Tournament: USC | Round: 5 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake VC | Judge: Adam Bistagne
The centrality of free speech to the 1AC is a negation of embodied experience that excludes bodies mapped by schemas that deviate from “proper” performance. Attempting to separate meaning from voice is a fantasy of liberal humanism that renders agency inaccessible by the person with disability
St. Pierre 15 Joshua, Department of Philosophy at the University of Alberta, March 31, “Cripping Communication: Speech, Disability, and Exclusion in Liberal Humanist and Posthumanist Discourse,” Communication Theory, 25, pg. 331-5/AKG
Liberal humanism is a broad-based political and intellectual emergence within the Enlightenment, which gained full ascendency in the 19th and 20th centuries, valuing “open and undogmatic inquiry, freedom of the individual conscience” and aiming for a “respect for social justice, social and psychological utility, decency, and liberality” (Coates and White, 1970, p. 447). At its center, liberal humanism is a marriage between the long humanist tradition and liberal ideals: a dual commitment to “man” and “freedom.” However, in its effort to secure “man” as a completely autonomous being, liberal humanism must first transcend group differences and generalize attributes of humanity in a movement of essentialization. What defines a human in this tradition is accordingly not accidental attributes— for example race, gender, age—but the possession of rationality. The liberal subject, as Katherine Hayles has observed, identifies the self with the rational mind merely in possession of a body (1999, p. 4). This move is unquestionably overdetermined, yet can in large measure be traced back through Cartesian rationalism to the Discourse on the Method. Asserting the cogito, Descartes writes: from this I knew I was a substance whose whole essence or nature is solely to think, and which does not require any place, or depend on any material thing, in order to exist. Accordingly, this ‘I’— that is, the soul by which I am what I am—is entirely distinct from the body, and indeed is easier to know than the body, and would not fail to be whatever it is, even if the body did not exist (2009, p. 36, emphasis added). Distinct from the body and free from context, the existence of the rational “I” stands above the historical moment. While Descartes himself is not the brash dualist so often presumed, the methodological distinction between res extensa and res cogitans nevertheless sets the stage for the humanist erasure of embodiment that carries through into posthumanism. Compared to the axiomatically derived self-evidence of the rational self, the body is deemed epistemically untrustworthy, accidental, and historical. Transcribed through liberal humanism, this binary conceives the subject as an inner and universal rationality possessing an external and particular body. The liberal subject emerges as autonomous and unitary, yet as interior, in need of externalizing his/her social and political nature. It is here that speech takes on a significant, yet surprisingly underrepresented, role within liberal humanist discourse. In 1923, H. Wildon Carr, a former president of the Aristotelian Society, argued that the very idea of reason requires discourse because reason is an activity directed outwards. “The origin of speech,” said Carr, “is in the nature of human mentality. Reason in its human form would not and could not exist without speech” (1923–1924, p. 97). A similar position is taken up more recently by Frank E. X. Dance and Carl E. Larson who have contended that speech communication is a pedagogical initiation into humanity. “Speech communication,” they write, “functions so importantly in the life of a human being that the understanding and study of speech communication are at the very core of a liberal education” (1972, p. 6). Toeing the party line, Dance and Larson have maintained that speech communication has three functions: (a) linking the individual with his environment, (b) developing higher mental processes, and (c) regulating behavior (1972, p. 64). Speech is an enactment of reason and therefore of human identity, since “evolutionarily speaking, the hand is shaped by the labor in which it engages, man’s interiority simultaneously shapes and is shaped by speech communication” (1972, p. 71). For Carr, Dance, and Larson, then, speech is an extension of rationality, belonging not to the body, but to the articulation and formation of reason. The liberal humanist assessment of speech exemplified by Carr, Dance, and Larson relies on an ambiguity and slippage between the rational interior and embodied exterior. Speech is given in liberal humanism as a mode of rationality, yet the body is also needed for the enactment of speech. This duality raises troubling questions regarding the boundaries of reason and the self. Does speech modulate from a form of rationality to a conditional act as it passes through the lips? Where does the universal reason stop and contingent embodiment begin? While speech, mediating the threshold between the public and private and the universal and accidental, can be understood as the sine qua non of the liberal humanist subject, it simultaneously occupies an ambiguous position. This ambiguity translates as a fundamental instability in the rational self’s identity and boundary that can be detailed through the voice, chiastically hinging language and the body. The voice is dually constituted by the phonological and the phonetic: the meaning laden, immaterial aspect of the phoneme and its material, auditory support. While the existence of the phonological depends upon the phonetic (however short-lived its existence), the logic of phonocentrism permeating liberal humanism systematically obscures the phonetic as the trace of embodiment. “Requiring the intervention of no determinate surface in the world, being produced in the world as pure auto-affection, the voice,” explains Derrida, “is a signifying substance completely at our disposition. For the voice meets no obstacle to its emission in the world precisely because it is produced as pure auto-affection” (1973, p. 79). This dominant tradition understands the phonetic, embodied aspect of the voice to be utterly passive and invisible, and thus “the voice” comes from within, circumventing the body, and directly expresses interiority. Yet, tying the signifier to the body, the voice is not so easily divorced from its embodied source. Somewhat overstated by the dysfluent speaker, the phonetic aspect of the voice often does not self-effacingly recede once the phonological function has been dutifully carried out, but rather lingers and stretches, drawing attention to itself and threatening to subvert its linguistic purpose. The voice of one who has cerebral palsy, for example, is decidedly not at his/her complete disposition precisely because the body obtrudes its continuous emission into the world. The conception of the voice as pure auto-affection can be maintained only by abstracting speech from lived experience. I accordingly argue that the rational human materializes himself through the voice precariously; the slippage is manifested both phonetically and affectively. Mladen Dolar (2006) contends that even though the phonetic voice does not contribute to meaning and is therefore inconspicuous when the semantic operation of speech is “properly” carried out, there is always something leftover, whether accent, individuality, or other tonal qualia. The role assigned to the remainder of the voice by Dolar is somewhat peculiar. On the one hand, the remainder is an obstruction overcome when one becomes adjusted to a different accent, for example, and can focus simply upon the intended meaning. The voice in this regard is simply an impediment to the communicative operation of language. Yet on the other hand, Dolar notes that a voice devoid of any remainder would conflate with mechanical iterability and thus lose its human characteristic: Paradoxically, it is the mechanical voice which confronts us with the object voice, its disturbing and uncanny nature, whereas the human touch helps us keep it at bay. The obstacle it appears to present actually enhances the sense-making effect; the seeming distraction contributes to the better fulfillment of the goal (2006, p. 22). The phonetic side effect of the voice enables its recognizability and identification as a human voice. 

Our alternative is to reject the affirmative’s focus on free speech as a requirement of agency. Their starting point guarantees cooption because the aesthetics of speech are always set with respect to the ideal human subject. Only the alternative opens up space for alternative modes of communication
St. Pierre 15 Joshua, Department of Philosophy at the University of Alberta, March 31, “Cripping Communication: Speech, Disability, and Exclusion in Liberal Humanist and Posthumanist Discourse,” Communication Theory, 25, pg. 337-40/AKG
There is no single bridge spanning humanism to posthumanism. There are certainly stories to tell about the antihumanism of the 1960s and 1970s, of feminism, cybernetics, Hans Moravec, late capitalism, and of the cascading death of God, man, and the author. Yet, as Donna Haraway duly reminds us, the cyborg is a bastard. Any attempt to pin down its origins is always already a fabrication, a sanitation, an attempt to tell a crooked story straight. Neil Badmington further muddies the water, adapting for posthumanism the Lyotardian-Derridean line that a system always contains the conditions for its critique. Rather than construing humanism and posthumanism as distinct entities in a linear, temporal relation, Badmington argues—akin to Lyotard’s reading of modernism and postmodernism— that “the writing of the posthumanist condition should . . . take the form of a critical practice that occurs inside humanism, consisting not of the wake but the working-through of humanist discourse” (2003, p. 22). Posthumanism has always ghosted humanism, and posthumanism is never a clean break (if it can be called a break at all) from humanism. Just as there is no single nor a complete shift from humanism to posthumanism, so are there many posthumanisms. My affinity toward posthumanism as a generative source for rethinking disabled speech does not extend to them all, insofar as some remain bedded with humanism more than others. For example, early cybernetics remained fixated on defining and maintaining borders of an autonomous and autopoietic subject. In a related vein, transhumanists hoist the banner of human progress with pride. Often conflated with posthumanism, transhumanism has wormed its way into the cultural imaginary with grand ameliorative visions of biotechnology improving the human condition through augmentation and newgenics. Transhumanism, as Cary Wolfe defines it, is simply an “intensification of humanism” (2009, p. xv), a technological extension of the dream of perfectibility that sees bodily limitations as a hurdle to transcend. Disabled speech (and disability more broadly) is accordingly an irksome problem for transhumanists to fix, in time, through technology. The posthumanism I intend to redeploy takes its cue from Nayar, who defines what he terms critical posthumanism as “the radical decentering of the traditional sovereign, coherent and autonomous human in order to demonstrate how the human is always already evolving with, constituted by and constitutive of multiple forms of life and machines” (2014, p. 2). The posthuman under this reading cannot be understood in terms of a single locus or a unitary ontology of presence. 

Our role of the ballot is to consider the aesthetic impression of the affirmative before its potential successes. Aesthetics permeate our discussions of politics – the current political arena serves the conceal people with disabilities or mark them as deviant and not worth inclusion. This classroom setting where we discuss different corporealities now constitutes our distaste of the ontological position of disability. The search of a complete body politic from which to cite resistance has alienated all deviant corporealities and is the cause of exclusion.
Siebers 10 (Tobin, professor of English, University of Michigan, Disability Aesthetics, pgs 58-63)
These two episodes may seem worlds apart, their resemblance superficial. The first turns on questions of aesthetic taste. The second is about political inclusion. But they express with equal power the current struggles in the United States about the ideal of a common culture. Do certain kinds of bodies have greater civil rights than others? Which is more important, the baby's body or the mother's body? Who should bear the cost to make public buildings accessible to people with disabilities? Who gets to have sex with whom? Whose bloodlines will Americans claim as their birthright? These are political questions for the simple reason that they determine who gains membership, and who does not, in the body politic, but the apparent oddity of the culture wars consists in the fact that the debates over these questions have used aesthetic rather than political arguments. The flash points in the battle are not on the senate floor or in the chambers of the powerful but in classrooms, museums, theaters, concert halls, and other places of culture. Opposing sides tend not to debate political problems directly, focusing instead on the value of reading certain books, the decency of photographs, paintings, and statues, the offensiveness of performances and gestures, the bounds of pornography, the limits of good taste. The culture wars are supposed to be more about who gets into the culture than who has culture, and yet it is difficult to raise one issue without raising the other. Aesthetics tracks the emotions that some bodies feel in the presence of other bodies, but aesthetic feelings of pleasure and disgust are difficult to separate from political feelings of acceptance and rejection. The oppression of women, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities, blacks, and other ethnic groups often takes the form of an aesthetic judgment, though a warped one, about their bodies and the emotions elicited by them. Their actions are called sick, their appearance judged obscene or disgusting, their mind depraved, their influence likened to a cancer attacking the healthy body of society. Such metaphors not only bring the idea of the disabled body to mind but represent the rejected political body as disabled in some way. The culture wars appear to be as much about the mental competence to render judgment, the capacity to taste, and the physical ability to experience sensations as about a variety of controversial judgments, tastes, and feelings. They are as much about the shapes of the individual bodies accepted or rejected by the body politic as about the imagination of a common culture. The status of disability, then, is not just one controversy among others in the American culture wars. Disability is in one way or another the key concept by which the major controversies at the heart of the culture wars are presented to the public sphere, and through which the voting public will eventually render its decisions on matters both political and aesthetic.

Tournament: Blake | Round: 1 | Opponent: Brookfield East RL | Judge: Matthew Luevano
The world “crippled” is based on a lack of physical or intellectual power, and is now used in a negative connotation.
Clark and Marsh 2002 (Laurence and Steven, Stephen Marsh is a member of Arnold and Porter LLP's Litigation practice, Laurence Clark is a British stand-up comedian, writer, actor, presenter, and disability rights advocator, 2002, “Patriarchy in the UK: The Language of Disability”)
Reiser (2001) credits the derivation of the word ‘cripple’ to the Middle German word ‘Kripple’ meaning: “to be without power”. Whilst this may be currently true in the political sense, the inference is a lack of physical or intellectual power. On the other hand, Crowley and Crowley (2000) date its usage back to before 950 AD, the earliest form being the Old English ‘crypel’ which is a form of ‘creep’. Therefore a ‘cripple’ would be one who can only creep. The word is only used once in the King James bible: “and there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked” (Acts 14:8). However it is used a number of times by Shakespeare: “And chide the cripple tardy-gaited night Who, like a foul and ugly witch, doth limp So tediously away.” (Henry V, act IV chorus) The word is still commonly used as an adjective: e.g. “crippling pain”, “crippling debts” and “the health service is crippled”; or as an undesirable fate: “to end up a cripple”. More recently the abbreviated form ‘crip’ has been reclaimed and used by disabled people in the United Kingdom in the same positive way that ‘queer’ was adopted by lesbians and gay men, however it could not be used in that same way by non-disabled people.

Disability theory precludes the case – politics must first be based in equal access before productive solutions can be found. Turns case
Power 1 Marcus Power, Lecturer in Human geography at the University of Durham, Fall 2001
The complex relationships between space and disability have received increasing attention in recent years as it is become necessary to explore how social and spatial processes can be used to disable rather than enable people with physical disabilities. Brendan Gleeson talks about the `long disciplinary silence' in Geography and writes that geographers were `absent without leave' from the broader intellectual campaign around disability issues: A failure to embrace disability as a core concern can only impoverish the discipline, both theoretically and empirically. (Gleeson 1999: 1) Debates about how space informs experiences of disability have expanded considerably in the 1990s, but largely urban, Anglophone, western societies remain the predominant focus of attention. Much of this work does however highlight the heterogeneity of physical conditions and social experiences that are commonly lumped together under the disability rubric. Some researchers have criticised approaches that have avoided or understated these differences, but there is arguably also a political need for inclusive theorisations that illustrate the range of social forces that bear down upon `impaired bodies' and explore the possibility of collective responses. Gleeson (1999, 2001) has referred to the need to bring about `enabling environments and inclusive social spaces'. Instead, many development organisations arguably construct elaborate `landscapes of dependency'. Geographies of Disability begins by expressing the author's hope that eventually no geographer will be able to claim that disability is irrelevant to their work. As geographers interested in development, it is absolutely crucial to play our part in bringing an end to these disciplinary silences through an illustration of the discipline and power of development and dependency and by exploring the possibility of alternatives.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: Triples | Opponent: Servite PA | Judge: Panel
Anti-Israel divestment harms the Palestinian economy, but has little impact on Israel
Sheffield 15 Carrie Sheffield (Warren T. Brookes Journalism Fellow for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. A former researcher for American Enterprise Institute scholar Edward Conard, I wrote editorials for The Washington Times, covered Congress for POLITICO and The Hill), "Boycott Israel Movement Stunts The Palestinian Economy," Forbes Magazine, 2/22/2015 AZ
A push to “boycott, divest and sanction” (BDS) Israeli companies has limited impact on the credit profile of Israel, yet it directly harms its intended beneficiaries, the Palestinians. The BDS movement, including universities, pension funds and leaders of some Christian denominations (to the chagrin of many congregants), ignores economic data. And it coincides with a disturbing rise of violent anti-Semitism across Europe. “The impact of BDS is more psychological than real so far and has had no discernible impact on Israeli trade or the broader economy,” Kristin Lindow, senior vice president at Moody's Investors Service and Moody’s lead analyst for Israel (in full disclosure, a former Moody’s colleague) told Forbes. “That said, the sanctions do run the risk of hurting the Palestinian economy, which is much smaller and poorer than that of Israel, as seen in the case of SodaStream.” While the broader Israeli economy is presently shielded from BDS, one victim is SodaStream, an Israeli company manufacturing DIY soda that shuttered a West Bank factory and moved it to southern Israel. This cut hundreds of jobs for Palestinians that reportedly paid between three and five times the local prevailing wage. SodaStream’s CEO Daniel Birnbaum denied the move was BDS-related, though its profits plunged after BDS activists locked the fizzy pop maker in its crosshairs. "It has nothing to do with politics; we're relocating to a modern facility that is three times the size," Birnbaum told The Independent. "But if it was up to me, I would have stayed. We showed the world Arabs and Jews can work together." The numbers speak for themselves: Israel (population 8.3 million) has GDP of $291 billion, the Palestinian Territories (population 4.1 million), $11.3 billion. In 2012, Israeli sales to the Palestinian Authority were $4.3 billion, about 5 of Israeli exports (excluding diamonds) less than 2 of Israeli GDP, according to the Bank of Israel. In 2012, Palestinian sales to Israel accounted for about 81 of Palestinian exports and less than a percentage point of Israeli GDP. Palestinian purchases from Israel were two-thirds of total Palestinian imports (or 27 of Palestinian GDP). Such trade flow asymmetry shows Palestine needs Israel, economically speaking. Yet the BDS crowd would impair economic ties between these areas, despite evidence that trade between peoples lessens outbreak of war. BDS-ers want to obliterate the vast trade surplus Israel extends to Palestine and offer nothing in its place. It’s easy to cast digital stones from the comfort of a California dorm room or a posh British mansion. It’s difficult to gainfully employ some 110,000 Palestinians as Israel does, or build 16 industrial parks in the West Bank and East Jerusalem hosting 1,000 facilities where Jews and Arabs work shoulder-to-shoulder. Despite overheated BDS rhetoric about exploitation, last year the Palestinian Authority’s official newspaper hailed working conditions for Palestinians employed by Israelis in West Bank settlements. It also scolded Palestinians hiring other Palestinians for low wages with no benefits.
Turns case – economic ties between the two countries foster interdependence which deters conflict – neither Palestinians nor Israelis would fight broader conflicts because of trade dependence on each other
Palestinian growth high now – econ decline causes poverty and crushes quality of life
EINZ 9 Palestinian Quality of Life," Embassy of Israel in New Zealand, 2009 AZ
In 2009, the West Bank enjoyed a significant economic recovery, with economic growth reaching an unprecedented 8 - a continuation of positive trends reported in 2008. Macroeconomic conditions in the West Bank improved during 2009, mainly thanks to measures taken by Israel to support economic activity, improvements in the security situation in the West Bank, the continued financial support of the international community to the Palestinian Authority and increased foreign investment. This economic growth is reflected in an improved quality of life for the Palestinian population. There is an increase in new real estate projects, both residential and commercial. Rawabi, the first planned Palestinian city, is being built with the help of Israeli consultants. The West Bank boasts one of the world's strongest stock exchanges, the Palestinian Securities Exchange, (PSE), which grew 12.5 last year. It is ranked 33 among international stock exchanges and second in the region in terms of investor protection.
Economic decline risks a breakdown of international institutions—that causes war
- 1930s prove that prolonged global downturn has geopolitical repercussions in the US and Europe
- Brings about trade wars and competition over resources,
- Hurts international institutions like EU and WT
- Tensions are rising now
Kreitner 11 Ricky Kreitner (intern at Business Insider). “Serious People Are Starting To Realize That We May Be Looking At World War III.” Business Insider. August 8th, 2011. http://www.businessinsider.com/serious-people-are-starting-to-realize-that-we-may-be-looking-at-world-war-iii-2011-8
Noting liberal despair over the government's inability to combat economic depression, and conservative skepticism that traditional tools will be effective, John Judis of The New Republic argues that a global depression far longer and more severe than anyone expected now seems nearly impossible to avoid. Judis believes that the coming "depression" will be accompanied by geopolitical upheaval and institutional collapse. "As the experience of the 1930s testified, a prolonged global downturn can have profound political and geopolitical repercussions. In the U.S. and Europe, the downturn has already inspired unsavory, right-wing populist movements. It could also bring about trade wars and intense competition over natural resources, and the eventual breakdown of important institutions like European Union and the World Trade Organization. Even a shooting war is possible." Daniel Knowles of the Telegraph has noticed a similar trend. In a post titled, "This Really Is Beginning To Look Like 1931," Knowles argues that we could be witnessing the transition from recession to global depression that last occurred two years after the 1929 market collapse, and eight years before Germany invaded Poland, triggering the Second World War: "The difference today is that so far, the chain reaction of a default has been avoided by bailouts. Countries are not closing down their borders or arming their soldiers – they can agree on some solution, if not a good solution. But the fundamental problem – the spiral downwards caused by confidence crises and ever rising interest rates – is exactly the same now as it was in 1931. And as Italy and Spain come under attack, we are reaching the limit of how much that sticking plaster can heal. Tensions between European countries unseen in decades are emerging." Knowles wrote that post three days ago. Since then it has become abundantly obvious that Europe will soon become unwilling or unable to continue bailing out every country with a debt problem. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy continues to chug along, to the extent it is chugging at all, on the false security offered

Outweighs and turns case – poverty is the worst form of structural violence and magnifies other impacts – especially for women.  Pogge 02
Thomas Pogge, Poverty and Human Rights. 2002.
Human rights would be fully realized, if all human beings had secure access to the objects of these rights. Our world is today very far from this ideal. Piecing together the current global record, we find that most of the current massive underfulfillment of human rights is more or less directly connected to poverty. The connection is direct in the case of basic social and economic human rights, such as the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care. The connection is more indirect in the case of civil and political human rights associated with democratic government and the rule of law. Desperately poor people, often stunted, illiterate, and heavily preoccupied with the struggle to survive, typically lack effective means for resisting or rewarding their rulers, who are therefore likely to rule them oppressively while catering to the interests of other, often foreign, agents (governments and corporations, for instance) who are more capable of reciprocation.  The statistics are appalling. Out of a total of 6575 million human beings, 830 million are reportedly chronically undernourished, 1100 million lack access to safe water and 2600 million lack access to basic sanitation (UNDP 2006: 174, 33). About 2000 million lack access to essential drugs  (www.fic.nih.gov/about/summary.html). Some 1000 million have no adequate shelter and 2000 million lack electricity (UNDP 1998: 49). Some 799 million adults are illiterate (www.uis.unesco.org). Some 250 million children between 5 and 14 do wage work outside their household with 170.5 million of them involved in hazardous work and 8.4 million in the “unconditionally worst” forms of child labor, which involve slavery, forced or bonded labor, forced recruitment for use in armed conflict, forced prostitution or pornography, or the production or trafficking of illegal drugs (ILO 2002: 9, 11, 17, 18). People of colour and females (UNDP 2003: 310-330; UNRISD 2005; Social Watch 2005) bear greatly disproportionate shares of these deprivations.  Roughly one third of all human deaths, some 18 million annually, are due to poverty-related causes, easily preventable through better nutrition, safe drinking water, mosquito nets, re-hydration packs, vaccines and other medicines.  This sums up to 300 million deaths in 17 years since the end of the cold war - many more than were caused by all the wars, civil wars, and government repression of the entire 20th century.

Tournament: JANFEB Misc | Round: Quads | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
Counterplan Text: The Supreme Court of the United States, in the next available test case, should rule that public colleges and universities ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech.
Lawsuits are piling up against free speech restrictions – the counterplan strengthens First Amendment protections and solves the entirety of the case
Watanabe 14 Teresa Watanabe (covers education for the LA Times), "Students challenge free-speech rules on college campuses," LA Times, 7/1/2014 AZ
College students in California and three other states filed lawsuits against their campuses Tuesday in what is thought to be the first-ever coordinated legal attack on free speech restrictions in higher education. Vincenzo Sinapi-Riddle, a 20-year-old studying computer science, alleged that Citrus College in Glendora had violated his 1st Amendment rights by restricting his petitioning activities to a small "free-speech zone" in the campus quad. According to Sinapi-Riddle's complaint, a campus official stopped him last fall from talking to another student about his campaign against spying by the National Security Agency, saying he had strayed outside the free-speech zone. The official said he had the authority to eject Sinapi-Riddle from campus if he did not comply. "It was shocking to me that there could be so much hostility about me talking to another student peacefully about government spying," Sinapi-Riddle said in an interview. "My vision of college was to express what I think." In his lawsuit, Sinapi-Riddle is challenging Citrus' free-speech zone, an anti-harassment policy that he argues is overly broad and vague and a multi-step process for approving student group events. The college had eliminated its free-speech zones in a 2003 legal settlement with another student, but last year "readopted in essence the unconstitutional policy it abandoned," the complaint alleged. College officials were not immediately available for comment. But communications director Paula Green forwarded copies of Citrus' free-speech policy, which declares that the campus is a "non-public forum" except where otherwise designated to "prevent the substantial disruption of the orderly operation of the college." The policy instructs the college to enact procedures that "reasonably regulate" free expression. The "Stand Up for Speech" litigation project is sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a Philadelphia-based group that promotes free speech and due process rights at colleges and universities. Its aim is to eliminate speech codes and other campus policies that restrict expression. In a report published this year, the foundation found that 58 of 427 major colleges and universities surveyed maintain restrictive speech codes despite what it called a "virtually unbroken string of legal defeats" against them dating to 1989. Even in California — unique in the nation for two state laws that explicitly bar free speech restrictions at both public and private universities — the majority of campuses retain written speech codes, he said. Among 16 California State University campuses surveyed by the group, for instance, 11 were rated "red" for employing at least one policy that "substantially restricts" free speech. "Universities are scared of people who demand censorship -- they're afraid of lawsuits and PR problems," said Robert Shibley, the foundation’s senior vice president. "Unfortunately, they are more worried about that than about ignoring their 1st Amendment responsibilities," he added. "The point of the project is to balance out the incentives that cause universities to institute rules that censor speech." The foundation intends to target campuses in each of four federal court circuits; after each case is settled, it will file another lawsuit. In other cases filed Tuesday: — Iowa State University students Paul Gerlich and Erin Furleigh challenged administrative rejection of their campus club T-shirt promoting legalization of marijuana. The university said the shirt violated rules that bar the use of the school name to promote "dangerous, illegal or unhealthy" products and behavior, according to the complaint. — Chicago State University faculty members Phillip Beverly and Robert Bionaz sued over what they said were repeated attempts to silence a blog they write on alleged administrative corruption. — Ohio University student Isaac Smith challenged the campus speech code that forbids any act that "degrades, demeans or disgraces another." University officials invoked the code to veto a T-shirt by Smith’s Students Defending Students campus group — which defends peers accused of campus disciplinary offenses. The T-shirt said, "We get you off for free," a phrase that administrators found "objectified women" and "promoted prostitution," the complaint said. 

Courts are better checks on implementation – they decide the birghtline for whether speech is constitutionally protected.
Arthur 11 (Joyce, Founder and Executive Director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, a national political pro-choice group, “The Limits of Free Speech,” Sep 21, 2011, https://rewire.news/article/2011/09/21/limits-free-speech-5/
A common objection to prosecuting hate speech is that it might endanger speech that counters hate speech. For example, a critique may repeat the offending words and discuss their import, or it may subvert the hate message in a subtle or creative way that could be misunderstood by some. But context is everything when determining whether speech is actually hateful or not, so this objection seems nonsensical. Any reasonable judge should be able to discern the difference in intent or effect behind a hateful message and the speech that critiques it.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 1 | Opponent: Palo Alto BH | Judge: Travis Fife
Interpretation: All debaters who have attended at least 1 bid tournament must disclose all positions they have read on the NDCA 2016-17 LD wiki under their school and name and correct sides. The disclosure must include a tag, citation, and the first and last 3 words of each piece of evidence they read originally written by another author. 

Violation: 

Standards:

1. Resource equity:
   2. Educational benefits
   3. Research: Disclosure creates a high incentive to do deeper and more focused research, since debaters quickly learn the stock arguments and can do specific research that they know will be useful.
   Nails 13 Jacob Nails (Debate Coach, Sacred Heart HS). “A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third-Party Disclosure).” NSDUpdate. October 10th, 2013. http://nsdupdate.com/2013/a-defense-of-disclosure-including-third-party-disclosure-by-jacob-nails/ AJ
   I fall squarely on the side of disclosure. I find that the largest advantage of widespread disclosure is the educational value it provides. First, disclosure streamlines research. Rather than every team and every lone wolf researching completely in the dark, the wiki provides a public body of knowledge that everyone can contribute to and build off of. Students can look through the different studies on the topic and choose the best ones on an informed basis without the prohibitively large burden of personally surveying all of the literature. The best arguments are identified and replicated, which is a natural result of an open marketplace of ideas. Quality of evidence increases across the board. In theory, the increased quality of information could trade off with quantity. If debaters could just look to the wiki for evidence, it might remove the competitive incentive to do one’s own research. Empirically, however, the opposite has been true. In fact, a second advantage of disclosure is that it motivates research. Debaters cannot expect to make it a whole topic with the same stock AC – that is, unless they are continually updating and frontlining it. Likewise, debaters with access to their opponents’ cases can do more targeted and specific research. Students can go to a new level of depth, researching not just the pros and cons of the topic but the specific authors, arguments, and advocacies employed by other debaters. The incentive to cut author-specific indicts is low if there’s little guarantee that the author will ever be cited in a round but high if one knows that specific schools are using that author in rounds. In this way, disclosure increases incentive to research by altering a student’s cost-benefit analysis so that the time spent researching is more valuable, i.e. more likely to produce useful evidence because it is more directed. In any case, if publicly accessible evidence jeopardized research, backfiles and briefs would have done LD in a long time ago.
   4. de-incentivizes anti-educational arguments
   5. Academic honesty

Tournament: Blake | Round: 1 | Opponent: Brookfield East RL | Judge: Matthew Luevano
Endowments are high now but dropping rapidly - protests are alienating alumni donors, who are of older generations
Hartocollis 8/4 – Anemona Hartocollis, writer for NYT: August 4, 2016(“College Students Protest, Alumni’s Fondness Fades and Checks Shrink” New York Times Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/college-protests-alumni-donations.html?_r=0 Accessed on 12/15/16)IG
Scott MacConnell cherishes the memory of his years at Amherst College, where he discovered his future métier as a theatrical designer. But protests on campus over cultural and racial sensitivities last year soured his feelings.
Now Mr. MacConnell, who graduated in 1960, is expressing his discontent through his wallet. In June, he cut the college out of his will.
“As an alumnus of the college, I feel that I have been lied to, patronized and basically dismissed as an old, white bigot who is insensitive to the needs and feelings of the current college community,” Mr. MacConnell, 77, wrote in a letter to the college’s alumni fund in December, when he first warned that he was reducing his support to the college to a token $5.
A backlash from alumni is an unexpected aftershock of the campus disruptions of the last academic year. Although fund-raisers are still gauging the extent of the effect on philanthropy, some colleges — particularly small, elite liberal arts institutions — have reported a decline in donations, accompanied by a laundry list of g5.
Alumni from a range of generations say they are baffled by today’s college culture. Among their laments: Students are too wrapped up in racial and identity politics. They are allowed to take too many frivolous courses. They have repudiated the heroes and traditions of the past by judging them by today’s standards rather than in the context of their times. Fraternities are being unfairly maligned, and men are being demonized by sexual assault investigations. And university administrations have been too meek in addressing protesters whose messages have seemed to fly in the face of free speech.
Scott C. Johnston, who graduated from Yale in 1982, said he was on campus last fall when activists tried to shut down a free speech conference, “because apparently they missed irony class that day.” He recalled the Yale student who was videotaped screaming at a professor, Nicholas Christakis, that he had failed “to create a place of comfort and home” for students in his capacity as the head of a residential college.
A rally at New Haven Superior Court demanding justice for Corey Menafee, an African-American dining hall worker at Yale’s Calhoun College who was charged with breaking a window pane that depicted black slaves carrying cotton. Credit Peter Hvizdak/New Haven Register, via Associated Press
“I don’t think anything has damaged Yale’s brand quite like that,” said Mr. Johnston, a founder of an internet start-up and a former hedge fund manager. “This is not your daddy’s liberalism.”
“The worst part,” he continued, “is that campus administrators are wilting before the activists like flowers.” Yale College’s alumni fund was flat between this year and last, according to Karen Peart, a university spokeswoman.
Among about 35 small, selective liberal arts colleges belonging to the fund-raising organization Staff, or Sharing the Annual Fund Fundamentals, that recently reported their initial annual fund results for the 2016 fiscal year, 29 percent were behind 2015 in dollars, and 64 percent were behind in donors, according to a steering committee member, Scott Kleinheksel of Claremont McKenna College in California. His school, which was also the site of protests, had a decline in donor participation but a rise in giving.
At Amherst, the amount of money given by alumni dropped 6.5 percent for the fiscal year that ended June 30, and participation in the alumni fund dropped 1.9 percentage points, to 50.6 percent, the lowest participation rate since 1975, when the college began admitting women, according to the college. The amount raised from big donors decreased significantly. Some of the decline was because of a falloff after two large reunion gifts last year, according to Pete Mackey, a spokesman for Amherst.
At Princeton, where protesters unsuccessfully demanded the removal of Woodrow Wilson’s name from university buildings and programs, undergraduate alumni donations dropped 6.6 percent from a record high the year before, and participation dropped 1.9 percentage points, according to the university’s website. A Princeton spokesman, John Cramer, said there was no evidence the drop was connected to campus protests.

Protest lead to reduced donations, enrollments, and financial support by the government
Keller 2/21 – Rudi Keller writer for the Columbia tribune: 2/21/16(“University of Missouri fundraising takes $6 million hit in December as donors hold back funds” Available at http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/education/turmoil_at_mu/university-of-missouri-fundraising-takes-million-hit-in-december-as/article_ed7cfd5b-3b3e-5b18-95d9 f2945ac51172.html Accessed on 12/15/16)IF
New pledges and donations to the University of Missouri fell $6 million in December as the campus weathered the fallout of public discontent that also threatens to erode the school’s finances via state support and tuition revenue. December combines Christmas generosity and the promise of tax deductions on returns due April 15, making it a prime time for fundraisers at major institutions.
In December 2014, new pledges and donations for all campus activities including athletics totaled $19.6 million, according to figures compiled by the university’s advancement office. Only $13.6 million came in this December, a drop of about 31 percent. The figures represent new commitments and donations that are not given in fulfillment of previous pledges, Vice Chancellor of University Advancement Tom Hiles said.
For the three complete months since campus protests made international news in November, new pledges and donations to MU declined by about $7.4 million. Along with the decrease in new support, pledges totaling about $2 million were withdrawn, Hiles said. About 10 were gifts of $25,000 or more, including one for $500,000, he said.
Total new pledges and donations in fiscal year 2015 totaled $147.6 million, down from a record $164.1 million in fiscal year 2014.
The advancement office has fielded more than 2,000 calls from people upset with the university and tracks them by topic on a heat map.
“It ran the gamut from” Assistant Professor Melissa “Click to Planned Parenthood to just a general lack of leadership,” Hiles said. “‘Who’s in charge? Are the students running it?’ If I heard inmates are running the asylum one more time I was going to … . Those were the general categories.”
Student demonstrations over racism and marginalization on campus made international headlines after the Tiger football team announced it would boycott athletic activities in support of a hunger strike by Concerned Student 1950 member Jonathan Butler.
Athletic donations also have dipped, including a 68 percent drop in December cash gifts compared to December 2014 and a 38 percent decline in new pledges and donations as tallied in Hiles’ office during November, December and January. The Athletic Department’s decreased fundraising over that period — $1.3 million — is included in the total campus decline of $7.4 million.
Giving by smaller donors, defined as those who give less than $10,000, declined by about 5 percent in the three-month period, with drops in November and December somewhat offset by a January increase in giving. Small donors gave or pledged $4.76 million in the period, down from $5.02 million the previous year. “We definitely got hit in our annual fund and other points,” Hiles said. “It was rough because normally December is our best month.”
While his office fielded calls, Hiles said staff members researched callers who said they would never donate again. The result, he said, was “about a 90 percent correlation with people who ... have never given.”
The final word on other financial issues is unresolved. A House committee already has denied the university a portion of the budget increase allocated to other state colleges and universities. Chairwoman Donna Lichtenegger, R-Jackson, cited Click’s continued employment and a demonstration that interrupted a UM System Board of Curators meeting for the cut. At a Wednesday hearing of the Joint Committee on Education, interim MU Chancellor Hank Foley said figures show an anticipated enrollment drop of 900 students, which roughly equates to a $20 million loss of tuition revenue.
Endowment funds are key to US competitiveness – ensures college quality
Leigh 14 Steven R. Leigh (dean of CU-Boulder’s College of Arts and Sciences), "Endowments and the future of higher education," UColorado Boulder, March 2014 AZ
These broad trends point directly to the need for CU-Boulder’s College of Arts and Sciences to increase endowment funding across the college. Endowments drive improvements in the quality of an institution and reflect alums, donors and supporters who recognize the importance of research universities in the 21st century. Endowed professorships are the first and most important component of increasing our academic quality. Named chairs recognize significant faculty achievements and help the university support faculty salary and research. CU-Boulder professors are among the most productive in the nation and are heavily recruited by competitors, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cornell, Berkeley, Illinois, UC Irvine and many others. Often, these competitors offer our faculty endowed professorships, conferring prestige and research support. CU must provide its faculty with comparable support to be competitive. A second major area for endowments is student scholarships and, for graduate students, fellowships. A stable source of income that helps pay tuition is the most direct and effective way to offset the costs of education. Endowed scholarships are also effective recruiting tools for admitting the nation’s best to CU. Our dynamic programs, departments and majors are attracting more and more applicants, including the best in the nation. Like faculty support, endowed scholarships and fellowships confer prestige and, most importantly, allow students to focus entirely on academics without balancing jobs and worrying about future loan repayments. Finally, endowment funding for programs greatly enriches the institution, providing capabilities that are difficult to attain when tuition revenue provides the majority of funding. Institutions funded mainly by tuition must make sure that expenditures directly benefit students, which sometimes limits options for innovation and risk-taking. Programmatic funding enables faculty and students to take risks in their research and creative work. For example, in my own field, this might involve traveling to an unexplored region to prospect for human fossils or archaeological sites. Support for high-risk projects allows our faculty and students to develop new areas of knowledge, benefitting society by broadening the capacity of the institution to innovate. The future of higher education, including CU’s future, depends to a large degree on how successfully we can build major endowments.  Ultimately, U.S. competitiveness and leadership in the global knowledge economy depends on this as well. For alums, donors and supporters, endowments indelibly affirm the importance of higher education and enduringly preserve its viability and vitality.
Innovation solves great power war
Taylor 4 – Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Mark, “The Politics of Technological Change: International Relations versus Domestic Institutions,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 4/1/2004, http://www.scribd.com/doc/46554792/Taylor) RGP
I. Introduction Technological innovation is of central importance to the study of international relations (IR), affecting almost every aspect of the sub-field. First and foremost, a nation’s technological capability has a significant effect on its economic growth, industrial might, and military prowess; therefore relative national technological capabilities necessarily influence the balance of power between states, and hence have a role in calculations of war and alliance formation. Second, technology and innovative capacity also determine a nation’s trade profile, affecting which products it will import and export, as well as where multinational corporations will base their production facilities. Third, insofar as innovation-driven economic growth both attracts investment and produces surplus capital, a nation’s technological ability will also affect international financial flows and who has power over them. Thus, in broad theoretical terms, technological change is important to the study of IR because of its overall implications for both the relative and absolute power of states. And if theory alone does not convince, then history also tells us that nations on the technological ascent generally experience a corresponding and dramatic change in their global stature and influence, such as Britain during the first industrial revolution, the United States and Germany during the second industrial revolution, and Japan during the twentieth century. Conversely, great powers which fail to maintain their place at the technological frontier generally drift and fade from influence on international scene. This is not to suggest that technological innovation alone determines international politics, but rather that shifts in both relative and absolute technological capability have a major impact on international relations, and therefore need to be better understood by IR scholars. Indeed, the importance of technological innovation to international relations is seldom disputed by IR theorists. Technology is rarely the sole or overriding causal variable in any given IR theory, but a broad overview of the major theoretical debates reveals the ubiquity of technological causality. For example, from Waltz to Posen, almost all Realists have a place for technology in their explanations of international politics. At the very least, they describe it as an essential part of the distribution of material capabilities across nations, or an indirect source of military doctrine. And for some, like Gilpin quoted above, technology is the very cornerstone of great power domination, and its transfer the main vehicle by which war and change occur in world politics. Jervis tells us that the balance of offensive and defensive military technology affects the incentives for war. Walt agrees, arguing that technological change can alter a state’s aggregate power, and thereby affect both alliance formation and the international balance of threats. Liberals are less directly concerned with technological change, but they must admit that by raising or lowering the costs of using force, technological progress affects the rational attractiveness of international cooperation and regimes. Technology also lowers information and transactions costs and thus increases the applicability of international institutions, a cornerstone of Liberal IR theory. And in fostering flows of trade, finance, and information, technological change can lead to Keohane’s interdependence or Thomas Friedman et al’s globalization. Meanwhile, over at the “third debate”, Constructivists cover the causal spectrum on the issue, from Katzenstein’s “cultural norms” which shape security concerns and thereby affect technological innovation; to Wendt’s “stripped down technological determinism” in which technology inevitably drives nations to form a world state. However most Constructivists seem to favor Wendt, arguing that new technology changes people’s identities within society, and sometimes even creates new cross-national constituencies, thereby affecting international politics. Of course, Marxists tend to see technology as determining all social relations and the entire course of history, though they describe mankind’s major fault lines as running between economic classes rather than nation-states. Finally, Buzan and Little remind us that without advances in the technologies of transportation, communication, production, and war, international systems would not exist in the first place.

