Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[7]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[6]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[7]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-12 19:21:44.463
	1	+2016-09-12 19:21:44.0

Caselist.CitesClass[6]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,82 @@
	1	+=1-off =
	2	+A. Interpretation: The affirmative must defend countries in general and must not defend that only a single country or combination of any countries prohibits production of nuclear power.
	3	+B. Violation: They defend only Egypt. Confirmed in CX.
	4	+C. Standards
	5	+1. Textuality- this aff is definitely not textual. The new norm in LD where everyone acts like 1 man policy debaters makes no sense since LD resolutions aren't written with plan focus in mind. 3 independent warrants, I can extend any of these in the 2NR to access this standard:
	6	+A. Bare plurals-The word "countries" in the resolution are a generic bare plural. This evidence is about government's but the same logic applies to countries:
	7	+Nebel 14, Jake, AB in philosophy at Princeton and the BPhil at Oxford, NYU,20 14, http://vbriefly.com/2014/12/19/jake-nebel-on-specifying-just-governments/
	8	+I believe that debaters shouldn't specify a government on the living wage topic. The standard argument for this is simple: "just governments" is a plural noun phrase, so it refers to more than one just government. Most debaters will stop there. But there is much more to say. (Some seem not to care about the plural construction. I plan to address this view in a later article about the parametric conception of topicality.) Some noun phrases include articles like "the," demonstratives like "these," possessives like "my," or quantifiers like "some" or "all." These words are called determiners. Bare plurals, including "just governments," lack determiners. There's no article, demonstrative, possessive, or quantifier in front of the noun to tell you how many or which governments are being discussed. We use bare plurals for two main purposes. Consider some examples: Debaters are here. Debaters are smart. In (1), "debaters" seems equivalent to "some debaters." It is true just in case there is more than one debater around. If I enter a restaurant and utter (1), I speak truly if there are a couple of debaters at a table. This is an existential use of the bare plural, because it just says that there exist things of the relevant class (debaters) that meet the relevant description (being here). In (2), though, "debaters" seems to refer to debaters in general. This use of the bare plural is generic. Some say that generics refer to kinds of things, rather than particular members of their kinds, or that they refer to typical cases. There is a large literature on understanding generics. Here my aim is not to figure out the truth conditions for the generic reading of the resolution; I shall simply work with our pre-theoretical grip on the contrast between sentences like (1) and (2). This distinction bears importantly on the resolution. If "just governments" is a generic bare plural, then the debate is about whether just governments in general ought to require that employers pay a living wage. If it is an existential bare plural, then the debate is about whether some just governments—i.e., more than one—ought to require that employers pay a living wage. Only the second interpretation allows one to affirm by specifying a few governments.
	9	+**B. Google defines "countries" as the plural version of country **
	10	+plural noun: countries
	11	+
	12	+
	13	+====This means for the aff to be topical, even if countries don't refer to a bare plural, the aff has to defend 2 countries banning nuclear power. ====
	14	+C. Framers intent- If the framers wanted to discuss Belgium they would have specified that country or would have added a qualifier to the word country. Framers intent is key- words are only meant to communicate the meaning that the author intends.
	15	+There are 4 impacts to textuality:
	16	+Little a is predictability- I am
	17	+AND
	18	+shell. Giving you another way out creates a 2:1 skew.
	19	+
	20	+
	21	+=2-off=
	22	+
	23	+
	24	+====CP Text: Egypt will ban the production of nuclear power with the exception of energy produced by thorium reactors. ====
	25	+
	26	+
	27	+====Thorium reactors are the most promising form of energy production in the future ====
	28	+**Schaffer 13** ~~Marvin Baker Schaffer, researcher for RAND corporation with expertise in Accelerator Physics, Medical Physics, Nuclear Physics, "Abundant thorium as an alternative nuclear fuel: Important waste disposal and weapon proliferation advantages," Energy Policy Vol 60, September 13, 2013~~ JW
	29	+The principal arguments for thorium rather than uranium as fuel for nuclear reactors are the
	30	+AND
	31	+amplifier approach warrants support provided affordable energetic proton accelerators are developed and demonstrated.
	32	+
	33	+
