Tournament: Interps | Round: 1 | Opponent: Anyone | Judge: Anyone

Must Flash/Pass

A. Interpretation

Both debaters must either have paper copies of all evidence and pre-written analytics or must flash the arguments on a USB drive PRIOR to giving their speech.

B. Violation—

Didn't flash/pass 

C. Standards

1. Clash
   2. Norm setting
   3. Reciprocity
   4. Academic Integrity

Must Provide Study Methodology

A. Interpretation

For every piece of empirical evidence they present, both debaters must be able to provide the following in CX: size, scope of study, duration of study, author qualifications, and variables controlled for. This information must be readily available during cross ex. Handing me the entire study methodology or article isn’t sufficient to meet this interp. 

B. Violation

My opponent couldn’t answer questions about the empirical details in CX. 

C. Standards

1. Weighing ground
   2. Academic integrity

D. Voters

Setting good norms

CPs Must be Implemented

A. Interpretation

All neg counterplans need to be currently implemented somewhere in the status quo

B. Violation

C. Standards

1. Predictability
   2. Topic lit

I will run more theory shells than just these, but those shells are more rare and are based on round-specific abuses.

Tournament: Young Lawyers | Round: 1 | Opponent: Unknown | Judge: Unknown

FRAMEWORK

The standard is maximizing expected happiness

There are three justifications for the standard:

1. Value is contingent on experiencing that value, which means all moral theories reduce to ends.

Harris 11. Sam Harris.  "The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Human Values by Sam Harris: The Journal of Positive Psychology: Vol 6, No 3." Taylor andamp; Francis. 9-26-2011. Web. 9-28-2016.
I believe that we will increasingly understand good and evil, right and wrong,
AND
approval, either in this world or the world to come. Even within

This puts my opponent in a double bind, either (a) we experience the value and it reduces to consequences, or (b) we don’t experience the value and it has no effect on us.

2. Extinction precedes any ethical analysis – we must focus on preventing existential risks

Bostrom 12. Nick Bostrom 2012. Faculty of Philosophy and Oxford Martin School University of Oxford www.nickbostrom.com www.existential-risk.org ~Global Policy, Vol 4, Issue 1 (2013): 15-31~ ~pdf~
Our present understanding of axiology might well be confused. We may not now know
AND
recognize that morality and uphold it. Thus extinction destroys any moral potential. 

3. Util is best for practical decision-making. It’s key to the very functioning of institutions.

Bowden 9 Peter Bowden (University of Sydney, Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics). "In Defense of Utilitarianism." SSRN. June 1st, 2009. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=1534305
The most significant reason for advocating utility theory however, is that it is useful
AND
an ethical environment stronger tools with which to decide how they should react. 

ADV 1: CLIMATE CHANGE

The first advantage is that prohibiting nuclear energy prevents climate change. Two reasons: (1) prohibition would stop nuclear energy’s contributions to emissions and (2) it would encourage clean renewables that eliminate emissions.

A. Reducing emissions from nuclear power

Nuclear plant construction and uranium mining emits massive amounts of carbon, and emissions from nuclear plants will only get worse over time

Sovacool, 07 ~Benjamin; Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech; "What's Really Wrong With Nuclear Power?"; 11/30; http://scitizen.com/stories/Future- Energies/2007/11/What-s-Really-Wrong-With-Nuclear-Power/; ~Premier~

Third and finally, nuclear power plants are not carbon neutral. The Oxford Research
AND
dioxide per kilowatt-hour as a comparable gas- fired power station. 

Any real comparison between energy systems must take life-cycle emissions into account – nuclear energy has 6 times the life-cycle emissions of renewables and its emissions will double in the next decade

Diesendorf 16 Mark Diesendorf, Associate Professor at the University of New South Wales, "Renewable Energy versus Nuclear: Dispelling the Myths", Energy Post, 5/31/16, http://www.energypost.eu/renewable-energy-versus-nuclear-dispelling-myths/**
Neither nuclear energy nor most renewable technologies emit CO2 during operation. However, meaningful
AND
neither of these conditions is likely to be met for decades at least.

B. Encouraging clean renewables

Nuclear energy is becoming increasingly irrelevant as the cost of renewables continues to go down dramatically.

Lindon 15. Henry Lindon, "Study: Wind Energy and Solar Energy Beating Conventional Generation Modalities On Costs Of Production",http://sustainnovate.ae/en/industry-news/detail/study-wind-energy-solar-energy-beating-conventional-generation-modalities-o/  11/30/15.
Wind energy and solar energy are notably beating out conventional generation modalities (coal,
AND
25 just over the last year, according to the new study.