US leadership prevents great power war and existential governance crises
Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth ’13 (Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College “Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment,” International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51)
A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences, however, undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts that the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and security dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers, but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure security ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition, one would see overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional proxy wars and arming of client states—all of which would be concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades, as states such as Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more proliferation. Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate over the stability of proliferationchanges as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences. In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of “unforeseen crisis dynamics” that could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that China’s rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, “The United States will have to play a key role in countering China, because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves.” 81 Therefore, unless China’s rise stalls, “the United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing. 83 In sum, the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of scholarship, including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difªcult. Bringing together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which the case for retrenchment misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, the United States lowers security competition in the world’s key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties dissuade partners from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the United States’ formidable military machine may deter entry by potential rivals. Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the “focused enmity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S. military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85

Tournament: Blake | Round: 1 | Opponent: Brookfield East RL | Judge: Matthew Luevano
The notion of free speech assumes that all voices are equally treated, when in reality power inequities shape who can speak what
Boler 2k Megan Boler (Professor in the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto and editor of Digital Media and Democracy), "All Speech is Not Free: The Ethics of "Affirmative Action Pedagogy," Philosophy of Education, 2000 AZ
All speech is not free. Power inequities institutionalized through economies, gender roles, social class, and corporate-owned media ensure that all voices do not carry the same weight. As part of Western democracies, different voices pay different prices for the words one chooses to utter. Some speech results in the speaker being assaulted, or even killed. Other speech is not free in the sense that it is foreclosed: our social and political culture predetermines certain voices and articulations as unrecognizable, illegitimate, unspeakable.1 Similarly, neither are all expressions of hostility equal. Some hostile voices are penalized while others are tolerated.2 Hostility that targets a marginalized person on the basis of her or his assumed inferiority carries more weight than hostility expressed by a marginalized person towards a member of the dominant class. Efforts to legislate against “hate speech” within public spaces cannot, in principle, recognize the differential weight and significance of hate speech directed at different individuals or groups. If all speech is not free, then in what sense can one claim that freedom of speech is a working constitutional right? If free speech is not effective in practice, then a historicized ethics is required. Thus the discomforting paradox of U.S. democracy: while we may desire a principle of equality that applies in exactly the same way to every citizen, in a society where equality is not guaranteed we require historically sensitive principles that appear to contradict the ideal of “equality.” An historicized ethics operates toward the ideal of principles such as constitutional rights, but also recognizes the need to develop ethical principles that take into account that all persons do not have equal protection under the law nor equal access to resources. Within a climate of extreme backlash to affirmative action and to women’s rights, I propose what I call an “affirmative action pedagogy”: a pedagogy that ensures critical analysis within higher education classrooms of any expression of racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, or sexism, for example. An affirmative action pedagogy seeks to ensure that we bear witness to marginalized voices in our classrooms, even at the minor cost of limiting dominant voices.
Free exchange of ideas is outweighed by need for direct action – anything else accepts racism, neoliberalism, and economic inequality as the norm
Tillett-Saks 13 Andrew Tillett-Saks (organizer with UNITE HERE Local 217), "Neoliberal Myths," Counterpunch, 11/7/2013 AZ
The twofold argument against the protestors stems from two central myths of neoliberalism. The argument for free discourse as the enlightened path to justice ignores that direct action protest is primarily responsible for most of the achievements we would consider ‘progress’ historically (think civil rights, workers’ rights, suffrage, etc.), not the free exchange of ideas. The claim that silencing speech in the name of freedom is self-defeating indulges in the myth of the pre-existence of a free society in which freedom of speech must be preciously safeguarded, while ignoring the woeful shortcomings of freedom of speech in our society which must be addressed before there is anything worth protecting.
Critics of the protest repeatedly denounced direct action in favor of ideological debate as the path to social justice. “It would have been more effective to take part in a discussion rather than flat out refuse to have him speak,” declared one horrified student to the Brown Daily Herald. Similarly, Brown University President Christina Paxson labeled the protest a detrimental “affront to democratic civil society,” and instead advocated “intellectual rigor, careful analysis, and…respectful dialogue and discussion.” Yet the implication that masterful debate is the engine of social progress could not be more historically unfounded. Only in the fairy tale histories of those interested in discouraging social resistance does ‘respectful dialogue’ play a decisive role in struggles against injustice. The eight-hour workday is not a product of an incisive question-and-answer session with American robber barons. Rather, hundreds of thousands of workers conducted general strikes during the nineteenth century, marched in the face of military gunfire at Haymarket Square in 1886, and occupied scores of factories in the 1930’s before the eight-hour work day became American law. Jim Crow was not defeated with the moral suasion of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speeches. Rather, hundreds of thousands marched on Washington, suffered through imprisonment by racist Southern law enforcement, and repeatedly staged disruptive protests to win basic civil rights. On a more international scale, Colonialism, that somehow-oft-forgotten tyranny that plagued most of the globe for centuries, did not cease thanks to open academic dialogue. Bloody resistance, from Algeria to Vietnam to Panama to Cuba to Egypt to the Philippines to Cameroon and to many other countries, was the necessary tool that unlocked colonial shackles. Different specific tactics have worked in different contexts, but one aspect remains constant: The free flow of ideas and dialogue, by itself, has rarely been enough to generate social progress. It is not that ideas entirely lack social power, but they have never been sufficient in winning concessions from those in power to the oppressed. Herein lies neoliberal myth number one—that a liberal free-market society will inexorably and inherently march towards greater freedom. To the contrary, direct action has always proved necessary.
Racism must be rejected in every instance without surcease. It justifies atrocities, and is truly the capital sin.
Memmi 2k – Albert, Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ Unv. Of Paris, Albert (RACISM, translated by Steve Martinot, pp.163-165) jwang
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without remission, probably never achieved, yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent toward racism. One cannot even let the monster in the house, especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other people which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which person man is not themself himself an outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that one’s moral conduct only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order for which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on racism because racism signifies the exclusion of the other and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious language, racism is “the truly capital sin.”fn22 It is not an accident that almost all of humanity’s spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with respect. “Recall,” says the bible, “that you were once a stranger in Egypt,” which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is an ethical and a practical appeal – indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice. A just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.
Colleges are key to challenging racism
Gordon and Johnson 95 Jill Gordon (Charles A. Dana Professor of Philosophy, Colby College) and Markus Johnson, "Race, Speech, and a Hostile Educational Environment: What Color Is Free Speech?" Journal of Social Philosophy, 2003 AZ
From racially motivated police brutality to kindly condescension, racism and racialized behavior pervade American life and manifest themselves in a range of phenomena.1 Psychologists and legal scholars have demonstrated the various ways in which sometimes subtle but invidious racism permeates American institutions and personal interactions between whites and blacks.2 We focus on one particular institution and set of interactions, namely, predominantly white college campuses and the antiblack racist speech and behavior that take place there, in an effort to analyze the type of harm done in this context and to suggest a solution analogous to the legal precedent set in cases involving “hostile work environments.” We believe that a hostile educational environment is one manifestation of what Charles Mills (1997) calls the legacy of the Racial Contract. Whites continue to express and act on racist beliefs and ideals, while refusing to recognize their ideas and behaviors as such, and when it comes to remedying the consequences of antiblack racism through legal means, pervasive white “moral cognitive dysfunction”3 keeps the legal system from recognizing and legitimizing the problem and from seeing potential avenues of redress already available. Unless or until there is redress of the harm to black students on predominantly white campuses, they are being denied a fundamental educational opportunity in institutions thought to be crucial to social and economic advancement in our democracy. This not only harms African Americans but threatens democracy itself

Tournament: Blake | Round: 1 | Opponent: Brookfield East RL | Judge: Matthew Luevano
AFF actors should remove all restrictions on constitutionally protected free speech, and ban the usage of all hate speech, including hate speech not protected by the First Amendment. Hate speech poses a direct threat to the oppressed. Banning it is necessary to promote inclusiveness.
Jared Taylor summarizes Waldron, 12, Why We Should Ban “Hate Speech”, American Renaissance, summarizing Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 2012, 292 pp., 26.95. 8/24/12, http://www.amren.com/features/2012/08/why-we-should-ban-hate-speech/ Note – Taylor does not agree with but is summarizing Waldron’s position LADI
First-Amendment guarantees of free speech are a cherished part of the American tradition and set us apart from virtually every other country. They are not without critics, however, and the free speech guarantees under sharpest attack are those that protect so-called “hate speech.” Jeremy Waldron, an academic originally from New Zealand, has written a whole book explaining why “hate speech” does not deserve protection—and Harvard University Press has published it. Prof. Waldron teaches law and philosophy at New York University Law School, is a professor of social and political theory at Oxford, and is an adjunct professor at Victoria University in New Zealand. Perhaps his foreign origins influence his view of the First Amendment.  In this book, Professor Waldron makes just one argument for banning “hate speech.” It is not a good argument, and if this is the best the opponents of free speech can do, the First Amendment should be secure. However, in the current atmosphere of “anti-racism,” any argument against “hate speech” could influence policy, so let us understand his argument as best we can.  First, Professor Waldron declares that “we are diverse in our ethnicity, our race, our appearance, and our religions, and we are embarked on a grand experiment of living and working together despite these sorts of differences.” Western societies are determined to let in every sort of person imaginable and make them feel respected and equal in every way. “Inclusiveness” is something “that our society sponsors and that it is committed to.” Therefore, what would we make of a “hate speech” billboard that said: “Muslims and 9/11! Don’t serve them, don’t speak to them, and don’t let them in”? Or one with a picture of Muslim children that said “They are all called Osama”? Or posters that say such things as “Muslims out,” “No blacks allowed,” or “All blacks should be sent back to Africa”? Professor Waldron writes that it is all very well for law professors and white people to say that this is the price we pay for free expression, but we must imagine what it must be like for the Muslim or black who must explain these messages to his children. “Can their lives be led, can their children be brought up, can their hopes be maintained and their worst fears dispelled, in a social environment polluted by these materials?” Professor Waldron insists that a “sense of security in the space we all inhabit is a public good,” like pretty beaches or clean air, and is so precious that the law should require everyone to maintain it: Hate speech undermines this public good . . . . It does this not only by intimating discrimination and violence, but by reawakening living nightmares of what this society was like . . . . It creates something like an environmental threat to social peace, a sort of slow-acting poison, accumulating here and there, word by word, so that eventually it becomes harder and less natural for even the good-hearted members of the society to play their part in maintaining this public good. Professor Waldron tells us that the purpose of “hate speech” is to try to set up a “rival public good” in which it is considered fine to beat up and drive out minorities.

Tournament: JANFEB Misc | Round: Quads | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
International law banned hate speech
Matsuda 89 Mari J. Matsuda (Associate Professor of Law, University of Hawaii, the William S. Richardson School of Law), "Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story," Michigan Law Review, 1989 AZ
The international community has chosen to outlaw racist hate propaganda. Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimi- nation of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states: Article 4 States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of per- sons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or pro- mote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incite- ment to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia: (a) Shall declare as an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimi- nation, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof; (b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organ- ized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organization or activities as an offence punishable by law; and (c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.105 Under this treaty, states are required to criminalize racial hate messages. Prohibiting dissemination of ideas of racial superiority or hatred is not easily reconciled with American concepts of free speech. The Convention recognizes this conflict. Article 4 acknowledges the need for "due regard" for rights protected by the Universal Declara- tion of Human Rights and by article 5 of the Convention - including the rights of freedom of speech, association, and conscience. Recognizing these conflicting values, and nonetheless concluding that the right to freedom from racist hate propaganda deserves affirm- ative recognition, represents the evolving international view. An American lawyer, trained in a tradition of liberal thought, would read article 4 and conclude immediately that it is unworkable. Acts of vio- lence, and perhaps imminent incitement to violence are properly pro- hibited, but the control of ideas is doomed to failure. This position was voiced continually in the debates'06 preceding adoption of the Convention, leading to the view that article 4 is both controversial and troublesome. 107 To those who struggled through early international attempts'08 to deal with racist propaganda, the competing values had a sense of ur- gency. 09 The imagery of both book burnings and swastikas was clear in their minds. 10 Hitler had banned ideas. He had also murdered six million Jews in the culmination of a campaign that had as a major theme the idea of racial superiority. While the causes of fascism are complex,11 the knowledge that anti-Semitic hate propaganda and the rise of Nazism were clearly connected guided development of the emerging international law on incitement to racial hatred. In 1959 and 1960, the United Nations faced an "outburst of anti- Semitic incidents in several parts of the world.""'2 The movement to implement the human rights goals of the United Nations Charter and of the Universal Declaration gained momentum as member states sought effective means of eliminating discrimination.
Prefer – it explicitly compares international obligations to protect free speech against the need to ban hate speech and concludes that banning hate speech is more important

The impact is unrestrained use of force in conflict
Modirzadeh 14 Naz K. Modirzadeh 14, Senior Fellow at Harvard Law School-Brookings Project on Law and Security, Folk International Law: 9/11 Lawyering and the Transformation of the Law of Armed Conflict to Human Rights Policy and Human Rights Law to War Governance, http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Modirzadeh-Final.pdf
The central purpose of the convergence of IHL and IHRL is to increase the protection of individuals in armed conflict. The notion behind the insistence that IHL and IHRL are part of the same discipline suggests that IHL is part of the far larger and more broadly applicable legal realm of IHRL. Indeed, the very idea of the “humanization of humanitarian law”159 is that the cold, brutal balancing of IHL, its perceived deference to the military and the needs of the state is opened up and mitigated by a body of law that protects the individual’s human rights against the state. Yet here the story flips: It is IHRL that seems to become part of IHL. It is IHRL that, by the end of our narrative, seems to be brought into the service of conflict, to act not as a powerful check on the brute force of the sovereign, not as the voice of the international community against those who wish to prioritize national security over individual liberties, but rather as a means to regulate the use of lethal violence. Having argued vociferously that IHRL applies in all situations of armed conflict at all times in order to protect individuals, the argument suddenly turns in the other direction. It becomes possible to say that IHRL can be utilized to allow for one state to invade another state’s territory in order to murder individuals without an attempt to arrest, detain, charge, and try these individuals. What is so striking in this view is how well—if that is the right word—the convergence argument worked, or at least how much work convergence ended up doing. Remarkably, many who wish to justify a far broader and even more aggressive CIA drone program cite convergence as a basis for doing so.160
For the application of IHL, on the other hand, the dominant assumption of convergence—that human rights law and IHL are part of the same general field, that they apply simultaneously, and that they are part of the same conversation—may have had the effect of loosening the boundaries around the field of application of IHL. As the two bodies of law began to be used interchangeably—as an attack utilizing a five hundred pound bomb is analogized to a police officer using a weapon when faced with the imminent danger of a hostage situation—one effect on the perception of IHL may be that it is no longer seen as a tightly controlled body of law. As many leading IHL lawyers warned in 2001 and 2002, once IHL is applied, many ugly things that we generally see as illegal, as outside the realm of rule of law, suddenly become lawful. Those IHRL lawyers who argued that IHRL applies simultaneously to IHL during armed conflict may have contributed to the blurring of the line between war and not-war.

Global war
Goodman 09 Ryan Goodman, Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, December 2009, CONTROLLING THE RECOURSE TO WAR BY MODIFYING JUS IN BELLO, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law / Volume 12
A substantial literature exists on the conflation of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. However, the consequences for the former side of the equation – the resort to war – is generally under-examined. Instead, academic commentary has focused on the effects of compliance with humanitarian rules in armed conflict and, in particular, the equality of application principle. In this section, I attempt to help correct that imbalance. In the following analysis, I use the (admittedly provocative) short-hand labels of ‘desirable’ and ‘undesirable’ wars. The former consists of efforts that aim to promote the general welfare of foreign populations such as humanitarian interventions and, on some accounts, peacekeeping operations. The latter – undesirable wars – include conflicts that result from security spirals that serve neither state’s interest and also include predatory acts of aggression. 4.1.1 Decreased likelihood of ‘desirable wars’ A central question in debates about humanitarian intervention is whether the international community should be more concerned about the prospect of future Kosovos – ambitious military actions without clear legal authority – or future Rwandas – inaction and deadlock at the Security Council. Indeed, various institutional designs will tend to favor one of those outcomes over the other. In 1999, Kofi Annan delivered a powerful statement that appeared to consider the prospect of repeat Rwandas the greater concern; and he issued a call to arms to support the ‘developing international norm in favor of intervention to protect civilians from wholesale slaughter’.95 Ifoneassumesthatthereis,indeed,aneedforcontinuedorgreatersupport for humanitarian uses of force, Type I erosions of the separation principle pose a serious threat to that vision. And the threat is not limited to unilateral uses of force. It also applies to military operations authorized by the Security Council. In short, all ‘interventions to protect civilians from wholesale slaughter’ are affected. Two developments render desirable interventions less likely. First, consider implications of the Kosovo Commission/ICISS approach. The scheme imposes greater requirements on armed forces engaged in a humanitarian mission with respect to safeguarding civilian ives.96 If that scheme is intended to smoke out illicit intent,97 it is likely to have perverse effects: suppressing sincere humanitarian efforts at least on the margins. Actors engaged in a bona fide humanitarian intervention generally tend to be more protective of their own armed forces than in other conflicts. It is instructive to consider, for instance, the precipitous US withdrawal from the UN mission in Somalia – code-named Operation Restore Hope – after the loss of eighteen American soldiers in the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993, and the ‘lesson’ that policymakers drew from that conflict.98 Additionally, the Kosovoc ampaign – code-named Operation Noble Anvil – was designed to be a ‘zero-casualty war’ for US soldiers, because domestic public support for the campaign was shallow and unstable. The important point is that the Kosovo Commission/ICISS approach would impose additional costs on genuine humanitarian efforts, for which it is already difficult to build and sustain popular support. As a result, we can expect to see fewer bona fide interventions to protect civilians from atrocities.99 Notably, such results are more likely to affect two types of states: states with robust, democratic institutions that effectively reflect public opinion and states that highly value compliance with jus in bello. Both of those are the very states that one would most want to incentivize to initiate and participate in humanitarian interventions. The second development shares many of these same consequences. Consider the implications of the British House of Lords decision in Al-Jedda which cast doubt on the validity of derogations taken in peacekeeping operations as well as other military efforts in which the homeland is not directly at stake and the state could similarly withdraw. The scheme imposes a tax on such interventions by precluding the government from adopting measures that would otherwise be considered lawful and necessary to meet exigent circumstances related to the conflict. Such extraordinary constraints in wartime may very well temper the resolve to engage in altruistic intervention and military efforts that involve similar forms of voluntarism on the part of the state. Such a legal scheme may thus yield fewer such operations and the participation of fewer states in such multilateral efforts. And, the impact of the scheme should disproportionately affect the very states that take international human rights obligations most seriously. Notably, in these cases, the disincentives might weigh most heavily on third parties: states that decide whether and to what degree to participate in a coalition with the principal intervener. It is to be expected that the commitment on the part of the principal intervener will be stronger, and thus not as easily shifted by the erosion of the separation principle. The ability, however, to hold together a coalition of states is made much more difficult by these added burdens. Indeed, as the United States learned in the Kosovo campaign, important European allies were wary about the intervention, in part due to its lack of an international legal pedigree. And the weakness of the alliance, including German and Italian calls for an early suspension of the bombing campaign, impeded the ability to wage war in the first place. It may be these third party states and their decision whether to join a humanitarian intervention where the international legal regime matters most. Without such backing of important allies, the intervention itself is less likely to occur. It is also those states – the more democratic, the more rights respecting, and the more law abiding – that the international regime should prefer to be involved in these kinds of interventions. The developments regulating jus ad bellum through jus in bello also threaten to make ‘undesirable wars’ more likely. In previous writing, I argue that encouraging states to frame their resort to force through humanitarian objectives rather than other rationales would, in the aggregate, reduce the overall level of disputes that result in uncontrolled escalation and war.100 A reverse relationship also holds true. That is, encouraging states to forego humanitarian rationales in favor of other justifications for using force may culminate in more international disputes ending in uncontrolled escalation and war. This outcome is especially likely to result from the pressures created by Type I erosions of the separation principle. First, increasing the tax on humanitarian interventions (the Kosovo Commission/ICISS approach) and ‘wars of choice’ (the Al-Jedda approach) would encourage states to justify their resort to force on alternative grounds. For example, states would be incentivized to invoke other legitimated frameworks – such as security rationales involving the right to self-defense, collective self-defense, anticipatory self-defense, and traditional threats to international peace and security. And, even if military action is pursued through the Security Council, states may be reluctant to adopt language (in resolutions and the like) espousing or emphasizing humanitarian objectives. Second, the elevation of self-regarding – security and strategic – frameworks over humanitarian ones is more likely to lead to uncontrolled escalation and war. A growing body of social science scholarship demonstrates that the type of issue in dispute can constitute an important variable in shaping the course of interstate hostilities. The first generation of empirical scholarship on the origins of war did not consider this dimension. Political scientists instead concentrated on features of the international system (for example, the distribution of power among states) and on the characteristics of states (for example, forms of domestic governance structures) as the key explanatory variables. Research agendas broadened considerably, however, in subsequent years. More recently, ‘several studies have identified substantial differences in conflict behavior over different types of issues’.101 The available evidence shows that states are significantly more inclined to fight over particular types of issues that are elevated in a dispute, despite likely overall material and strategic losses.102 Academic studies have also illuminated possible causal explanations for these empirical patterns. Specifically, domestic (popular and elite) constituencies more readily support bellicose behavior by their government when certain salient cultural or ideological issues are in contention. Particular issue areas may also determine the expert communities (humanitarian versus security mindsets) that gain influence in governmental circles – a development that can shape the hard-line or soft-line strategies adopted in the course of the dispute. In short, these links between domestic political processes and the framing of international disputes exert significant influence on whether conflicts will eventually culminate in war. Third, a large body of empirical research demonstrates that states will routinely engage in interstate disputes with rivals and that those disputes which are framed through security and strategic rationales are more likely to escalate to war. Indeed, the inclusion of a humanitarian rationale provides windows of opportunity to control and deescalate a conflict. Thus, eliminating or demoting a humanitarian rationale from a mix of justifications (even if it is not replaced by another rationale) can be independently destabilizing. Espousing or promoting security rationales, on the other hand, is more likely to culminate in public demands for increased bellicosity, unintended security spirals, and military violence.103 Importantly, these effects may result even if one is skeptical about the power of international law to influence state behavior directly. It is reasonable to assume that international law is unlikely to alter the determination of a state to wage war, and that international law is far more likely to influence only the justificatory discourse states employ while proceeding down the warpath. However, as I argue in my earlier work, leaders (of democratic and nondemocratic) states become caught in their official justifications for military campaigns. Consequently, framing the resort to force as a pursuit of security objectives, or adding such issues to an ongoing conflict, can reshape domestic political arrangements, which narrows the subsequent range of policy options. Issues that initially enter a conflict due to disingenuous representations by political leaders can become an authentic part of the dispute over time. Indeed, the available social science research, primarily qualitative case studies, is even more relevant here. A range of empirical studies demonstrate such unintended consequences primarily in the case of leaders employing security-based and strategic rationales to justify bellicose behavior.104 A central finding is that pretextual and superficial justifications can meaningfully influence later stages of the process that shape popular and elite conceptions of the international dispute. And it is those understandings that affect national security strategies and the ladder of escalation to war. Indeed, one set of studies – of empires – suggests these are mechanisms for powerful states entering into disastrous military campaigns that their leaders did not initially intend.

Tournament: Blake | Round: 1 | Opponent: Brookfield East RL | Judge: Matthew Luevano
The United States Federal Government should repeal the Patriot Act – that’s key to increase free speech and foster progressive criticism of the status quo on campuses.
Macdonald 03 Morgan MacDonald, Patriot Act stifles dissent on campus, Baltimore Sun, 11/24/03, http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2003-11-24/news/0311240117_1_student-groups-student-information-college-campuses LADI
AS A COLLEGE student, I am acutely aware of both the legal and social effects of the USA Patriot Act on my life and on the lives of my peers. Passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Patriot Act has led to a broadening of governmental power to define protest as terrorism and to intrude on our fundamental rights as citizens.  I am concerned by the Patriot Act's impact on the lives of all citizens, but especially on my peers in colleges across the country. No matter what provision of the Patriot Act we examine, its effects are tenfold on a college campus. A college campus is highly interconnected in every imaginable way, and in that sense differs from the typical small American city. Students are plugged into one central Internet server, student records are compiled in one database, students live in centralized college housing, student groups meet on campus, and so on. To monitor for "subversive" activity or to track a specific e-mail account is made exponentially easier when all the information is centralized and in the control of school administrations.  Students on college campuses have far less privacy than the average person. When this problem is compounded by the expansion of government oversight, students' rights are placed in the most precarious of positions. Under the Patriot Act, student groups can be labeled "terrorist" organizations if they engage in certain types of protest or civil disobedience. In Minnesota, student groups such as Anti-Racist Action and Students Against War were labeled as potential terrorist threats. The government can demand that schools hand over student information without presenting probable cause that a crime has been committed. According to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, more than 200 colleges and universities have turned over student information to the FBI, Immigration and Naturalization Service and other law enforcement agencies. Some college police are reporting directly to federal law enforcement agencies, thus allowing the government to monitor the actions of student groups and individual students without notification to the students or even college administrators. Beyond violating constitutionally guaranteed rights, the effect of the Patriot Act on college campuses is to create a suffocating educational and social atmosphere. The result of this legislation is the slow deterioration of student involvement and full intellectual participation on college campuses.  If students are not allowed to express themselves in college - to question authority and to team with other students for positive social change - America's future is bleak. I am infuriated when I sit in a student anti-war strategy meeting and one of my peers says she cannot participate in our protest because she is not from the United States and fears the consequences of her actions. That is not the American way. That is not how universities contribute to progress in this country. Those who drafted the Patriot Act failed to create legislation that protects both the safety and the rights of each American. That lack of attention to our country's fundamental values is striking college campuses like a hidden illness. America is a country that advocates free speech and free expression because of the belief that a marketplace of contradictory opinions is beneficial to the progress of society. When students are deterred from participating in free discussion and demonstrations of individuality, the marketplace of ideas loses one of its biggest and most essential contributors. We are not afraid to oppose the Patriot Act because we know the consequences of its implementation. The destruction of our educational freedom must not be allowed.

Tournament: JANFEB Misc | Round: Quads | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
A. Revenge porn is propped up by free speech and considered constitutionally protected- court precedent proves.  Humbach:

“The inherent repulsiveness of revenge porn has led to calls to for laws making it a crime and, as of this writing, at least ten states have enacted statutes to prohibit revenge-porn dissemination. Moreover, an important article offering ‘recommendations to lawmakers working to criminalize revenge porn’ was recently published by Professors Danielle Keats Citron (University of Maryland) and Mary Anne Franks (University of Miami). While there are variations in the specific provisions of the various revenge porn laws, both as enacted and proposed, they typically share two key prohibitions, namely, they forbid: images of that show sexual exposure or contact, and dissemination without consent of those persons depicted. Unfortunately, these two key prohibitions of revenge porn laws seem to contradict fly directly in the face of the free speech clause and press guarantees of the First Amendment.10 In short, they are two prohibitions constitute unconstitutional content discrimination, and viewpoint discrimination and speaker discrimination, not to mention prior restraint. A restriction on speech that is limited to particular content, e.g., sexual exposure, is content discrimination. A restriction on designed to suppress a particular point of view, e.g., negative or unflattering personal information, is viewpoint discrimination. And a restriction that is applicable only to persons who have not received consent is speaker discrimination,13 as well as a prior restraint—among the most disfavored of restrictions on speech.1 While the Supreme Court has recognized a number of circumstances that justify government impingements on free expression, the Court has been extremely reluctant to permit speech restrictions that discriminate based on a message’s content, its or viewpoint, or the speaker.”
Humbach, John A. "The Constitution and Revenge Porn." Pace Law Review 35.1 (2015).

Revenge porn totalizes the identities of those targeted, defining them to the world and leaving them literally helpless to respond. Murray:

“One woman of the participants in our research described the impact of revenge porn on her: 'I am powerless to keep him from doing what he pleases with the videos he took of me having sex without my knowledge or consent.’ This quote captures the sense of powerlessness and loss of control that may accompany being targeted for revenge porn. Sharing--publicly and spitefully--the most intimate details of one’s sexuality, sexual relationship, and private moments with one’s partner has no place in a healthy relationship.  while Technology allows it that sharing to go far beyond one’s immediate social network and spread literally across the world in a matter of moments. Not only is this a violation of a person’s privacy, it also can lead to safety risks, in that it can lead to stalking, unwanted sexual advances, and harassment by others, including strangers. Some people who are targeted even go so far as to change their names to protect themselves. Unfortunately, laws haven’t yet caught up to technology yet in the case of revenge porn. As Jill Filipovic said on The Guardian, 'Right now, the law and our culture are both is on the side of those who Revenge porn shames and humiliates women for sport, instead of those of us who just want to go about our normal lives.' Some actions are being taken to create laws to stop revenge porn, such as in Pennsylvania and Illinois. A bill may even see its way into the U.S. Congress. However, until the laws catch up, more actions will be needed at the individual, community, and national level to support people who are targeted, hold offenders accountable, and raise awareness of this important issue.”
Murray, Christine and Allison Crowe. “‘Revenge porn as a form of intimate partner violence.” See the Triumph, April 6, 2014. Web.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Palo Alto FZ | Judge: Panel
Their defense of the Koala as a newspaper is offensive and supports it as an institution. It propagates disparagement humor which is offensive and should be rejected.
Spencer 14 Kyle; award-winning journalist and frequent New York Times contributor; The New York Times; 4/10/14; “Free to Be Mean: Does This Student Satire Cross the Line?”; https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/education/edlife/free-to-be-mean-does-student-satire-cross-the-line.html?_r=0; JLB (2/12/17)
It was distribution day, or Distro, and staff members of The Koala, California’s most reviled student publication, had 8,000 copies to hand out. “Come and get it, you know you want it,” thundered Erik Luchsinger, a 21-year-old management major, in Hawaiian swim trunks, tank top and bow tie. “All the cool kids are reading it!” bellowed Taylor Etchart, a senior foods and nutrition major. “Guaranteed to be funnier than your textbook!” another staff writer shouted as students whizzed by on skateboards and bicycles. The cover featured an orgy of naked women with koala heads, clutching beer bottles, injecting illicit substances and vomiting. Inside was a list of “Top 5 Ways to Pick Up a Girl in a Burka,” a four-step instruction guide entitled “How Thou Shalt Use Thine Bible Pages to Roll One Holy Joint,” and in lieu of horoscopes, there were “Whore-o-Scopes.” Some students accepted the paper gamely. Others were not so enthusiastic. One shouted back, “I’m black” and called the tabloid racist. Another turned away dismissively when offered a copy. “Really offensive,” she said to me. A professor snatched a pile “to give away to the trash can.” Sometimes, the paper is ripped up right there. Occasionally, there is spitting. The Koala traffics in the kind of off-color banter even the writers recognize as offensive, though they also characterize its content as “witty” and “artistic.” Issues are peppered with jokes about homosexuals, Jews, Latinos, African-Americans, cancer patients and injured orphans. “Zimmermanslaughter” mocked the killing of the black teenager Trayvon Martin at the hands of a neighborhood watch coordinator. A particularly controversial issue featured a piece with the headline “RAPE!” It advised student rapists on what to do “when you drunkenly realize she’s conscious enough to call the cops”: “Wipe off the blood and hide in the bushes NOW!” “Koala Call Outs” are anonymous reader letters filled with slurs about students and professors, who are often named or described. The student-run tabloid has had a controversial presence across the region — at the University of California, San Diego, where it originated in 1982 and now only occasionally publishes, and at California State’s San Marcos campus, where it was shuttered more than a year ago. Here at the state university system’s San Diego campus, students routinely criticize the paper for promoting “rape culture.” Periodic editorials and campaigns denounce The Koala, including one in 2010 to persuade local businesses to discontinue advertising. Last fall, a group of students sent a letter to the university senate’s Freedom of Expression Committee demanding an end to distribution on campus. Despite all this, The Koala seems to be flourishing. It has recouped its lost advertising dollars, and revenues are up by more than 100 percent from fall 2012 (the editorial staff is not paid). For the first time, staff members are trying to sell subscriptions to graduating seniors, to foster an alumni base, and there is a beefed-up online presence. Koala coffee cups, stickers and T-shirts are in the works, and the paper set up a table during rush hour on the quad for a “Koala Awareness” event. Martin Beil, the business manager, says the goal is no longer just to survive but to “fully saturate the market.” With its hip, fanzine look, The Koala has its fans. “Issues fly around the dorms,” Mr. Luchsinger insisted. “We find them in bathrooms, in libraries and in the cafeteria.” The paper’s “enemies,” he said, just don’t get it. Mr. Luchsinger, who says he culls inspiration from satirists like Benjamin Franklin, views the tabloid as rebellious and boundary pushing. “This is not highbrow journalism,” he acknowledged. “But we are still trying to do something substantial.” The Koala’s mission, he says, is to tease and tweak the campus melting pot. Juliana Bloom, who was recently promoted to editor after Mr. Luchsinger, puts it simply: “We’re a comedy publication. It’s O.K. for us to joke about serious stuff.” Not surprisingly, detractors don’t find anything funny here. “I dread it when it comes out,” said Susan E. Cayleff, a professor in the women’s studies department, who spends class time during Distro Days discussing The Koala. “It makes students terrified and uncomfortable and not proud to be here.” IN 2001, A SPIRITED SCIENCE MAJOR named George Lee Liddle 3rd became editor in chief of U.C.-San Diego’s Koala, courting controversy with risqué content while currying favor with national free-speech activists, who rushed to the paper’s aid when administrators tried to close The Koala there. After graduating, Mr. Liddle sought to expand the paper’s reach. He registered The Koala as a for-profit business in 2005 and contacted students at San Diego State, where they secured student association status and office space. Briefly, the papers existed in an ambiguous universe: as both business and university organizations. Critics lobbied administrators to revoke student association status at U.C.-San Diego, and eventually at San Marcos. The conflict was moot at San Diego State. Staff members were accused of alcohol- and drug-related violations and its university affiliation pulled. Today, the paper is published off-campus. The battles over The Koala provide a glimpse of how challenging it can be for a university to uphold its free speech mores yet still remain a civil, welcoming place for its increasingly diverse student body. San Diego State’s code “defends the expression we abhor as well as the expression we support,” meaning The Koala can mouth off about different races and still be untouchable. Jung Min Choi, an associate professor in the sociology department, has been one of The Koala’s most vocal critics, frequently using the paper in his classes as living exhibits of racial intolerance. In 2008, an African-American professor in his department was attacked in an anonymous reader letter: “Your dissatisfaction with being a fat, ugly and childless black woman is evident,” read part of the letter. It accused the professor of “preaching” instead of “teaching.” Dr. Choi, who specializes in race and identity, and his colleagues approached the university’s Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities about what they considered a case of faculty harassment. “I must say I was not actually greeted very warmly,” he recalled. Officials told him they had no intention of censuring the paper. “They have a right to be here,” Greg Block, the chief communications officer, told me. “We don’t necessarily agree with everything they publish, but that’s neither here nor there.” And when students pleaded last fall with Mark Freeman, chairman of the Freedom of Expression Committee, to help shut it down, he wrote back that “freedom of the press is very broadly protected.” Jimmy Talamantes, a graduate student who is Mexican-American, was one of the letter signers. He called the response disappointing. “Students should not feel threatened by any person or organization while attending an institution of higher learning,” he said. Photo SERIOUSLY "This is not highbrow journalism," said Erik Luchsinger, a recent editor. "But we are still trying to do something substantial." He, and the spirit of Kramer, presided over a staff meeting in the fall. Credit T. Lynne Pixley for The New York Times TO BETTER UNDERSTAND what’s so funny about The Koala, I joined the staff at one of its Sunday night meetings, in a cluttered one-bedroom apartment on the edge of the San Diego State campus. Sitting on a shag rug beneath a framed poster of the “Seinfeld” character Kramer, and between bites of guava cookies supplied by Mr. Luchsinger’s mother, students reviewed their last issue, which was projected onto a flat-screen television. When the scan stopped on the staff box, they cackled at their pen names. The use of them angers critics, who complain that if The Koala is going to publish its targets’ names, the staff ought to use real names, too. “Who’s Toilet?” someone asked, reading off one of the bylines. The room chortled. Mr. Luchsinger talked finances, then consulted the group on the paper’s fraying relationship with the university’s Afrikan Student Union. “Do you guys think it would be a good idea to have them come over here and write white people jokes for us?” he asked. The idea was tabled after a brief discussion and more chuckles. Later, a cluster of students crafted a limerick about the student body president, who spent his early years in a homeless shelter. Mr. Luchsinger said the president’s oft-told story had a phony, “after-school special” quality to it, and couldn’t be missed as fodder for comedy. The meeting built to a crescendo as the students tossed out ideas for one of the trademark features: “Top 5’s.” They jotted down possibilities for “Top 5 Things to Wear to a Gay Pride Parade” and “Top 5 Reasons to Marry an Illegal Immigrant,” including, as one student shouted out, “You get a free housekeeper.” Or “Cheap labor is now free.” Or “She expects the abuse.” Responses elicited peals of laughter. “Can someone just say we are all going to hell?” one student said. Mr. Liddle swears his protégés are not filled with misogyny or racial animus — about half of the 25 or so staff members are women, and a handful are Asian- or Mexican-American. Their motives are pragmatic, he said: They want experience with a media outlet. Many of the staff members told me they aspire to work for television, an online magazine or media start-up. They said that when they first read The Koala, they were relieved to find others with a similar sensibility. “I found people who share my sick sense of humor,” Mr. Etchart said. He calls it “dark satire.” The no-holds-barred approach also appealed to Emmilly Nguyen, a freshman journalism major. Around Koala staff members, she said, “I could be myself.” Mr. Luchsinger plays up the bond that staff members share. While reputed to be hard-partying renegades, he said, a surprising number have a hard time finding places to fit in. “There is this constant insider joke that we are basically a group of misfits who are awkward and weird,” he said. Photo SPECIAL EDITION A cover of The Koala, which has been denounced by some faculty members and students. I asked Lisa Wade, chairwoman of the sociology department at Occidental College, who studies campus culture, why young people might see humor in the hurtful. Dr. Wade noted that most college students have been reared on unvarnished satire, much of it untidy and cruel. “Family Guy” and comedians like Sarah Silverman and Sacha Baron Cohen have plumbed domestic violence, AIDS victims and children with special needs for comedic material. “Generation X sort of started it,” Dr. Wade said. “But these guys have really grown up on it.” Mordechai Gordon, a professor of education at Quinnipiac University who developed a course titled “The Philosophy of Humor and Laughter,” sees the desire to rebel and poke at taboo topics. “When kids go to college, they feel like it is their time to say whatever they want and do whatever they want.” He cites the superiority theory of humor, dating back to Plato. “Making fun of racial stereotypes has a long history — maybe it’s more in your face now. You don’t even have to believe that Irish people like to get drunk or Poles aren’t smart to think the jokes are funny. We feel superior.” While The Koala has considerable enemies, it also has surprising allies, like Kevin Torres, a Mexican-American business major, who says he appreciates the way it makes light of stereotypes that can have hints of truth to them. He found the Koala takedown of Mexican house cleaners particularly entertaining. “I think it’s pretty hilarious,” he said, folding over with laughter. “When you’re Mexican, it’s very hard to get offended. You have to have humor. Yes, my mother cleans houses.” The Koala is not the only publication to mine edgy terrain. A subgroup of campus publications — The Quinnipiac Barnacle, The Medium at Rutgers and The Texas Travesty at the University of Texas, Austin — delight in routinely touching humor’s third rail. Take The Medium. Last year, it was criticized for likening a sorority with dwindling membership to a gaggle of farm animals. The motto: “Ugliness Acceptable.” So loud was the outcry that staff members posted a speedy apology on their Facebook page. In 2012, officials released a statement condemning The Medium for a column defending Hitler that it falsely attributed to a Jewish activist on campus. Ronald Miskoff, then faculty adviser, is not a fan of administrative intervention. He thinks students should be given the space to figure out where the line between funny and cruel is, even if that means allowing them to make bad calls. “Otherwise you have censorship,” he said, “and what’s the next stop on that bus?” Staff members at The Brown Noser, founded in 2006 at Brown University, set their own limits. “We don’t write anything that feels classist or racist,” said Louisa Kellogg, an editor. Also on the no-go list: gross stuff, juvenile humor, and headlines that resemble ones in The Onion. At The Colonel, the University of Kentucky’s satire broadsheet, public officials are fair game, private citizens not so much. “Usually what we tell staff members is: If you Google them and their name comes up all over the place, they’re game,” said Nicole Schladt, an editor. But what of publications that don’t monitor themselves? Dr. Choi believes that’s when universities ought to step in. Administrators have a responsibility, he said, to “uphold not just legal behavior but ethical behavior as well, and some common sense about what is and isn’t funny.” He added: “When administrators don’t take a stand, it is almost as if they are supporting what these people are saying.”

