners and losers, the policymakers' duty is to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that the redistributive effects and value trade-offs implied by their polices are somehow to the overall advantage of society. At the same time, deontologically based ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy. At best, Also, a priori moral principles provide only general guidance to ethical dilemmas in public affairs and do not themselves suggest appropriate public policies, and at worst, they create a regimen of regulatory unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem or actually making it worse.” 8 +Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well being. 9 +Prefer: 10 +1. No act/omission for governments—constraint based theories collapse to util. 11 +Sunstein and Vermule 05 (Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermuele, “Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs,” Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 85 (March 2005), p. 17.) In our view, both the argument from causation and the argument from intention go wrong by overlooking the distinctive features of government as a moral agent. Whatever the general status of the act-omission distinction as a matter of moral philosophy,38 the distinction is least impressive when applied to government.39 The most fundamental point is that unlike individuals, governments always and necessarily face a choice between or among possible policies for regulating third parties. The distinction between acts and omissions may not be intelligible in this context, and even if it is, the distinction does not make a morally relevant difference. Most generally, government is in the business of creating permissions and prohibitions. When it explicitly or implicitly authorizes private action, it is not omitting to do anything, or refusing to act.40 Moreover, the distinction between authorized and unauthorized private action—for example, private killing—becomes obscure when the government formally forbids private action, but chooses a set of policy instruments that do not adequately or fully discourage it. 12 +2. Empiricism- only the real world can serve as the basis for ethical reasoning. Schwartz: The empirical support for the fundamental principle of empiricism is diffuse but salient. Our common empirical experience and experimental psychology offer evidence that humans do not have any capacity to garner knowledge except by empirical sources. The fact is that we believe that there is no source of knowledge, information, or evidence apart from observation, empirical scientific investigations, and our sensory experience of the world, and we believe this on the basis of our empirical a posteriori experiences and our general empirical view of how things work. For example, we believe on empirical evidence that humans are continuous with the rest of nature and that we rely like other animals on our senses to tell us how things are. If humans are more successful than other animals, it is not because we possess special non-experiential ways of knowing, but because we are better at cooperating, collating, and inferring. In particular we do not have any capacity for substantive a priori knowledge. There is no known mechanism by which such knowledge would be made possible. This is an empirical claim. 13 +This requires util to adjudicate- all judgments are determined based on consequences of pleasure and pain. Nagel: I I shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, no matter whose they are. The point of the exercise is to see how the pressures of objectification operate in a simple case. Physical pleasure and pain do not usually depend on activities or desires which themselves raise questions of justification and value. They are just is a sensory experiences in relation to which we are fairly passive, but toward which we feel involuntary desire or aversion. Almost everyone takes the avoidance of his own pain and the promotion of his own pleasure as subjective reasons for action in a fairly simple way; they are not back up by any further reasons. On the other hand if someone pursues pain or avoids pleasure, either it as a means to some end or it is backed up by dark reasons like guilt or sexual masochism. What sort of general value, if any, ought to be assigned to pleasure and pain when we consider these facts from an objective standpoint? What kind of judgment can we reasonably make about these things when we view them in abstraction from who we are? We can begin by asking why there is no plausibility in the zero position, that pleasure and pain have no value of any kind that can be objectively recognized. That would mean that I have no reason to take aspirin for a severe headache, however I may in fact be motivated; and that looking at it from outside, you couldn't even say that someone had a reason not to put his hand on a hot stove, just because of the pain. Try looking at it from the outside and see whether you can manage to