Nuclear energy prevents renewables, and co-existence is not possible – four warrants

Porritt 11Jonathan Porritt, Director of Forum for the Future, Why the UK must choose renewables over nuclear: an answer to Monbiot", The Guardian, 7/26/11, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/jul/26/george-monbiot-renewable-nuclear**

For me, there are four main reasons why co-existence has become
AND
government proposes, preference will clearly be given to purchasing from this source. 

Not switching to renewables threatens human survival – the time is now, any delay allows catastrophe

Auerbach 15. David Auerbach, "A child born today may live to see humanity’s end, unless…" Reuters, June 18, 2015, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/18/a-child-born-today-may-live-to-see-humanitys-end-unless/**
The Great Debate
Humans will be extinct in 100 years because the planet will be uninhabitable, said
AND
multiplier" and is considering its potential disruptive impact across all its planning.

ADV 2: SAFETY

Prohibiting nuclear power would prevent disastrous nuclear plant failures from both accidents and cyberattacks.

A. Nuclear accidents

Accidents are not isolated coincidences; they’re an inherent risk of nuclear reactors. More meltdowns are bound to happen – the impact is mass death every year, and small accidents escalate to massive disasters. More technology can’t solve. ~00:47~

Sovacool 08 Benjamin Sovacool (Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globaliaztion, part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, adjunct professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) and Christopher Cooper (Principal Partner for Oomph Consulting, LLC, former Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices) "Nuclear Nonsense: Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post- Kyoto Energy Challenges" William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 33 Issue 1 Article 2 2008 Safety While the Chair of the Public Information Committee of the American Nuclear Society has publicly stated that "the industry has proven itself to be the safest major source of electricity in the Western world,"" 9 the history of nuclear power proves otherwise. The safety record of nuclear plants is lackluster at best. For one salient example, consider that Ukraine still has a Ministry of Emergency, some twenty-two years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster warranted its creation."' No less than seventy-six nuclear accidents, defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than $50,000 of property damage, totaling more than $19 billion in damages have occurred worldwide from 1947 to 2008."' See Table B. One survey of major energy accidents from 1907 to 2007 found that nuclear plants ranked first in economic cost among all energy accidents, accounting for 41 of all accident related property damage, or $16.6 billion in property loss, even though nuclear power plants did not even begin commercial operation until the 1950s. 442 These numbers translate to more than one incident and $332 million in damages every year for the past three decades. Forty-three accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and almost two-thirds of all nuclear accidents have occurred in the U.S., refuting the notion that severe accidents are relegated to the past or to countries without America's modern technologies. industry oversight." 3 Even the most conservative estimates find that nuclear power accidents have killed 4100 people,' or more people than have died in commercial U.S. airline accidents since 1982."' "~N~uclear power accidents have involved meltdowns, explosions, fires, and loss of coolant, and have occurred during both normal operation and extreme, emergency conditions such as droughts and earthquakes."4 6 One index of nuclear power accidents that included costs beyond death and property damage-such as injuring and irradiating workers and malfunctions that did not result in shutdowns or leaks—documented 956 incidents from 1942 to 2007." Using some of the most advanced probabilistic risk assessment tools available, an interdisciplinary ~a~ team at MIT identified possible reactor failures in the U.S. and predicted that the best estimate of core damage frequency was around one every 10,000 reactor years." 8 In terms of the expected growth scenario for nuclear power from 2005 to 2055, the MIT team estimated that at least four serious core damage accidents will occur and concluded that "both the historical and the PRA ~probabilistic risk assessment~ data show an unacceptable accident frequency."" 9 Further, "~the potential impact on the public from safety or waste management failure... makes it impossible today to make a credible case for the immediate expanded use of nuclear power."4 51 Two types of mistakes were deemed the most egregious: errors committed during field operations, such as maintenance and testing, that can cause an accident, and human errors made during small accidents that cascade to complete failure.452 There may be no feasible way to "design around" these risks. For example, when another group of CEA researchers examined the safety performance of advanced French Pressurized Water Reactors, they concluded that human factors would contribute to about one-fourth (twenty-three percent) of the likelihood of a major accident.453 Consider that the two most significant nuclear power accidents, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, were human caused and then exacerbated by more human mistakes. Unfortunately, safety risks such as those at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are only amplified with new generations of nuclear systems. Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum has noted that almost all serious nuclear accidents occurred with recent technology, making newer systems the riskiest.5" In 1959, the Sodium Research Experiment reactor in California experienced a partial meltdown fourteen months after opening." 1 In 1961, the S1-1 Reactor in Idaho was slightly more than two years old before a fatal accident killed everyone at the site.50 2 The Fermi Unit 1 reactor began commercial operation in August 1966, but had a partial meltdown only two months after opening.50 3 The St. Laurent des Eaux Al Reactor in France started in June 1969, but an online refueling machine malfunctioned and melted 400 pounds of fuel four months later."4 The Browns Ferry Unit 1 reactor in Alabama began commercial operation in August 1974 but experienced a fire severely damaging control equipment six months later. 5 Three Mile Island Unit 2 began commercial operation in December 1978 but had a partial meltdown three months after it started.0 6 Chernobyl Unit 4 started up in August 1984, and suffered the worst nuclear disaster in history on April 26, 1986 before the two-year anniversary of its operation.0 7 Safety risks may be especially acute for new reactors in the U.S. for three reasons. First, the pressure to build new generators on existing sites to avoid complex issues associated with finding new locations.. only increases the risk of catastrophe, because there is a greater chance that one accident can affect multiple reactors. Second, Generation IV researchers continue to pursue breeder reactor designs that use liquid sodium as coolant.5 " Liquid sodium, however, can be dangerous, since it can immediately catch fire when exposed to water.510 Third, the domestic nuclear industry lacks qualified and experienced staff and is losing much of the expertise that it does have to retirement, attrition and death.5 ' The DOE has warned that the lack of growth in the domestic nuclear industry has gradually eroded important infrastructural elements such as experienced personnel in nuclear energy operations, engineering, radiation protection, and other professional disciplines; qualified suppliers of nuclear equipment and components, including fabrication capability; and contractor, architect, and engineer organizations with personnel, skills, and experience in nuclear design, engineering, and construction.512 Since all commercial American reactors are light water reactors,518 system operators have little experience with newer gas cooled and other advanced reactor designs used throughout the world. Moreover, the Nuclear Energy Institute warned in 2005 that "half of the industry's employees are over 47 years old, and more than a quarter.. .already are eligible to stop working," implying that the industry had far fewer available specialists with the requisite knowledge necessary to facilitate any rapid expansion of nuclear power, let alone a safe one.