Tournament: JANFEB Misc | Round: Quads | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
Interpretation: The affirmative must defend removing restrictions on ALL constitutionally protected speech. The affirmative may only defend removing specific restrictions on time, place, or manner of protected speech.
Any is defined as every
Your Dictionary NO DATE (Your Dictionary, online reference, “any,” http://www.yourdictionary.com/any///LADI)
every: any child can do it
Any is an indefinite pronoun that refers to things generally
Language NO DATE (Online English grammar textbook, Unit 42: - Indefinite Pronouns,” http://www.1-language.com/englishcoursenew/unit42_grammar.htm///LADI)
Indefinite pronouns replace specific things with general, non-specific concepts. For example: - I want to live abroad in Italy. - I want to live abroad somewhere. This unit covers indefinite pronouns made with some, any, no, and every. Some / any Some and any can be combined with "-thing" to refer to an undefined object. For example: - There's someone outside the door. - There isn't anyone in the office. Some and any can be combined with "-where" to refer to an undefined location. For example: - I'm looking for somewhere to live. - We don't want to live anywhere near here. Some and any can be combined with "-body" or "-one" to refer to an undefined person. There is very little difference in meaning between "-body" and "-one". For example: - If you have a problem, someone/somebody will help you. - Do you know anyone/anybody who can help? These compound nouns follow the same rules as some and any, that is some is used in affirmative statements, and any is used in negative statements and questions. For example: - I need something from the supermarket. - I don't need anything from the supermarket. - Do you need anything from the supermarket?
Restrict is defined by Merriam Webster as
to subject to bounds or limits
Literature about constitutionally protected speech centers on time, place, and manner restrictions, not content-based restrictions
Legal Dictionary "Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions" AZ
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees Freedom of Speech. This guarantee generally safeguards the right of individuals to express themselves without governmental restraint. Nevertheless, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment is not absolute. It has never been interpreted to guarantee all forms of speech without any restraint whatsoever. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that state and federal governments may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of individual expression. Time, place, and manner (TPM) restrictions accommodate public convenience and promote order by regulating traffic flow, preserving property interests, conserving the environment, and protecting the administration of justice.
Violation: The plan ends restrictions surrounding specific forms of speech
Net Benefits—

1. Limits
   A. Fairness
   B. Education
   2. Topical version of the aff

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 1 | Opponent: Palo Alto BH | Judge: Travis Fife
Our interpretation is that the resolution should define the division of affirmative and negative ground. It was negotiated and announced in advance, providing both sides with a reasonable opportunity to prepare to engage one another’s arguments.
This does not require the use of any particular style, type of evidence, or assumption about the role of the judge — only that the topic should determine the debate’s subject matter.   

Our impact is procedural fairness --- a limited point of stasis is necessary for effective limits which provides equitable ground to both sides --- this does not exclude their content but does require them to be topical

Fairness and willingness to test convictions are necessary for debate to occur. Their attempt to rig the game creates a moral hazard to run from engagement, preventing the judge from adequately evaluating who did the better debating.
Andrew F. SMITH, assistant professor of philosophy at Drexel University, 11 The Deliberative Impulse, 2011, p. 71-4

Inasmuch as public deliberation is to occur via reasoned argument, all proposals are to be articulated, defended, and criticized through the use of reasons that are, in principle, fully accessible to all deliberators and designed to win their endorsement. As a result, deliberative processes are intended to offer free and equal citizens the opportunity to consider relevant matters from multiple points of view, critically converse with one another about the options before them, and enlarge their understanding of these matters. At their best, deliberative processes may improve the epistemic quality of political decisions inasmuch as they are the result of in- formed decision making. There is considerable debate, however, regarding whether moral judgments in particular-which so frequently drive conflicts in public forums-maintain truth values such that they can pro- vide bases for reaching political decisions of enhanced epistemic quality. Moreover, it is far from clear if the assessment of the truth of such judgments provides any practical advantage whatsoever in seeking to resolve disagreements. I set aside the first of these matters in order to focus concerted attention on the second.
Julian Dodd suggests that there is no discernible difference, practically speaking, between the pursuit of true judgments and the pursuit of judgments that are justifiable in the sense that they are persuasive to others. Believing that we act in accordance with a norm of truth, as it were, simply props up the benighted notion that our judgments must be answerable to something beyond ourselves and our communities.4 We END PAGE 71 should instead acknowledge that what we actually seek to achieve is what we can refer to as communal warranted assertibility—judgments that count as being justified because they cohere with other judgments offered in our community. Alternatively, John Gray suggests that appeals to truth are perhaps better regarded as manifestations, subtle though they may be, of the quest for power over those with whom we disagree. But as we will see, neither of these assertions ultimately holds up. The appeal to truth does have important-indeed, crucial-practical implications for how we live our lives, and this appeal goes far beyond striving for power. If we are to make any sense of the epistemic incentives to engage in public deliberation, we must see why this is so.
As will be discussed at greater length below, most of us have a strong tendency to employ our deliberative faculties to justify our initial reaction to a given event or experience. We rarely seek disconfirming evidence of our own accord, in particular when we set out to win over others to that in which we are conscientiously invested. But in the process of seeking to influence others, we can find ourselves influenced in return. This is a normal and unexceptionable byproduct of our encounters with others. As Jonathan Haidt remarks, "most moral change happens as a result of social interaction. Other people often influence us, in part by presenting counterevidence we rarely seek ourselves."6 We are corrected by a trusted authority or a pivotal life experience with regard to how we have been interpreting a passage from a sacred text around which we have centered our moral life. Our eyes are opened to the horrible plight of domesticated animals bred for human consumption upon learning of the conditions in which they live and die. The environmental threat posed by our dependence on oil hits home upon receiving news of a major spill. We recognize, from time to time at least, that our convictions are in need of emendation. How we have justified our practices to ourselves and to others in the past is now suspect. We hereby accept that we are prone to error no matter how strong our commitment to our convictions is. Our judgments are fallible.
As mundane as this proposition may seem, it is not insignificant. For as Price notes, the notion that our judgments (or those of others, of course) are wroyng and in need of emendation would be incoherent if we did not accept that they must be responsive to something beyond our own patterns of thought. That our beliefs can be subject to improvement re- quires that our ability to justify them to ourselves-to have them cohere with one another, say-does not make them right.
Perhaps Dodd is correct, then, that our ability to justify them to others, in fact to all others within our community or wider society, is all we need to regard our judgments as right. Perhaps what really counts is that END PAGE 72 we correct discrepancies between our beliefs and those maintained by others. What is required, then, is that we win over others to our way of thinking. Or maybe we seek means to reveal to them that what we are attempting to persuade them to endorse does not interfere with-hence, is not in conflict with-the goals they desire to pursue. If we want, we can take ourselves and our interlocutors to be engaged in the enterprise of truth assessment, but what is really guiding our practices here is a norm of communal warrant.
Yet Price questions whether the pursuit of communal warrant should-or even can-be one's central goal when engaging in public deliberation. When undertaking such a pursuit, we are likely to run into situations in which our convictions are subject to forceful criticism and even censure. Such disagreements, most notably the expression by others of disapproval with respect to our convictions, do not signal merely that our beliefs and those held by others fail adequately at present to cohere. Disagreement and disapproval are, Price remarks, "taken as a sign of fault. " They reflect the judgment that someone must be in the wrong: us, our critic(s), or possibly both. It is not, as Dodd may suggest, that ascribing fault is simply shorthand for expressing the wish that others regard that in which we are invested to be something in which they too should be invested. "What is missing," Price notes with just such a suggestion in mind, "is the automatic and quite unconscious sense of engagement in a common purpose that distinguishes assertoric dialogue from a mere roll call of individual opinion. Truth is the grit that makes our individual opinions engage with one another. Truth puts the cogs in cognition, at least in its public manifestation." Also missing is an account of why it is that we can experience genuine tension, agitation, and even doubt with respect to our convictions when the pursuit of persuasion proves unsuccessful.
Dodd could respond by arguing that what viscerally disturbs us in such cases is our inability to achieve a state of communal warrant. It is not, then, that disagreement must be taken as a sign of fault. Perhaps it is instead that we have failed as of yet to bring to bear suitable means of persuasion, which certainly can cause consternation. But this still does not explain why we may end up doubting ourselves or, moreover, why the pursuit of persuasion is explicitly intended to convince others to doubt themselves. In the absence of a norm of truth, we can make little sense of why we should experience the compulsion to actively engage with others: to voice praise and blame in the process of answering their challenges and responding with our own.
But in what way, exactly, should disagreement motivate public deliberation? Price notes that assertoric dialogue is only possible if inter-END PAGE 73 locutors are intolerant of disagreement. "This needs to be present already in the background, a pragmatic presupposition of judgment itself. I am not a maker of assertions, a judger, at all, unless I am already playing the game to win."8 But certainly this on its own cannot be enough. If we exhibit this sort of intolerance, why not instead just seek to silence others in whatever way we can or force them to fall in line with our way of thinking? Why not search out means to rig the game-in our case, the political decision-making process-to ensure our victory? From time to time, are most of us not compelled to maintain that no matter how fallible our judgments may be our fallibility cannot possibly reach to certain of our core convictions? Would it not be downright dangerous to forgo ensuring that we garner adequate political power under such circumstances? This proposition is, of course, sometimes very tempting to endorse. As Daniel Dennett so nicely puts it:
if I encounter people conveying a message I thought was so dangerous that I could not risk giving it a fair hearing, I would be at least strongly tempted to misrepresent it, to caricature it for the public good. I'd want to make up some good epithets, such as genetic determinist or reductionist or Darwinian fundamentalist, and then flail those straw men as hard as I could. As the saying goes, it's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. 9
But we must resist this sort of temptation if we are to do right not only by our convictions but also by ourselves as epistemic agents. In turning now to our examination of Talisse's pragmatist philosophy of democracy, we see more clearly why this is so in cases in which we experience even so much as an inkling of doubt regarding the viability of our convictions.
Preparation is necessary for useful debates—it lets the aff train with the heavy bats of prepared negative strategies which internal link turns their ability to advocate change outside of debate.  It enables both teams to more effectively challenge injustice and support movements for change.
Talisse 5 – Professor of Philosophy @ Vandy (Robert, Philosophy and Social Criticism, “Deliberativist responses to activist challenges,” 31(4) p. 429-431)
The argument thus far might appear to turn exclusively upon different conceptions of what reasonableness entails. The deliberativist view I have sketched holds that reasonableness involves some degree of what we may call epistemic modesty. On this view, the reasonable citizen seeks to have her beliefs reflect the best available reasons, and so she enters into public discourse as a way of testing her views against the objections and questions of those who disagree; hence she implicitly holds that her present view is open to reasonable critique and that others who hold opposing views may be able to offer justifications for their views that are at least as strong as her reasons for her own. Thus any mode of politics that presumes that discourse is extraneous to questions of justice and justification is unreasonable. The activist sees no reason to accept this. Reasonableness for the activist consists in the ability to act on reasons that upon due reflection seem adequate to underwrite action; discussion with those who disagree need not be involved. According to the activist, there are certain cases in which he does in fact know the truth about what justice requires and in which there is no room for reasoned objection. Under such conditions, the deliberativist’s demand for discussion can only obstruct justice; it is therefore irrational. It may seem that we have reached an impasse. However, there is a further line of criticism that the activist must face. To the activist’s view that at least in certain situations he may reasonably decline to engage with persons he disagrees with (107), the deliberative democrat can raise the phenomenon that Cass Sunstein has called ‘group polarization’ (Sunstein, 2003; 2001a: ch. 3; 2001b: ch. 1). To explain: consider that political activists cannot eschew deliberation altogether; they often engage in rallies, demonstrations, teach-ins, workshops, and other activities in which they are called to make public the case for their views. Activists also must engage in deliberation among themselves when deciding strategy. Political movements must be organized, hence those involved must decide upon targets, methods, and tactics; they must also decide upon the content of their pamphlets and the precise messages they most wish to convey to the press. Often the audience in both of these deliberative contexts will be a self-selected and sympathetic group of like-minded activists. Group polarization is a well-documented phenomenon that has ‘been found all over the world and in many diverse tasks’; it means that ‘members of a deliberating group predictably move towards a more extreme point in the direction indicated by the members’ predeliberation tendencies’ (Sunstein, 2003: 81–2). Importantly, in groups that ‘engage in repeated discussions’ over time, the polarization is even more pronounced (2003: 86 Hence discussion in a small but devoted activist enclave that meets regularly to strategize and protest ‘should produce a situation in which individuals hold positions more extreme than those of any individual member before the series of deliberations began’ (ibid.) 17 The fact of group polarization is relevant to our discussion because the activist has proposed that he may reasonably decline to engage in discussion with those with whom he disagrees in cases in which the requirements of justice are so clear that he can be confident that he has the truth. Group polarization suggests that deliberatively confronting those with whom we disagree is essential even when we have the truth. For even if we have the truth, if we do not engage opposing views, but instead deliberate only with those with whom we agree, our view will shift progressively to a more extreme point, and thus we lose the truth. In order to avoid polarization, deliberation must take place within heterogeneous ‘argument pools’ (Sunstein, 2003: 93). This of course does not mean that there should be no groups devoted to the achievement of some common political goal; it rather suggests that engagement with those with whom one disagrees is essential to the proper pursuit of justice. Insofar as the activist denies this, he is unreasonable.
Additionally, unpredictability causes debaters to latch onto un-vetted ideals as political end-points—there are an infinite number of unintended pitfalls to the aff.  A well-prepared negative is better able to identify those and nudge the aff towards improvement—this turns solvency.
Individual rounds do not change subjectivity, even if they spur immediate reflection, those insights aren’t integrated into deep-stored memory—this means you can vote negative on presumption.  Encouraging focused research is the only chance to change attitudes—this means you should prioritize our impacts about how they hurt the broader model of debate even if the aff’s good for them.
Goodin and Niemeyer 3 Robert E. Goodin and Simon J. Niemeyer- Australian National University- 2003, When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy, POLITICAL STUDIES: 2003 VOL 51, 627–649, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0032-3217.2003.00450.x/pdf
What happened in this particular case, as in any particular case, was in some respects peculiar unto itself. The problem of the Bloomfield Track had been well known and much discussed in the local community for a long time. Exaggerated claims and counter-claims had become entrenched, and unreflective public opinion polarized around them. In this circumstance, the effect of the information phase of deliberative processes was to brush away those highly polarized attitudes, dispel the myths and symbolic posturing on both sides that had come to dominate the debate, and liberate people to act upon their attitudes toward the protection of rainforest itself. The key point, from the perspective of ‘democratic deliberation within’, is that that happened in the earlier stages of deliberation – before the formal discussions (‘deliberations’, in the discursive sense) of the jury process ever began. The simple process of jurors seeing the site for themselves, focusing their minds on the issues and listening to what experts had to say did virtually all the work in changing jurors’ attitudes. Talking among themselves, as a jury, did very little of it. However, the same might happen in cases very different from this one. Suppose that instead of highly polarized symbolic attitudes, what we have at the outset is mass ignorance or mass apathy or non-attitudes. There again, people’s engaging with the issue – focusing on it, acquiring information about it, thinking hard about it – would be something that is likely to occur earlier rather than later in the deliberative process. And more to our point, it is something that is most likely to occur within individuals themselves or in informal interactions, well in advance of any formal, organized group discussion. There is much in the large literature on attitudes and the mechanisms by which they change to support that speculation.31 Consider, for example, the literature on ‘central’ versus ‘peripheral’ routes to the formation of attitudes. Before deliberation, individuals may not have given the issue much thought or bothered to engage in an extensive process of reflection.32 In such cases, positions may be arrived at via peripheral routes, taking cognitive shortcuts or arriving at ‘top of the head’ conclusions or even simply following the lead of others believed to hold similar attitudes or values (Lupia, 1994). These shorthand approaches involve the use of available cues such as ‘expertness’ or ‘attractiveness’ (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) – not deliberation in the internal-reflective sense we have described. Where peripheral shortcuts are employed, there may be inconsistencies in logic and the formation of positions, based on partial information or incomplete information processing. In contrast, ‘central’ routes to the development of attitudes involve the application of more deliberate effort to the matter at hand, in a way that is more akin to the internal-reflective deliberative ideal. Importantly for our thesis, there is nothing intrinsic to the ‘central’ route that requires group deliberation. Research in this area stresses instead the importance simply of ‘sufficient impetus’ for engaging in deliberation, such as when an individual is stimulated by personal involvement in the issue.33 The same is true of ‘on-line’ versus ‘memory-based’ processes of attitude change.34 The suggestion here is that we lead our ordinary lives largely on autopilot, doing routine things in routine ways without much thought or reflection. When we come across something ‘new’, we update our routines – our ‘running’ beliefs and pro cedures, attitudes and evaluations – accordingly. But having updated, we then drop the impetus for the update into deep-stored ‘memory’. A consequence of this procedure is that, when asked in the ordinary course of events ‘what we believe’ or ‘what attitude we take’ toward something, we easily retrieve what we think but we cannot so easily retrieve the reasons why. That more fully reasoned assessment – the sort of thing we have been calling internal-reflective deliberation – requires us to call up reasons from stored memory rather than just consulting our running on-line ‘summary judgments’. Crucially for our present discussion, once again, what prompts that shift from online to more deeply reflective deliberation is not necessarily interpersonal discussion. The impetus for fixing one’s attention on a topic, and retrieving reasons from stored memory, might come from any of a number sources: group discussion is only one. And again, even in the context of a group discussion, this shift from ‘online’ to ‘memory-based’ processing is likely to occur earlier rather than later in the process, often before the formal discussion ever begins. All this is simply to say that, on a great many models and in a great many different sorts of settings, it seems likely that elements of the pre-discursive process are likely to prove crucial to the shaping and reshaping of people’s attitudes in a citizens’ jury-style process. The initial processes of focusing attention on a topic, providing information about it and inviting people to think hard about it is likely to provide a strong impetus to internal-reflective deliberation, altering not just the information people have about the issue but also the way people process that information and hence (perhaps) what they think about the issue. What happens once people have shifted into this more internal-reflective mode is, obviously, an open question. Maybe people would then come to an easy consensus, as they did in their attitudes toward the Daintree rainforest.35 Or maybe people would come to divergent conclusions; and they then may (or may not) be open to argument and counter-argument, with talk actually changing minds. Our claim is not that group discussion will always matter as little as it did in our citizens’ jury.36 Our claim is instead merely that the earliest steps in the jury process – the sheer focusing of attention on the issue at hand and acquiring more information about it, and the internal-reflective deliberation that that prompts – will invariably matter more than deliberative democrats of a more discursive stripe would have us believe. However much or little difference formal group discussions might make, on any given occasion, the pre-discursive phases of the jury process will invariably have a considerable impact on changing the way jurors approach an issue. From Citizens’ Juries to Ordinary Mass Politics? In a citizens’ jury sort of setting, then, it seems that informal, pre-group deliberation – ‘deliberation within’ – will inevitably do much of the work that deliberative democrats ordinarily want to attribute to the more formal discursive processes. What are the preconditions for that happening? To what extent, in that sense, can findings about citizens’ juries be extended to other larger or less well-ordered deliberative settings? Even in citizens’ juries, deliberation will work only if people are attentive, open and willing to change their minds as appropriate. So, too, in mass politics. In citizens’ juries the need to participate (or the anticipation of participating) in formally organized group discussions might be the ‘prompt’ that evokes those attributes. But there might be many other possible ‘prompts’ that can be found in less formally structured mass-political settings. Here are a few ways citizens’ juries (and all cognate micro-deliberative processes)37 might be different from mass politics, and in which lessons drawn from that experience might not therefore carry over to ordinary politics: • A citizens’ jury concentrates people’s minds on a single issue. Ordinary politics involve many issues at once. • A citizens’ jury is often supplied a background briefing that has been agreed by all stakeholders (Smith and Wales, 2000, p. 58). In ordinary mass politics, there is rarely any equivalent common ground on which debates are conducted. • A citizens’ jury separates the process of acquiring information from that of discussing the issues. In ordinary mass politics, those processes are invariably intertwined. • A citizens’ jury is provided with a set of experts. They can be questioned, debated or discounted. But there is a strictly limited set of ‘competing experts’ on the same subject. In ordinary mass politics, claims and sources of expertise often seem virtually limitless, allowing for much greater ‘selective perception’. • Participating in something called a ‘citizens’ jury’ evokes certain very particular norms: norms concerning the ‘impartiality’ appropriate to jurors; norms concerning the ‘common good’ orientation appropriate to people in their capacity as citizens.38 There is a very different ethos at work in ordinary mass politics, which are typically driven by flagrantly partisan appeals to sectional interest (or utter disinterest and voter apathy). • In a citizens’ jury, we think and listen in anticipation of the discussion phase, knowing that we soon will have to defend our views in a discursive setting where they will be probed intensively.39 In ordinary mass-political settings, there is no such incentive for paying attention. It is perfectly true that citizens’ juries are ‘special’ in all those ways. But if being special in all those ways makes for a better – more ‘reflective’, more ‘deliberative’ – political process, then those are design features that we ought try to mimic as best we can in ordinary mass politics as well. There are various ways that that might be done. Briefing books might be prepared by sponsors of American presidential debates (the League of Women Voters, and such like) in consultation with the stakeholders involved. Agreed panels of experts might be questioned on prime-time television. Issues might be sequenced for debate and resolution, to avoid too much competition for people’s time and attention. Variations on the Ackerman and Fishkin (2002) proposal for a ‘deliberation day’ before every election might be generalized, with a day every few months being given over to small meetings in local schools to discuss public issues. All that is pretty visionary, perhaps. And (although it is clearly beyond the scope of the present paper to explore them in depth) there are doubtless many other more-or-less visionary ways of introducing into real-world politics analogues of the elements that induce citizens’ jurors to practice ‘democratic deliberation within’, even before the jury discussion gets underway. Here, we have to content ourselves with identifying those features that need to be replicated in real-world politics in order to achieve that goal – and with the ‘possibility theorem’ that is established by the fact that (as sketched immediately above) there is at least one possible way of doing that for each of those key features.

Last—presume every 1AC truth claim false because it hasn’t been properly tested.

Tournament: USC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Loyola JN | Judge: Leo Kim
Double Bind — either the harms are the 1ac are true and they cannot solve for their impacts before they control the levers of power which means you can vote negative on presumption OR their harms are constructed for the purpose of alarmism which means you can vote negative on principle.
Their demand for a uniform rationality inculcates a violent technocratic eradication of irrationality while only recapitulating a tragic ontology of ressentiment.
Ossewaarde 10. Marinus Ossewaarde, Associate Professor in Sociology at the University of Twente, “The Tragic Turn in The Re-Imagination of Publics: Resentment and Ressentiment,” Animus 14, 2010
For Nietzsche, the Heraclitean vision sees the truth about reality while tragedy subsequently transforms this unbearable absurdity of life into an aesthetic public, without masking the horror itself. The Socratic dialectic and its Apollonian publics intellectually involve people who are incited to search for the good in the realm of ideas, in spite of the phenomenological flux and absurdity of things. Dionysian publics do not try to check the becoming of reality, but instead, incite the participants to live it as art, by making them become part of the story itself. In Socratic dialogues, disputing friends critically question all established orders in their search for the rational or good order. Both the Dionysian and the Apollonian publics can disturb an established order and institutions. The urge to control drives bureaucracies, which, in order to effectively fix one type of reality, have to destroy all forms of publics that have the potential to upset order. In modern societies, bureaucracies impose an enlightenment model of rational order devoid of mythical content and uncertain self-knowledge, upon a reality that is thereby made fully intelligible, controllable and correctible. Nietzsche considers the European enlightenment as the modern successor to the Socratic myth-annihilation, which characterizes the Apollonian publics.8 The enlightenment movement’s confidence in the capacity of reason and its belief in the rational order of reality are Socratic in origin. However, Nietzsche suggests that the enlightenment goes steps further than Socrates in its annihilation of myth. Although Socrates ridicules and destroys the legendary tales of the tragedians, his dialogues are premised upon the myth of the Delphic oracle (which revealed that there was no one wiser than Socrates). And, although Socrates maintains that reason rather than myth is the foundation of European culture, reason, the nous, is itself a mythical entity (Nietzsche 2000: 72): the ‘voice of reason’ is the ‘divine voice’ of Socrates’ daimonion, which makes itself be heard in the dialogues (Nietzsche 2000: 75). In the Dialectic of Enlightenment, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, inspired by Nietzsche (c.f., Wellmer 1991: 3), maintain that the enlightenment movement postulates a vision of reason that is devoid of mythical content. Enlightenment reason, in its origin, seeks to make people think for themselves and to liberate them from their fears and superstitions, but, in the modernization process, it becomes an instrument that serves bureaucratic objectives, such as enforcing laws effectively, fixing a machine, or making a business run more efficiently.9 Horkheimer and Adorno (2007: 57) emphasize that Nietzsche, like Hegel before him, had grasped this pathology of enlightenment reason that turns into a bureaucratic instrument. The reduction of the Socratic nous to an instrumental reason has far-reached political and cultural implications. Enlightenment reason provides the static concepts, mummified categories, classifications and catalogues that are required to construct bureaucratic limits and boundaries, which in turn rationally order reality (Honneth 2007: 70). Dialogical or democratic practices have no place in such a technical organization of reality. Bureaucracies, whose function is to implement the enlightenment or any other theoretical model of reality, have no need for the Socratic publics and consider dialogues and the need for intellectual justification rather troublesome and disorderly (Gouldner 1973: 76; Gardiner 2004: 35). The (potential) participants of Socratic dialogues are turned into bureaucratic subjects, like workers, consumers and clients, that is, into ‘spectators without influence’, whose lives are governed by the enlightened power elites and civil servants (Honneth 2007: 33). The identity of bureaucratic subjects is determined by typically large and powerful organizations, such as government agencies and enterprises (Mills 1956: 355). The Enlightenment movement is, in Nietzsche’s words (2000: 85), ‘the most illustrious opponent of the tragic world-view.’ Horkheimer and Adorno stress that the enlightenment movement, or perhaps more exactly, some kind of process deriving from it, eventually comes to substitute the plebeian entertainment of mass culture industries for the tragic art of the aesthetic publics. According to Nietzsche, bureaucratic subjects who live in a disenchanted world in which myths are annihilated by Apollonian reason cannot bear the horrific and absurd truth about their own existence.10 The subjects of the culture industries no longer have the opportunity to participate in enchanting tragic myths that cultivate powerful passions and the Dionysian will to live, which characterize Nietzsche’s ‘good European’. The entertainment provided by manufactured images and commodity forms, like music productions, films, television programmes and glossy magazines, ensures that the absurdity of life and the Dionysian abyss are forgotten (Horkheimer and Adorno 2007: 159).11 Being thoroughly rationalized, such subjects cannot develop the mythical imagination or a certain sensitivity that would have allowed them to ‘live the tragedy’ in and through the aesthetic publics. In a bureaucratic culture, subjects cannot experience, feel or live the tragic fate of the Dionysian hero, because, as Nietzsche (2000: 45) insists, shielded by bureaucracies, they are not ‘equipped for the most delicate and intense suffering.’ Bureaucracies expect and demand passive obedience from their subjects, which makes cultural movement nearly impossible. Such passive spectators or so-called ‘consumers of art’ (Shrum 1991: 349; 371), are, Horkheimer and Adorno (2007: 155; 166) point out, deluded en masse, governed to take refuge in comfortable, boring and mindless bureaucratic forms of entertainment. Culture industries provide ready-made experiences to a passive public that is willing to buy them to fill the emptiness of a disenchanted world and appease the cowardly fear of living in the flux, which they explicitly experience in temporary relationships and the continuous flow of new products and changed consumption patterns. The experience of the flux can also be more implicit or unconscious, resulting in a sort of malaise, feeling of insecurity or restlessness. However, the escape from life into a manufactured dream-world of cultural productions does not really quench the thirst, as the Socratic dialogue and the Dionysian festival do, which, therefore, allows the culture industry to carry on with its provision of manufactured dream-worlds, to fill an emptiness that never decreases.

Tournament: Blake | Round: 1 | Opponent: Brookfield East RL | Judge: Matthew Luevano
No act omission distinction for states since their implicit approvals of actions still entail moral responsibility
Sunstein  05
Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. The University of Chicago Law School. “Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs.” JOHN M. OLIN LAW and ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 239. The Chicago Working Paper Series. March 2005 AJ
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.
Extinction Bad.
Bostrom 11 Nick Bostrom. “Existential Risk Prevention As the Most Important Task for Humanity”, 2011, Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford
These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential risk; they also suggest a new way of thinking about the ideal of sustainability. Let me elaborate.¶ Our present understanding of axiology might well be confused. We may not now know — at least not in concrete detail — what outcomes would count as a big win for humanity; we might not even yet be able to imagine the best ends of our journey. If we are indeed profoundly uncertain about our ultimate aims, then we should recognize that there is a great option value in preserving — and ideally improving — our ability to recognize value and to steer the future accordingly. Ensuring that there will be a future version of humanity with great powers and a propensity to use them wisely is plausibly the best way available to us to increase the probability that the future will contain value.

Tournament: USC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Loyola JN | Judge: Leo Kim
The affirmative impacts are reliant on a value system that is purely self-referential and tautological. 2 implications

1. Make them keep searching – all current actions will be devoid of value – the chance that any objective value system does exist means risk calculus goes negative
   2. They don’t meet the burden of proof – vote neg on rejoinder

Tournament: Damus | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake JI | Judge: Yash Kamath
CP: The United States federal government should mandate a community based implementation of the California AB 65 and California AB 66 plan for police body cameras including but not limited to mandates to assume criminal activity if police fail to use or tamper with cameras, protect civilian rights to film, and use special prosecutors to try police officers.
That increases accountability, transparency, and prosecution of police misconduct
Friedman et al 15 - Andrew Friedman, Brian Kettenring, and Ana Maria Archila, Co-Executive Directors, The Center for Popular Democracy, Alana Greer, Community Justice Project; Alyssa Aguilera, VOCAL NY; Anthony Newby, Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change; Bill Henry, Baltimore City Council; Brendan Roediger, Arch City Defenders; Bukky Gbadesgesin, Organization for Black Struggle; Curtis Sails, Coalition 4 Justice; Dante Barry, Million Hoodies; Deray McKesson, WeTheProtestors; Jackie Byers, Black Organizing Project; James Hayes, Ohio Student Association; Je  Ordower, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment; Jennifer Epps-Addison, Wisconsin Jobs Now; John Chasno , Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression; Jose Lopez, Make the Road NY; Justin Hansford, St. Louis University School of Law; Kassandra Frederique, Drug Policy Alliance; Kim McGill, Youth 4 Justice; Lynn Lewis, Picture the Homeless; Meena Jagannath, Community Justice Project; Nahal Zamani, Center for Constitutional Rights; Opal Tometi, Black Alliance for Justice Immigration; Paolo Harris, Ingoma Foundation; Patrisse Cullors, Dignity and Power Now/Coalition to End Sheri ’s Violence in L.A. Jails; Pete White, Los Angeles Community Action Network; Rachel Herzing, Critical Resistance; Ralikh Hayes, Baltimore BLOC; Sco  Roberts, Advancement Project; Tara Hu man, Open Society Institute Baltimore; Thenjiwe McHarris, US Human Rights Network, and Valantina Amalraj, Columbia Law School: June 2015(“Building Momentum from the Ground Up: A Toolkit for Promoting Justice” The Center for Popular Democracy Available at http://www.justiceinpolicing.com/docs/JusticeInPolicing.pdf Accessed on 11/15/16)IG
Body cameras have become the most popular political response to recent incidents of police misconduct and brutality. There is much debate about the e ectiveness and desirability of body worn cameras by community groups and advocates. Some communities and many elected o - cials believe that if properly regulated, body-worn cameras for police o cers may be a tool to increase accountability, transparency, and collect evidence of police misconduct. Communities must decide whether these potential bene ts outweigh privacy and other concerns, such as police misuse. Additionally, communities must be involved in the development of departmental protocols to shape when body cameras are mandated for use. If community members advocate for a body cameras, the policy should include a community agreed upon provision outlining when cameras must be activated and a provision applying a presumption of police misconduct if footage is unavailable (when it was supposed to be recorded).