withhold that judgment. If the idea of objective practical reason makes any sense at all, so that there is some judgment to withhold, it does not seem possible. If the general arguments against the reality of objective reasons are no good, then it is at least possible that I have a reason, and not just an inclination, to refrain from putting my hand on a hot stove. But given the possibility, it seems meaningless to deny that this is so. Oddly enough, however, we can think of a story that would go with such a denial. It might be suggested that the aversion to pain is a useful phobia—having nothing to do with the intrinsic undesirability of pain itself—which helps us avoid or escape the injuries that are signaled by pain. (The same type of purely instrumental value might be ascribed to sensory pleasure: the pleasures of food, drink, and sex might be regarded as having no value in themselves, though our natural attraction to them assists survival and reproduction.) There would then be nothing wrong with pain in itself, and someone who was never motivated deliberately to do anything just because he knew it would reduce or avoid pain would have nothing the matter with him. He would still have involuntary avoidance reactions, otherwise it would be hard to say that he felt pain at all. And he would be motivated to reduce pain for other reasons—because it was an effective way to avoid the danger being signaled, or because interfered with some physical or mental activity that was important to him. He just wouldn't regard the pain as itself something he had any reason to avoid, even though he hated the feeling just as much as the rest of us. (And of course he wouldn't be able to justify the avoidance of pain in the way that we customarily justify avoiding what we hate without reason—that is, on the ground that even an irrational hatred makes its object very unpleasant!) There is nothing self-contradictory in this proposal, but it seems nevertheless insane. Without some positive reason to think there is nothing in itself good or bad about having an experience you intensely like or dislike, we can't seriously regard the common impression to the contrary as a collective illusion. Such things are at least good or bad for us, if anything is. What seems to be going on here is that we cannot from an objective standpoint withhold a certain kind of endorsement of the most direct and immediate subjective value judgments we make concerning the contents of our own consciousness. We regard ourselves as too close to those things to be mistaken in our immediate, nonideological evaluative impressions. No objective view we can attain could possibly overrule our subjective authority in such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here. 14 + 15 +3. No intent foresight distinction means that means based theories devolve to util: if we’re knowledgeable about the consequence of an action then we calculate that into our intention because we could always decide not to act. This means we will the end that is set, so we must look to ends to adjudicate ethics. 16 +4. Theory- Ethical frameworks must be theoretically legitimate. Any standard is an interpretation of the word ought-thus framework is functionally a topicality argument about how to define the terms of the resolution. Definitions should be subject to theoretical contestation in the same way other words should be. My framework interprets ought as maximizing happiness. Prefer this definition: 17 +A. Ground- every impact can function under my standard but other ethics exclude arguments and flow to one side- kills fairness since we both need arguments to win. 18 +B. Topic lit- most articles are written through the lens of util because they’re crafted for policymakers and the general public who take consequences to be important, not philosophy majors. Key to fairness and education- the lit is where we do research and determines how we engage in the round. 19 + 20 +Inherency 21 +:17 22 +Metsamor’s decommissioning has been delayed- it’s operating until at least 2026. Daly 13 http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Armenias-Metsamor-NPP-Built-Near-Fault-Line-Gets-10-Year-Life-Extension.html Armenia’s Metsamor NPP, Built Near Fault Line, Gets 10 Year Life Extension By John Daly - Sep 23, 2013, 6:52 PM CDT In a major piece of bad news for Armenia’s neighbors Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia, Armenia's energy minister Armen Movsisyan has told journalists that the country’s aging Metsamor NPP, originally scheduled for decommissioning in 2016," will operate until 2026."But not to worry, Armenia's President Serzh Sarkisian earlier this month signed an agreement with Russia’s state nuclear agency Rosatom to assist in renovating the facility, as in 2012 Armenia had postponed the Metsamor’s decommissioning until 2020. So, why the long faces in the Caucasus? 