B. Cyberattacks

The electrical grid is extremely vulnerable to cyberattacks – Ukraine proves.

Follett 16. Andrew Follett. "Study: Green Energy Makes US Power Grid More Vulnerable To Cyberattacks." Daily Caller. 6-30-2016. Web. 9-27-2016.
Even highly secure electrical infrastructure, like that of the Department of Defense, is
AND
there are even five-minute YouTube tutorials on how to do it.

The impact of grid shutdown from accidents or cyberattacks is extinction.

Nuclear reactor failure escalates and leads to the destruction of all life

Huff 14 Ethan (staff writer for Natural News) "Nuclear power + grid down event = global extinction for humanity" August 12th 2014 Natural Newshttp://www.naturalnews.com/046429'nuclear'power'electric'grid'global'extinction.html~~# JW
If you think the Fukushima situation is bad, consider the fact that the United
AND
~ a possible cascade of nuclear meltdowns. So why isn't it happening?

ADV 3: TERRORISM

Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to attacks – causes cascading meltdowns that devastate the economy and release radiation

Cooper 08 Benjamin Sovacool (Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globaliaztion, part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, adjunct professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) and Christopher Cooper (Principal Partner for Oomph Consulting, LLC, former Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices) "Nuclear Nonsense: Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post- Kyoto Energy Challenges" William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 33 Issue 1 Article 2 2008 h p://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmelpr/vol33/iss1/2 JW
Nuclear plants face at least three types of security risks: they rely on a
AND
dry cask storage technologies because newly discharged fuel rods must be stored onsite." 

Nuclear power allows terrorists to acquire plutonium—they can make nukes and dirty bombs.

Cooper 2 Benjamin Sovacool (Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globaliaztion, part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore, adjunct professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) and Christopher Cooper (Principal Partner for Oomph Consulting, LLC, former Executive Director of the Network for New Energy Choices) "Nuclear Nonsense: Why Nuclear Power is No Answer to Climate Change and the World's Post- Kyoto Energy Challenges" William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 33 Issue 1 Article 2 2008
The Nobel Prize winning nuclear physicist Hannes Alfven has been noted as saying that "~
AND
of possible reactors and fuel cycles, will ever be completely proliferation proof.

Nuclear terrorism is the most likely and most devastating existential threat

Rhodes 9 Richard (a visiting scholar at Harvard and MIT, and currently he is an affiliate of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. Rhodes is the author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb (1986), which won the Pulitzer Prize in Nonfiction, National Book Award, and National Book Critics Circle Award) "Reducing the nuclear threat: The argument for public safety" December 14th 2009 JW "The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is not just a security problem," Lugar wrote in the report's introduction. "It is the economic dilemma and the moral challenge of the current age.
 On September 11, 2001, the world witnessed the destructive potential of international
AND
the free society it has taken us more than 200 years to build.