Body Cameras, especially the California plan, have been extremely successful
Friedman et al 15 - Andrew Friedman, Brian Kettenring, and Ana Maria Archila, Co-Executive Directors, The Center for Popular Democracy, Alana Greer, Community Justice Project; Alyssa Aguilera, VOCAL NY; Anthony Newby, Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change; Bill Henry, Baltimore City Council; Brendan Roediger, Arch City Defenders; Bukky Gbadesgesin, Organization for Black Struggle; Curtis Sails, Coalition 4 Justice; Dante Barry, Million Hoodies; Deray McKesson, WeTheProtestors; Jackie Byers, Black Organizing Project; James Hayes, Ohio Student Association; Je  Ordower, Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment; Jennifer Epps-Addison, Wisconsin Jobs Now; John Chasno , Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression; Jose Lopez, Make the Road NY; Justin Hansford, St. Louis University School of Law; Kassandra Frederique, Drug Policy Alliance; Kim McGill, Youth 4 Justice; Lynn Lewis, Picture the Homeless; Meena Jagannath, Community Justice Project; Nahal Zamani, Center for Constitutional Rights; Opal Tometi, Black Alliance for Justice Immigration; Paolo Harris, Ingoma Foundation; Patrisse Cullors, Dignity and Power Now/Coalition to End Sheri ’s Violence in L.A. Jails; Pete White, Los Angeles Community Action Network; Rachel Herzing, Critical Resistance; Ralikh Hayes, Baltimore BLOC; Sco  Roberts, Advancement Project; Tara Hu man, Open Society Institute Baltimore; Thenjiwe McHarris, US Human Rights Network, and Valantina Amalraj, Columbia Law School: June 2015(“Building Momentum from the Ground Up: A Toolkit for Promoting Justice” The Center for Popular Democracy Available at http://www.justiceinpolicing.com/docs/JusticeInPolicing.pdf Accessed on 11/15/16)IG
A 2012 study evaluating the use of body cameras by the Rialto police department in California over a period of 12 months suggests more than a 50 reduction in the total number of incidents of use-of-force. Force was twice as likely to have been used by o cers who were not wearing cameras. Complaints about police o cers fell 88 compared to the previous 12-month period.

Tournament: Damus | Round: 2 | Opponent: Loyola CH | Judge: Calen Smith
Current application of qualified immunity arose in response to, solves for, excessive litigation.
Wurman, Ilan, from the Stanford Law School, “Qualified Immunity and Statutory Interpretation”, 2013, Seattle University Law Review, http://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2227andcontext=sulr
The Glick test posed a challenge for plaintiffs. It is difficult to prove that an officer acted maliciously and without good faith. Because many instances of force may be excessive but very few will truly “shock the conscience,” Glick was an effective bar to recovery. Graham v. Connor 16—the decision that changed the standard for all excessive force cases—demonstrates these propositions.
In Graham, the plaintiff (Graham) had his friend take him to a store to resolve a blood sugar problem.17 Because the line in the store was too long, he ran out of the store back to his friend.18 Officers who saw him grew suspicious and detained him while another officer went to investigate.19 The officers refused his friend’s request to give him orange juice, though Graham was manifestly having some reaction.20 When they learned that nothing was wrong the officers drove Graham home, but Graham had by then “sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, . . . an injured shoulder, and developed a loud ringing in his right ear that continues to this day.”21
Few who read the Court’s full opinion can doubt that the officers acted excessively and unreasonably. Of course, they probably did not intend to act unreasonably, but surely they should have known better? Under Glick that question hardly matters: even if their acts were unreasonable, they were not acting maliciously or sadistically, and they were acting on a good faith belief that Graham may have committed a crime at the store he had hastily exited.
That is exactly what the district court, relying on Glick, found in Graham. 22 The trial had even proceeded to a jury, but the district judge granted the officers’ motion for a directed verdict.23 Graham did not have a claim as a matter of law because the court found that the use of force was “‘appropriate under the circumstances,’ that ‘there was no discernable injury inflicted,’ and that the force used ‘was not applied maliciously or sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm,’ but in ‘a good faith effort to maintain or restore order in the face of a potentially explosive situation.’”24
The Supreme Court reversed and held that all excessive force cases arising out of arrests or investigatory stops must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, the proper textual home for them.25 The Court eliminated the subjective components of the excessive-force inquiry in favor of an objective multi-factor test to determine the reasonableness of the application of force. The proper application of the test requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including 1 the severity of the crime at issue, 2 whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and 3 whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.26
This is an explicitly objective test, with no reference to subjective intent.27 This test opened the floodgates to plaintiffs litigating excessive force claims against police officers. Those floodgates were promptly reclosed by the application of the Court’s reinvented qualified immunity doctrine.
B. Qualified Immunity: A Mess in the Circuits
Qualified immunity had already been established as a doctrine divorced from the common law at this point.28 The Court held in Saucier v. Katz29 that in excessive force cases qualified immunity requires, as a first step, an inquiry into whether a cognizable constitutional violation has occurred and thus a determination of whether excessive force was used under the Graham standard.30 Then, as a second step, the courts must determine whether it was “clearly established” at the time that the particular use of force was unconstitutional.31
Excessive litigation kills tech innovation.
Kirk 6, Executive Director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, 3-24-6 (Michael, http://www.aipla. org/Content/ContentGroups/Legislative_Action/109th_Congress/Testimony5/ImmigrationBillSenatorSpecter.pdf)
I am writing to you on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) regarding the pending immigration reform legislation that would transfer jurisdiction over immigration appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We believe that such broadening of the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction would seriously hinder the court’s ability to render high quality, timely decisions on patent appeals from district courts, and patent and trademark appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This runs directly counter to the present efforts of Congress to otherwise reform and improve this nation’s patent system. We take no position on other specific elements of the legislation or on the underlying need for immigration reform. Our concern focuses solely on the proposed shift in appellate jurisdiction, which we believe will do more harm than good. AIPLA is a national bar association whose approximately 16,000 members are primarily lawyers in private and corporate practice, in government service, and in the academic community. AIPLA represents a wide and diverse spectrum of individuals, companies, and institutions involved directly or indirectly in the practice of patent, trademark, copyright, and unfair competition law, as well as other fields of law affecting intellectual property. Our members represent both owners and users of intellectual property, and have a keen interest in an efficient federal judicial system. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was established in 1982 after more than a decade of deliberate study and Congressional consideration. The Hruska Commission (chaired by Senator Roman Hruska) conducted a study lasting nearly three years before recommending to Congress the establishment of a national appeals court to consider patent cases. It took two Administrations, several Congresses, and a number of hearings in both the House and Senate before legislation establishing the Federal Circuit was finally enacted. Over the past 26 years the Court, through its thoughtful and deliberate opinions, has made great progress in providing stability and consistency in the patent law. Removing immigration appeals from the general jurisdiction of the twelve regional Courts of Appeals and centralizing it in the Federal Circuit is an enormous change. Leaving aside the impact, both pro and con, on the affected litigants, the Federal Circuit is simply not equipped to undertake the more than 12,000 requests for review of deportation orders that twelve courts now share each year. The Federal Circuit currently has no expertise or experience in the field of immigration law. While the legislation envisions adding three judges to the twelve currently on the Court, we have serious concerns whether this increase will be adequate. Judge Posner has calculated that, even with the three additional judges proposed in the legislation, each of the fifteen Federal Circuit judges would be responsible for about 820 immigration cases per year, on the average—an incredibly large number that we believe will have a significant adverse impact on the remainder of the court’s docket. It seems inevitable that the proposed legislation will have a dramatic, negative impact on Federal Circuit decisions in patent cases and appeals from the USPTO. Such an increased caseload will necessarily delay decisions in these appeals, which in turn will cause uncertainty over patent and trademark rights and interfere with business investments in technological innovation. Beyond mere delay, the Federal Circuit's ability to issue consistent, predictable opinions in patent cases will be complicated by an increase in the number of judges. If conflicts in panel opinions increase, the inefficient and often contentious en banc process will have to be used more often, further adding to the overall burden on the court. Business can effectively deal with decisions, positive or negative, but it cannot deal with protracted uncertainty caused by inconsistent opinions or long delays in judicial review. Demand for reform of the patent system has been the topic of considerable public debate of late. Congress held extensive hearings on this subject last year, and more are scheduled in coming weeks. The House is currently considering legislation that would dramatically change the patent statute, and we understand that patent reform legislation may soon be introduced in the Senate as well. It would be unfortunate for Congress to inadvertently compound the challenges facing the patent system by weakening the ability of the Federal Circuit to give timely and consistent consideration to patent cases.
Innovation solves great power war
Taylor 4 – Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Mark, “The Politics of Technological Change: International Relations versus Domestic Institutions,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 4/1/2004, http://www.scribd.com/doc/46554792/Taylor) RGP
I. Introduction Technological innovation is of central importance to the study of international relations (IR), affecting almost every aspect of the sub-field. First and foremost, a nation’s technological capability has a significant effect on its economic growth, industrial might, and military prowess; therefore relative national technological capabilities necessarily influence the balance of power between states, and hence have a role in calculations of war and alliance formation. Second, technology and innovative capacity also determine a nation’s trade profile, affecting which products it will import and export, as well as where multinational corporations will base their production facilities. Third, insofar as innovation-driven economic growth both attracts investment and produces surplus capital, a nation’s technological ability will also affect international financial flows and who has power over them. Thus, in broad theoretical terms, technological change is important to the study of IR because of its overall implications for both the relative and absolute power of states. And if theory alone does not convince, then history also tells us that nations on the technological ascent generally experience a corresponding and dramatic change in their global stature and influence, such as Britain during the first industrial revolution, the United States and Germany during the second industrial revolution, and Japan during the twentieth century. Conversely, great powers which fail to maintain their place at the technological frontier generally drift and fade from influence on international scene. This is not to suggest that technological innovation alone determines international politics, but rather that shifts in both relative and absolute technological capability have a major impact on international relations, and therefore need to be better understood by IR scholars. Indeed, the importance of technological innovation to international relations is seldom disputed by IR theorists. Technology is rarely the sole or overriding causal variable in any given IR theory, but a broad overview of the major theoretical debates reveals the ubiquity of technological causality. For example, from Waltz to Posen, almost all Realists have a place for technology in their explanations of international politics. At the very least, they describe it as an essential part of the distribution of material capabilities across nations, or an indirect source of military doctrine. And for some, like Gilpin quoted above, technology is the very cornerstone of great power domination, and its transfer the main vehicle by which war and change occur in world politics. Jervis tells us that the balance of offensive and defensive military technology affects the incentives for war. Walt agrees, arguing that technological change can alter a state’s aggregate power, and thereby affect both alliance formation and the international balance of threats. Liberals are less directly concerned with technological change, but they must admit that by raising or lowering the costs of using force, technological progress affects the rational attractiveness of international cooperation and regimes. Technology also lowers information and transactions costs and thus increases the applicability of international institutions, a cornerstone of Liberal IR theory. And in fostering flows of trade, finance, and information, technological change can lead to Keohane’s interdependence or Thomas Friedman et al’s globalization. Meanwhile, over at the “third debate”, Constructivists cover the causal spectrum on the issue, from Katzenstein’s “cultural norms” which shape security concerns and thereby affect technological innovation; to Wendt’s “stripped down technological determinism” in which technology inevitably drives nations to form a world state. However most Constructivists seem to favor Wendt, arguing that new technology changes people’s identities within society, and sometimes even creates new cross-national constituencies, thereby affecting international politics. Of course, Marxists tend to see technology as determining all social relations and the entire course of history, though they describe mankind’s major fault lines as running between economic classes rather than nation-states. Finally, Buzan and Little remind us that without advances in the technologies of transportation, communication, production, and war, international systems would not exist in the first place.
Perception of inaction against securities fraud undermines confidence --- crushes the global economy
Lerach 2 (William, fmr. partner, Milbreg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP, “ENRON: LESSONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Plundering America: How American Investors Got Taken for Trillions by Corporate Insiders--The Rise of the New Corporate Kleptocracy,” 8 Stan. J.L. Bus. and Fin. 69, LexisNexis
What happened was quite the opposite. Within a few years after corporate and Wall Street interests got Congress to pass the 1995 Act, "the chickens came home to roost." n28 As night follows day, after these powerful interests achieved their goal of *79 curtailing the ability of investors to hold them accountable for securities fraud, there has been a massive upsurge in securities fraud. The results are clear for all to see. Every metric to measure fraud in our markets soared. Financial scandal after financial scandal--accounting restatement after accounting restatement--surfaced. The huge market bubble burst, leaving investors holding a multi-trillion dollar bag, lay-offs sky-rocketed, the IPO window all but closed, and capital formation collapsed. Reality has overtaken deceit. While there have always been high-profile financial frauds--Equity Funding, U.S. Financial, National Student Marketing, Penn Square Bank and Miniscribe come to mind--these were isolated instances. Even the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s were confined to that industry. Historically, our public-company accounting has been of high quality and one of the major factors that has led to investor confidence in our markets, making them the envy of the world and helping to fuel the strong capital formation and economic growth we enjoyed for years. n29 Over the past several years, important changes in our financial markets occurred which, exacerbated by the negative consequences of the late 1990s legislative bonanza for corporate and financial interests, contributed to the massive increase in financial fraud we have witnessed. Over 9,000 new public companies were created by the IPO boom of the 1980s-1990s. Many of these new companies were smaller, high-tech or bio-tech companies where the pressure to show earnings growth was intense. Others were dot-com enterprises which had no earnings and were under pressure to show revenue increases--or create apparent profits by using so-called "pro forma" accounting to generate financial results which Generally Accepted Accounting Principles would never sanction. However dubious these enterprises may have been as public companies, bringing them public generated billions in fees for the investment bankers and gargantuan returns to venture capital investors--as well as making countless instant corporate insider multi-millionaires of people who had never even run a business before. But now each of these *80 companies was a public company, subject to all the pressures inherent on public companies to meet the revenue and earnings growth forecasts necessary to support a high stock price valuation. Executive compensation also changed. Executives now got cash bonuses only if earnings reached preset targets or the company's stock hit targeted prices. They received gigantic stock options, not to hold for the long term, but rather to exercise and sell each quarter, in a trading window that opened a day or two after the company reported its quarterly numbers. Also during the 1990s, the amounts paid to accounting firms by their corporate clients for consulting services skyrocketed, and the profitability of the huge accounting firms increasingly came to depend on their high-margin consulting fees from their audit clients, creating powerful incentives for these so-called "watchdogs" to accommodate their corporate clients. These were important structural changes that altered the type of public companies that dominated our financial markets, the relationship of the auditors to their corporate clients and the incentives that shape the behavior of corporate executives and their professional assistors. This explosion of new "high-growth" public companies, plus an executive-compensation system based on meeting predetermined earnings and stock-price appreciation targets, with stock options to be exercised and sold quarterly, created very powerful incentives to falsify results. This was exacerbated by executives' knowledge that markets, increasingly dominated by momentum investors, would instantly crush stocks for missing the "whisper" earnings numbers by just a penny or two. Add to this that it turned out that the supposedly "independent" accountants were routinely violating independence rules while pocketing lavish consulting payments that outweighed their audit fees many times over. While all of this was going on, Congress via the 1995 and 1998 Acts and several courts--via a series of anti-investor decisions implementing these Acts--were curtailing investor rights and remedies more severely than at any time since the enactment of the 1933 and 1934 Acts, n30 a toxic mixture in the making. *81 These factors created a "race to the bottom" in financial reporting that undermined the integrity of public-company financial reports which is essential to informed investor decisions, investor confidence in our markets, and the efficient allocation of capital to honest entrepreneurs whose efforts will create long-term economic job growth and positive investor returns. n31 Remember, Adam Smith's invisible hand guides us all. When there was so much to be gained by those who create the financial results of public companies by meeting expectations--and so much to be lost by missing them--we should not be surprised that corporate managers and their professional assistors yielded to temptation--especially when their legal responsibility and accountability had been drastically curtailed. Under these circumstances, it is not hard to see the temptation to manipulate reported results - especially when the efficient market (it's really a ruthless market) would savage a stock for the slightest earnings disappointment. It is not as if Congress was not warned. Consumer, labor, and investor groups testified that the drastic cutback on investor protections and remedies for securities fraud embodied in the 1995 Act, and reduction of corporate executives' and securities professionals' accountability for misconduct that would follow, would inevitably result in an increase in securities fraud and investor losses. They told Congress this would impair investor confidence, harm capital formation and our economy. The 1995 Act was opposed by major consumer, worker, and investor groups. The vast majority of America's newspapers also editorialized against the 1995 Act. They warned that it would grant those best positioned to profit from stock inflation a license to lie and would result in a massive upsurge of fraudulent conduct and investor losses. *82 A review of these editorials is telling. How accurate their warnings and predictions were. Two bills before Congress reveal how reckless the Republicans have become in their zeal to reduce regulation. The bills--which would "reform" laws governing securities firms and banks--go far beyond their stated purpose of ending frivolous litigation. What they would actually do is insulate corporate officials who commit fraud from legal challenge by their victims. The securities bill would erect a nearly insurmountable barrier to suing officials who peddle recklessly false information. It would block suits against accountants, lawyers and other professionals who look the other way when the companies they serve mislead investors. The high-sounding Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 . . . might come to be remembered as legislation that steeply tilted the playing field against investors. n32 "The bill . . . would bar . . . charges of fraud against those who make false projections . . . . By granting "safe harbor" to all statements of a "forward-looking" nature, it essentially tells companies . . . . Go ahead, lie about the future . . . you can fleece investors in any way that your imagination allows." n33 Gone, if these bills ever become law, is the uniquely American system of open, accessible civil justice . . . Gone, too, would be vital rights of ordinary Americans to seek redress against fraudulent securities hucksters. . . . The "Securities Litigation Reform Act" is a gift to the boiler-room crowd in the securities profession. It would raise the standards of evidence required to bring fraud cases to court while lowering the standards of professional conduct considered legally fraudulent. n34 "Companies and their agents could make false "projections" and "estimates" of future performance, even if they were deliberate lies, without fear of lawsuits by those defrauded." n35 Talk about a twist of fate. Rep. Christopher Cox, a California Republican, wrote a tough, aggressive bill on securities-law reform, which passed the House of Representatives in March. If it becomes law, investors who think they've been defrauded will find it incredibly hard to bring a class-action lawsuit to recoup their loss. Just two months after his bill passed Cox found himself tagged by just such a suit, brought by some victims of the noxious *83 First Pension fraud. In a second suit last week, First Pension's court-appointed receiver charged Cox, among others, with contributing to the hoax. n36 How, in the light of overwhelming consumer, labor and investor group opposition and widespread editorial warnings, could this special-interest legislation have possibly been enacted? In truth, the fault lies not with the corporate and financial interests that used their financial and political power to get this legislation. After all, they were only exercising their First Amendment rights to advance their interests. Nor does it really lie with the likes of Senators Domenici, Gramm, Bennett, D'Amato n37 and their ilk, who were just doing the bidding of their corporate and financial supporters. The real responsibility lies with those in positions of public trust who defaulted, who gave in and even actively assisted these special interests to help get this legislation passed when they were in a position--and had a responsibility--to stop it. Notable among those who defaulted was then SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, the quintessential man of Wall Street who became the first Chairman in history to support legislation curtailing investor protections against securities fraud. n38 Levitt *84 often bragged how he had dined every month with corporate executives to hear their views. n39 It is unfortunate he never dined with victims of securities fraud to listen to their plight. While the Levitt of late has become a prominent critic of financial abuse, in truth, he abandoned the investors he was supposed to protect when the corporate and financial interests besieged Congress in 1994-1995 and again in 1998. n40 As the new Republican Congress arrived in Washington, the SEC--the investor protection agency--was in the hands of only two Commissioners--with three seats vacant. Clinton, paralyzed by his recent election rebuke, failed to fill the empty seats. Thus, it remained for the Chairman, former Wall Street executive Levitt, and the only commissioner, Steve Wallman, an attorney who represented the Business Roundtable, to protect investors from the new, pro-corporate Congressional onslaught that was shaping up. Instead of fighting for investors, Levitt and Wallman actually helped the corporate community and its new Republican Congress pass the most damaging assault on investor protection since the federal securities laws came into being. Next comes Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), a senior Democrat on the Banking Committee and the Chairman of the Democratic Party. n41 A purported progressive, n42 Dodd energetically championed the accounting firms and insurance and Wall Street interests, i.e., his contribution base, which all benefited so *85 handsomely from his efforts in making the attempt to gut the securities laws appear to be "bipartisan." n43 He actually led the veto override efforts to enact the 1995 Act--challenging his own party's President--blind to all the warnings of the frauds to come. This is a cautionary tale of how money and power and the promise of lucrative post-Beltway staff jobs can produce special interest legislation that harms America's workers and investors--and in the end all of us. F. The "Cop on the Beat" Sleeps Also in the mix here was the failure of the SEC--the supposed "cop on the beat"--to do its job. Despite some public "jawboning" and an aggressive public-relations program casting former SEC Chairman Levitt as an investor's champion, n44 after the SEC was turned over to that alumnus of Wall Street, the SEC was anything but aggressive in cracking down on financial manipulation and insider trading by corporate executives. n45 Until recently, the SEC was headed by a lawyer who, while in *86 private practice, championed passage of the 1995 Act and represented the big accounting firms, Wall Street banks, and some of the corporations which are among those whose credibility has been tarnished and are under regulatory scrutiny. n46 He even wrote an article telling them how to cover their tracks by destroying incriminating evidence before anyone has sued them. n47 According to Forbes, in October, 2000 video cameras recorded Pitt giving a seminar for in-house corporate counsel and saying that chief financial officers whose e-mails detail too-cozy conversations with analysts about earnings estimates should "destroy" the incriminating messages "because somebody is going to find this, and it will probably be the SEC when they investigate." n48 Incredibly, this new head of the SEC early on signaled he wanted a "gentler" relationship with the accounting profession and that his SEC might actually seek to further restrict corporate liability for false forecasts. n49 In a belated response to the upsurge in corporate fraud, Pitt put forth what are at best meek proposals. For instance, Pitt recently had the SEC require corporate CEOs and CFOs to "swear" that their corporate financial results are accurate. n50 But the securities laws have required CEOs and CFOs to prepare and file accurate financial reports for public companies for sixty-eight years! CEOs and CFOs have had to sign corporate 10-Ks and 10-Qs for years. Wilfully filing false financial statements has long been a felony, subject to a prison term, since 1934. n51 And do you doubt that Enron's, WorldCom's, Adelphia's, Dynegy's, Qwest's, RiteAid's, and Global Crossing's CEOs and CFOs would have so sworn, if they had not been previously exposed. This would be humorous, if it weren't so sad. n52 *87 It now is clear that the worst stock market debacle in the history of postwar America did not just happen by chance or by the greed of the masses (although they were invaluable participants, as the sucker always is) but happened in large part because of conspiracy, greed in high places, incredible ignorance by those in high places, and a federal regulatory failure of unique proportions . . . . . . In the Internet/high-tech boom, completely worthless companies, with no prospect of earnings, were flogged insanely by the very people who should have been labeling them as unsound, the "analysts" and "market gurus" of the big investment banks. Companies that existed as no more than dreams and fantasies were touted as multi-billion dollar entities by people and investment houses whose job was to defend against exactly such viruses. What happened did not happen by accident, and a full accounting is owed to the people who were fleeced. n53 G. Pro-Corporate Courts Protect Fraudsters The courts are also responsible. For instance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the high-tech and venture-capital havens of California (the Silicon Valley) and Washington (the Silicon Forest), which pushed so hard for the 1995 Act, was once a progressive court with a reputation for protecting investors. n54 Yet since the 1995 Act it has thrown 18 consecutive securities fraud suits by investors out of court. Eighteen times in a row, using the 1995 Act, the Ninth Circuit has sided with corporate interests and closed the courthouse door to defrauded investors. Not one complaint out of 18 upheld or permitted to go forward! It all started with the Ninth Circuit's 2-1 In re Silicon Graphics decision in 1999, n55 one of the first to interpret the 1995 Act's elevated pleading standard which laid out a roadmap for judges who wanted to use that pleading standard to bar defrauded investors from pursuing any remedy and thus insulate corporate fraudsters from liability. n56 That precedent has resulted in an unbroken string of *88 follow-on affirmances of dismissals of securities class action suits by the Ninth Circuit n57 and the dismissal of scores of cases in the lower courts in the Ninth Circuit where judges are bound to follow Silicon Graphics. Given the current revelations of the gross frauds that have infested our securities markets in recent years, is it really reasonable to conclude that investors who sued in the Ninth Circuit have been unable to plead a securities fraud case in sufficient detail eighteen times in a row? The conduct of some judges in using the 1995 Act to block valid securities suits has contributed to the attitude of executive arrogance that led to the upsurge in corporate fraud. Can you imagine the stockholder fraud suits filed against WorldCom and Ebbers n58 in March 2000 and against Tyco and Kozlowski n59 in December 1999 alleging securities fraud were thrown out of court by federal judges? These were detailed complaints setting forth major frauds. Their allegations were true. Yet judges used the 1995 Act to throw these cases out of court, denying damaged investors any remedy and allowing these very serious frauds to continue--ultimately inflicting far greater harm on investors. A shareholder suit against Oracle and Larry Ellison, where Ellison sold off 900 million dollars of stock just a few weeks before Oracle revealed financial reversals and the stock collapsed, was also dismissed. n60 These are not isolated examples. Many other procorporate judges have repeatedly used the 1995 Act to protect dishonest corporate executives who falsify financial statements while insider trading and bar innocent investors from court. n61 *89 Forbes, one of the most probusiness and anti-lawyer publications in our Country, was scandalized by the dismissal of the WorldCom suit. It wrote: Over a year ago a raft of former WorldCom employees gave statements outlining a scandalous litany of misdeeds--deliberately understating costs, hiding bad debt, backdating contracts to book orders earlier than accounting rules allow. But it appears that WorldCom's directors never followed up to investigate the allegations . . . They should have. The alleged chicanery served to falsify hundreds of millions of dollars in profit and sales to give a veneer of stability and strength to WorldCom. The unheeded accusations first emerged in June 2001 n62 with the filing of a shareholder lawsuit against WorldCom in federal court on its home turf, Jackson, Miss. The complaint was backed by 100 interviews with former WorldCom employees and related parties. The allegations were startling in their breadth and detail. In smacking down the class action, the judge decreed: "The numbers are so large, the stakes were so high, and the fall of the dollar value of WorldCom stock so precipitous, that the reader reacts by thinking that there must have been some corporate misbehavior . . . However, after a thorough examination, it becomes apparent that the Complaint is a classic example of 'puzzle pleading,'" or using an onrush of "cross-references and repetition" in lieu of real substance. n63 Judge Barbour was an ideal adjudicator for the home team . . . Barbour and his family reside in a state where WorldCom was the biggest source of local pride and a major supplier of high-paying jobs. Mississippi is undergoing a highly charged tort reform battle, with Republicans squarely on the side of curtailing shareholder lawsuits. A Reagan appointee to the bench . . . Barbour is a first cousin and former law partner of Haley Barbour, former Republican National Committee chairman and now a high-powered Washington lobbyist mulling a run for Mississippi governor . . . . *90 More intriguing still, Judge Barbour's second cousin, Henry Barbour, is the campaign chairman for U.S. Representative Charles W. (Chip) Pickering. The Mississippi Republican was the largest congressional recipient of contributions from MCI, WorldCom and related individuals, receiving $ 83,750 from 1989 to 2002. n64 With judicial protection like this, it is no wonder corporate executives became emboldened and misbehaved--and investors ended up damaged and dismayed! Investors realize that purchasing securities entails risks, including the risk of loss. But if victims of securities fraud perceive that they have lost a fair chance to hold perpetrators legally responsible, that has to contribute to undermining investor confidence. n65 If corporate executives realize they can get away with it they will be all the more emboldened to try to do so. The truth is, in the last half of the 1990s, Congress, the SEC and several courts caved in to the corporate and financial interests and badly impaired the investor protections historically provided by our federal securities laws. n66 As a *91 result, the integrity of public--company financial reporting and disclosure practices became severely undermined at the very time the IPO boom and the greatest bull market in history roared on--attracting all-time record levels of pension funds' and individuals' investment of retirement savings monies. These investors got creamed. Over 14 trillion dollars was lost in just over two years--a lot of that due to fraud.
Economic collapse causes war.
Harris and Burrows 9 Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf Increased Potential for Global Conflict
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more

Tournament: Damus | Round: Octas | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake SK | Judge: Tim Alderete, Yash Kamath, Adam Torson
Increased litigation against police decimates municipal budgets
Elinson and Frosch 15 Zusha Elinson and Dan Frosch, Cost of Police-Misconduct Cases Soars in Big U.S. Cities, WSJ, 7-15-2015, Accessible Online at http://www.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-police-misconduct-cases-soars-in-big-u-s-cities-1437013834 SW 11-1-2016
For most of the police departments surveyed by the Journal, the costliest claims were allegations of civil-rights violations and other misconduct, followed by payouts on car collisions involving the police. Misconduct cases were the costliest for New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Washington, Dallas and Baltimore. Car-crash cases were the most expensive for Houston, Phoenix and Miami-Dade, a county police department.¶ Video effect¶ The data don’t indicate whether cities are settling such claims more quickly, but some recent cases suggest that might be happening, especially in cases involving video.¶ In April, less than two weeks after a news helicopter captured video of sheriff’s deputies in San Bernardino County, Calif., kicking and beating Francis Pusok , the county reached a $650,000 settlement with him. Mr. Pusok had been trying to escape from the deputies on a horse he allegedly stole. He hadn’t filed a lawsuit at the time of the settlement and still faces charges.¶ “They wanted this to go away fast,” says Sharon Brunner, a lawyer for Mr. Pusok, who is fighting the charges. A spokesman for the county said the quick payout was made to avoid costly litigation.¶ Laquan McDonald was shot and killed by Chicago police last October after officers responded to reports of a man breaking into vehicles. A police account contained in the coroner’s report said the 17-year-old had lunged at the officers with a knife. Lawyers for his family say they obtained a video from a police dashboard camera that shows an officer shooting the teen 16 times as he walked away from the officer. In April, before his family filed a lawsuit, the city agreed to a $5 million settlement.¶ Michael Robbins, one of the family’s lawyers, says the video was “the factor” behind the city’s willingness to settle quickly, along with “what’s going on in the nation right now.”¶ Chicago Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton, who heads the city’s law department, characterized the $5 million payout as “comparable to other settlements in fatal shootings in which the evidence in support of liability weighed strongly in favor of the decedent.”¶ A lawyer for the officer who shot Mr. McDonald said his client was “protecting himself, his partners and others.”¶ Dallas paid out $3.4 million in misconduct cases in 2014, compared with just $200,550 in 2010. Chris Bowers, a lawyer for the city, said Dallas had moved more quickly to settle cases over the past two years “if we believed at the end of the day that the city will be liable.”¶ Dallas civil-rights lawyer Don Tittle says the increased availability of camera footage and shifting attitudes toward police are affecting cases.¶ “Up until recently, when it came to civil lawsuits, there were two groups that had a distinct advantage, where you had to knock them out to win. And that was doctors and cops,” he says. “But with the advent of video, and the changing perception of society, I don’t think police are held in the same regard.”¶ Last year, Mr. Tittle negotiated a $1.1 million settlement from the city in a case brought by Ronald Bernard Jones, who was arrested in 2009 on aggravated-assault charges after a confrontation with police officers. According to the lawsuit, camera footage didn’t back up police claims that Mr. Jones had attacked officers after they stopped him. Mr. Jones alleged he was beaten and falsely arrested. Charges against Mr. Jones eventually were dropped.¶ Mr. Bowers, the city lawyer, said the city council decided the settlement was in Dallas’s best interest. Neither the city nor the officers admitted liability.¶ Not all the departments surveyed showed an increase in misconduct payouts. Phoenix, Los Angeles and Baltimore, for example, showed declines. But insurers and lawyers who defend police say current scrutiny of law enforcement is broadly affecting the resolution of lawsuits. ¶ After a news helicopter in April took video of sheriff’s deputies in San Bernardino County, Calif., beating Francis Pusok, who had tried to escape on horseback, the county reached a $650,000 settlement with him. ¶ “We’re there to protect our members,” says Joanne Rennie, general manager of Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California, a risk-sharing pool. “However, when there is such a level of attention to the—I’m hoping few and far between—bad actors, it makes it more difficult to pull a jury pool that’s willing to consider just the facts and not just the dramatic aspects.”¶ Robert Shannon, a former city lawyer who defended police in Long Beach, Calif., and Los Angeles, says that in the 1970s there was a public presumption “that the police officer was correct in what he was doing.” Now, he says, “things have changed substantially.” Cases like the police killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and Mr. Garner in Staten Island, N.Y., he says, could influence juries.¶ Taxpayers foot the bill for settlements one way or another. Cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Philadelphia are self-insured, meaning any payouts come out of city funds. Others have insurance that kicks in at a certain payment level in each case. Smaller municipalities often pool risk with others, but the cost of premiums can increase after incidents occur, much like car insurance. It is almost unheard of that officers pay out of their own pockets, according to a 2014 study on police liability by Joanna Schwartz, a UCLA law professor.¶ Old cases¶ Cities are cutting more checks to people who were wrongfully imprisoned years ago because of police misconduct. As more wrongful convictions come to light, jury verdicts have risen, with some now exceeding $2 million a year behind bars.¶ New York City agreed last year to pay $41 million to five black and Hispanic men imprisoned for the 1989 beating and rape of a jogger in Central Park, then freed after another man confessed and DNA evidence confirmed his story. City lawyers under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg had fought a lawsuit brought by the five men, which alleged that detectives coerced confessions from them as teens. Under current Mayor Bill de Blasio, the city agreed to a settlement equal to about $1 million for each year each man spent behind bars.¶ New York City Corporation Counsel Zachary Carter said the settlement “should not be construed as an acknowledgment that the convictions of these five plaintiffs were the result of law-enforcement misconduct.”¶ Chicago has been trying to resolve cases stemming from allegations that detectives, led by former commander Jon Burge, tortured black and Hispanic suspects with implements like electric cattle prods, coercing confessions from them and putting them behind bars from the 1970s to early 1990s for crimes they didn’t commit. Those cases have cost the city more than $60 million in payouts. In May, Chicago launched a $5.5 million reparations fund for some of the victims.¶ A Chicago police spokesman called Mr. Burge’s actions a “disgrace.” Mr. Burge was convicted of federal perjury and obstruction charges in 2010. Mr. Burge, who has been released from prison, declined to comment.¶ In New York, settlements and judgments in misconduct cases hit $165 million in fiscal 2014, up from $93.8 million in 2010. Both New York and Los Angeles, which paid out $10.7 million on such cases last year, now are tracking claims more closely and trying new approaches to risk management.¶ New York City’s government-run hospitals were for years the city’s leading source of liability payouts, primarily because of medical-malpractice settlements. But beginning in the 2010 fiscal year, the police department surpassed the city hospitals in total liability payouts.¶ The trend caught the attention of New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer, who launched a program to track legal claims called ClaimStat. “Instead of accepting rising claims and settlements as the cost of doing business,” Mr. Stringer says, the city can use the data to identify underlying problems and make changes to prevent future suits.¶ The number of new claims filed against New York City police, including allegations of police misconduct and damage from car crashes, rose 71 between 2004 and 2013, according to the comptroller.¶ “While the filing of a lawsuit does not prove any misconduct on the part of an officer, the department is aware of the increasing number of actions filed against the NYPD,” a spokeswoman said, adding that the department is “addressing these very real concerns” with the creation of a risk-management bureau and police litigation unit.¶ The settlement with Mr. Garner’s estate came nearly a year after his confrontation with officers who accused him of selling untaxed cigarettes—a scene captured in a widely viewed video. Mr. Stringer said the settlement “acknowledges the tragic nature of Mr. Garner’s death while balancing my office’s fiscal responsibility to the city.”¶ The impact on smaller cities can be more dramatic. According to Ms. Schwartz’s study, which tabulated civil-rights payouts in 44 large police and sheriff departments from 2006 through 2011, Albuquerque paid out the most per officer—more than $2,000 a year over that time.¶ The city of about 550,000 has had a high number of fatal police shootings and has spent more than $25 million on civil-rights and police-misconduct settlements over the past five years, with annual payouts nearly quadrupling over that period. Earlier this month, Albuquerque officials reached a $5 million settlement with the family of James Boyd, a mentally unstable homeless man who was shot by police in 2014 in an incident captured on video.¶ Last October, the city agreed to change how its officers use force in a settlement it reached with the Justice Department, which said it found a widespread pattern of excessive and sometimes lethal force by officers.¶ Albuquerque officials say the city has been bracing for more settlements and has had to allocate funding it could have spent on raises for employees, parks and other municipal projects to cover the payouts in police cases.¶ “Any time you are putting more money into a risk-management fund, you are taking away money from somewhere else,” said city councilor Ken Sanchez. “Having to put more money into that fund to pay for the lawsuits has really been challenging.”