23 +Armenia has plans for new nuclear reactors but they’ve been postponed –they’re stuck with Metsamor for the foreseeable future. Sahakyan 16 Armine (Human rights activist based in Armenia) “Armenia Continues to Gamble on Aging Nuclear Plant in a Quake-Prone Area” Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/armine-sahakyan/armenia-continues-to-gamb_b_9788186.html 24 +Armenia was supposed to have a new nuclear power plant this year that would replace one that National Geographic suggested a few years ago was the most dangerous in the world. The new plant was to have twice the electrical-generating capacity of the current one, allowing Armenia not only to meet its own power needs but to export electricity to neighboring counties. We’re well in to 2016, and not only is the new plant not operational — work on it hasn’t even begun. 25 +Plan 26 +:14 27 +Resolved: Armenia should ban the production of nuclear power, accepting the EU proposal for preventing the 2026 renewal of Metsamor. Daly 2 http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Armenias-Metsamor-NPP-Built-Near-Fault-Line-Gets-10-Year-Life-Extension.html Armenia’s Metsamor NPP, Built Near Fault Line, Gets 10 Year Life Extension By John Daly - Sep 23, 2013, 6:52 PM CDT The European Union has repeatedly called for the plant to be closed down, arguing that it poses a threat to the region, classifying Metsamor’s reactors as the "oldest and least reliable" category of all the 66 Soviet reactors built in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In 2004 the European Union's envoy called Metsamor "a danger to the entire region," but Armenia later turned down the EU's offer of a 200 million euro loan to finance Metsamor's shutdown, 28 +Advantage 1- Meltdowns 29 +1:05 30 +The Metsamor power plant – Armenia’s only form of nuclear power – is incredibly dangerous. It uses old tech, is unreliable, and lies on earthquake territory. 31 +Lavelle et al 11 Marianne Lavelle and Josie Garthwaite (National Geographic News) “Is Armenia's Nuclear Plant the World's Most Dangerous?” National Geographic News April 14th 2011 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/04/110412-most-dangerous-nuclear-plant-armenia/ 32 +In the shadow of Mount Ararat, the beloved and sorrowful national symbol of Armenia, stands a 31-year-old nuclear plant that is no less an emblem of the country's resolve and its woe. The Metsamor power station is one of a mere handful of remaining nuclear reactors of its kind that were built without primary containment structures. All five of these first-generation water-moderated Soviet units are past or near their original retirement ages, but one salient fact sets Armenia's reactor apart from the four in Russia. Metsamor lies on some of Earth's most earthquake-prone terrain. In the wake of Japan's quake-and-tsunami-triggered Fukushima Daiichi crisis, Armenia's government faces renewed questions from those who say the fateful combination of design and location make Metsamor among the most dangerous nuclear plants in the world. Seven years ago, the European Union's envoy was quoted as calling the facility "a danger to the entire region," but Armenia later turned down the EU's offer of a 200 million euro ($289 million) loan to finance Metsamor's shutdown. The United States government, which has called the plant "aging and dangerous," underwrote a study that urged construction of a new one. Plans to replace Metsamor after 2016—with a new nuclear plant at the same location—are under way. But until then, Armenia has little choice but to keep Metsamor's turbines turning. As Armenians learned in the bone-chilling cold and dark days when the plant was closed down for several years, Metsamor provides more than 40 percent of power for a nation that is isolated from its neighbors and closed off from other sources of energy. "People compare the potential risk with the potential shortage of electricity that might arise if the plant were closed," says Ara Tadevosyan, director of Mediamax, a major Armenian news agency. "Having had this negative experience, people prefer to live with it, and believe that it will not be damaged in an earthquake." A Need for Nuclear The 3 million people of landlocked Armenia are unique in their energy dependence on one aging nuclear power reactor. Regional conflicts that broke out in the dissolution of the Soviet Union left the smallest of its former republics at odds with its neighbors. Azerbaijan to the east and Turkey to the west closed their borders with Armenia, cutting off most routes for oil and natural gas. The blockade, which remains in place to this day, heaped a new economic wound onto an old scar. After the massacre of more than one million Armenians during World War I and subsequent conflict, the Soviets ceded the western part of the historic Armenian homeland to Turkey. The snow-capped peak of Mount Ararat, still revered in Armenia as the resting place of Noah's Ark, emblazoned on trinkets and storefronts throughout the land, is now in Turkey. (Related: "Tough Situations in Difficult Countries") The Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant is just 10 miles (16 kilometers) from the Turkish border—in an area that includes the fertile agricultural region of the Aras River valley. It's only 20 miles (36 kilometers) from the capital of Yerevan, home to one-third of the nation's population. And it is in the midst of a strong seismic zone that stretches in a broad swath from Turkey to the Arabian Sea near India. On December 7, 1988, a 6.8-magnitude earthquake struck, killing 25,000 people and leaving 500,000 homeless. Some 60 miles (100 kilometers) from the epicenter, Metsamor, then with two operating reactors, survived the temblor without damage, according to Armenian officials and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Because the devastating earthquake heightened concerns about the seismic hazard to the facility, the Soviet government shut the nuclear plant down. Tadevosyan said that public attitudes toward Metsamor have been strongly shaped by the nation's experience living without it during the six-and-a-half years that followed. "There were severe power shortages during the winter months," he recalled in a telephone interview from Yerevan. "We had a situation where you had one hour of power a day, and sometimes no power at all for a week. You can imagine—it was as cold in the apartment as it was in the street." A pipeline to import Russian natural gas through neighboring Georgia in the north was built in 1993, but it was regularly interrupted by "sabotage and separatist strife in that country," as the World Bank noted in a 2006 report. In 1995, the government of then-independent Armenia decided to restart the younger of the two reactors. Richard Wilson, nuclear physics professor emeritus at Harvard University, was part of a delegation of outside experts in Armenia at the time. He recalls that the Russians who came from the airport to help reopen the reactor were cheered from the side of the road upon their arrival. When the unit restarted, "It became a source of energy and a source of hope for Armenia," explained Tadevosyan. "It was a symbol that dark times are over: 'We have electricity.' And it is still seen as such today." Fortifying an Old War Horse Armenian officials say modifications made to the reactor over the past 15 years have made it safer. Before Metsamor was reopened, Armenia airlifted more than 500 tons of equipment to the site (most of it from Russia), for upgrades, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group in the United States. In the years since the restart, the IAEA says close to 1,400 safety improvements have been made. Those included "seismic-resistant" storage batteries, reinforcement of the reactor building, electrical cabinets and cooling towers. The United States provided equipment for a seismic-resistant, spray-pond cooling system. Fire safety was viewed as a critical deficiency at the plant, so extensive upgrades were made, including 140 new fire doors. The result, officials say, is a reactor that is much safer than the original unit that went into service at the site on January 10, 1980. When construction began in 1969, Metsamor was a VVER 440, Model 230, an example of one of the earliest pressurized-water nuclear plant designs, developed by the Soviets between 1956 and 1970. It was not the same design as Chernobyl, which used solid graphite instead of water to moderate—or slow down—the fission reaction. (The graphite fire contributed to the world's worst nuclear disaster, and 11 of these early graphite-moderated reactors continue to operate in Russia.) (Related: "How is Japan's Nuclear Disaster Different?") The VVER 440, in contrast, used water both to moderate and to cool the fuel, as in Western designs. (Its initials, in Russian, stand for "water-water-power-reactor.") In fact, the VVER system, with multiple cooling loops, was seen as "more forgiving" than Western plants, according to archived documents from the International Nuclear Safety Program, a former U.S. Department of Energy program aimed at aiding in safety improvements at Soviet plants. VVER 440 units would be able to stand a power loss for a longer period of time than Western plants because of the large coolant volume. After Japan's nuclear crisis erupted, the head of the Armenian State Committee on Nuclear Safety Regulation, Ashot Martirosian, pointed to Metsamor's cooling system as one reason Armenians should rest assured. "Such an emergency situation cannot arise here," he told Radio Free Europe. (Related: "Japan Battles to Avert Nuclear Disaster" and "Pictures—A Rare Look Inside Fukushima Daiichi") Nuclear engineering expert Robert Kalantari, whose Framingham, Massachusetts, firm, Engineering Planning and Management, consults for U.S. and Canadian regulatory authorities, says Metsamor is like any other nuclear plant in operation worldwide. Although its safety features are different, all have to be able to be shut down safely during a so-called "design basis accident," the kind of accident anticipated in its