	34	+====Mutually exclusive with the aff: the aff bans all nuclear energy production which would include thorium reactors====
	35	+
	36	+
	37	+====Thorium reactors are extremely resilient to proliferation. Solves prolif and terror ====
	38	+**Schaffer 13** ~~Marvin Baker Schaffer, researcher for RAND corporation with expertise in Accelerator Physics, Medical Physics, Nuclear Physics, "Abundant thorium as an alternative nuclear fuel: Important waste disposal and weapon proliferation advantages," Energy Policy Vol 60, September 13, 2013~~ JW
	39	+Uranium-233 as transmuted in the thorium fuel cycle is typically contaminated with uranium
	40	+AND
	41	+uranium-233 can be denatured and made non-critical through dilution.
	42	+
	43	+
	44	+====Thorium reactors are also way safer than traditional nuclear plants ====
	45	+**Jacoby 15** ~~Mitch Jacoby, senior correspondent at Civil and Engineering News, "Trying to Unleash the Power of Uranium," Civil and Engineering News, July 6, 2015, http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i27/Trying-Unleash-Power-Thorium.html~~ JW
	46	+Finally, thorium comes with safety benefits, its proponents claim. So-called
	47	+AND
	48	+prevent the spread of radioactive material without the need for plant operator intervention.
	49	+
	50	+
	51	+====Banning all nuclear power kills 55 thousand people per country, scientific expected value analysis proves ====
	52	+Brook et al 15, Barry and Staffan Qvist, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Sweden Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology, University of Tasmania, Australia, Environmental and health impacts of a policy to phase out nuclear power in Sweden, 2015, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421515001731Nuclear power faces an uncertain future in Sweden. Major political parties, including the Green party of the coalition-government have recently strongly advocated for a policy to decommission the Swedish nuclear ~~power~~ fleet prematurely. Here we examine the environmental, health and (to a lesser extent) economic impacts of implementing such a plan. The process has already been started through the early shutdown of the Barsebäck plant. We estimate that the political decision to shut down Barsebäck has resulted in $2400 avoidable energy-production-related deaths and an increase in global CO2 emissions of 95 mil- lion tonnes to date (October 2014). The Swedish reactor fleet as a whole has reached just past its halfway point of production, and has a remaining potential production of up to 2100 TWh. The reactors have the potential of preventing 1.9–2.1 gigatonnes of future CO2-emissions if allowed to operate their full life- spans. The potential for future prevention of energy-related-deaths is 50,000–60,000. We estimate an 800 billion SEK ( ~~and~~ 120 billion USD) lower-bound estimate for the lost tax revenue from an early phase-out policy. In sum, the evidence shows that implementing a 'nuclear-free' policy for Sweden (or countries in a similar situation) would constitute a highly retrograde step for climate, health and economic protec- tion.
	53	+
	54	+
	55	+
	56	+
	57	+=AC =
	58	+
	59	+
	60	+==Middle Eastern Relations ==
	61	+
	62	+
	63	+====2. Banning nuclear power doesn't solve: the Russia-Egypt deal has already given Russia more influence even if they're forced to withdraw. ====
	64	+
	65	+
	66	+====3. Turn: having Egypt do something that's against what they want antagonizes the relations between U.S. and Egypt====
	67	+
	68	+
	69	+====4. Turn: banning nuclear power just means that Russia will export other forms of energy production to Egypt. Double-Bind either ====
	70	+
	71	+
	72	+====a) Russia wants to expand influence so it will continue to displace the U.S. ====
	73	+
	74	+
	75	+====b) Russia is not interested in expanding Middle Eastern influence and will thus practically not displace the U.S. ====
	76	+
	77	+
	78	+====5. Advantage is non-unique: Russia already has Egypt's preference because of Obama's hesitance to endorse Putin ====
	79	+**Borshchevskaya 15** ~~Anna Borshchevskaya , "Russia-Egypt Nuclear Power Plant Deal: Why Ignoring Egypt's Needs Is Bad For The U.S." Forbes, February 13, 2015, http://www.forbes.com/sites/annaborshchevskaya/2015/02/13/russia-egypt-nuclear-power-plant-deal-why-ignoring-egypts-needs-is-bad-for-the-u-s/~~#3beeb00b2f1b~~ JW
	80	+Putin had travelled to Cairo this week upon Sisi's invitation. Russian-Egyptian relations
	81	+AND
	82	+radical Islamists in Russia. Putin certainly won't criticize Sisi on his democratic backslide

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-12 19:21:46.552

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Steele, Tan, Bistagne

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+La Canada AZ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+7

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+West Ranch Won Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Loyola Quarters NC

Tournament

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