Turns case—excessive policing
Kopf 16 Dan Kopf, data journalist. The Fining of Black America, Priceonomics, 6-24-2016, Accessible Online at https://priceonomics.com/the-fining-of-black-america/ SW 11-1-2016
In March 2010, years before Ferguson, Missouri, became known for sparking the Black Lives Matter movement, the city’s Finance Director contacted the Chief of Police with a solution to the city’s budget problems. ¶ The Finance Director wanted the police to generate more revenues from fines — money paid for infractions like traffic violations and missing court appointments. He warned that the city would be in financial trouble “unless ticket writing ramps up significantly before the end of the year.” “Given that we are looking at a substantial sales tax shortfall,” he wrote, “it’s not an insignificant issue.”¶ The Finance Director’s request surfaced as part of the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation of the Ferguson Police Department. The investigation was instigated by the civil unrest that followed the fatal shooting of an 18-year-old African American man named Michael Brown in August 2014. Its goal was to better understand why the citizens of Ferguson felt so at odds with the police department chartered to protect them.¶ The Justice Department concluded that the mistrust between the police and the community primarily resulted from excessive fining. “Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs,” the report read. The use of fines to fund the government undermined “law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular.” ¶ Ferguson has a population of just over 20,000 that is 67 African American, and it raised over $2 million from fines and fees in 2012. This accounted for around 13 of all government revenue, and a disproportionate amount of this money came from the African American population.¶ Is Ferguson an anomaly?¶ Using the U.S. Census’s Survey of Local and State Finances, we investigated the proportion of revenues that cities typically receive from fines, as well as the characteristics of cities that rely on fines the most. What are these cities like? Are they rich or poor? In certain parts of the country? Heavily Black or White?¶ We found one demographic that was most characteristic of cities that levy large amounts of fines on their citizens: a large African American population. Among the fifty cities with the highest proportion of revenues from fines, the median size of the African American population—on a percentage basis—is more than five times greater than the national median.¶ Surprisingly, we found that income had very little connection to cities’ reliance on fines as a revenue source. Municipalities that are overwhelming White and non-Hispanic do not exhibit as much excessive fining, even if they are poor.¶ Our analysis indicates that the use of fines as a source of revenue is not a socioeconomic problem, but a racial one. The cities most likely to exploit residents for fine revenue are those with the most African Americans.

City budgets key to the national economy.
Morath 10/26 Eric; covers the economy from The Wall Street Journal's Washington Bureau; 10/26/2016; “Slowdown in State, Local Investment Dents U.S. Economy”; http://www.wsj.com/articles/slowdown-in-state-local-investment-dents-u-s-economy-1477495758; JLB (11/5/16)
A sharp pullback in spending by cities and states on infrastructure—from highways to sewage systems to police stations—is weighing on U.S. economic growth.¶ Such government austerity is unusual in the eighth year of an economic expansion, and it is acting as a headwind just as the worst effects of the energy-industry bust, a strong dollar and inventory drawdown are fading.¶ State and local governments spent an annualized $248.47 billion on construction in August—the least since March 2014 and down nearly 11 from its recent peak in mid-2015.¶ The decline depressed gross domestic product growth this spring and was on track to weigh on growth again in the third quarter.¶ “We’re seeing anemic government revenue growth and consistent austerity-oriented budgets,” said Gabe Petek, managing director for state ratings at SandP Global Ratings. States are trimming investments in infrastructure and higher education, “areas of the budget helpful for generating economic growth going forward,” he said.¶ In Kansas, officials this spring delayed 24 road-construction projects to help balance the state budget. The more than $500 million in work had been slated to start between this year and the end of 2018, including expanding U.S. 50 into a four-lane expressway near Dodge City.¶ Instead, the state will spend money to maintain existing roads. “We want to make sure the roadways we currently have are in the best condition as possible,” said Joel Skelley, director of policy at the Kansas Department of Transportation.  Total state and local government spending last year accounted for roughly 11 of U.S. economic output, four times as large as federal nondefense spending, and swings in public investment can have outsize effects on the growth rate. The Commerce Department will release its first estimate for third-quarter GDP on Friday.¶ ENLARGE¶ Many state governments have yet to fully recover from the recession and associated steep declines in tax revenue. In late 2015, inflation-adjusted tax revenue was lower in 21 states compared with the peak before or during the recession, according to Pew Charitable Trusts.¶ The situation doesn’t seem to be improving. Preliminary data indicate that state tax revenue fell 2.1 in the second quarter from a year earlier after advancing just 1.6 in the first quarter, according to the Rockefeller Institute of Government. The recent drop reflected mixed stock-market returns and slowing growth in sales-tax collection and paycheck withholding.¶ Revenue declines restrain the ability of state and local governments to borrow money for capital projects. Such a situation prompted Connecticut to cancel or delay selling about $1 billion in bonds earlier this year. By law, the state has a debt limit tied to tax collections, and lawmakers must make cuts when the limit can’t be raised.¶ As a result of the lost funding, the University of Connecticut delayed a $150 million renovation of its Gant Science Complex by several months and postponed plans for a $10 million overhaul of the roof at Gampel Pavilion, home of the national-champion Husky basketball teams. Instead, the university will fix leaks.¶ “We’re trying to balance priorities,” said Scott Jordan, the university’s chief financial officer. The cuts are “forcing us to take a look at what things support our core mission and Connecticut’s economy,” he said.¶ At the same time tax revenue is falling, costs for Medicaid, public-employee health care and pension obligations are rising, leaving many states with little discretion to deploy tax dollars elsewhere.

Economic collapse causes war.
Harris and Burrows 9 Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf Increased Potential for Global Conflict
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Dulles AW | Judge: Chris Castillo
When convened, the Electoral College of the United States should elect Hillary Clinton as President of the United States.
The House of Representatives and the senate of the United States should bring the Trans-Pacific Partnership up for a vote.
Yes
Romano 11/11 – Robert, Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government (“Why the Trans­Pacific Partnership had to die after Trump’s win” Net Right Daily) RMT
On Nov. 11, the 12­nation Trans­Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact died a quiet death as the Obama administration abandoned efforts to pass the trade deal during the lame duck session of Congress, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The problem? Donald Trump won the election by taking away Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin from Democrats in the electoral college, denying Hillary Clinton the presidency. That was a combined 64 electoral votes, comprising the bulk of Trump’s win, and without which Democrats cannot hope to reclaim the White House anytime soon.
Trump did it by campaigning against the TPP and other unpopular trade deals like NAFTA and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization and being granted permanent normal trade relations. After years of implementation by the Clinton administration and then under the Obama administration — which Congress just granted trade authority to — Trump was able successfully paint Democrats as the party of globalization and outsourcing.
Remarkably, even though Clinton had rescinded her nominal support for the TPP on the campaign trail — trying to stop the Democrat hemorrhaging of union household support — the Obama plan all along was to ram the trade deal through after she won the election.
“The White House had lobbied hard for months in the hope of moving forward on the pact if Mrs. Clinton had won,” reported the Journal.
Which makes sense. A Trump loss would have been read as a repudiation of his trade position. That is, after Clinton was done fooling working class Americans that Democrats would stop these bad trade deals, Obama was going to push it through Congress over the holidays when nobody was looking. And then a President Clinton could sign its implementation into law later.
But the plan would stop that from happening the plan is spun as an attack on police credibility.
Johnson 15 Jenna; Reporter for The Washington Post; The Washington Post; 12/10/15; “Donald Trump wants the death penalty for those who kill police officers”; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/10/donald-trump-wants-the-death-penalty-for-those-who-kill-police-officers/
As Republican candidates have delicately tried to stake a position in the roiling debate over alleged brutality between police officers and minorities, Trump has firmly planted himself on the side of police. Trump has said in previous speeches that while every profession has its "bad apples," police officers have been unfairly criticized at a time when they need to be supported. Trump often responds to questions about the Black Lives Matter movement by saying that "all lives matter" and accusing President Obama of stirring up racial unrest.¶ This police union is the same one that in September urged police officers to boycott a Labor Day breakfast attended by President Obama and union leaders in Boston. At the time, the union head accused Obama of not being supportive enough of police officers.¶ "The police and the law enforcement in this country -- I will never ever let them down, just remember that," Trump said on Thursday. "They've had a hard time. These forces throughout the country have had a hard time: A lot of people killed, a lot of people killed really violently."¶ It was a message that resonated with many officers, including Sgt. Deborah Batista of Middleborough, Mass., who is vice president of the union.¶ "He seems to be a supporter of law enforcement which is something that we have not seen from the current administration," said Batista, 53. "We are not popular of late, law enforcement."

Extinction
Boskin 15 - professor of economics and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University
(Michael, “Trans-Pacific Partnership: the case for trade,” The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/30/tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-the-case-for-trade)
Past experience reinforces the view that, ultimately, voluntary trade is a good thing. Extreme protectionism in the early 1930s, following an era of relatively free international trade, had devastating consequences, ultimately setting the stage for the second world war. As the MIT economist Charles Kindleberger showed, America’s Smoot-Hawley tariff, in particular, helped to turn a deep recession into a global depression. Even before the war was over, major powers convened in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to establish a new international trade and finance regime, including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Through a succession of lengthy and difficult global negotiations – the so-called “GATT rounds” – tariffs were steadily lowered for an increasing variety of goods. As a result, global trade grew faster than world GDP for most of the postwar period. After five years of talks, a wide-ranging trade deal is close between Pacific rim countries which could have long-reaching economic consequences. Here is what you need to know about the TPP Read more Virtually all economists agree that this shift toward freer trade greatly benefited the world’s citizens and enhanced global growth. The economists Jeffrey Frankel and David Romer estimate that, in general, trade has a sizeable positive effect on growth. At a time when growth is failing to meet expectations almost everywhere, the TPP thus seems like a good move. To be sure, because tariffs in the TPP member countries are already low (with some exceptions, such as Canada’s tariffs on dairy products and Japan’s on beef), the net benefit of eliminating them would be modest (except for a few items that are very sensitive to small price changes). But the TPP is also expected to reduce non-tariff barriers (such as red tape and protection of state enterprises); harmonise policies and procedures; and include dispute-settlement mechanisms. Though the TPP’s precise provisions have not been made public, political leaders in the member countries predict that the deal, once ratified and implemented, will add hundreds of billions of dollars to their economies and bolster employment. Smaller and developing economies will probably gain the most, relative to size, but everyone will benefit overall. Other important outcomes are not included in these calculations. The alternative to liberalising trade is not the status quo; it is a consistent move away from openness. This can occur in a number of ways, such as the erection of non-tariff barriers that favor domestic incumbents at the expense of lower-priced potential imports that would benefit consumers. Moreover, it is much easier to build mutually beneficial trade relationships than it is to resolve military and geopolitical issues, such as combating the Islamic State or resolving tensions in the South China Sea. But strong trade relationships have the potential to encourage cooperation – or, at least, discourage escalation of conflict – in other, more contentious areas. Still, there are some legitimate concerns about the TPP. Some worry that it could divert trade from non-member countries or undermine the moribund Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations (though 20 years ago, the North American Free Trade Agreement had the opposite effect, kick-starting the Uruguay round). Given all of this – not to mention renewed attention to national borders, owing to contentious immigration issues, such as the influx of Middle Eastern refugees in Europe – the TPP’s ratification is far from certain, especially in the US. The concentrated interests that oppose the agreement may turn out to be more influential than the diffuse interests of all consumers. That would be a major loss. Allowing existing protectionist trade barriers to remain in place – or worsen – would not only deprive citizens in TPP countries of higher incomes; it would also deal a damaging blow to international cooperation.
Obama key to 21st century Cures Act - it’s a house and senate priority.
Whitman 11/11/16 (Elizabeth, reporter for Modern Healthcare Hopes for Precision Medicine Initiative, Cancer Moonshot rest with lame-duck Congress, www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20161111/NEWS/161119982)
The election of Donald Trump to the presidency is poised to turn healthcare upside down, given his and other Republicans' vows to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.
Also uncertain are the fates of initiatives by President Barack Obama's administration to galvanize medical progress in cancer and precision medicine specifically. A lame-duck Congress could help preserve them, amid fears that a Trump presidency portends severely diminished support for scientific and medical research.
“There is a great deal of bipartisan support for continuing these efforts,” Janet Marchibroda, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center's Health Innovation Initiative, said of the Cancer Moonshot and Precision Medicine Initiative. She added that several provisions in the bipartisan 21st Century Cures package, which a lame-duck Congress is expected to take up, aim to support both.
When Obama launched the Cancer Moonshot in January, he tasked Vice President Joe Biden with overseeing the effort to double the pace of cancer research and achieve a decade's worth of progress in five years.
The White House laid aside $1 billion for the initiative as “an initial down-payment” but said Congress would have to continue providing funding to ensure the moonshot's long-term success.
The Precision Medicine Initiative began a year earlier with $215 million to “pioneer a new model of patient-powered research” and shift medical care from one-size-fits-all to individualized treatments, tailored to a patient's genetic makeup, environment and lifestyle.
The 21st Century Cures Act, which would fund new medical research over the next five years to the tune of nearly $9 billion, passed the House last year, but the Senate has yet to pass it.
The latest version of the bill proposes to create the NIH and Cures Innovation Fund, which would receive $1.86 billion in funding every year from 2016 through 2020. Nearly $1.75 billion of that would be for biomedical research under the NIH. At least $500 million would go toward the Accelerating Advancement Program, under which the NIH director “partners with national research institutes and national centers to accomplish important biomedical research objectives.”
At the end of September, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate pledged that passing the legislation would be a priority before the end of the year.
Necessary to develop new antibiotics – it’s try or die
Dall 9/6/16 (Chris, Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, University of Minnesota, Health groups urge Senate to pass antibiotics bill, www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2016/09/health-groups-urge-senate-pass-antibiotics-bill
As Congress prepares to return to work today, some of the nation's leading health organizations are urging lawmakers to pass legislation that could make it easier to get federal approval of new antibiotics for tough-to-treat infections.
The legislation, known as the Promise for Antibiotics and Therapeutics for Health (PATH) Act, would establish a new "limited population antibacterial drug approval pathway" for antibiotics that treat serious or life-threatening infections for which there are few or no other options.
The bill is part of the broader 21st Century Cures Act, a collection of 19 bills that would make changes to how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves new drugs and medical devices. The House of the Representatives passed the 21st Century Cures Act in 2015.
"The new pathway proposed by PATH is necessary to develop novel antibiotics and bring them to the patients that need them most," the organizations wrote in a letter sent today to Senate leaders and the ranking members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, which is reviewing the legislation. The letter was signed by 42 health organizations, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The groups said the PATH Act could help stimulate the discovery and development of new antibiotics, which they see as one element in the multi-pronged approach to combatting the growing threat of antibiotic resistance. They noted that it's been more than 30 years since a new class of antibiotic was discovered and developed—a period that's also seen a sharp rise in drug-resistant bacteria.
"The proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria—a result of decades of overuse combined with a lack of new drug development and innovation—threatens to bring us to a 'post-antibiotic' world in which even the most simple surgical procedure could have deadly consequences," the letter warns.
Extinction.
Davies 08 - Professor of Microbiology and Immunology @ University of British Columbia Julian Davies, “Resistance redux. Infectious diseases, antibiotic resistance and the future of mankind,” EMBO reports 9, S1, S18–S21 (2008), pg. http://www.nature.com.proxy.library.emory.edu/embor/journal/v9/n1s/full/embor200869.html
For many years, antibiotic-resistant pathogens have been recognized as one of the main threats to human survival, as some experts predict a return to the pre-antibiotic era. So far, national efforts to exert strict control over the use of antibiotics have had limited success and it is not yet possible to achieve worldwide concerted action to reduce the growing threat of multi-resistant pathogens: there are too many parties involved. Furthermore, the problem has not yet really arrived on the radar screen of many physicians and clinicians, as antimicrobials still work most of the time—apart from the occasional news headline that yet another nasty superbug has emerged in the local hospital. Legislating the use of antibiotics for non-therapeutic applications and curtailing general public access to them is conceivable, but legislating the medical profession is an entirely different matter.
In order to meet the growing problem of antibiotic resistance among pathogens, the discovery and development of new antibiotics and alternative treatments for infectious diseases, together with tools for rapid diagnosis that will ensure effective and appropriate use of existing antibiotics, are imperative. How the health services, pharmaceutical industry and academia respond in the coming years will determine the future of treating infectious diseases. This challenge is not to be underestimated: microbes are formidable adversaries and, despite our best efforts, continue to exact a toll on the human race.

Tournament: Damus | Round: Octas | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake SK | Judge: Tim Alderete, Yash Kamath, Adam Torson
Qualified immunity is a key protection against uses of section 1983 claims to encroach on states rights and laws – immunity returns power to state courts
Putnam 92 – Charles Putnam, Office of the New Hampshire Attorney General: 1992(“Defending a Maligned Defense: The Policy Bases of the Qualified Immunity Defense in Actions Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983”, Bridgeport Law Review Available at  https://www.qu.edu/prebuilt/pdf/SchoolLaw/LawReviewLibrary/26_12UBridgeportLRev665(1991-1992).pdf Accessed on 11/04/16)IG
To place this analysis in perspective, the authors first review the four policy considerations that we believe the qualified immunity defense furthers. We then briefly retrace the history of litigation under section 1983 and review the mechanics of the statute as it exists today. Next, we review the development of the qualified immunity defense and examine its current application in excessive force, arrest and detention, jail-cell suicide, and malicious prosecution claims against law enforcement officials. Finally, we examine how courts apply the defense to claims brought against correctional officials arising from strip searches, emergency situations, and medical treatment.¶ I. POLICY CONCERNS¶ Although the historical purposes of section 1983 clearly reflect the distrust of state courts and other state entities that was prevalent in 1871, the current view of some of the justices of the Supreme Court and increasing numbers of federal judges is that claims alleging misconduct by state and municipal officials do not belong in federal court. They believe such claims should in- stead be brought in state court in the first instance, if at all.3 This federalist view is based on the belief that state courts are as competent as federal courts to decide such claims and the belief that federal courts ought to minimize their involvement in and supervision of state and local government matters." Daniels v. Williams' is a case that demonstrates the heightened federalism concern where a section 1983 action appears only to be a state law tort claim masquerading as a constitutional claim. In Daniels, an inmate filed suit for alleged violations of his constitutional rights after he supposedly slipped on a pillow negligently left on a stairway by a corrections officer.6 In an opinion by Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court held that the due process clause is not implicated by negligent acts of state officials that cause unintended loss or injury, as these do not "deprive" a person of life, liberty, or property under the Fourteenth Amendment.7¶ This concern for federalism also is evidenced by the decision of the First Circuit in Amsden v. Moran.8 There, the plaintiff sought monetary damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief arising from the revocation of his surveyor's license by the New Hampshire Board of Licensure for Land Surveyors.9 The plaintiff argued that his federal constitutional rights had been violated because his license had been revoked without due process of law. The appellate court found that the plaintiff already had been granted ample opportunities to present his case in state fora and held that "in the qualified immunity/summary judgment milieu, federal courts have been well advised to steer clear of the potential quagmire inherent in disputes, like this one, which come down to matters of state-law jurisdictional and administrative requirements."' 0 The court went on to hold that, "at bottom, this appeal exemplifies that section 1983 is not a panacea for every remonstrant disappointed either by his treatment at the hands of a state agency or by the outcome of state administrative proceedings.'1¶ The federalism concern may also be heightened where a section 1983 action appears to be an effort to interfere with the operation of state government without the benefit of express statutory or constitutional mandate."2
The plan overturns a delicate balance of federalism: police and court power are key – especially to public health law and the medical system
Hodge 98 James G. Hodge Jr. (Professor of Public Health Law and Ethics at Arizona State University), "The Role of New Federalism and Public Health Law," Journal of Law and Health AZ
Because of the intersection of federal and state powers in the field of public health, legal struggles over the exercise of limited powers occur. The resolution of such disputes is uniquely within the province of federalism. States’ traditional abilities to control and maintain public health remains contingent on the scope of their police powers and the extent of federal intrusion. Likewise, the scope of states' police powers is contingent on the treatment states receive in the exercise of these powers by the courts. This in turn depends on the emphasis courts place on the principle of federalism." When federalism concerns are more strongly emphasized, states have more ability to regulate matters of public health pursuant to their police powers. When federalism principles are weakened or ignored, states lose out to federal interventions over such traditional exercises. Thus, federalism preserves the police powers of the states and acts as a barrier to federal legislative intervention in matters within the scope of those powers.“1 lt simultaneously restricts the federal government’s ability to regulate in the interests of public health since such regulation has traditionally been the responsibility of state governments. Hanging in the balance of these observations are the very goals of public health which rely on the role federalism plays. 111. STATE Police Powers UNDER TENTH AMENDMENT The integral component of federalism is the division of powers among the national and state governments. Consistent with this component, states are reserved those powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to them by the Constitution. This Part examines the theoretical, historical, and legal underpinnings of the reserved powers of states via the Tenth Amendment"2 and their application to public health law. A. Defining Police Powers As James Madison stated in The Federalist series: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.
Lack of detection and health infrastructure makes disease spread likely – and US infrastructure spills over
Schermerhorn 14 (Jordan, Global Health and the Middle East at Duke University) “Bioterrorism is Already Here” Medium Apr 29, 2014 AT
The fact that our “global health security agenda” focuses on future pandemics and deliberate bioterror threats is laughable in the face of reemerging infectious diseases and slaughtered immunization workers. True health insecurity is present globally, and it should not require a mystery test tube and ill intent to be perceived as valid and pressing threat. Disease distributions in three countries, with red representing infectious disease. Images from the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Data obtained from 2012 State Department budget and CIA Factbook population statistics. The least health-secure areas are often conflict zones, where the U.S. is heavily invested militarily but where health assistance often lags far behind. There is no better example than the Middle East, where poor health access tends to be masked; statelessness, migrancy, and the sheer law of averages merge oil conglomerates and marginalized masses into a bland middle-income yellow. View from the Taybeh Health Center in Amman, Jordan, which serves a catchment area of 18,000 Palestinian refugees. Though a model clinic in the region, Taybeh is managed by UNRWA, which is struggling to absorb Palestinian-Syrian double refugees. 27 polio cases have surfaced in Syria since October. That may seem negligible compared to the SARS numbers cited by Kerry, but it represents the tip of an iceberg. When polio “appears,” this often means the case expresses symptoms in the iconic FDR sense — otherwise, it’s rather difficult to tell you have it. The cases easiest to detect, where the virus enters the central nervous system and causes paralysis — obviously signaling a need for prompt medical attention even for people with so much else on their plates — represent roughly 5 of all infections. 27 identified infections imply over 500 total infections. That’s 27 identified infections in a war-torn nation with a decimated capacity for disease surveillance, a barely-existent ability to prevent further spread, and fighters pouring in from an estimated 83 countries. And to top it all off, that same state is hemorrhaging hundreds of refugees by the day. Lucky thing this is happening on the other side of the world, right? A health-insecure United States is not a distant threat. It’s here now. And it will remain as long as health aid is granted to conflict zones as an afterthought to military aid, as long as the idiot proponents of the homegrown anti-vaccine movement are granted airtime, as long as health disparities exist within and between countries, and as long as planes and trains and automobiles propel the modern global economy forward across porous borders. In short, international health issues will always pose a security risk. Our capacity to prioritize those risks is what will help us remain secure. However, the present agenda does not provide reason for optimism. Our inability to smother “simple” diseases — those with vaccines and known transmission patterns — is a direct reflection of our global capacity to tame more virulent diseases, many of which we may not anticipate. Diseases do not back down in the face of international condemnation, and they have a pesky habit of ignoring borders. If the United States crafts a health security agenda around distant pandemics while refusing to take action in places where intervention is politically untenable, we are deluding ourselves. We are all but ignoring the resurgence of a disease from another era in a place where the government actively promotes conditions that facilitate its spread. Meanwhile, we center our panic and policy agendas on milder outbreaks in developed countries. Will we gather the courage to confront health challenges in uncomfortable places when the stakes are higher? The true nature of global health security depends on it, but polio in Syria does not provide an encouraging model.
Extinction
Quammen 12 David, award-winning science writer, long-time columnist for Outside magazine for fifteen years, with work in National Geographic, Harper's, Rolling Stone, the New York Times Book Review and other periodicals, 9/29, “Could the next big animal-to-human disease wipe us out?,” The Guardian, pg. 29, Lexis
Infectious disease is all around us. It's one of the basic processes that ecologists study, along with predation and competition. Predators are big beasts that eat their prey from outside. Pathogens (disease-causing agents, such as viruses) are small beasts that eat their prey from within. Although infectious disease can seem grisly and dreadful, under ordinary conditions, it's every bit as natural as what lions do to wildebeests and zebras. But conditions aren't always ordinary. Just as predators have their accustomed prey, so do pathogens. And just as a lion might occasionally depart from its normal behaviour - to kill a cow instead of a wildebeest, or a human instead of a zebra - so a pathogen can shift to a new target. Aberrations occur. When a pathogen leaps from an animal into a person, and succeeds in establishing itself as an infectious presence, sometimes causing illness or death, the result is a zoonosis. It's a mildly technical term, zoonosis, unfamiliar to most people, but it helps clarify the biological complexities behind the ominous headlines about swine flu, bird flu, Sars, emerging diseases in general, and the threat of a global pandemic. It's a word of the future, destined for heavy use in the 21st century. Ebola and Marburg are zoonoses. So is bubonic plague. So was the so-called Spanish influenza of 1918-1919, which had its source in a wild aquatic bird and emerged to kill as many as 50 million people. All of the human influenzas are zoonoses. As are monkeypox, bovine tuberculosis, Lyme disease, West Nile fever, rabies and a strange new affliction called Nipah encephalitis, which has killed pigs and pig farmers in Malaysia. Each of these zoonoses reflects the action of a pathogen that can "spillover", crossing into people from other animals. Aids is a disease of zoonotic origin caused by a virus that, having reached humans through a few accidental events in western and central Africa, now passes human-to-human. This form of interspecies leap is not rare; about 60 of all human infectious diseases currently known either cross routinely or have recently crossed between other animals and us. Some of those - notably rabies - are familiar, widespread and still horrendously lethal, killing humans by the thousands despite centuries of efforts at coping with their effects. Others are new and inexplicably sporadic, claiming a few victims or a few hundred, and then disappearing for years. Zoonotic pathogens can hide. The least conspicuous strategy is to lurk within what's called a reservoir host: a living organism that carries the pathogen while suffering little or no illness. When a disease seems to disappear between outbreaks, it's often still lingering nearby, within some reservoir host. A rodent? A bird? A butterfly? A bat? To reside undetected is probably easiest wherever biological diversity is high and the ecosystem is relatively undisturbed. The converse is also true: ecological disturbance causes diseases to emerge. Shake a tree and things fall out. Michelle Barnes is an energetic, late 40s-ish woman, an avid rock climber and cyclist. Her auburn hair, she told me cheerily, came from a bottle. It approximates the original colour, but the original is gone. In 2008, her hair started falling out; the rest went grey "pretty much overnight". This was among the lesser effects of a mystery illness that had nearly killed her during January that year, just after she'd returned from Uganda. Her story paralleled the one Jaap Taal had told me about Astrid, with several key differences - the main one being that Michelle Barnes was still alive. Michelle and her husband, Rick Taylor, had wanted to see mountain gorillas, too. Their guide had taken them through Maramagambo Forest and into Python Cave. They, too, had to clamber across those slippery boulders. As a rock climber, Barnes said, she tends to be very conscious of where she places her hands. No, she didn't touch any guano. No, she was not bumped by a bat. By late afternoon they were back, watching the sunset. It was Christmas evening 2007. They arrived home on New Year's Day. On 4 January, Barnes woke up feeling as if someone had driven a needle into her skull. She was achy all over, feverish. "And then, as the day went on, I started developing a rash across my stomach." The rash spread. "Over the next 48 hours, I just went down really fast." By the time Barnes turned up at a hospital in suburban Denver, she was dehydrated; her white blood count was imperceptible; her kidneys and liver had begun shutting down. An infectious disease specialist, Dr Norman K Fujita, arranged for her to be tested for a range of infections that might be contracted in Africa. All came back negative, including the test for Marburg. Gradually her body regained strength and her organs began to recover. After 12 days, she left hospital, still weak and anaemic, still undiagnosed. In March she saw Fujita on a follow-up visit and he had her serum tested again for Marburg. Again, negative. Three more months passed, and Barnes, now grey-haired, lacking her old energy, suffering abdominal pain, unable to focus, got an email from a journalist she and Taylor had met on the Uganda trip, who had just seen a news article. In the Netherlands, a woman had died of Marburg after a Ugandan holiday during which she had visited a cave full of bats. Barnes spent the next 24 hours Googling every article on the case she could find. Early the following Monday morning, she was back at Dr Fujita's door. He agreed to test her a third time for Marburg. This time a lab technician crosschecked the third sample, and then the first sample. The new results went to Fujita, who called Barnes: "You're now an honorary infectious disease doctor. You've self-diagnosed, and the Marburg test came back positive." The Marburg virus had reappeared in Uganda in 2007. It was a small outbreak, affecting four miners, one of whom died, working at a site called Kitaka Cave. But Joosten's death, and Barnes's diagnosis, implied a change in the potential scope of the situation. That local Ugandans were dying of Marburg was a severe concern - sufficient to bring a response team of scientists in haste. But if tourists, too, were involved, tripping in and out of some python-infested Marburg repository, unprotected, and then boarding their return flights to other continents, the place was not just a peril for Ugandan miners and their families. It was also an international threat. The first team of scientists had collected about 800 bats from Kitaka Cave for dissecting and sampling, and marked and released more than 1,000, using beaded collars coded with a number. That team, including scientist Brian Amman, had found live Marburg virus in five bats. Entering Python Cave after Joosten's death, another team of scientists, again including Amman, came across one of the beaded collars they had placed on captured bats three months earlier and 30 miles away. "It confirmed my suspicions that these bats are moving," Amman said - and moving not only through the forest but from one roosting site to another. Travel of individual bats between far-flung roosts implied circumstances whereby Marburg virus might ultimately be transmitted all across Africa, from one bat encampment to another. It voided the comforting assumption that this virus is strictly localised. And it highlighted the complementary question: why don't outbreaks of Marburg virus disease happen more often? Marburg is only one instance to which that question applies. Why not more Ebola? Why not more Sars? In the case of Sars, the scenario could have been very much worse. Apart from the 2003 outbreak and the aftershock cases in early 2004, it hasn't recurred. . . so far. Eight thousand cases are relatively few for such an explosive infection; 774 people died, not 7 million. Several factors contributed to limiting the scope and impact of the outbreak, of which humanity's good luck was only one. Another was the speed and excellence of the laboratory diagnostics - finding the virus and identifying it. Still another was the brisk efficiency with which cases were isolated, contacts were traced and quarantine measures were instituted, first in southern China, then in Hong Kong, Singapore, Hanoi and Toronto. If the virus had arrived in a different sort of big city - more loosely governed, full of poor people, lacking first-rate medical institutions - it might have burned through a much larger segment of humanity. One further factor, possibly the most crucial, was inherent in the way Sars affects the human body: symptoms tend to appear in a person before, rather than after, that person becomes highly infectious. That allowed many Sars cases to be recognised, hospitalised and placed in isolation before they hit their peak of infectivity. With influenza and many other diseases, the order is reversed. That probably helped account for the scale of worldwide misery and death during the 1918-1919 influenza. And that infamous global pandemic occurred in the era before globalisation. Everything nowadays moves around the planet faster, including viruses. When the Next Big One comes, it will likely conform to the same perverse pattern as the 1918 influenza: high infectivity preceding notable symptoms. That will help it move through cities and airports like an angel of death. The Next Big One is a subject that disease scientists around the world often address. The most recent big one is Aids, of which the eventual total bigness cannot even be predicted - about 30 million deaths, 34 million living people infected, and with no end in sight. Fortunately, not every virus goes airborne from one host to another. If HIV-1 could, you and I might already be dead. If the rabies virus could, it would be the most horrific pathogen on the planet. The influenzas are well adapted for airborne transmission, which is why a new strain can circle the world within days. The Sars virus travels this route, too, or anyway by the respiratory droplets of sneezes and coughs - hanging in the air of a hotel corridor, moving through the cabin of an aeroplane - and that capacity, combined with its case fatality rate of almost 10, is what made it so scary in 2003 to the people who understood it best. Human-to-human transmission is the crux. That capacity is what separates a bizarre, awful, localised, intermittent and mysterious disease (such as Ebola) from a global pandemic. Have you noticed the persistent, low-level buzz about avian influenza, the strain known as H5N1, among disease experts over the past 15 years? That's because avian flu worries them deeply, though it hasn't caused many human fatalities. Swine flu comes and goes periodically in the human population (as it came and went during 2009), sometimes causing a bad pandemic and sometimes (as in 2009) not so bad as expected; but avian flu resides in a different category of menacing possibility. It worries the flu scientists because they know that H5N1 influenza is extremely virulent in people, with a high lethality. As yet, there have been a relatively low number of cases, and it is poorly transmissible, so far, from human to human. It'll kill you if you catch it, very likely, but you're unlikely to catch it except by butchering an infected chicken. But if H5N1 mutates or reassembles itself in just the right way, if it adapts for human-to-human transmission, it could become the biggest and fastest killer disease since 1918. It got to Egypt in 2006 and has been especially problematic for that country. As of August 2011, there were 151 confirmed cases, of which 52 were fatal. That represents more than a quarter of all the world's known human cases of bird flu since H5N1 emerged in 1997. But here's a critical fact: those unfortunate Egyptian patients all seem to have acquired the virus directly from birds. This indicates that the virus hasn't yet found an efficient way to pass from one person to another. Two aspects of the situation are dangerous, according to biologist Robert Webster. The first is that Egypt, given its recent political upheavals, may be unable to staunch an outbreak of transmissible avian flu, if one occurs. His second concern is shared by influenza researchers and public health officials around the globe: with all that mutating, with all that contact between people and their infected birds, the virus could hit upon a genetic configuration making it highly transmissible among people. "As long as H5N1 is out there in the world," Webster told me, "there is the possibility of disaster. . . There is the theoretical possibility that it can acquire the ability to transmit human-to-human." He paused. "And then God help us." We're unique in the history of mammals. No other primate has ever weighed upon the planet to anything like the degree we do. In ecological terms, we are almost paradoxical: large-bodied and long-lived but grotesquely abundant. We are an outbreak. And here's the thing about outbreaks: they end. In some cases they end after many years, in others they end rather soon. In some cases they end gradually, in others they end with a crash. In certain cases, they end and recur and end again. Populations of tent caterpillars, for example, seem to rise steeply and fall sharply on a cycle of anywhere from five to 11 years. The crash endings are dramatic, and for a long while they seemed mysterious. What could account for such sudden and recurrent collapses? One possible factor is infectious from disease, and viruses in particular.
Turns case – it’s key to authentic democracy – government accountability, citizen involvement, and checks and balances.

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Dulles AW | Judge: Chris Castillo
Interpretation: The aff must specify what part of QI they limit if asked in CX.
Limit means to restrict
Merriam Webster 16 – Merriam Webster’s Dictionary(“Limit” Available online at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limit)
Full Definition of limit
transitive verb
1:  to assign certain limits to :  prescribe reserved the right to limit use of the land
2 a :  to restrict the bounds or limits of the specialist can no longer limit himself to his specialty
    b :  to curtail or reduce in quantity or extent we must limit the power of aggressors
First – infinite 1AR addons

Ruins specific debate

Tournament: Damus | Round: 2 | Opponent: Loyola CH | Judge: Calen Smith
Hillary ahead, but Trump has a good shot
Silver, 11-1-16 Nate; Yes, Trump Has a Path To Victory, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-yes-donald-trump-has-a-path-to-victory/?ex_cid=538fb
Tuesday was another pretty good day of polling for Donald Trump. It’s also not an easy day to characterize given the large number of polls published. You could cherry-pick and point to the poll that has Trump up 7 percentage points in North Carolina, for example, or the ABC News/Washington Post national tracking poll that has Trump up 1 point overall. And you could counter, on the Hillary Clinton side, with a poll showing her up by 11 points in Pennsylvania, or a national poll that gives her a 9-point lead.1 Our model takes all this data in stride, along with all the other polls that nobody pays much attention to. And it thinks the results are most consistent with a 3- or 4-percentage point national lead for Clinton, down from a lead of about 7 points in mid-October. Trump remains an underdog, but no longer really a longshot: His Electoral College chances are 29 percent in our polls-only model — his highest probability since Oct. 2 — and 30 percent in polls-plus. Whenever the race tightens, we get people protesting that the popular vote doesn’t matter because it’s all about the Electoral College, and that Trump has no path to 270 electoral votes. But this presumes that the states behave independently from national trends, when in fact they tend to move in tandem. We had a good illustration of this in mid-September, when in the midst of a tight race overall, about half of swing state polls showed Clinton trailing Trump, including several polls in Colorado, which would havebroken Clinton’s firewall. This time around, we haven’t seen too many of those polls in Clinton’s firewall states, such as Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. But that’s misleading, because we haven’t seen many high-quality polls from those states, period! We have seen lots of polls from North Carolina andFlorida — for some reason, they get polled far more than any other states — and plenty of them have shown Trump gaining ground, to the point that both states are pure toss-ups right now. So, should you expect to see polls showing Clinton behind in states like Colorado and Wisconsin? Not necessarily. Clinton probably still leads in those states, and we’d expect her to win them if she wins nationally by 4 points or so, where national polls have the race. Here’s an illustration of that. From a set of simulations the polls-only model ran earlier this evening, I pulled the cases where Clinton won the national popular vote by 3 to 5 percentage points. In other words, we’re positing that the national polling average is about right, and seeing how the results shake out in the states: Trump’s chances are slim-to-none in this scenario. His odds are 10 percent or below in all of the Clinton firewall states except for Maine and New Hampshire — both of which our model considers more uncertain than other states for a variety of reasons. And Maine wouldn’t be enough to put Trump ahead anyway.2 Sure, there’s the chance that the polling in one of the other states could be wacky (maybe there’s an unexpectedly high Gary Johnson vote in Colorado, for instance). But if that happens, Clinton has some backup options in the form of Florida, North Carolina and Nevada. She’d have to get really unlucky to lose the Electoral College with a popular vote lead like the one she has now. But the thing is, this doesn’t really have anything to do with an intrinsic advantage for Clinton in the Electoral College, or Trump’s lack of a path to 270 electoral votes. It’s just saying that if the polls are about right overall — even if they’re off in some individual states — Clinton will win. We agree with that, and that’s why Clinton’s a favorite in our model overall. The polls have her ahead. The question is how robust Clinton’s lead would be to a modest error in the polling, or a further tightening of the race. So here’s a second set of simulations, drawn from cases in which Trump or Clinton win the national popular vote by less than 2 percentage points: This isn’t a secure map for Clinton at all. In a race where the popular vote is roughly tied nationally, Colorado and New Hampshire are toss-ups, and Clinton’s chances are only 60 to 65 percent in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. She has quite a gauntlet to run through to hold her firewall, and she doesn’t have a lot of good backup options. While she could still hold on to Nevada, it doesn’t have enough electoral votes to make up for the loss of Michigan or Pennsylvania. And while she could win North Carolina or Florida if polls hold where they are now, they’d verge on being lost causes if the race shifts by another few points toward Trump. In fact, Clinton wouldprobably lose the Electoral College in the event of a very close national popular vote. It’s true that Trump would have to make a breakthrough somewhere, by winning at least one state in Clinton’s firewall. But that’s why it’s not only reasonable but 100 percent strategically correct for Trump to be campaigning in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin. (I’ll grant that New Mexico is more of a stretch.) Sure, Trump’s behind in these states, but he has to winsomewhere where he’s behind — or he’s consigning himself to four more years in Trump Tower instead of the White House. Michigan and Wisconsin are as reasonable as any other targets: Trump isn’t any further behind in them than he is in higher-profile battleground states such as Pennsylvania, and the demographics are potentially more favorable for him. If you want to debate a campaign’s geographic planning, Hillary Clintonspending time in Arizona is a much worse decision than Trump hanging out in Michigan or Wisconsin. Sure, she could win the state — but probably only if she’s having a strong night nationally. If the results are tight next Tuesday instead, Michigan and Wisconsin are much more likely to swing the election.