design. He said he is confident that Metsamor could operate safely in such an accident, and that it could cope even with accidents beyond its design basis. "Metsamor is no less safe than any other reactor in operation throughout the world," Kalantari said. "Armenia as an independent country cannot survive without Metsamor, which is a functioning, safe, and reliable source of energy for the country." Lack of Containment But the VVER 440s share one characteristic with Chernobyl that has been a continuing concern to many who live nearby: They have no containment structure. Instead, VVER 440s rely on an "accident localization system," designed to handle small ruptures. In the event of a large rupture, the system would vent directly to the atmosphere. "They cannot cope with large primary circuit breaks," the NEI's 1997 Source Book on Soviet nuclear plants concluded. "As with most Soviet-designed plants, electricity production by the VVER-440 Model V230s came at the expense of safety." Antonia Wenisch of the Austrian Institute of Applied Ecology in Vienna, calls Metsamor "among the most dangerous" nuclear plants still in operation. A rupture "would almost certainly immediately and massively fail the confinement," she said in an email. "From that point, there is an open reactor building, a core with no water in it, and accident progression with no mitigation at all." 33 +Armenian Meltdown would cause massive life loss, kill agriculture, and threaten four other countries. 34 +Sahakyan 2 Armine (Human rights activist based in Armenia) “Armenia Continues to Gamble on Aging Nuclear Plant in a Quake-Prone Area” Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/armine-sahakyan/armenia-continues-to-gamb_b_9788186.html 35 +So Armenia continues to make due with the Metsamor plant. The International Atomic Energy Agency has inspected the facility, and declared it safe. But other experts are skeptical. The big worry is that the plant has no containment building — a steel or concrete shell that would prevent radiation from escaping during an accident. If a rupture developed in the reactor’s skin, radiation would have to be vented into the air to prevent a build-up of pressure that could trigger a meltdown or explosion. The longer a nuclear plant operates, the thinner its reactor skin becomes, experts say — and thinner skins are subject to rupture. A rupture would mean “an open reactor building, a core with no water in it (to cool the reactor) and accident progression with no mitigation at all,” said Antonia Wenisch of the Vienna-based Austrian Institute of Applied Ecology in Vienna. The stakes in Armenia’s nuclear gamble are high. An accident at Metsamor would devastate the capital of Yerevan, only 20 miles away and home to a third of Armenia’s population. It would also render unusable the Aras River Valley, Armenia’s premier agricultural area, where Metasamor is situated. In addition, radiation would envelop Turkey, whose border is only 10 miles from the nuclear facility, and Armenian neighbors Georgia and Iran. 36 +Technological changes and alternate reactors won’t solve – can still melt down and causes increased cancer rates. 37 +Idayatova 16 Anakhanum “Armenia’s Metsamor nuclear plant can cause major radiation accident” Trend News Agencyhttp://en.trend.az/world/turkey/2536379.html 38 +Armenia's Metsamor nuclear power plant is a major threat not only for the entire Caucasus region, but it also poses a danger for the Armenian population, Malik Ayub Sumbal, journalist, expert on geopolitical and international conflicts, told Trend via e-mail May 20. Sumbal, who is also the founder of The Caspian Times news platform, said that the international community must learn a lesson from an accident at the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and prevent another disaster, which may be caused by Armenia's Metsamor nuclear power plant. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was an energy accident at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, initiated primarily by the tsunami that was triggered by the earthquake on March 11, 2011."The Metsamor nuclear power plant also poses a great threat for Turkey, as it is located just 16 kilometers off its borders," the expert said. "Moreover, the plant can cause cancer and other dangerous diseases among people living on the border with Armenia."Armenia has a nuclear power plant, Metsamor, built in 1970. The power plant was closed after a devastating earthquake in Spitak in 1988. But despite the international protests, the power plant's operation was resumed in 1995. Moreover, a second reactor was launched there. According to the ecologists and scholars all over the region, seismic activity of this area turns operation of the Metsamor nuclear power plant in an extremely dangerous enterprise, even if a new type of reactor is built. 39 +Nuclear accidents cause massive life loss, threaten the globe, and risk extinction. Lendman 11 40 +Stephen Lendman. The People’s Voice: News and Viewpoints. “Nuclear meltdown in Japan,” March 13th, 2011. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/03/13/nuclear-meltdown-in-japan For years, Helen Caldicott warned it's coming. In her 1978 book, "Nuclear Madness," she said: "As a physician, I contend that nuclear technology threatens life on our planet with extinction. If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced." More below on the inevitable dangers from commercial nuclear power caused a reactor meltdown." Stratfor downplayed its seriousness, adding that such an event "does not necessarily mean a nuclear disaster," that already may have happened – is the ultimate nightmare short of nuclear winter. According to Stratfor, "(A)s long as the reactor core, which is specifically designed to contain high levels of heat, pressure and radiation, remains intact, the melted fuel can be dealt with. If the (core's) breached but the containment facility built around (it) remains intact, the melted fuel can be....entombed within specialized concrete" as at Chernobyl in 1986. In fact, that disaster killed nearly one million people worldwide from nuclear radiation exposure. In their book titled, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment," Alexey Yablokov, Vassily nation. One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere." Stratfor explained that if Fukushima's floor cracked, "it is highly likely that the melting fuel will burn through (its) containment system and enter the ground. This has never happened before," mild by comparison. Potentially, millions of lives will be jeopardized. Japanese officials said Fukushima's reactor container wasn't breached. Stratfor and others said it was, making the potential calamity far worse than reported. Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said the explosion at Fukushima's Saiichi No. 1 facility could only have been caused by a core meltdown. In fact, 3 or more reactors are affected or at risk. Events are fluid and developing, but remain very serious. The possibility of an extreme catastrophe can't be discounted. 41 + 42 +Advantage 2- Armenia-Turkey Relations 43 +1:02 44 +Armenia/Turkey Relations are strained- there has been a recent outbreak of anti-Armenia sentiment after German recognition of the Armenian genocide- action needs to be taken now. MacDonald 16 Alex MacDonald, New Footage Implicates Alleged Coup Plotters in Dink Murder, 2016, http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/new-footage-implicates-alleged-coup-plotters-murder-turkish-armenian-activist-791069797 Activists have warned that Armenians in Turkey continue to face suspicion and discrimination. A poll released in 2011 suggested that 73.9 of Turks held negative views about Armenians, just ahead of Jews and Greeks. Some Armenians have expressed fear over a surge in nationalist sentiment in Turkey, which often targets Armenians. “I stopped wearing my necklace that has an ornamental cross on it a few months back. Not because I wanted to but due to fear,” said Turkish-Armenian Jaklin Solakyan, speaking to Middle East Eye in April. “I am really fed up of being denigrated and discriminated against. This is my country, and I am an equal citizen. Why do we need to be constantly targeted because we are minorities?” In particular, the issue of the Armenian genocide is a taboo subject in Turkey, where the government continues to argue that the killings that took place in 1915 did not constitute a genocide and saw an equal number of Turks, Kurds and Armenians killed. Turkish government officials threatened to break off ties with Germany after the parliament voted to recognise the Armenian genocide in early June. 45 +Also means another impact of the aff is Armenia Turkish improve relations would help alleviate conditions of systemic racism in Turkey. 46 +Banning Metsamor is key to maintaining Turkey-Armenia relations. Daily News 14 Turkey wants nuclear plant in Armenia to be shut down. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-wants-nuclear-plant-in-armenia-to-be-shut-down~-~-~-~-~-~-.aspx?pageID=238andnid=63928 47 +The Metsamor nuclear power plant in Armenia is outdated and should be urgently closed down, Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yıldız has said, re-voicing concerns about the safety of the plant. Speaking with reporters during a visit to the Turkish province of Iğdır near Turkey’s eastern border on March 21, Yıldız said Turkey had sent an official appeal to the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning the shutdown of the plant. “The nuclear plant, which was put online in 1980, has had a lifespan of 30 years. This plant has expired and should be immediately closed,” Yıldız said. He stressed Metsamor is just 16 kms away from Turkey’s border, and it was necessary to bring the issue to international attention and obtain support for the plant’s closure. 