Trump uses the plan as an attack on police credibility.
Johnson 15 Jenna; Reporter for The Washington Post; The Washington Post; 12/10/15; “Donald Trump wants the death penalty for those who kill police officers”; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/10/donald-trump-wants-the-death-penalty-for-those-who-kill-police-officers/
As Republican candidates have delicately tried to stake a position in the roiling debate over alleged brutality between police officers and minorities, Trump has firmly planted himself on the side of police. Trump has said in previous speeches that while every profession has its "bad apples," police officers have been unfairly criticized at a time when they need to be supported. Trump often responds to questions about the Black Lives Matter movement by saying that "all lives matter" and accusing President Obama of stirring up racial unrest.¶ This police union is the same one that in September urged police officers to boycott a Labor Day breakfast attended by President Obama and union leaders in Boston. At the time, the union head accused Obama of not being supportive enough of police officers.¶ "The police and the law enforcement in this country -- I will never ever let them down, just remember that," Trump said on Thursday. "They've had a hard time. These forces throughout the country have had a hard time: A lot of people killed, a lot of people killed really violently."¶ It was a message that resonated with many officers, including Sgt. Deborah Batista of Middleborough, Mass., who is vice president of the union.¶ "He seems to be a supporter of law enforcement which is something that we have not seen from the current administration," said Batista, 53. "We are not popular of late, law enforcement."

Trump would use nuclear weapons — there are no checks on an unstable President. This risk is extremely high.
Beres 8/23 — Louis René Beres, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Purdue University, has served as a consultant for the Department of Defense’s Defense Nuclear Agency, the JFK Special Warfare Center, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Nuclear Control Institute, former Research Fellow at the Center of International Studies at Princeton University, holds a Ph.D. in Politics from Princeton University, 2016 (“What if you don’t trust the judgment of the president whose finger is over the nuclear button?,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, August 23rd, Available Online at http://thebulletin.org/what-if-you-donE28099t-trust-judgment-president-whose-finger-over-nuclear-button9794, Accessed 08-23-2016)
A Trump presidency may seem increasingly improbable, but it also still remains conceivable. This means, among other things, that a President Trump armed with America’s nuclear codes is still more-or-less plausible. It therefore follows that if this particular conjunction should come to pass on Inauguration Day in January 2017, a number of genuinely urgent issues concerning presidential war authority would require our rivetingly prompt attention.¶ In essence, we Americans would finally have to really ask ourselves: “What if an American president becomes irrational or emotionally incapacitated, and sometimes moves too precipitously toward exercising the military nuclear option?”¶ I have been working on precisely such questions for almost a half-century, usually as an independent scholar, but sometimes also as a consultant to certain appropriate agencies of government. In the late 1970s, I was preparing a book on American nuclear strategy and the corollary risks of a worldwide nuclear war, called Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics which caused me to become interested in the command-and-control of US strategic nuclear weapons, especially over questions of presidential authority to order the use of such weapons.¶ Although I quickly learned that there were seemingly reliable safeguards built into all American nuclear command decisions, I also discovered that these redundant safeguards might not apply at the very highest decisional level of all—that is, in the White House.¶ This disjunction didn’t appear to make any sense, especially in a world where leadership has been known to be irrational—including, in the United States, the case of a prominent nuclear-era Secretary of Defense. (After being institutionalized for assorted and serious psychiatric disorders, US Secretary of Defense James V. Forrestal fell to his death from a naval hospital window on May 22, 1949. Following years of documented clinical depression, it is almost certainly the case that his death was a suicide.)¶ Concerned about such a readily apparent and potentially fatal lapse in American nuclear planning, I had reached out to retired Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, a distinguished former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In response to my query, Taylor very quickly sent me a detailed handwritten letter of reply. Dated 14 March 1976, the letter concluded: “As to dangers arising from an irrational American president, the only protection is not to elect one.”¶ Until now, I had never given any further thought to this informed response, and had simply assumed that “the system,” somehow, would always manage to work. Now, however, with the deeply serious prospect of a President Donald Trump, Gen. Taylor’s 1976 warning takes on a substantially more immediate meaning. It is now at least worth considering that if a President Trump were ever to become unstable or irrational in office, he could then: (1) order the use of American nuclear weapons; and (2) do so with seemingly unassailable decisional impunity.¶ A precedent? Let us be fair. This is arguably not the first time that the actions of a sitting president or aspiring president should have raised such fearful concerns. (Richard Nixon, in his closing days in office, was hardly an exemplar of emotional stability.) But our national task, going forward, must be to focus purposefully on future threats.¶ Nixon is long gone; Trump may, however, still be on the verge of arrival.¶ And there are other considerations.¶ Even if a President Trump were not unstable or irrational, he might still lack the complex analytical requirements needed to render sober strategic judgments, especially in compressed decision-time periods. For example, during one of the early Republican primary debates, Mr. Trump made plain that he had absolutely no understanding or awareness of this country’s strategic “triad.”¶ Now, it might be argued that even a presidential nuclear novice would still have ample professional expertise available to him at all times. But as a matter of simple logic, every American citizen should also expect any new president to be familiar with the barest rudiments of America’s strategic nuclear deployments. ¶ I am not speaking here about arcane or otherwise little-known aspects of nuclear strategizing. I am speaking, rather, about what every American high school student is expected to know before he or she receives a diploma. For example, over the many years that I taught international relations at Princeton and Purdue, I correctly assumed that most of my beginning students already understood the most basic elements of the Cold War and US nuclear deterrence policy.¶ There is more. The United States and Russia are already involved in what amounts to “Cold War 2.0”—a steadily expanding and corrosive development that could complicate any presidential strategic nuclear decisions. Marked by an increasingly bellicose undersea nuclear arms race (submarines), and by accelerating nuclear weapons competition from Moscow, Cold War 2.0 could compel even a well-intentioned and fully-rational President Trump to make ultra high-consequence nuclear decisions in just a few seconds.¶ In such chronologically compressed circumstances—where seconds matter—what precisely should be done by the National Command Authority, if its members should decide to oppose a “confused” presidential order to use American nuclear weapons? Can the Authority properly respond in a seat-of-the-pants, impromptu, and ad hoc fashion? Or should there already be in place certain measures to suitably vet the sitting president’s reason and judgment—measures of the same sort applied at all lower levels of nuclear command authority?¶ In principle, at least, any presidential order to use nuclear weapons, whether issued by an apparently irrational president or an otherwise incapacitated one, would have to be followed. After all, for senior figures in the Nuclear Command Authority to do otherwise, and to in any way actually obstruct such an order, would be illegal on its face. ¶ In this connection, it should be recalled that candidate Trump has several times advised “killing the families” of alleged ISIS terrorists, and also becoming less constrained by orthodox rules of engagement, i.e., the peremptory rules of Humanitarian International Law. In essence, heeding this advice would be tantamount to reversing authoritative Nuremberg Principles concerning the obligatory disobedience of unlawful orders, and could have uniquely dire consequences wherever such orders would involve nuclear weapons.¶ The readily imaginable prospect of a Trump presidency is now the most visible manifestation of a deeper structural problem. It follows that any doubts one might currently have about a President Trump armed with the nuclear codes should also be framed as part of a more fully generic discussion of American presidential authority. For example, when faced with a presidential order to use nuclear weapons—and not offered sufficiently appropriate corroborative evidence of an impending existential threat—would the sitting Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs be willing to disobey? And if willing, would one or the other (or some third party) be capable of enforcing any such apparently well-founded expressions of disobedience?¶ We must finally inquire: Are these important national decision-makers trained or encouraged to exercise private expressions of decisional will? And could they effectively do so without immediately becoming complicit in what would amount to an unwitting American coup d’état?¶ Significantly, such important questions are merely the tip of the American nuclear command iceberg. Looking ahead, even more specific and detailed questions will need to be asked and answered. If these questions were to be simply avoided, or ignored altogether, we could sometime discover that remediation is already long past due, and that the supposed “only protection” against an irrational American president—“not to elect one,” as Gen. Maxwell Taylor wisely advised—had been too casually disregarded.¶ Back in the 1960s, a popular movie genre was centered on the assorted risks of nuclear war. Films such as Dr. Strangelove and Fail Safe (both 1964) presented ominous scenarios of an inadvertent nuclear war caused by military command failure, or by mechanical and computer malfunctions. At that time, however, there was never any hint that the critically weak link in the nuclear decision chain could ever be the American president himself.¶ Now it is conspicuously this highest link that warrants our special concern and appropriately corrective action.¶ No aspect of the current presidential campaign could possibly be more urgent.

Also turns case—x-apply our Reuters evidence—Trump will push for aggressive police tactics like stop and frisk and reverse police accountability measures—he’s campaigned on it and would have a mandate as the “law and order” candidate. 

Positive Hillary approval ratings key to get Garland confirmed before the election.
Steed 7/29 Jason; extensive experience representing clients in both state and federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Texas, the Supreme Court of California, the Supreme Court of Alaska, and the Supreme Court of the United States; former English professor and award-winning writer; Forma Legalis; 7/29/16; “How Garland Gets Confirmed Before the Election”; https://formalegalis.org/2016/07/29/how-garland-gets-confirmed-before-the-election/; JLB (8/3/2016)
My theory: If we get deep into August and the polls are showing not only a strong lead for Clinton but also promising leads in enough of those senate races, it will take only credible whispers of withdrawing Garland’s nomination to make the Republicans nervous enough to go ahead and confirm him before the election. And how do you create a credible threat of withdrawal? By taking the stage before millions of viewers for a week to talk about goals and priorities, and the importance of the Supreme Court, without mentioning Garland. There was an effort to rally Democratic voters behind the importance of appointing the right people to the Supreme Court—but no effort to rally Democratic voters behind Garland. Why? Because absenting Garland from the DNC was a signal. The Party didn’t commit itself to Garland. Clinton didn’t commit herself to Garland. Even Obama didn’t push for Garland. The signal: after this week, the possibility of withdrawing Garland on November 9 is real.
So watch the polls. Senate Republicans are already holding pro forma sessions throughout the summer, to prevent Obama from recess-appointing Garland without them. If they get nervous enough about the polls, it won’t be too hard to pull together an actual session to vote on Garland. They don’t even need hearings, which aren’t required—because everyone already knows Garland is supremely qualified for the job. All they need is a simple majority present to vote. And it could happen before the Court begins its October Term.

Garland will allow the EPA latitude to regulate CO2
Page 3-16 Samantha; Think Progress, Merrick Garland Knows He’s Not a Scientist, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/16/3760853/garland-environmental-record/ DOA: 3-16-16
How do you judge a judge? In the case of Judge Merrick Garland, who President Obama nominated for the Supreme Court on Wednesday, there is not much evidence for or against his environmental record. But as cases against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and other regulatory actions head to the courts, it’s important to glean what we can. By and large, Garland has a reputation for allowing agencies to do the work they set out to do — and that’s usually a good thing for the environment. Albert Lin, a professor at UC Davis specializing in environmental and natural resources law, clerked for Garland at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and said the judge was thorough and open-minded. “I don’t think he expressed a specific view towards the EPA, per se, but he recognized that government agencies have a role,” Lin told ThinkProgress. “They should have some discretion as to how they function — but he also wasn’t going to give them a free pass.” In 1985, during his time at the Washington, D.C. firm Arnold and Porter, Garland wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review in favor of allowing agencies to have some discretion over how they carry out Congress’ intents. According to Bloomberg, Garland has practiced what he preached. On the D.C. Circuit bench, which is responsible for hearing most administrative cases, such as the recent Clean Power Plan challenge, a third of Garland’s dissents have been over challenges to agency decision-making. In all of those dissents, Garland sided with the agency. And with a deadlocked Congress, further action on the environment is going to continue to come from executive actions intended to protect American’s air, water, and climate under existing frameworks, said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth. Bringing that to a contemporary context, in the Clean Power Plan challenge, one critical issue comes down to whether, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. In fact, there are two conflicting amendments regarding that authority on the books. So, it’s important in this case that the the judges look not only at the Congress’ wording — which is contradictory — but at the intent of the law. This is where Garland presents a possible victory for environmentalists. “He will not just consider the plain language, but what’s the statute trying to accomplish,” Lin said. That means that the judge does not always side with the administration — he sides with what the law is trying to accomplish. Sometimes, that also works out for the environment. In 2004, Garland wrote the majority opinion that ruled against the EPA’s approval of a Washington, D.C. plan to reduce smog that didn’t bring the area into compliance. “We agree with Sierra Club’s principal contention that EPA was not authorized to grant conditional approval to plans that did nothing more than promise to do tomorrow what the Act requires today,” Garland wrote of the Bush-era approval. In a 2012 case Garland again sided with an agency, that time the DEA. Although medical marijuana advocates decried the final decision, during the argument, Garland said something that might cheer environmentalists. “Don’t we have to defer to their judgment?” Garland asked about the agency. “We’re not scientists. They are.” After years of ridiculing the conservative talking point that it’s reasonable to reject the scientific consensus around climate change because “I am not a scientist,” it’s refreshing to hear someone say, I am not a scientist, and therefore we have to listen to scientists. Of course, there are other ways the court can influence environmental policy. “We will see ongoing challenges to money in politics, whether it’s state ballot initiatives, redistricting — there is a whole slew of things that are electorally related that will undoubtedly make their way up to the Supreme Court,” Pica said. Having an Obama-appointed justice “gives us some hope that the Supreme Court can undo some of those terrible rulings that were championed by Scalia on the conservative side of the bench.” As news hit of Garland’s nomination Wednesday, environmental groups called for the Senate to go forward with the confirmation process — something GOP leadership has pledged not to do.

Clean Power Plan necessary to meet international climate targets.
Fulton 16 Bydeirdre "Nothing Less Than Fate of Planet Hinges on Next Supreme Court Nominee", 2-18-2016, Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/17/nothing-less-fate-planet-hinges-next-supreme-court-nominee, DOA: 2-18-2016
As Washington, D.C. gears up for a Supreme Court showdown, experts this week are predicting that the person chosen to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the high court bench will have a huge impact on the fate of the planet.
Common Dreams previously reported that several high-profile cases hang in the balance in the wake of Scalia's death. But perhaps none will be as closely watched as the case that pits fossil fuel giants and Republicans against environmentalists and the Obama administration.
"In dying," science journalist John Upton wrote on Sunday, "Scalia may have done more to support global climate action than most people will do in their lifetimes."
That's because, as Upton explained in a separate piece, Scalia's death "means it is now more likely that key EPA rules that aim to curb climate pollution from the power industry will be upheld."
And those rules—namely the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which aims to reduce carbon pollution from power plants—are necessary for the United States to deliver on the promises made at the COP21 climate summit in Paris in December. Without the CPP, Upton argued, "the U.S. would be left without a credible plan for fulfilling its pledge to reduce its climate pollution by a little more than a quarter in 2025 compared with 2005 levels."
One of Scalia's final acts as a Supreme Court justice was to vote in favor of an unprecedented stay on the CPP until it has been reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with arguments set for June 2.
The D.C. Circuit is likely to issue a decision on the Clean Power Plan this fall, which would put the rule back in front of the Supreme Court in spring 2017.
"What happens then will depend on whether the court's now vacant ninth seat has been filled and, if so, by whom," Jack Lienke, a lawyer with the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, wrote on Tuesday. "But in most of the possible scenarios, the EPA faces considerably better odds than it did with Scalia on the bench."
There's something in the air...
If a new justice is confirmed before President Barack Obama leaves office, "it does seem fair to assume that an Obama appointee will be more likely to join with the four liberals to uphold the Clean Power Plan than to vote with the four remaining conservatives to strike it down," Lienke said. The shakiest scenario would be if Obama's successor were to get Scalia's replacement through the Senate in time to weigh in on the CPP. That would be good news for environmentalists if the next president is a Democrat. But even if a Republican wins in November and gets a conservative nominee onto the bench, "the EPA would be no worse off than it was in the immediate aftermath of the stay," Lienke continued. "The court would once again be made up of five conservatives and four liberals, and EPA's best bet would once again be to convince Kennedy or Roberts to break ranks." Or, Lienke concluded: Finally, it's possible that Scalia's seat will still be vacant when the Clean Power Plan reaches the Supreme Court. In that scenario, the most likely result is an even split between the four liberals and four remaining conservatives. And a 4-4 vote results in an automatic affirmance of the decision below, which, in this case, would be the DC Circuit's. Of course, the DC Circuit hasn't made its decision yet, and we can't know for sure what it will be. But the panel of judges assigned to the case is generally viewed as favorable to the EPA, because two of the three were appointed by Democrats—one by President Clinton and the other by Obama himself. Furthermore, the New York Times wrote on Tuesday, "If the Senate were to confirm whomever President Obama nominates to succeed Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative justices on the bench, the Supreme Court would probably become more sensitive to the imperative to combat climate change. That’s not just good news for the Clean Power Plan. It could open the door to more aggressive policies." Given these stakes, it's not surprising that green groups are applying heavy scrutiny to potential nominees, such as federal appellate court judge Sri Srinivasan, who has emerged at the front of the pack of possible Scalia replacements.  The 48-year-old Indian-American has an "inspiring biography," Politico reports on Wednesday. But, reporter Elana Schor continues, "his history of representing large corporations runs the risk of alienating Obama allies looking to gauge his still-developing record on key liberal priorities." Srinivasan's work on cases "in which he defended ExxonMobil and the mining company Rio Tinto have raised particular objections from environmentalists," Politico writes. "He also represented that enduring symbol of corporate excess, former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, in the appeal of the executive’s fraud and conspiracy convictions." Jamie Henn, of 350.org, told Politico that Srinivasan's work for Exxon was a "deeply disturbing" aspect of a "mixed" resume. Jane Kleeb, of Bold Nebraska, put it more starkly. "Any judge that sides with Big Oil over the American people has no place on our Supreme Court," she said in an email to the publication. Still, as Todd Aagaard, vice dean and professor at Villanova University School of Law, told Environment and Energy Publishing, "While all of the nominees would give environmental advocates a fair shot, I doubt any of them would automatically incline to favor the 'pro-environmental' side in a case." Yet "if you look closely at Scalia’s legacy on climate change, it’s hard to picture his replacement (even a Republican appointee!) harboring a more willful disregard for science," Eric Holthaus, a meteorologist and staff writer at Slate, wrote on Monday. "Climate activists, who are increasingly a major part of the electorate, now have a big boost to push for bolder promises from Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders," Holthaus continued. "Backed by a Supreme Court that would presumably place greater value on the planet’s health, there’s nowhere to go but full-speed ahead in the race to reduce humanity’s carbon footprint."

Tournament: Damus | Round: 2 | Opponent: Loyola CH | Judge: Calen Smith
Text: The 50 United States and Washington D.C. should ban strip searches and limit qualified immunity in the case of strip searches.

Tournament: Damus | Round: Quarters | Opponent: West Ranch JW | Judge: Ellen Ivens-Duran, Ryan Powell, Adam Torson
Interpretation: The aff must defend a prohibition on part or all of the application of qualified immunity for police officers.

Limit means to restrict
Merriam Webster 16 – Merriam Webster’s Dictionary(“Limit” Available online at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/limit)
Full Definition of limit
transitive verb
1:  to assign certain limits to :  prescribe reserved the right to limit use of the land
2 a :  to restrict the bounds or limits of the specialist can no longer limit himself to his specialty
    b :  to curtail or reduce in quantity or extent we must limit the power of aggressors
That refers only to outright prohibitions of areas of applications of the doctrine, not any action that has the consequence of decreasing use.
Caiaccio 94 – Kevin T.  (“Are Noncompetition Covenants Among Law Partners Against Public Policy?” Georgia Law Review, Spring, 28 Ga. L. Rev. 807, Lexis)
The Howard court began its analysis by examining the California Business and Professions Code, which expressly permits reasonable restrictive covenants among business partners. 139 The court noted that this provision had long applied to doctors and accountants and concluded that the general language of the statute provided no indication of an exception for lawyers. 140 After reaching this conclusion, however, the court noted that, since it had the authority to promulgate a higher standard for lawyers, the statute alone did not necessarily control, 141 and the court therefore proceeded to examine the California Rules of Professional Conduct. 142 The court avoided the apparent conflict between the business statute and the ethics rule by undertaking a strained reading of the rule. In essence, the court held that the word "restrict" referred only to outright prohibitions, and that a mere "economic consequence" does not equal a prohibition. 143

First – limits

Second – ground

Third – Effects T

Tournament: Greenhill Misc | Round: 9 | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
CP Text: All African countries should prohibit uranium mining on their lands.
All Africa 15 (Tanzania: Activists Call on Africa to Ban Uranium Mining, 30 JUNE 2015, http://allafrica.com/stories/201506300154.html)
Moshi — PEACE and environmental activists from around the world who are meeting here have called on African governments to slap a ban on uranium mining and world leaders to outlaw nuclear weapons, saying they are twin threats. The young activists said as the twin threats of nuclear weapons and uranium mining loomed large, it was a matter of urgency for all activists and other organisations in the world to join hands for the great cause.

Tournament: Greenhill RR Misc | Round: 9 | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
For the decades that developing countries have used nuclear power it has always been justified. In 2011 Fukushima devastated the global nuclear market creating an opportunity for Africa to close its energy gap. Nuclear Power would enable Africa to become energy independent. Now that Africa has come to play, it’s time to shut it ALL down. It’s time to go back to SQUARE ONE OF DEPENDENCY. It’s time to continue the colonizers control.
Luke 15 Ronke; manager at Z, Inc., a Washington DC based energy contractor, immediate past president of the Women’s Council on Energy and the Environment; OilPrice; 10/1/15; “Africa Banking On Nuclear Power”; http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Africa-Banking-On-Nuclear-Power.html; JLB (9/15/16)
It’s no secret that Africa’s economic development has been stifled by the shortage of electricity across the continent. The Africa Progress Report 2015 puts the annual electricity-related economic loss at 2 percent to 4 percent of GDP. In Ghana and Tanzania, electricity shortages are costing businesses 15 percent of sales.¶ Over 600 million people are getting restless waiting for power. South Africa alone accounts for 50 percent of sub-Saharan Africa’s current installed capacity of 9 GW. According to The Africa Progress Report 2015, at the current pace of electrification (investing $8 billion or 0.49 percent of GDP annually), the continent will achieve universal access in 2080. Declaring this unacceptable, Africa Progress Report 2015 projects Africa needs to invest $55 billion (or 3-4 percent of total GDP) annually to speed up the pace and reach universal access to electricity by 2030.¶ Discussions about Africa’s power options often focus on renewables, hydropower and natural gas. Diesel, heavily used for power generation across Africa, and coal, widely used in Southern Africa, are not championed in discussions with international development organizations and financiers.¶ x¶ To close the huge power deficit and boost their economies, Africa’s larger economies - South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria -and smaller uranium rich countries – Namibia and Niger - have decided it might be time to go nuclear. Ghana, Senegal, Uganda, and Morocco have also publicly expressed their interest in nuclear power. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has indicated that it will help African countries cooperate in developing nuclear electricity. IAEA will advise on international best practices and standards. National governments will be responsible for regulatory oversight.¶ South Africa leads the way¶ South Africa, currently the only African country with nuclear power (2 GW), is actively planning to develop 9.6 GW by 2030 at a cost ranging from $37 billion to $100 billion. AREVA, Electricite de France, China’s Guangdong Nuclear Power and Korea Electric Power Corporation are vying for a share of this business. China and Russia have signed MOUs to develop skills and strategic partnerships. China has started training South Africans in nuclear plant operations.¶ Related: Is The U.S. About To Break One Of Its Own Nuclear Treaties?¶ But South Africa’s procurement process is already facing a legal challenge. Westinghouse Electric Corp. is expected to challenge the South African utility ESKOM’s reversal of a $381 million award; giving the contract to AREVA after first announcing Westinghouse’s win. The possibility of a long legal battle does not seem to be dampening interest, however.¶ Recent press suggests that Russia’s state-owned Rosatom is at the forefront of the next round of awards expected to take place between late 2015 and early 2016. Industry commentators suggest that South Africa is anticipating that Russia and China will offer generous financing with their bids; outside of these two powerhouses, no one is certain who could pay for such a massive expansion. Industry observers are skeptical that either Russia or China will deliver the expected funding. Nuclear power opponents including Greenpeace are demanding transparency and argue that South Africa’s nuclear push is a waste of money, better spent on other options, e.g. renewables, to address the country’s current power shortfall.¶ Kenya follows fast¶ Kenya appears to be the most active, after South Africa, in planning its nuclear power future. It has 2.2MW in total installed grid capacity with 20 GW of geothermal potential. Estimates state that an economy of Kenya’s size should have 45GW to 55GW of installed capacity.¶ Related: Fund Managers Have Their Own ‘Black Monday’ Thanks To The Saudis¶ Adding nuclear power into its fuel mix would help to close its power supply gap. Kenya projects bringing 1GW of nuclear power on line by 2025, rising to 4GW by 2033. In August 2015, the IAEA led an 11 person expert team to Nairobi to conduct an “Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR)”of Kenya’s progress. The Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board (KNEB) has completed two phases of the INIR; self-assessment and pre-feasibility preparedness studies.¶ An important outcome of the INIR is assessing Kenya’s progress towards setting up an independent nuclear power regulatory authority. China has signed up to help Kenya meet its nuclear aspirations. The two countries signed an MOU in 2015. China will help Kenya build skills and will provide technical support with site selection and feasibility studies. Slovenia and South Korea have also signed cooperation agreements as they position for upcoming deals. The first cohort of Kenyans is studying nuclear engineering in South Korea.¶ Nigeria raises tempo towards its nuclear goal¶ Nigeria will certainly miss its original target to go nuclear by 2017, but it has made progress building its institutional framework since first declaring its intent in 2007. With power sector privatization failing to meet the projected surge in power supply, Nigeria is ramping up efforts to explore its nuclear power options. It plans 1 to 2 GW of nuclear capacity and has selected two potential sites. Russia is at the forefront of this development.¶ According to Reuters, Rosatom, Russian state-owned nuclear company, can spend “$300 - $350 billion per year to build nuclear plants in Russia and abroad.” Rosatom and the Nigerian government signed a cooperation agreement in 2012 for the commissioning and decommissioning of nuclear facilities. Following further talks in 2015, Rosatom, according to Nigerian officials, will finance and operate the $20 billion project, which envisions a total of four plants, each valued at $5 billion. Nigeria’s plan is for the first plant to be operational in 2025. The IAEA is scheduled to conduct an INIR in Nigeria in 2015.¶ Related: Trouble Ahead For The World’s Next Shale Boom?¶ A new frontier for nuclear power?¶ With global sales of nuclear power plants flat following the Fukushima accident, it’s no wonder that Africa’s initial forays into nuclear power are generating so much interest. Governments have said little to address the safety concerns raised by industry watchdogs and citizen’s groups. Continent-watchers and industry observers remain skeptical that all this nuclear capacity will be built, as financing remains a formidable challenge.¶ But nuclear power is no longer off the table as Africa adopts an “all of the above” strategy regarding fuel options, as it struggles to close its power deficit. Currently, Russia appears to be willing to splash the most cash. But China and South Korea can’t be ignored and other countries are positioning to step up their efforts as Africa’s nuclear power market heats up.
They frame mining in Africa as exploitation; when in reality it has been an African economic success.

Coal Kills 4,000 times more people than nuclear power; their focus on Nuclear Power prohibition ignores the developing world.
Roos 11 Jerome; The Breakthrough Institute (researcher); 4/11/11; "Coal Kills 4,000 Times More People Per Unit of Energy than Nuclear"; http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/coal_kills_4000_times_more_peo; JLB (9/11/16)
When you actually do the math, coal kills somewhere on the order of 4,000 times more people per unit of energy produced than nuclear power. Or to put it another way, outdoor air pollution, caused principally by the combustion of fossil fuels, kills as many people every 29 hours as will eventually die due to radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, according to World Health Organization figures (Source: nuclear; air pollution).¶ Yet since coal-related deaths have a much lower profile than nuclear disasters, and because they largely occur in the conveniently far-away obscurity of the developing world, they tend to be severely underreported by the mainstream media in the West. ¶ So while all eyes turned to Fukushima, the grinding, every-day death and illness caused by the air pollution, toxic contamination, and mercury poisoning leaching from the world's coal plants and oil refineries and the tailpipes of roughly a billion cars and trucks continued unabated -- and continued to go largely unmentioned.¶ For some reason, as the formerly anti-nuclear environmentalist George Monbiot has argued, greens seem to care a great deal about scientific consensus when it's about climate change, but when it comes to nuclear energy far too many are very willing to dismiss factual evidence and spread dishonest information. The reality we will have to deal with is that fossil fuels, and coal in particular, kill many times more people than nuclear.

The alternative is to reject the affirmative’s simplistic environmentalist framing in favor of a mode of thought that accepts the complexities of problems facing the world.
Beckerman 96 Beckerman, Wilfred, Emeritus Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, and a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. “Through Green-Colored Glasses: Environmentalism Reconsidered.” publ. 1996.
It may well be true, as Jonathan Porritt has said, that "Politically, the world is too far gone. It is not a question of nearing the abyss. We daily look down into it if we choose to open our eyes, and millions are already at the bottom of it."10 But the present awful state of the world is not, as he suggests, mainly the result of economic growth and its accompanying environmental degradation. It is not environmental change that has been responsible for vicious and brutal civil war in what was Yugoslavia, or the murderous communal strife that is endemic on the Indian subcontinent, or the bitter ideological struggles that have ravaged Cambodia for decades, or tribal conflict in Rwanda, Somalia, and the Sudan. ¶ Nor is it likely to be the case—as many environmentalist pressure groups would have us believe—that we need to abandon our basic assumptions, or change our modes of thought and vocabularies, or accept different cultural values.11 What is really needed is good old reliance on scientific standards of logic and research. This means that we have to accept the enormous complexity and difficulty of the problems facing the world today. This is the only way we can arrive at balanced solutions involving compromises between conflicting objectives. Many people dislike this prospect. They prefer simple answers and melodramatic appeals. But there are no simple answers. And simple answers like "Stop economic growth," or "Incur any cost in order to stop any risk of climate change or preserve every single existing species," are of no more help than vague appeals that we should change our vocabulary or our modes of thought. Existing modes of thought will do very well. What is needed is that we use them.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lynbrook YZ | Judge: Adam Torson
Nuclear power k2 stable desalinization and solving water shortages.
IAEA 15 -- widely known as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. Set up in 1957 as the world's centre for cooperation in the nuclear field, the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination Using Nuclear Energy,” IEAE TecDoc Series, 2015
 It is anticipated that by 2025, 33 of the world population, or more than 1.8 billion people, will live in countries or regions without adequate supplies of water unless new desalination plants become operational. In many areas, the rate of water usage already exceeds the rate of replenishment. Nuclear reactors have already been used for desalination on relatively small-scale projects. In total, more than 150 reactor-years of operating experience with nuclear desalination has been accumulated worldwide. Eight nuclear reactors coupled to desalination projects are currently in operation in Japan. India commissioned the ND demonstration project in the year 2008 and the plant has been in continuous operation supplying demineralised (DM) quality water to the nuclear power plant and potable quality to the reservoir. Pakistan has launched a similar project in 2010. However, the great majority of the more than 7500 desalination plants in operation worldwide today use fossil fuels with the attendant emission of carbon dioxide and other GHG. Increasing the use of fossil fuels for energy-intensive processes such as large-scale desalination plants is not a sustainable long-term option in view of the associated environmental impacts. Thus, the main energy sources for future desalination are nuclear power reactors and renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro, or wind, but only nuclear reactors are capable of delivering the copious quantities of energy required for large-scale desalination projects. Algeria is participating in an IAEA’s CRP in the subject related to “New technologies for seawater desalination using nuclear energy’’ with a project entitled “Optimization of coupling nuclear reactors and desalination systems for an Algerian site Skikda”. This project is a contribution to the IAEA CRP to enrich the economic data corresponding to the choice of technical and economical options for coupling nuclear reactors and desalination systems for specific sites in the Mediterranean region

Water crises cause escalating global conflict.
Rasmussen 11 (Erik, CEO, Monday Morning; Founder, Green Growth Leaders) “Prepare for the Next Conflict: Water Wars” HuffPo 4/12
For years experts have set out warnings of how the earth will be affected by the water crises, with millions dying and increasing conflicts over dwindling resources. They have proclaimed -- in line with the report from the US Senate -- that the water scarcity is a security issue, and that it will yield political stress with a risk of international water wars. This has been reflected in the oft-repeated observation that water will likely replace oil as a future cause of war between nations. Today the first glimpses of the coming water wars are emerging. Many countries in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South Asia -- e.g. Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Kenya, Egypt, and India -- are already feeling the direct consequences of the water scarcity -- with the competition for water leading to social unrest, conflict and migration. This month the escalating concerns about the possibility of water wars triggered calls by Zafar Adeel, chair of UN-Water, for the UN to promote "hydro-diplomacy" in the Middle East and North Africa in order to avoid or at least manage emerging tensions over access to water. The gloomy outlook of our global fresh water resources points in the direction that the current conflicts and instability in these countries are only glimpses of the water wars expected to unfold in the future. Thus we need to address the water crisis that can quickly escalate and become a great humanitarian crisis and also a global safety problem. A revolution The current effort is nowhere near what is needed to deal with the water-challenge -- the world community has yet to find the solutions. Even though the 'water issue' is moving further up the agenda all over the globe: the US foreign assistance is investing massively in activities that promote water security, the European Commission is planning to present a "Blueprint for Safeguarding Europe's Water" in 2012 and the Chinese government plans to spend $600 billion over the next 10 years on measures to ensure adequate water supplies for the country. But it is not enough. The situation requires a response that goes far beyond regional and national initiatives -- we need a global water plan. With the current state of affairs, correcting measures still can be taken to avoid the crisis to be worsening. But it demands that we act now. We need a new way of thinking about water. We need to stop depleting our water resources, and urge water conservation on a global scale. This calls for a global awareness that water is a very scarce and valuable natural resource and that we need to initiate fundamental technological and management changes, and combine this with international solidarity and cooperation. In 2009, The International Water Management Institute called for a blue revolution as the only way to move forward: "We will need nothing less than a 'Blue Revolution', if we are to achieve food security and avert a serious water crisis in the future" said Dr. Colin Chartres, Director General of the International Water Management Institute. This meaning that we need ensure "more crop per drop": while many developing countries use precious water to grow 1 ton of rice per hectare, other countries produce 5 tons per hectare under similar social and water conditions, but with better technology and management. Thus, if we behave intelligently, and collaborate between neighbors, between neighboring countries, between North and South, and in the global trading system, we shall not 'run out of water'. If we do not, and "business as usual" prevails, then water wars will accelerate.
That goes nuclear
Zahoor 12 (Musharaf, Researcher at Department of Nuclear Politics – National Defense University, Water Crisis can Trigger Nuclear War in South Asia, http://www.siasat.pk)
Water is an ambient source, which unlike human beings does not respect boundaries. Water has been a permanent source of conflict between the tribes since biblical times and now between the states. The conflicts are much more likely among those states, which are mainly dependent on shared water sources. The likelihood of turning these conflicts into wars is increased when these countries or states are mainly arid or receive low precipitations. In this situation, the upper riparian states (situated on upper parts of a river basin) often try to maximize water utility by neglecting the needs of the lower riparian states (situated on low lying areas of a river basin). However, international law on distribution of trans-boundary river water and mutually agreed treaties by the states have helped to some extent in overcoming these conflicts. In the recent times, the climate change has also affected the water availability. The absence of water management and conservation mechanisms in some regions particularly in the third world countries have exacerbated the water crisis. These states have become prone to wars in future.  South Asia is among one of those regions where water needs are growing disproportionately to its availability. The high increase in population besides large-scale cultivation has turned South Asia into a water scarce region. The two nuclear neighbors Pakistan and India share the waters of Indus Basin. All the major rivers stem from the Himalyan region and pass through Kashmir down to the planes of Punjab and Sindh empty into Arabic ocean. It is pertinent that the strategic importance of Kashmir, a source of all major rivers, for Pakistan and symbolic importance of Kashmir for India are maximum list positions. Both the countries have fought two major wars in 1948, 1965 and a limited war in Kargil specifically on the Kashmir dispute. Among other issues, the newly born states fell into water sharing dispute right after their partition. Initially under an agreed formula, Pakistan paid for the river waters to India, which is an upper riparian state. After a decade long negotiations, both the states signed Indus Water Treaty in 1960. Under the treaty, India was given an exclusive right of three eastern rivers Sutlej, Bias and Ravi while Pakistan was given the right of three Western Rivers, Indus, Chenab and Jhelum. The tributaries of these rivers are also considered their part under the treaty. It was assumed that the treaty had permanently resolved the water issue, which proved a nightmare in the latter course. India by exploiting the provisions of IWT started wanton construction of dams on Pakistani rivers thus scaling down the water availability to Pakistan (a lower riparian state). The treaty only allows run of the river hydropower projects and does not permit to construct such water reservoirs on Pakistani rivers, which may affect the water flow to the low lying areas. According to the statistics of Hydel power Development Corporation of Indian Occupied Kashmir, India has a plan to construct 310 small, medium and large dams in the territory. India has already started work on 62 dams in the first phase. The cumulative dead and live storage of these dams will be so great that India can easily manipulate the water of Pakistani rivers. India has set up a department called the Chenab Valley Power Projects to construct power plants on the Chenab River in occupied Kashmir. India is also constructing three major hydro-power projects on Indus River which include Nimoo Bazgo power project, Dumkhar project and Chutak project. On the other hand, it has started Kishan * hydropower project by diverting the waters of Neelum River, a tributary of the Jhelum, in sheer violation of the IWT. The gratuitous construction of dams by India has created serious water shortages in Pakistan. The construction of Kishan * dam will turn the Neelum valley, which is located in Azad Kashmir into a barren land. The water shortage will not only affect the cultivation but it has serious social, political and economic ramifications for Pakistan. The farmer associations have already started protests in Southern Punjab and Sindh against the non-availability of water. These protests are so far limited and under control. The reports of international organizations suggest that the water availability in Pakistan will reduce further in the coming years. If the situation remains unchanged, the violent mobs of villagers across the country will be a major law and order challenge for the government.    The water shortage has also created mistrust among the federative units, which is evident from the fact that the President and the Prime Minister had to intervene for convincing Sindh and Punjab provinces on water sharing formula. The Indus River System Authority (IRSA) is responsible for distribution of water among the provinces but in the current situation it has also lost its credibility. The provinces often accuse each other of water theft.  In the given circumstances, Pakistan desperately wants to talk on water issue with India. The meetings between Indus Water Commissioners of Pakistan and India have so far yielded no tangible results. The recent meeting in Lahore has also ended without concrete results. India is continuously using delaying tactics to under pressure Pakistan. The Indus Water Commissioners are supposed to resolve the issues bilaterally through talks. The success of their meetings can be measured from the fact that Pakistan has to knock at international court of arbitration for the settlement of Kishan * hydropower project. The recently held foreign minister level talks between both the countries ended inconclusively in Islamabad, which only resulted in heightening the mistrust and suspicions. The water stress in Pakistan is increasing day by day. The construction of dams will not only cause damage to the agriculture sector but India can manipulate the river water to create inundations in Pakistan. The rivers in Pakistan are also vital for defense during wartime. The control over the water will provide an edge to India during war with Pakistan. The failure of diplomacy, manipulation of IWT provisions by India and growing water scarcity in Pakistan and its social, political and economic repercussions for the country can lead both the countries toward a war. The existent asymmetry between the conventional forces of both the countries will compel the weaker side to use nuclear weapons to prevent the opponent from taking any advantage of the situation. Pakistan's nuclear programme is aimed at to create minimum credible deterrence. India has a declared nuclear doctrine which intends to retaliate massively in case of first strike by its' enemy. In 2003, India expanded the operational parameters for its nuclear doctrine. Under the new parameters, it will not only use nuclear weapons against a nuclear strike but will also use nuclear weapons against a nuclear strike on Indian forces anywhere. Pakistan has a draft nuclear doctrine, which consists on the statements of high ups. Describing the nuclear thresh-hold in January 2002, General Khalid Kidwai, the head of Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division, in an interview to Landau Network, said that Pakistan will use nuclear weapons in case India occupies large parts of its territory, economic strangling by India, political disruption and if India destroys Pakistan's forces. The analysis of the ambitious nuclear doctrines of both the countries clearly points out that any military confrontation in the region can result in a nuclear catastrophe. The rivers flowing from Kashmir are Pakistan's lifeline, which are essential for the livelihood of 170 million people of the country and the cohesion of federative units. The failure of dialogue will leave no option but to achieve the ends through military means. The only way to discard the lurking fear of a nuclear cataclysm is to settle all the outstanding disputes amicably through dialogue. The international community has a special role in this regard. It should impress upon India to initiate meaningful talks to resolve the lingering Kashmir dispute with Pakistan and implement the water treaty in its letter and spirit. The Indian leadership should drive out its policy towards Pakistan from terrorism mantra to a solution-oriented dialogue process. Both the countries should adopt a joint mechanism to maximize the utility of river waters by implementing the 1960 treaty, Besides negotiations with India, Pakistan should start massive water conservation and management projects. The modern techniques in agriculture like i.e. drip irrigation, should be adopted. On the other hand, there is a dire need to gradually upgrade the obsolete irrigation system in Pakistan. The politicization of mega hydropower projects/dams is also a problem being faced by Pakistan, which can only be resolved through political will.