48 +Armenia-Turkey relations are key to both improving Turkish relations to other countries and improving economic growth in Armenia. Giragosain 09 http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/georgien/06380.pdf Changing Armenia-Turkish Relations February 2009 Richard Giragosian is Director of the Armenian Centre for National and International Studies (ACNIS) in Yerewan. After nearly a decade and a half of tense relations, closed borders and a lack of diplomatic relations, Armenia and Turkey are moving quickly to normalize relations. Following an official invitation extended in July 2008 by Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian, Turkish President Abdullah Gul became the first-ever Turkish head of state to visit Armenia. The September 2008 visit marked the public opening of a new process of engagement after months of secret meetings between Armenian and Turkish officials in Switzerland. The changing relationship between Armenia and Turkey can result in a “win-win” situation for both countries. For Armenia, it provides a much-needed foreign policy success and a new economic opportunity. For Turkey a possible rapprochement in Turkish-Armenian relations would do much to improve Turkey’s standing in the eyes of both the European Union and the United States. A border opening and subsequent diplomatic relations would enhance Turkey’s record of domestic reform. Just as crucially, the regional landscape has also changed in the wake of the August 2008 conflict in Georgia, offering a new impetus for opening the Armenian-Turkish border and heralding a new level of Russian support for a breakthrough between Armenia and Turkey. 49 +US-Turkey relations key to create Middle East stability which prevents radical violence. UPI 13 UPI, 2013, Israel Seeks to Repair Ties with Turkey, http://www.upi.com/Israel-seeks-to-repair-ties-with-Turkey/38621361997592/?spt=su The Americans are keen for strategic reasons to have the two non-Arab military powers in the eastern Mediterranean back together to possibly restore a modicum of stability in a region that's swirling with conflict, sectarian hatreds and political turmoil. Obama is to visit Israel in March. Kerry is on his maiden trip as top U.S. diplomat and is to visit Ankara, where he's expected to raise the issue of Turkish-Israeli relations. There appears to be an effort by both sides to patch up a relationship, encouraged by the United States which viewed the Turkey-Israeli alliance as vitally important for regional stability. 50 + 51 +Solvency 52 +:14 53 +Renewable Resources specifically in Armenia can solve energy crisis- they can take up half the energy grid by 2020. Vorotnikov 13 Vladislav Vorotnikov, Renewable Resources will help Armenia avoid Energy Crisis. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2013/07/renewable-resources-will-help-armenia-avoid-energy-crisis.html Yerevan, Armenia Armenia is set to develop its renewable energy resources in the coming years, announced its deputy minister of energy and natural resources Areg Galstyan. It will set its focus mainly on hydropower plants, but it will put some emphasis on solar energy, as well. However the government is hesitant towards the development of its wind sector. The Armenian government is taking renewables development very seriously as it has little to no traditional fuel reserves. Without the alternative energy, the country could face serious crisis in coming decades. "Armenia is highly dependent on imported gas and other energy sources. Today the share of renewable resources in the total energy structure of the country accounts for 23 percent,” according to the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. “We expect that by 2020 this figure should exceed 50 percent.” - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-16 08:51:14.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Pyda, Srika - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Hockaday KB - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake Jesuit Singh Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +SEPOCT - St Marks R4 Armenia AC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Marks
- Caselist.RoundClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-14 02:57:32.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Grapevine
- Caselist.RoundClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-17 14:43:46.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Peiris, Ashan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Katy Taylor AW - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Greenhill
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-24 20:55:50.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Theis, Chris - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lexington LE - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Valley
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-16 08:51:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Pyda, Srika - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Hockaday KB - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +St Marks