Tournament: Greenhill RR Misc | Round: 9 | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
Clinton leads Trump but its close – polls are razor thin margins
Silver 9-6 Nate Silver, amateur poker player. Election Update: Clinton’s Lead Keeps Shrinking, FiveThirtyEight, 9-6-2016, Accessible Online at http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-lead-keeps-shrinking/ SW 9-6-2016
That was certainly true Tuesday morning, which brought a bevy of new data, including about a half-dozen new national polls and a 50-state poll from SurveyMonkey (conducted in conjunction with The Washington Post). People are focusing on the flashier results among these polls: that CNN’s poll shows Donald Trump narrowly ahead among likely voters, for instance, while SurveyMonkey has Hillary Clinton tied with Trump in Texas. At times like these, though, it’s especially useful to zoom out and take a more holistic approach.
The clearest pattern is simply that Trump has regained ground since Clinton’s post-convention peak. He now has a 31 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model, and a 33 percent chance according to polls-plus. For a deeper look, let’s run through our set of 10 framing questions about the election1 in light of the most recent polling:

1. Who’s ahead in the polls right now?
   Clinton’s ahead, by a margin of about 3 percentage points in an average of national polls, or 4 points in our popular vote composite, which is based on both national polls and state polls. While the race has tightened, be wary of claims that the election is too close to call — that isn’t where the preponderance of the evidence lies, at least for the moment. If one candidate is ahead by 3 or 4 percentage points, there will be occasional polls showing a tied race or her opponent narrowly ahead, along with others showing the candidate with a mid- to high single-digit lead. We’ve seen multiple examples of both of those recently.
   In swing states, the race ranges from showing Trump up by 1 point in Iowa to a Clinton lead of about 6 points in her best states, such as Virginia. That’s a reasonably good position for Clinton, but it isn’t quite as safe as it might sound. That’s because the swing states tend to rise and fall together. A further shift of a few points in Trump’s favor, or a polling error of that magnitude, would make the Electoral College highly competitive.
   And, nuclear energy would become the key spinning factor for Republicans because of Clinton’s lack of support and Obama’s current policy – Republicans will pit nuclear power policy against Clinton regardless of her actual policy
   Siciliano 16 (John Siciliano, 1-10-2016, "The 2016 politics of nuclear energy," Washington Examiner, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-2016-politics-of-nuclear-energy/article/2579855)
   The presidential election may offer hope for a resurgence of interest in nuclear energy. And if a Republican wins the White House, it's more likely that the centerpiece of that effort, a controversial nuclear waste site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, will move forward. Republicans stand for what they call the "law of the land," referring to the fact that Congress chose Yucca Mountain to be the nation's nuclear waste dump, and that has not changed despite President Obama's and congressional Democrats' success in upending the project and focusing instead on wind and solar power. But even with a president who favors nuclear energy, it will still prove difficult to build the site to take radioactive waste from nearly 100 power plants. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of electricity, yet the question of what to do with waste continues to fester. Many people see Yucca Mountain as the answer, but opponents say it's unsafe. But both sides agree that building more nuclear plants hinges on waste disposal. It pits the administration against lawmakers and exposes a rift between the pro-nuke and anti-nuke wings of the environmental movement. A big barrier to the nuclear option is price. Ben Zycher, senior energy fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said new nuclear reactors cost far too much, especially since natural gas is so cheap. That could sideline nuclear energy and Yucca Mountain this election year. Yucca Mountain's main adversary, Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, is retiring from Congress at the end of the year, but Zycher said other Nevada officials will step into the breach. "It may be a case without Reid in the Senate the path would be eased, but that's not particularly obvious," he said. David McIntyre, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, charged with licensing the dump, agrees, saying it "would be immensely difficult" to start back up after so many years of administration stalling. And Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is "not going to endorse it," Zycher said. Litigation and 2016 Rod McCullum, the Nuclear Energy Institute's director of used fuel issues, calls managing nuclear waste the "most technically simple, but politically complicated things we do." It might arise in the presidential election because President Obama has stalled longstanding nuclear waste policy, defying Congress, many states and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which designates Yucca Mountain as America's long-term nuclear waste repository. Obama's efforts to hamstring Yucca during his first term helped keep Reid loyal. But both are leaving Washington, and federal courts have ruled that the administration could not kill the Yucca project without congressional consent and while continuing to collect money from utilities and states to build it. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013 dealt a blow to the administration by ordering the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to complete its work on licensing the facility, which it recently did despite Reid having choked off the commission's funding. McCullum said the commission has been "eeking" along.
   Public popularity supports nuclear energy despite the Fukushima disaster – best polls prove
   Riffkin 15 (Gallup, Inc., 3-30-15, "U.S. Support for Nuclear Energy at 51," Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/182180/support-nuclear-energy.aspx)
   WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A slim majority of Americans (51) now favor the use of nuclear energy for electricity in the U.S., while 43 oppose it. This level of support is similar to what Gallup found when it last measured these attitudes two years ago, but it is down from the peak of 62 five years ago. Current support is on the low end of what Gallup has found in the past 20 years, with the 46 reading in 2001 the only time that it sank lower. The high point in support for the use of nuclear power, in 2010, was recorded shortly after President Barack Obama announced that the federal government would provide loan guarantees for the construction of two nuclear reactors, the first to be built in the U.S. in three decades. Support has generally dropped since then. However, between 2011 and 2012, support was stable, with 57 favoring nuclear energy. This is notable given that Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster took place shortly after polling in 2011.
   Trump presidency risks nuclear war with Russia
   Beauchamp 7/21 - Zack Beauchamp is a Reporter/Blogger for ThinkProgress.org. He previously contributed to Andrew Sullivan's The Dish at Newsweek/Daily Beast, and has also written for Foreign Policy and Tablet magazines. Zack holds B.A.s in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University and an M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of Economics. July 21st, 2016 “Donald Trump’s NATO comments are the scariest thing he’s said,” http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12247074/donald-trump-nato-war)
   Wednesday night, Donald Trump said something that made a nuclear war between the United States and Russia more likely. With a few thoughtless words, he made World War III — the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in nuclear holocaust — plausible. This probably scans like hyperbole, the kind of thing you hear a lot in politics. I assure you, it’s not. Not this time. What Trump said, in an interview published by the New York Times, is that he wouldn’t necessarily defend the United States’ allies in NATO if they were attacked by a foreign power. This extended, Trump said, to the Baltic countries right on Russia’s border — countries Russia might conceivably invade. The NATO alliance is the key deterrent against this: It is founded on a promise that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all. Trump is directly undermining this promise. The consequences are hard to overstate. He is trashing one of the foundations of the postwar European order, which has helped guaranteed peace on the continent for 70 years. And by equivocating on whether he would defend the Baltics, he creates a dangerous amount of uncertainty among Russians as to how seriously the US takes its NATO treaty commitments — the kind of uncertainty that, yes, could spark an actual conflict between the US and Russia. This is what happens when you let a flamboyant reality star get this close to the highest office in the land: You get someone who doesn’t understand the machinery of state, and plays with literal nuclear fire as a result. What Trump said Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in front of a giant American flag. (Ralph Freso/Getty Images) In the interview, the New York Times’s David Sanger asked Trump if he would defend our allies in NATO and East Asia. Trump said he wasn’t sure, that he would only be certain to defend countries that he thought had paid the United States enough money. “If we are not going to be reasonably reimbursed for the tremendous cost of protecting these massive nations with tremendous wealth … then yes, I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, ‘Congratulations, you will be defending yourself,’” Trump told Sanger. This is classic Trumpism. Throughout the campaign, he has repeatedly insisted that American alliances don’t help the United States that much, that America is owed much more from its allies than it receives. As a result, he says, the US needs to back away from its alliance commitments. The problem, however, is that the US is treaty-bound to defend its NATO allies. When NATO was created in 1949, it was built around a promise that an attack on one country would be considered an attack on all countries. You invade Poland, you start a war with the United States. Now, NATO doesn’t have the power to force the United States or any other power to defend anyone else. Article V, the provision in the NATO treaty that provides for collective self-defense, isn’t binding on America in the way the US Constitution is. Instead, Article V works by credible commitment: If the United States signals that it is fundamentally committed to the NATO treaty, then it sends a signal to Russia and other hostile powers that the US will abide by the term of its agreements. This deters them from launching wars or any other kind of military adventurism in an American-aligned state. This is most relevant in the Baltic NATO states: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. These countries were former Soviet republics, and Putin seemingly believes they still ought to be Russian possessions. He has routinely screwed with them: kidnapping an Estonian security officer in 2015, sending Russian warships into Latvian waters 40 times in 2014, and repeatedly buzzing their airspace with Russian jets. These countries’ best hope is their NATO membership: the idea that Putin would never do in these countries what he’s doing to Ukraine, because that would mean war with the United States. But when Sanger asked Trump specifically about his feelings on Baltic allies, he said openly that he wouldn’t defend them. Here’s the critical exchange between Trump, Sanger, and the Times’s Maggie Haberman, which is worth reading in full: SANGER: I was just in the Baltic States. They are very concerned obviously about this new Russian activism, they are seeing submarines off their coasts, they are seeing airplanes they haven’t seen since the Cold War coming, bombers doing test runs. If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don’t think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid? TRUMP: I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I’m not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it. SANGER: They are NATO members, and we are treaty-obligated —— TRUMP: We have many NATO members that aren’t paying their bills. SANGER: That’s true, but we are treaty-obligated under NATO, forget the bills part. TRUMP: You can’t forget the bills. They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they’re supposed to make. That’s a big thing. You can’t say forget that. SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations —— TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes. HABERMAN: And if not? TRUMP: Well, I’m not saying if not. I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us. In other words, Trump is saying that his unequivocal commitment to NATO hinges on whether particular NATO states — including the Baltics — have forked over enough cash. Trump clearly doesn’t think of NATO in terms of an ironclad guarantee to allied states. He thinks of it as transactional, akin to a real estate deal or (less charitably) a protection racket: The United States only protects its weaker allies if they pay up. Nice country you got there. Shame if Russia burns it down. This threatens peace in Europe U.S. Navy Trains In Pacific (Jordon R. Beesley/U.S. Navy/Getty Images) A US Navy ship on an exercise. Normally, Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric is scary but kind of harmless (at least unless he wins). This isn’t. These comments directly undermine the functioning of NATO, and thus the foundations of global peace themselves. The absolutely crucial point about NATO is that it functions on the basis of credible guarantee. The point of NATO is to deter war, by convincing hostile powers like Russia that the US would 100 percent defend its NATO allies. But since there’s no formal legal way to force the United States to defend its allies, this deterrence hinges on the idea that the American leadership is deeply committed to upholding its word and agreements in Europe. This is why, historically, there has been an ironclad, bipartisan commitment to NATO allies. For NATO to work, everyone needs to understand that America’s commitment to its allies is not a partisan football, hinging on who happens to win an election in any given year. It is a fundamental, unchanging part of American grand strategy, one that is and always will be a core American commitment. With a few stray words, Trump has done serious damage to that perception. He has made it seem that US commitment to NATO is much weaker than it is, that it could be overturned with any one election. This was always true in a literal sense: Any president could simply choose not to abide by Article V. But abrogating NATO agreements was always deemed unthinkable by both parties, which has played an important part in maintaining credible deterrence vis-à-vis Russia. Trump just put the idea of the US not defending NATO into question. This threatens the very integrity of NATO itself. If NATO allies start to think that the United States can’t be trusted to defend them, that NATO is just on paper, then they’ll start to wonder why they bother to adhere to this alliance in the first place. If Trump wins the election, this could cause them to exit the security agreement altogether. According to the best available research, this would make war on the European continent far more likely. One study, from professors Jesse C. Johnson and Brett Ashley Leeds, surveyed about 200 years of data on conflicts and concluded that "defensive alliances lower the probability of international conflict and are thus a good policy option for states seeking to maintain peace in the world." Another study looked specifically at the period from 1950 to 2000 and found that "formal alliances with nuclear states appear to carry significant deterrence benefits." The US's formal agreements, then, deter aggression against its non-nuclear partners (like Germany and the Baltics). In their new book on American grand strategy, Dartmouth scholars Steven Brooks and William Wohlforth also surveyed research from regional experts and found a similar consensus. In Europe, they write, "most assessments nonetheless sum up to the conclusion that NATO is a net security plus." Trump, then, is weakening one of America’s most important security agreements — seemingly without very much thought. The nightmare scenario: actual nuclear war (Romolo Tavani/Shutterstock) Trump’s comments are worse than just undermining NATO: By refusing to commit to the Baltics categorically, he encourages Russia to test American resolve in dangerous ways. According to some Russia experts, Vladimir Putin’s ultimate wish in Europe is to break NATO. The way to do that, according to these scholars, is to expose the Article V guarantee as hollow: to show that when push comes to shove, the United States or other large NATO powers wouldn’t actually defend the weaker states. The Baltic states would be the most likely scenario for this to happen. They are very small, they’re right on Russia’s borders, and they aren't really all that important to Western countries' own security. By threatening these states, Russia would force a question: Are the United States, Britain, and France really willing to sacrifice their own soldiers in defense of a tiny state? In 2014, the Danish intelligence agency — note that Denmark is a NATO ally — publicly warned that this was a serious possibility: Russia may attempt to test NATO’s cohesion by engaging in military intimidation of the Baltic countries, for instance with a threatening military build-up close to the borders of these countries and simultaneous attempts of political pressure, destabilization and possibly infiltration. Russia could launch such an intimidation campaign in connection with a serious crisis in the post-Soviet space or another international crisis in which Russia confronts the United States and NATO. The critical issue in preventing this scenario, again, is the perception of NATO commitment. So long as Putin believes that the US and other major powers are firmly committed to the defense of their treaty allies, he’s unlikely to risk starting a war that he would almost certainly lose. This is why Trump’s comments are so damaging: They send a direct signal to the Kremlin that the United States is less than serious about the defense of NATO allies. This suggests that a ploy to break NATO might have a bigger risk of succeeding than previously thought. But note that Trump also refused to say unequivocally that he wouldn’t abide by the NATO treaty. “I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do,” he said. But the entire point of NATO is that Putin needs to know what America will do. If he knows the US will defend the Baltics, then he will likely back off. If he knows the US won’t defend the Baltics, then we could have the breakup of NATO — which would be quite bad but wouldn’t immediately risk World War III. The nightmare scenario, though, is that Putin’s confidence in NATO is undermined even though the United States, under either Trump or Hillary Clinton, remains committed to defending its treaty allies. That’s the scenario under which misperceptions potentially escalate into an actual war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. Max Fisher wrote an extended piece on how this uncertainty could plausibly escalate to war for Vox last year; I encourage you to read it. But the point, according the experts Fisher spoke to, is that a firm perception that the US will defend its NATO allies is crucial. "That kind of misperception situation is definitely possible, and that’s how wars start," Steve Saideman, a professor who studies NATO at Carleton University, told Fisher. He then scarily compared modern Europe with pre–World War I Europe: "The thing that makes war most thinkable is when other people don’t think it’s thinkable." But here’s the scariest thing from Fisher’s piece. Russia’s conventional military is so much weaker than it used to be that it has been becoming more and more comfortable with the idea of nuclear use in a war with the West. Communications between Washington and the Kremlin are so bad, according to Fisher, that nuclear war is disturbingly plausible in the event of a conflict: Russia has been gradually lowering its bar for when it would use nuclear weapons, and in the process upending the decades-old logic of mutually assured destruction, adding tremendous nuclear danger to any conflict in Europe. The possibility that a limited or unintended skirmish could spiral into nuclear war is higher than ever. One reason things have gotten so scary: Russia’s formal nuclear doctrine says the country is willing to use nuclear weapons first in the event of a sufficiently serious conventional conflict. This is why Trump’s comments are so unbelievably terrifying. He is creating exactly the kind of ambiguity that makes a nuclear war — a potentially civilization-ending event — most plausible. Even if he doesn’t end up winning the election, he has already helped send a signal to Putin that US resolve may actually be weaker than everyone thought. I’m not saying we’re all going to die now. We most likely aren’t. The risks of nuclear war with Russia are still quite low, and remain low after Trump’s comments. The US hasn’t withdrawn from NATO, and Russia is still relatively unlikely to gamble on a lack of American resolve, given that it would assuredly lose any conventional war with NATO powers. But Russia’s calculus shifted just a bit after Trump’s comments, making the risk of a catastrophic war a bit higher today than it was yesterday. That’s horrifying. Even if Russia isn’t emboldened to full-on test NATO, the consequences could be severe. Russia messing with Baltic countries could make many people’s lives far less secure, and risk more serious incidents in the process. This isn’t a game or a reality show: This is the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and potentially the human race, hanging in the balance. Anything that raises the risk of nuclear war, however remote, should be terrifying. This is not the kind of thing you leave to amateurs — yet that is exactly what the Republican Party has chosen to do this week in Cleveland. Even if you think that everything Trump has done to date — the authoritarianism, the racism, the ignorance, the petty childishness — isn’t disqualifying, this should be. If this man could make a nuclear war somewhat more likely even before he takes office, imagine what he could do with his finger on America’s nuclear trigger.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lynbrook YZ | Judge: Adam Torson
Belgium ought not involve themselves in the production of nuclear power.
To clarify they will neither prohibit the private production of nuclear power nor directly fund, subsidize, or in any other way use nuclear power themselves. 

Solves the aff—Nuclear Power is prohibitively expensive but only exists because of government subsidies and publicly owned power plants.
Investors look for short-term gains, but nuke power is a long-term capital-intensive investment, so the free market would avoid it
Pedraza 12
Jorge Morales Pedraza, consultant on international affairs, ambassador to the IAEA for 26 yrs, degree in math and economy sciences, former professor, Energy Science, Engineering and Technology : Nuclear Power: Current and Future Role in the World Electricity Generation : Current and Future Role in the World Electricity Generation, New York. Bob
Many countries had privatized government owned energy utilities, following a privatization policy of public companies promoting by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) within the current economic development policy promoted by these two organizations. Others have decided to keep the energy sector within the public sector of the country. One of the objectives to be achieved with the privatization of public utilities, according with the opinion of those that support a privatization policy, is to make them operate under conditions that are more commercial. However, the adoption of this privatization policy could limit these utilities to seek funds only in the commercial money markets, with their stronger emphasis on short-term returns on investment. This may means that capital-intensive plants such as nuclear power plants will not be favored by utilities planning to construct these types of plants without government support. This is an important element that needs to be carefully study when the nuclear option is being under consideration for its possible inclusion in the energy balance of any country.

Nuclear power isn’t competitive-subsidizing and supporting it just wastes money, and the government has to insure and clean up for accidents.
Gottfried 6 Kurt; "Climate Change and Nuclear Power." Social Research: An International Quarterly 73.3 (2006): 1011-1024. Project MUSE. Web. 8 Aug. 2016. https://muse.jhu.edu/.
In the United States and in other countries where power generation is not a government function, the market can, in principle, decide whether nuclear power is economically viable. Here “in principle” alludes to familiar conditions required to create an unbiased market, and in addition to the special circumstances that stem from the unique dangers that attend nuclear power. First, the fact that no new plants have been built in the United States for more than two decades demonstrates that nuclear power has not been an attractive investment

Tournament: Loyola Misc | Round: 9 | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
Interpretation: The affirmative must only defend a prohibition of the production of nuclear power.

Tournament: Greenhill RR Misc | Round: 9 | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
All affirmative offense must come from the hypothetical enactment of a policy that prohibits production of nuclear power.
Resolved means the affirmative must defend the implementation of a policy action by a government
Parcher 1 (Jeff, Fmr. Debate Coach at Georgetown University, February, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html)
Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constituent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Frimness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision.  (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statemnt of a deciion, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconcievable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desireablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the prelimanary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasis the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not. (5) The very terms 'affirmative' and 'negative' support my view. One affirms a resolution. Affirmative and negative are the equivalents of 'yes' or 'no' - which, of course, are answers to a question.
Prohibit is defined by
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prohibit
To forbid by authority: Smoking is prohibited in most theaters. 

Nuclear power
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nuclear+power
nuclear power n (General Physics) power, esp electrical or motive, produced by a nuclear reactor. Also called: atomic power

1NC – Topic Education Good
Debate about high magnitude impacts in the context of nuclear power is good – the public lacks sufficient understanding – opacity is a result of poor debate, not an intrinsic effect of nuclear power itself
Srinivasan 13 T.N. Srinivasan, T.S. Gopi Rethinaraj, "Fukushima and thereafter: Reassessment of risks of nuclear power," Energy Policy 52 (2013) 726–736 AZ
While economic and financing costs for nuclear utilities have been a subject of much discussion, the issue of social costs and benefits of nuclear power have not received adequate attention. Economic costs are those faced by the utility, including capital charges, operating expenses, and fuel cycle costs. Social costs for each plant and its associated fuel cycle include routine environmental impacts such as air pollution as well as risk to the public from reactor accidents or sabotage and subsidies to private utilities. Relative to nuclear power, coal has lower capital costs but substantially higher fuel costs and social costs; the social costs for coal are primarily from air pollution especially sulfur oxide emissions. Nuclear power also has the problem of dealing with events that have a low probability of occurrence but have large social costs were they to occur, a feature that is present in evaluating the risks of climate change about which public has poor understanding. Regardless of the difficulties associated with public perception about low probability but high consequences events, quantitative analyses of both economic and social costs in a rigorous analytical framework is needed for engaging the public in the decision making process. This not only helps bring transparency in the decisions relating to siting and waste disposal options; it also provides a better framework for improving communication with the concerned public about various risks and benefits associated with nuclear power, and involving them appropriately. There is a vast literature on the social cost benefit analysis relevant to this subject (Barrager and Judd et al., 1976). For example, although economic costs of nuclear waste management are small compared to other costs of nuclear power, residual radioactivity that will persists for thousands of years if not carefully managed poses social costs across several generations. Hence society must confront these issues in a transparent manner to decide whether to expand the role of nuclear power from the current level. A similar dilemma also arises in the choice of fossil fuels, which have potential to cause large climatic impact. When a society’s preferences are included in any analysis in a credible and transparent way, there is a better chance of accommodating public concerns. Such an approach provides an analytical framework for comparing the benefits of nuclear versus other alternatives (all of which involve varying degrees of risk) and making the basis of public policy decisions explicit and accessible for an independent review. Except in some countries there is little evidence that this is done systematically in the decision making process. In India, decision makers simply assert without analytical justification that the priorities of development overrides other concerns and summarily dismiss the use of social cost benefit analysis in decision making (Ahluwalia, 2012)
1NC— Dialogism/Inclusion
Their aff avoids neg prep that applies to nuclear power bans. The topic is the basis for predictable limits – abandoning it means the affirmative can argue for anything, which the negative cannot possibly prepare for.
Topical fairness requirements are key to effective dialogue—monopolizing strategy makes the discussion one-sided and exclusionary
Galloway 7—Samford Comm prof (Ryan, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007)
Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively fair opportunity to voice their position. Anything that fails to allow participants to have their position articulated denies one side of the argumentative table a fair hearing. The affirmative side is set by the topic and fairness requirements. While affirmative teams have recently resisted affirming the topic, in fact, the topic selection process is rigorous, taking the relative ground of each topic as its central point of departure. Setting the affirmative reciprocally sets the negative. The negative crafts approaches to the topic consistent with affirmative demands. The negative crafts disadvantages, counter-plans, and critical arguments premised on the arguments that the topic allows for the affirmative team. According to fairness norms, each side sits at a relatively balanced argumentative table. When one side takes more than its share, competitive equity suffers. However, it also undermines the respect due to the other involved in the dialogue. When one side excludes the other, it fundamentally denies the personhood of the other participant (Ehninger, 1970, p. 110). A pedagogy of debate as dialogue takes this respect as a fundamental component. A desire to be fair is a fundamental condition of a dialogue that takes the form of a demand for equality of voice. Far from being a banal request for links to a disadvantage, fairness is a demand for respect, a demand to be heard, a demand that a voice backed by literally months upon months of preparation, research, and critical thinking not be silenced. Affirmative cases that suspend basic fairness norms operate to exclude particular negative strategies. Unprepared, one side comes to the argumentative table unable to meaningfully participate in a dialogue. They are unable to “understand what ‘went on…’” and are left to the whims of time and power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). Hugh Duncan furthers this line of reasoning: Opponents not only tolerate but honor and respect each other because in doing so they enhance their own chances of thinking better and reaching sound decisions. Opposition is necessary because it sharpens thought in action. We assume that argument, discussion, and talk, among free an informed people who subordinate decisions of any kind, because it is only through such discussion that we reach agreement which binds us to a common cause…If we are to be equal…relationships among equals must find expression in many formal and informal institutions (Duncan, 1993, p. 196-197). Debate compensates for the exigencies of the world by offering a framework that maintains equality for the sake of the conversation (Farrell, 1985, p. 114). For example, an affirmative case on the 2007-2008 college topic might defend neither state nor international action in the Middle East, and yet claim to be germane to the topic in some way. The case essentially denies the arguments that state action is oppressive or that actions in the international arena are philosophically or pragmatically suspect. Instead of allowing for the dialogue to be modified by the interchange of the affirmative case and the negative response, the affirmative subverts any meaningful role to the negative team, preventing them from offering effective “counter-word” and undermining the value of a meaningful exchange of speech acts. Germaneness and other substitutes for topical action do not accrue the dialogical benefits of topical advocacy.

1NC—Agonism
Substantive constraints on the debate are key to actualize effective pluralism and agonistic democracy
John Dryzek 6, Professor of Social and Political Theory, The Australian National University, Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals, American Journal of Political Science,Vol. 50, No. 3, July 2006, Pp. 634–649
A more radical contemporary pluralism is suspicious of liberal and communitarian devices for reconciling difference. Such a critical pluralism is associated with agonists such as Connolly (1991), Honig (1993), and Mouffe (2000), and difference democrats such as Young (2000). As Honig puts it, “Difference is just another word for what used to be called pluralism” (1996, 60). Critical pluralists resemble liberals in that they begin from the variety of ways it is possible to experience the world, but stress that the experiences and perspectives of marginalized and oppressed groups are likely to be very different from dominant groups. They also have a strong suspicion ofliberal theory that looks neutral but in practice supports and serves the powerful. Difference democrats are hostile to consensus, partly because consensus decisionmaking (of the sort popular in 1970s radical groups) conceals informal oppression under the guise of concern for all by disallowing dissent (Zablocki 1980). But the real target is political theory that deploys consensus, especially deliberative and liberal theory. Young (1996, 125–26) argues that the appeals to unity and the common good that deliberative theorists under sway of the consensus ideal stress as the proper forms of political communication can often be oppressive. For deliberation so oriented all too easily equates the common good with the interests of the more powerful, thus sidelining legitimate concerns of the marginalized. Asking the underprivileged to set aside their particularistic concerns also means marginalizing their favored forms of expression, especially the telling of personal stories (Young 1996, 126).3 Speaking for an agonistic conception of democracy (to which Young also subscribes; 2000, 49–51), Mouffe states: To negate the ineradicable character of antagonism and aim at a universal rational consensus— that is the real threat to democracy. Indeed, this can lead to violence being unrecognized and hidden behind appeals to “rationality,” as is often the case in liberal thinking. (1996, 248) Mouffe is a radical pluralist: “By pluralism I mean the end of a substantive idea of the good life” (1996, 246). But neither Mouffe nor Young want to abolish communication in the name of pluralism and difference; much of their work advocates sustained attention to communication. Mouffe also cautions against uncritical celebration of difference, for some differences imply “subordination and should therefore be challenged by a radical democratic politics” (1996, 247). Mouffe raises the question of the terms in which engagement across difference might proceed. Participants should ideally accept that the positions of others are legitimate, though not as a result of being persuaded in argument. Instead, it is a matter of being open to conversion due to adoption of a particular kind of democratic attitude that converts antagonism into agonism, fighting into critical engagement, enemies into adversaries who are treated with respect. Respect here is not just (liberal) toleration, but positive validation of the position of others. For Young, a communicative democracy would be composed of people showing “equal respect,” under “procedural rules of fair discussion and decisionmaking” (1996, 126). Schlosberg speaks of “agonistic respect” as “a critical pluralist ethos” (1999, 70). Mouffe and Young both want pluralism to be regulated by a particular kind of attitude, be it respectful, agonistic, or even in Young’s (2000, 16–51) case reasonable.Thus neither proposes unregulated pluralism as an alternative to (deliberative) consensus. This regulation cannot be just procedural, for that would imply “anything goes” in terms of the substance of positions. Recall thatMouffe rejects differences that imply subordination. Agonistic ideals demand judgments about what is worthy of respect and what is not. Connolly (1991, 211) worriesabout dogmatic assertions and denials of identity that fuel existential resentments that would have to be changed to make agonism possible. Young seeks “transformation of private, self-regarding desires into public appeals to justice” (2000, 51). Thus for Mouffe, Connolly, and Young alike, regulative principles for democratic communication are not just attitudinal or procedural; they also refer to the substance of the kinds of claims that are worthy of respect. These authors would not want to legislate substance and are suspicious of the content of any alleged consensus. But in retreating from “anything goes” relativism, they need principles to regulate the substance of what rightfully belongs in democratic debate.
Debate inevitably involves exclusions and normative constraints-~--making sure that those exclusions occur along reciprocal lines is necessary to foster democratic habits which turn and solves the whole case
Amanda Anderson 6, prof of English at Johns Hopkins The Way We Argue Now, 33-6
In some ways, this is understandable as utopian writing, with recognizable antecedents throughout the history of leftist thought. But what is distinctive in Butler’s writing is the way temporal rhetoric emerges precisely at the site of uneasy normative commitment. In the case of performative subversion, a futural rhetoric displaces the problems surrounding agency, symbolic constraint, and poststructuralist ethics. Since symbolic constraint is constitutive of who we can become and what we can enact,¶ 34¶ there is clearly no way to truly envision a reworked symbolic. And since embracing an alternative symbolic would necessarily involve the imposition of newly exclusionary and normalizing norms, to do more than gesture would mean lapsing into the very practices that need to be superseded. Indeed, despite Butler’s insistence in Feminist Contentions that we must always risk new foundations, she evinces a fastidious reluctance to do so herself.¶ The forward-looking articulation of performative politics increasingly gives way, in Bodies That Matter, to a more reflective, and now strangely belated, antiexclusionary politics. Less sanguine about the efficacy of outright subversion, Butler more soberly attends to ways we might respond to the politically and ontologically necessary error of identity categories. We cannot choose not to put such categories into play, but once they are in play, we can begin to interrogate them for the exclusions they harbor and generate. Butler here is closely following Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s position on essentialism, a position Butler earlier sought to sublate through the more exclusive emphasis on the unremitting subversion of identity.18 If performative subversion aimed to denaturalize identity and thus derail its pernicious effects, here, by contrast, one realizes the processes of identity formation will perforce proceed, and one simply attempts to register and redress those processes in a necessarily incomplete way. The production of exclusion, or a constitutive outside, is  butler quote starts “the necessary and founding violence of any truth-regime,” but we should not simply accept that fact passively:¶ The task is to refigure this necessary “outside” as a future horizon, one in which the violence of exclusion is perpetually in the process of being overcome. But of equal importance is the preservation of the outside, the site where discourse meets its limits, where the opacity of what is not included in a given regime of truth acts as a disruptive site of linguistic impropriety and unrepresentability, illuminating the violent and contingent boundaries of that normative regime precisely through the inability of that regime to represent that which might pose a fundamental threat to its continuity. . . . If there is a violence necessary to the language of politics, then the risk of that violation might well be followed by another in which we begin, without ending, without mastering, to own—and yet never fully to own—the exclusions by which we proceed. (BTM, 53)¶ butler quote endsBecause the exclusionary process is productive of who and what we are, even in our oppositional politics, our attempts to acknowledge and redress it are always post hoc. Here the future horizon is ever-receding¶ 35¶ precisely because our own belated making of amends will never, and should never, tame the contingency that also begets violence. But the question arises: does Butler ever propose that we might use the evaluative criteria governing that belated critical recognition to guard against such processes of exclusion in the first place? Well, in rare moments she does project the possibility of cultivating practices that would actually disarm exclusion (and I will be discussing one such moment presently). But she invariably returns to the bleak insistence on the impossibility of ever achieving this. This retreat is necessitated, fundamentally, by Butler’s failure to distinguish evaluative criteria from the power-laden mechanisms of normalization. Yet the distinction does reappear, unacknowledged, in the rhetoric of belatedness, which, like performative thresholdism, serves to underwrite her political purism. As belated, the incomplete acts of “owning” one’s exclusions are more seemingly reactive and can appear not to be themselves normatively implicated.¶ We can see a similar maneuver in Butler’s discussion of universalist traditions in Feminist Contentions. Here she insists that Benhabib’s universalism is perniciously grounded in a transcendental account of language (communicative reason), and is hence not able to examine its own exclusionary effects or situated quality (FC, 128–32). This is, to begin with, a mischaracterization. Benhabib’s account of communicative reason is historically situated (if somewhat loosely within the horizon of modernity) and aims to justify an ongoing and self-critical process of interactive universalism—not merely through the philosophical project of articulating a theory of universal pragmatics but more significantly through the identification and cultivation of practices that enable democratic will formation.19 Butler then introduces, in contrast to Benhabib, an exemplary practice of what she calls “misappropriating” universals (Paul Gilroy’s The Black Atlantic is cited here). Now, it is hard not to see this as a species of dogmatism. Bad people reinscribe or reinforce universals, good people “misappropriate” them. Benhabib calls for the reconstruction of Enlightenment universals, but presumably even reconstruction is tainted. The key point, however, is that misappropriation is a specifically protected derivative process, one whose own belatedness and honorific disobedience are guaranteed to displace the violence of its predecessor discourse.¶ Let me pursue here for a moment why I find this approach unsatisfactory. Simply because the activity of acknowledging exclusion or misappropriating universals is belated or derivative does not mean that such¶ 36¶ an activity is not itself as powerfully normative as the “normative political philosophy” to which Butler refers with such disdain. There is a sleight of hand occurring here: Butler attempts to imply that because such activities exist at a temporal and critical remove from “founding regimes of truth,” they more successfully avoid the insidious ruse of critical theory. But who’s rusing who here? Because Butler finds it impossible to conceive of normativity outside of normalization, she evades the challenging task of directly confronting her own normative assumptions. Yet Butler in fact advocates ethical practices that are animated by the same evaluative principles as communicative ethics: the rigorous scrutiny of all oppositional discourse for its own newly generated exclusions, and the reconfiguration of debilitating identity terms such as “women” as sites “of permanent openness and resignifiability” (FC, 50). Both these central practices rely fundamentally on democratic principles of inclusion and open contestation. Communicative ethics does no more than to clarify where among our primary social practices we might locate the preconditions for such activities of critique and transformation. By justifying its own evaluative assumptions and resources it aims not to posit a realm free of power but rather to clarify our own ongoing critiques of power. This does not mean that such critiques will not themselves require rigorous scrutiny for harboring blindnesses and further exclusions, but neither does it mean that such critiques will necessarily be driven by exclusionary logic. And communicative ethics is by no means a “merely theoretical” or “philosophical” project inasmuch as it can identify particular social and institutional practices that foster democratic ends. By casting all attempts to characterize such practices as pernicious normalizing, Butler effectively disables her own project and leaves herself no recourse but to issue dogmatic condemnations and approvals.

Tournament: Meadows Misc | Round: Quads | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
Fusion key to ITER.
Castelvecchi 16 Davide Castelvecchi (editor at Nature, former editor of Scientific American), Jeff Tollefson, "US advised to stick with troubled fusion reactor ITER," Nature, 5/27/2016 AZ
The troubled multibillion-euro nuclear-fusion project ITER has improved its performance and management, and the United States should continue to support the experiment at least until 2018, the US Department of Energy (DOE) said in a report to Congress released on 26 May. After that, the agency said, the country should re-evaluate its position. ITER is an unprecedented collaboration between the European Union, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the United States. Its ambitious goal is to show that fusing hydrogen nuclei to make helium — the same process that heats up the Sun and powers hydrogen bombs — is a technologically feasible way to produce electricity. The experiment is under construction at a site in St-Paul-lez-Durance in southern France, but the work is more than a decade behind schedule, and its costs have spiralled far above the original budget. In its report, the DOE acknowledges ITER’s immense scientific potential, and the substantial improvements in the project’s management and performance since current director-general Bernard Bigot took over in March 2015. “ITER remains the best candidate today to demonstrate sustained burning plasma, which is a necessary precursor to demonstrating fusion energy power,” US energy secretary Ernest Moniz writes in the report’s introduction.

ITER key to science diplomacy which preserves global stability.
Fedoroff 8 Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID (Nina, Testimony Before the House Science Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, 4/2, http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/102996.htm)
Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships,  embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all.  The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish:  transparency, meritocracy, accountability, the objective  evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation.  Science is inherently  democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all.  Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep political and religious  divides.  Scientists share a common language.  Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of  communication and cultural understanding.  As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of ideologically divergent societies can use the  common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the increasingly trans-  national and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century.  There is a growing  recognition that science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the  21st century. Science and technology provide an immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by bringing  scientists and students here, especially from developing countries, where they see democracy in  action, make friends in the international scientific community, become familiar with American  technology, and contribute to the U.S. and global economy.  For example, in 2005, over 50 of  physical science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral researchers trained in the  U.S. have been foreign nationals.  Moreover, many foreign-born scientists who were educated  and have worked in the U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold influential positions in  ministries and institutions both in this country and in their home countries.  They also contribute  to U.S. scientific and technologic development:  According to the National Science Board’s 2008  Science and Engineering Indicators, 47 of full-time doctoral science and engineering faculty in  U.S. research institutions were foreign-born.    Finally, some types of science – particularly those that address the grand challenges in  science and technology – are inherently international in scope and collaborative by necessity.   The ITER Project, an international fusion research and development collaboration, is a product  of the thaw in superpower relations between Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S.  President Ronald Reagan.  This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible  new and viable energy source by bringing a star to earth.  ITER serves as a symbol of  international scientific cooperation among key scientific leaders in the developed  and  developing world – Japan, Korea, China, E.U., India, Russia, and United States – representing  70 of the world’s current population..    The recent elimination of funding for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes  at an inopportune time as the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion  Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project had entered into force  only on October 2007.  The elimination of the promised U.S. contribution drew our allies to  question our commitment and credibility in international cooperative ventures.  More  problematically, it jeopardizes a platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with key states.  It should  be noted that even at the height of the cold war, the United States used science diplomacy as a  means to maintain communications and avoid misunderstanding between the world’s two  nuclear powers – the Soviet Union and the United States.  In a complex multi-polar world,  relations are more challenging, the threats perhaps greater, and the need for engagement more  paramount.    Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security Objectives  The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile  and cause states to fail.  Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail  to provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and  abuses of human rights.   As well, the world faces common threats, among them climate change,  energy and water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food  insecurity, and religious extremism.  These threats can undermine the national security of the  United States, both directly and indirectly.  Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming  regional or global threats.   The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the  scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous.  Addressing these common challenges  demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and  common goals.  We must increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the  private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign  policy.    There are also important challenges to the ability of states to supply their populations  with sufficient food. The still-growing human population, rising affluence in emerging  economies, and other factors have combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices  of staples such as edible oils and grains.  Encouraging and promoting the use of contemporary  molecular techniques in crop improvement is an essential goal for US science diplomacy.  An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas.  The creation of economic  opportunity can do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. The war of  ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed to irrationalism.  Science and technology put us  firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and opportunities that improve people’s  lives.  We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for the United  States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals.  Additionally, the Department  continues to use science as a means to reduce the proliferation of the weapons’ of mass  destruction and prevent what has been dubbed ‘brain drain’.  Through cooperative threat  reduction activities, former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful,  collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields.  In addition, new global  efforts focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and  implementing best scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase global  partnerships, and create sustainability.

Tournament: Greenhill RR Misc | Round: 9 | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
Text: The United States Federal Government should store its waste using geological disposal.
Picot 1 Cynthia; OECD Observed; “Sustainable solutions for radioactive waste”; http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/531/Sustainable_solutions_for_radioactive_waste.html; JLB (8/19/16)
Radioactive waste is an inevitable by-product of the application of ionising radiation, whether it be in nuclear medicine (for diagnosis and treatment), industrial applications (for example, for finding new sources of petroleum or producing plastics), agricultural applications (notably for the conservation of foodstuffs), or of course the production of electricity. The radioactive waste produced by the latter represents less than 1 of the total toxic wastes generated in those countries that use nuclear energy to generate electricity, but at the same time this waste has the highest levels of radioactivity. In most OECD countries, all short-lived, low- and intermediate-level nuclear wastes, whatever their source, are disposed of using surface or under-ground repositories that are safe for people and the environment during the time that these wastes maintain their radioactivity. These wastes, representing some 90 of total radio-active waste, are conditioned and stored in facilities isolated from the environment by specially engineered barriers. Long-lived and high-level waste, on the other hand, is first deposited in temporary storage facilities, under strict safety conditions, for several decades. It is then usually envisaged that the waste will be placed in a final disposal facility. There is no immediate economic, technical or environmental need to speed up the construction of final disposal facilities for radioactive waste. But from a sustainable development perspective – and if we do not want to pass the burden of finding a permanent solution on to future generations – temporary storage is clearly not a satisfactory solution. The long-term solution currently preferred by specialists consists of placing the waste in a deep (500 metres below the surface) and stable geological setting, such as granite, clay, tuff and salt formations that have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years. The aim is to ensure that such wastes will remain undisturbed for the few thousand years needed for their levels of radioactivity to decline to the point where they no longer represent a danger to present or future generations. The concept of deep geological disposal is more than 40 years old, and the technology for building and operating such repositories is now mature enough for deployment. As a general rule, the natural security afforded by the chosen geological formation is enhanced by additional precautionary measures. The wastes are immobilised in an insoluble form, in blocks of glass for example, and then placed inside corrosion-resistant containers; spaces between waste packages are filled with highly pure, impermeable clay; and the repository may be strengthened by means of concrete structures. These successive barriers are mutually reinforcing and together ensure that wastes can be contained over the very long term. The waste can be recovered during the initial phase of the repository, and also during subsequent phases, albeit at increased cost. This provides freedom of choice to future generations to change waste management strategies if they wish. Repositories are designed so that no radioactivity reaches the Earth's surface. Following the precautionary principle, environmental impact assessments spanning 10,000 years analyse worst-case scenarios, including geological and climate changes and inadvertent human intrusion. The assessments maintain that even under those conditions, the impact on the environment and mankind would be less than current regulatory limits, which in turn are lower than natural background radiation.

Tournament: Greenhill Misc | Round: 9 | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
Nuclear is best for grid – it’s strained now but more plants are on the way
Weinstein 14
Bernard L. Weinstein, Weinstein is associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute in the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University in Dallas and a fellow with the George W. Bush Institute, “Nuclear power can bring long-term stability to the stressed electric grid” January 15, 2014, 03:00 pm VP and Bob

Global warming notwithstanding, 2013-2014 will likely go down as America’s coldest winter in decades. As of the second week in January, 187 million people were dealing with subfreezing weather, and record low temperatures were being recorded in many eastern and southern communities. Not surprisingly, the electric power grid is being tested as never before with some utilities asking customers to dial back their thermostats and to avoid using appliances during hours of peak demand. Even so, a few power companies have had to impose rolling blackouts and brownouts as they bump against their generating capacity. The current cold wave should remind us that integrity of the power grid depends on a diverse portfolio of generating options that, in turn, can serve as a hedge against price volatility or supply disruptions. But this diversity may be at risk. America is becoming overly dependent on the use of natural gas for power generation, with new gas-fired plants accounting for 75 percent of all capacity additions since 1995. Meanwhile, the contribution of coal and nuclear plants to the electric grid has been shrinking. Because no currently operating coal plant can meet the proposed EPA standards for greenhouse gas emissions from new plants, we’re unlikely to see additions to the coal fleet. And the GHG standards for existing power plants that will be forthcoming later this year will further accelerate the demise of coal for power generation. What’s more, four nuclear reactors were shut down last year and Entergy recently announced it will close its Vermont Yankee plant by the end of 2014. To make matters worse, merchant power generators in deregulated states are not investing adequately in new base-load capacity. Because natural gas sets the price for electricity at the margin, and prices are projected to remain below $5 per MCF for the foreseeable future, merchant generators are worried they’ll not be able to recover their capital costs in a deregulated market. In addition, the huge growth of wind generation capacity in response to federal tax incentives and state renewable portfolio standards has further dampened the prospects for capital cost recovery by merchant power generators. Investing in nuclear energy remains the best strategy for ensuring long-term diversity and reliability of the power grid. Despite recent plant closures, nuclear power isn’t going away. Five new plants will come on line by 2018 while 14 other applications are pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The value proposition for nuclear energy is stronger than ever. Nuclear plants operate around the clock safely and reliably, thereby providing stability to the power grid. They also provide forward price stability and are not subject to the price volatility associated with gas-fired plants. Nuclear operations support large numbers of high-paying jobs and add mightily to the tax base of host communities. Finally, nuclear power is environmentally benign: no particulates, no sulphur dioxide, and no greenhouse gas emissions. Just steam. Because households and industries continue to use electricity more efficiently, the demand for power is projected to grow slowly in the years ahead. Still, until large-scale battery technology develops to the point where electrons produced by wind and solar can be stored in large quantities, which may take 50 years, we’ll continue to need a diverse portfolio of base-load power plants.  With coal going away, and natural gas currently overrepresented, nuclear power can provide the much-needed diversity and stability to America’s electric power grid.
Link – NP Key
Mass NPP shutdown breaks the power grid-California proves
Daniels 6/22
Jeff Daniels, 6-22-2016, "Nuclear power fades in California as energy grid gets stressed," CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/nuclear-power-fades-in-california-as-energy-grid-gets-stressed.html VP
Jeff Daniels is a coordinating producer for CNBC, based at the network's Los Angeles Bureau. He joined the network in 1999. Prior to joining CNBC, Daniels was entertainment editor of financial wire service Bridge News and business editor of The Hollywood Reporter. He was a news writer for Financial Network Network, a predecessor to CNBC.
California's stressed-out power grid was handed another blow this week, when the state's last operating electricity-generating nuclear power plant said it plans to go offline in less than a decade. PGandE, owner of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant and a major provider of power for northern California, said Tuesday that it plans to shut down the facility when its current operating license expires in 2025, to meet the state's renewable energy policy goals. Though the plant has been in operation since 1985, it has come under criticism in recent years due to seismic risk concerns. PGandE spokesman Blair Jones said there are earthquake faults nearby but indicated the plant is designed to withstand quakes likely for the area, and that Diablo Canyon wouldn't be in operation today if that weren't the case. The company's announcement comes at an already tumultuous time for California's energy grid, which is facing early summer stress and a risk of rotating power outages down south. Indeed, thousands of customers were without power Monday and into Tuesday, as temperatures topped 110 degrees in some areas. On Monday, the state's power grid operator declared a Flex Alert for Southern California, warning that "demand on the power grid can be strained, as air conditioner use increases." A Flex Alert asks residents to conserve energy. While that strain is expected to lessen when temperatures cool later this week, the region's wildfires are adding another complication. Flames from a fire in the Angeles National Forest on Tuesday tripped a series of high-voltage lines, forcing the state grid operator to re-route electricity to make up for the impacted lines. California's heavy reliance on natural gas for more than half of its electricity generation has created vulnerabilities for the state, especially during the summer months. In particular, problems at Aliso Canyon — a key natural gas storage facility and site of the nation's worst gas leak — have become a concern for Southern Californians. "The likelihood of a power outage during a heat wave this summer is heightened because of the gas leak that," the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power said last week. "Aliso Canyon is the only gas storage facility that can immediately respond to rapid changes in gas supply for 17 gas-fired generating plants, including four generating stations operated by LADWP in the Los Angeles basin." A fire fighting aircraft (L) drops fire retardant as its spotting plane (R) follows above power lines over one of two wildfires in the Angeles National Forest above Azusa, California. Gene Blevins | Reuters A fire fighting aircraft (L) drops fire retardant as its spotting plane (R) follows above power lines over one of two wildfires in the Angeles National Forest above Azusa, California. According to an Aliso Canyon impact report released in April, "there are 14 days this coming summer during which gas curtailments could be high enough to cause electricity service interruptions to millions of utility customers." The report was released by two state agencies, as well as the California Independent System Operator (CA-ISO) and LADWP. To reduce the risk of rolling blackouts, the South Coast Air Quality Management District — the air pollution control agency for major portions of Southern California — last Thursday agreed to temporarily allow LADWP to burn diesel fuel at three of its four diesel power plants. But because other municipal power providers in the L.A. area don't have the same flexibility, they remain at risk of outages. "Burbank boasts an electric reliability factor of 99.999 percent, one of the highest in America," Jorge Somoano, acting general manager of Burbank Water and Power, said in a release Friday. "But, without natural gas from Aliso Canyon to fuel local power plants, our ability to keep lights on is highly compromised." Overall, approximately 61 percent of the electricity generated in California comes from natural gas, according to the California Energy Commission. As of 2014, nuclear power represented almost 9 percent of in-state generation. Renewables were nearly 23 percent of in-state generation that year, with wind power the largest, followed by geothermal and solar power. For PGandE, Diablo Canyon generates about one-fifth of annual electricity production in the company's service territory. The plant has two nuclear reactors and generates power to supply around 1.7 million homes. In a regulatory filing Tuesday, PGandE estimated the cost to decommission Diablo Canyon at nearly $3.8 billion, adding that the plant's nuclear decommissioning trust accounts held around $2.8 billion as of March 31. "The primary beneficiary is going to be any kind of renewable power generator and renewable energy developer," said Travis Miller, an analyst at Morningstar. "They (PGandE) won't build it all themselves. Any third-party energy developer is going to benefit that can sell their power into northern California." The boundary of Southern California Gas Company property, where Aliso Canyon Storage Field is located, is seen as people continue to be affected by a massive natural-gas leak in the Porter Ranch neighborhood of the of the San Fernando Valley region of Los Angeles, California. David McNew | AFP | Getty Images The boundary of Southern California Gas Company property, where Aliso Canyon Storage Field is located, is seen as people continue to be affected by a massive natural-gas leak in the Porter Ranch neighborhood of the of the San Fernando Valley region of Los Angeles, California. Last year, California increased its so-called "renewable portfolio standard" for investor-owned utilities and electric service providers from 33 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030. Goldman Sachs estimated in a research note earlier this year that California's buildout of a new renewables market could represent "over $100 billion in investment" by 2030. In announcing a joint proposal Tuesday with the Natural Resources Defense Council and several other groups to take Diablo Canyon offline, PGandE pledged a voluntary commitment to achieve a 55 percent renewable energy target in 2031. In a 2013 report, the Union of Concerned Scientists highlighted how PGandE had earlier informed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about a new fault offshore from Diablo Canyon "that could cause more ground motion during an earthquake than the plant was designed to withstand." "California has some regulatory mechanisms in place that mitigate earthquake risk," Morgan Stanley utilities analyst Stephen Byrd said in a research note earlier this month. "California power utilities have the ability to recover additional electric procurement costs…and utilities could seek recovery of costs necessary to respond to an earthquake (or other major emergency)." As for earthquake insurance coverage by the utilities, Byrd said PGandE has $900 million.Edison International, another California-based energy utility, has about $750 million, he said. In 2013, San Onofre plant owner announced it would permanently retire the nuclear power plant and begin preparations for decommissioning. The plant in north San Diego County is located near several known faults. "We have an incident command structure in planning for all hazards," Edison's Robert Villegas said. "That would be for large storms, for any sort of large incident, including earthquakes and things like that."
IMPX – Cyber ATX
Weak grid exacerbates the effects of cyber-attacks
Bennet and Williams 16 Katie Bo Williams and Cory Bennett, “Why a power grid attack is a nightmare scenario,” The Hill, May 30, 2016, http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/281494-why-a-power-grid-attack-is-a-nightmare-scenario
 Stores are closed. Cell service is failing. Broadband Internet is gone. Hospitals are operating on generators, but rapidly running out of fuel. Garbage is rotting in the streets, and clean water is scarce as people boil water stored in bathtubs to stop the spread of bacteria. And escape? There is none, because planes can’t fly, trains can’t run, and gas stations can’t pump fuel. This is the “nightmare scenario” that lawmakers have been warning you about. The threat of an attack on the nation’s power grid is all too real for the network security professionals who labor every day to keep the country safe. “In order to restore civilized society, the power has got to be back on,” said Scott Aaronson, who oversees the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC), an industry-government emergency response program. While cybersecurity experts and industry executives describe such warnings as alarmist, intelligence officials say people underestimate how destructive a power outage can be. The most damaging kind of attack, specialists say, would be carefully coordinated to strike multiple power stations. If hackers were to knock out 100 strategically chosen generators in the Northeast, for example, the damaged power grid would quickly overload, causing a cascade of secondary outages across multiple states. While some areas could recover quickly, others might be without power for weeks. The scenario isn’t completely hypothetical. Lawmakers and government officials got a preview in 2003, when a blackout spread from the coastal Northeast into the Midwest and Canada. “If you think of how crippled our region is when we lose power for just a couple of days, the implications of a deliberate widespread attack on the power grid for the East Coast, say, would cause devastation,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Researchers have run the numbers on an East Coast blackout, with sobering results. A prolonged outage across 15 states and Washington, D.C., according to the University of Cambridge and insurer Lloyd’s of London, would leave 93 million people in darkness, cost the economy hundreds of millions of dollars and cause a surge in fatalities at hospitals. The geopolitical fallout could be even worse. “If a major cyberattack happens, that’s a major act of war, bombs are starting to fall,” said Cris Thomas, a well-known hacker who is now a strategist at security firm Tenable. A former senior intelligence official who spoke to The Hill echoed that assessment. The specter of a catastrophic attack on the electrical grid looms large for utilities and the federal government. They all agree that a “cyber Pearl Harbor” would be a deliberate attack, most likely from a foreign adversary. “It’s an act of war, not an act of God,” Aaronson said. One of the most fearful aspects of a cyberattack is that they can be difficult to spot, even when they are happening. At first, power providers may only notice a cascade of overloaded transmission lines failing in rapid succession — something that happened during the 2003 blackout, which was caused by an ordinary software bug.

Small grid failure brings down the entire system – impact is chemical plant explosions, worse than atom bomb
Latynina 3 World Press Review (VOL. 50, No. 11) www.worldpress.org/Americas/1579.cfm
The scariest thing about the cascading power outages was not spoiled groceries in the fridge, or elevators getting stuck, or even, however cynical it may sound, sick patients left to their own devices without electricity-powered medical equipment. The scariest thing of all was chemical plants and refineries with 24-hour operations, which, if interrupted, can result in consequences even more disastrous and on a larger scale than those of an atomic bomb explosion. So it is safe to say that Americans got lucky this time. Several hours after the disaster, no one could know for certain whether the power outage was caused by an accident or someone’s evil design. In fact, the disaster on the East Coast illustrates just one thing: A modern city is in itself a bomb, regardless of whether someone sets off the detonator intentionally or by accident. As I recall, when I was writing my book Industrial Zone, in which business deals were bound to lead to a massive industrial catastrophe, at some point in time I was considering making a cascading power outage the cause of a catastrophe. Back then, I was amazed and shocked at the swiftness of the process. Shutting down at least one electric power plant is enough to cause a drop in power output throughout the entire power grid. This is followed by an automatic shutdown of nuclear power plants, a further catastrophic drop in power, and finally a cascading outage of the entire grid system.
IMPX – Cyber Atx - Nukes
Nuclear war
Andres 11 Richard B. – Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College and a Senior Fellow and Energy and Environmental Security and Policy Chair in the Center for Strategic Research, Institute for National Strategic Studies, at the National Defense University, Hanna L. Breetz – Doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Small Nuclear Reactors for Military Installations: Capabilities, Costs, and Technological Implications, Strategic Forum, National Defense University, Institute for National Strategic Studies, February 2011, http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/StrForum/SF-262.pdf
Grid Vulnerability. DOD is unable to provide its bases with electricity when the civilian electrical grid is offline for an extended period of time. Currently, domestic military installations receive 99 percent of their electricity from the civilian power grid. As explained in a recent study from the Defense Science Board:
DOD’s key problem with electricity is that critical missions, such as national strategic awareness and national command authorities, are almost entirely dependent on the national transmission grid . . . which is fragile, vulnerable, near its capacity limit, and outside of DOD control. In most cases, neither the grid nor on-base backup power provides sufficient reliability to ensure continuity of critical national priority functions and oversight of strategic missions in the face of a long term (several months) outage.7
The grid’s fragility was demonstrated during the 2003 Northeast blackout in which 50 million people in the United States and Canada lost power, some for up to a week, when one Ohio utility failed to properly trim trees. The blackout created cascading disruptions in sewage systems, gas station pumping, cellular communications, border check systems, and so forth, and demonstrated the interdependence of modern infrastructural systems.8
More recently, awareness has been growing that the grid is also vulnerable to purposive attacks. A re- port sponsored by the Department of Homeland Secu- rity suggests that a coordinated cyber attack on the grid could result in a third of the country losing power for a period of weeks or months.9 Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are not well understood. It is not clear, for instance, whether existing terrorist groups might be able to develop the capability to conduct this type of attack. It is likely, however, that some nation-states either have or are working on developing the ability to take down the U.S. grid. In the event of a war with one of these states, it is possible, if not likely, that parts of the civilian grid would cease to function, taking with them military bases located in affected regions.
Government and private organizations are currently working to secure the grid against attacks; however, it is not clear that they will be successful. Most military bases currently have backup power that allows them to function for a period of hours or, at most, a few days on their own. If power were not restored after this amount of time, the results could be disastrous. First, military assets taken offline by the crisis would not be available to help with disaster relief. Second, during an extended blackout, global military operations could be seriously compromised; this disruption would be particularly serious if the blackout was induced during major combat operations. During the Cold War, this type of event was far less likely because the United States and Soviet Union shared the common understanding that blinding an opponent with a grid blackout could escalate to nuclear war. America’s current opponents, however, may not share this fear or be deterred by this possibility.
 

Infrastructure shutdown escalates to nuclear war
Robert Tilford 12, Graduate US Army Airborne School, Ft. Benning, Georgia, “Cyber attackers could shut down the electric grid for the entire east coast” 2012, http://www.examiner.com/article/cyber-attackers-could-easily-shut-down-the-electric-grid-for-the-entire-east-coa *we don’t agree with the albeist language
To make matters worse a cyber attack that can take out a civilian power grid, for example could also cripple destroy the U.S. military.¶ The senator notes that is that the same power grids that supply cities and towns, stores and gas stations, cell towers and heart monitors also power “every military base in our country.”¶ “Although bases would be prepared to weather a short power outage with backup diesel generators, within hours, not days, fuel supplies would run out”, he said.¶ Which means military command and control centers could go dark.¶ Radar systems that detect air threats to our country would shut Down completely.¶ “Communication between commanders and their troops would also go silent. And many weapons systems would be left without either fuel or electric power”, said Senator Grassley.¶ “So in a few short hours or days, the mightiest military in the world would be left scrambling to maintain base functions”, he said.¶ We contacted the Pentagon and officials confirmed the threat of a cyber attack is something very real.¶ Top national security officials—including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Director of the National Security Agency, the Secretary of Defense, and the CIA Director— have said, “preventing a cyber attack and improving the nation’s electric grids is among the most urgent priorities of our country” (source: Congressional Record).¶ So how serious is the Pentagon taking all this?¶ Enough to start, or end a war over it, for sure.¶ A cyber attack today against the US could very well be seen as an “Act of War” and could be met with a “full scale” US military response.¶ That could include the use of “nuclear weapons”, if authorized by the President.
Nuclear power is uniquely key as a backup to stop these scenarios
IBEW ‘14 – (2014, International Brotherhood of Elctricial Workers, http://www.ibew.org/IBEW/departments/utility/IBEW-Nuclear-FAQ.pdf The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) represents approximately 750,000 active members and retirees who work in a wide variety of fields, including utilities, construction, telecommunications, broadcasting, manufacturing, railroads and government. The IBEW has members in both the United States and Canada and stands out among the American unions in the AFL-CIO because it is among the largest and has members in so many skilled occupations.

Some of the units at the Japanese plants lost both off - site power and diesel generators. This is called a “station blackout.” U.S. nuclear power plants are designed to cope with station blackouts by having multiple back - up power sources at the ready. All U.S. plants are also responsible for demonstrating to the NRC that they can handle such situations in order to legally remain in operation.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lynbrook YZ | Judge: Adam Torson
Text: Belgium should join the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation.

It creates networks for nuclear power without having to establish domestic facilities, educates countries on the safe and proper use of nuclear power—solves prolif and warming.
WNA 15 World Nuclear Association; Information on nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle; August 2015; “International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation”; http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/international-framework-for-nuclear-energy-coopera.aspx; JLB (8/8/2016)
The International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation (IFNEC), formerly the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), aims to accelerate the development and deployment of advanced nuclear fuel cycle technologies while providing greater disincentives to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. GNEP was initiated by the USA early in 2006, but picked up on concerns and proposals from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Russia. The vision was for a global network of nuclear fuel cycle facilities all under IAEA control or at least supervision. Domestically in the USA, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) was based on the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), and while GNEP faltered with the advent of the Barack Obama administration in Washington from 2008, the AFCI was being funded at higher levels than before for RandD "on proliferation-resistant fuel cycles and waste reduction strategies." Two significant new elements in the strategy were new reprocessing technologies which separate all transuranic elements together (and not plutonium on its own), and advanced burner (fast) reactors to consume the result of this while generating power. However, this then disappeared from the US Department of Energy (DOE) budget. GNEP was set up as both a research and technology development initiative and an international policy initiative. It addresses the questions of how to use sensitive technologies responsibly in a way that protects global security, and also how to manage and recycle wastes more effectively and securely. The USA had a policy in place since 1977 which ruled out reprocessing used fuel, on non-proliferation grounds. Under GNEP/IFNEC, reprocessing is to be a means of avoiding proliferation, as well as addressing problems concerning high-level wastes. Accordingly, the DOE briefly set out to develop advanced fuel cycle technologies on a commercial scale. As more countries consider nuclear power, it is important that they develop the infrastructure capabilities necessary for such an undertaking. Forum (GIF) and the Multinational Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP).

Eliminates extra plutonium—solves terror and war.
WNA 15 World Nuclear Association; Information on nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle; August 2015; “International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation”; http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/international-framework-for-nuclear-energy-coopera.aspx; JLB (8/8/2016)
An early priority was seen to be the development of new reprocessing technologies to enable recycling of most of the used fuel. One of the concerns when reprocessing used nuclear fuel is ensuring that separated fissile material is not used to create a weapon. One chemical reprocessing technology – PUREX – has been employed for over half a century, having been developed in wartime for military use (see page on Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel). This has resulted in the accumulation of 240 tonnes of separated reactor-grade plutonium around the world (though some has been used in the fabrication of mixed oxide fuel). While this is not suitable for weapons use, it is still regarded as a proliferation concern. New reprocessing technologies are designed to combine the plutonium with some uranium and possibly with minor actinides (neptunium, americium and curium), rendering it impractical to use the plutonium in the manufacture of weapons. GNEP/IFNEC creates a framework where states that currently employ reprocessing technologies can collaborate to design and deploy advanced separations and fuel fabrication techniques that do not result in the accumulation of separated pure plutonium.

Tournament: Greenhill Misc | Round: 9 | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
Text: The 50 United States and Washington D.C. should reinstate funds for radiation monitoring, move nuclear reactors out of predominantly minority communities, and substantially increase the amount of energy provided for black communities.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lynbrook YZ | Judge: Adam Torson
1NC – Libertarianism
I value morality. When a person chooses to do something, they aim to successfully attain the goal they acted in order to achieve. They must regard this goal as valuable, or else they would not have acted at all. By extension, they must also aim to have what is necessary for them to achieve this goal, or else, they would be contradicting their valuation of the goal of the action. By acting, an agent necessarily aims at having whatever conditions are necessary for them to achieve their goal. For instance, when I go to the store to buy ice cream, I am considering my goal of getting ice cream to be valuable. If that’s valuable, I must also value my ability to go to the store.  
This implies an intent-foresight distinction since ethics are grounded in intended and willful actions – foreseen harms aren’t constitutive of the action since they bear no causal connection to the agent’s choice. Prefer since the only consistent way to judge an action is the features innate to the action itself.
This generates a negative right to property since a right to have things at your disposal is the general requirement of the pursuit of all ends, regardless of what they are.
Ripstein Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom. Harvard University Press, 2009, pp.66-67
Property. In order to set an end for yourself, that is, to take it up as an end that you pursue, you must take yourself to have the power to achieve it. Your entitlement to set and pursue your own purposes parallels your ability to do so: you must be entitled to use the means that you suppose will enable you to achieve it. There are two ways in which you can be entitled to such powers. First, as we have seen, you have your own personal pow- ers, which you have innately; that is, your right to them does not depend upon any act that you, or anyone else, have performed. The development of those powers may be the result of previous acts of yours or of others— you might have your exercise routine or your personal trainer to thank for your strength, for example. But your right to these powers, as against anyone else who might wish to use them, does not depend upon how you came to have them. Second, you might have powers that are external to you, as means at your disposal. Whether you can adopt a particular end will depend upon the powers and means you have at your disposal. For Kant, property in an external thing—something other than your own person—is simply the right to have that thing at your disposal with which to set and pursue your own ends. Secure title in things is prerequisite to the capacity to use an object to set and pursue ends.14 Secure title has two parts to it, possession and use. You have rightful possession of a thing provided that you are entitled to control the thing and exclude others from it. Thus you are wronged if someone else damages your property, or trespasses against it.15 If your property is damaged, you are deprived of means you could have used to set and pursue ends. If your property is trespassed against, it is used in pursuit of ends that you have not set for yourself. Moreover, trespass or damage to it limits your freedom even if, as a matter of fact, you had no inclination (or even empirical ability at that moment) to pursue those particular ends, and even if you can think of no use to which you might put it. You are wronged because you are deprived of your ability to be the one who determines how the thing will be used. You have the right to use a thing if you are free to exploit it to pursue such ends as you might set, and do not require the consent of anyone else in order to do so.
This is also true since the right to property grounds all other rights – the right to life or to speak freely is based on your right to your body so property rights are undeniable.
You have an absolute right to property once you subject it to your purposes, so any violation is prohibited.
Ripstein 2 Arthur Ripstein, Force and Freedom. Harvard University Press, 2009, pp.104
Kant’s account thus focuses exclusively on the transition in a thing’s status from unowned to owned, that is, the transition from its being available to all to its being subject to one person’s exclusive choice. The account is boring because the only factual precondition of rightful acquisition of an unowned object is empirical possession of that object. The act in question is simply bringing a thing under your control, so that you can now decide how to use it. Neither improving it nor putting your will into it is required. Improving it is not required because improving an object is only relevant once you have taken possession of it. Until you take possession, improving just fritters away your efforts. The same point applies to what Hegel describes as “putting your will” into an object, at least if this is understood as something different from simply taking possession of it. Wishing for a thing engages your will in a sense that is irrelevant; subjecting it to your choice—making it a means for setting and pursuing your purposes—is established only by taking control of it. Nothing more is required. All you need to do is take physical possession, and give a sign to others that you are doing so in order to have it as your means rather than just for a specific use. These steps are required because they are just the steps in subjecting a thing to your choice. You do not need to improve the object, because improving an object you are already in possession of is just subjecting it to your choice in some specific way. Unless it is already subject to your choice, however, the ways in which you change it—for example, by tiring it out—do not subject it to your choice. At most, they prepare it for subsequent use.
The standard is respecting property rights. The standard deals with an a priori right to property. Violating the property rights of some to protect the rights of others, is a violation since this would make property rights contingent on their utility for the rights of others, and would deny the requirement of an unconditional right to property that precedes any specific social arrangement that is required by the framework

Contention:
Prohibiting nuclear power production is a violation of property rights because:

1. It would require government confiscation of power plants owned by private companies, which directly violates their ownership rights of the reactors.
   World Nuclear 16 “World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power” June 2016 AT
   Government policy is central to any discussion of nuclear power in the USA. The development of nuclear power began as a government program in 1945 following on from the Manhattan Project to develop the wartime atomic bomb. The first nuclear reactor to produce electricity did so at the National Reactor Testing Station (NRTS) in Idaho in December 1951, as the US government reoriented significant resources to the development of civilian use of nuclear power. In the mid-1950s, production of electricity from nuclear power was opened up to private industry. The world's first large-scale nuclear power plant at Shippingport, Pennsylvania, was owned by the US Atomic Energy Commission, but built and operated by the Duquesne Light and Power Company on a site owned by the utility company near Pittsburgh. Today, almost all the commercial reactors in the USA are owned by private companies, and nuclear industry as a whole has far greater private participation, and less concentration, than any other country. Yet, the government remains more involved in commercial nuclear power than in any other industry in the USA. There are lengthy, detailed requirements for the construction and operation of all reactors and conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, mining and milling facilities. The review process preceding the construction of new reactors can take 3-5 years. The US government, through its own national research laboratories and projects at university and industry facilities, is the main source of funding for advanced reactor and fuel cycle research. It also promises to provide incentives for building new plants through loan guarantees and tax credits, although owners have to raise their own capital. US domestic energy policy is also closely linked to foreign, trade and defence policy on such matters as mitigating climate change and nuclear non-proliferation (of weapons).As of late 2013, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was reviewing nine applications for combined construction and operating licences (COLs) to build 14 new nuclear reactors, as well as three design certification applications for new reactor types (EPR, ESBWR and APWR) and two design certification renewals (both ABWR). The NRC’s FY 2014 budget for oversight of the 100 operating power reactors was $1055 million, including six reviews of extended power uprate requests (and eight others) and 10 licence renewal applications. The budget includes nuclear materials and waste safety.State and local governments also have a major impact on the framework and economics of the US nuclear power industry. Deregulation of electricity prices in some states in the 1990s led to greater concentration in nuclear power production. In 1976, a voter referendum in California led to a law that prohibited the construction of new nuclear plants in the nation's largest state and the prohibition still remains in effect. Opposition in the state of Nevada was a key factor in the decision by the new Democratic administration of Barack Obama in early 2009 to abandon the government's long-standing plans for a 70,000 tonne geological repository in that state for disposal of the high-level nuclear waste that has accumulated at reactor sites across the nation.

2. It would close off nuclear power production to everyone. The government cannot unilaterally declare certain industries as illegal to own and operate even if doing so will reduce accident risk, just as it cannot prohibit people from owning cars for the same purpose, because mere ownership does not violate the rights of any other person. At worst, the government can pass safety regulations to prohibit nuclear plants from posing a threat to others, but cannot outright prohibit it.

Tournament: Meadows Misc | Round: Quads | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
Clinton is ahead but Trump could still win
Silver 10/27 Nate; http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-polls-disagree-and-thats-ok/

But what do the polls say? The race probably is tightening — but perhaps not as much as the hype on the cable networks would imply. In our polls-only forecast, Trump has narrowed Clinton’s lead in the popular vote to roughly 6 percentage points from 7 points a week ago, and his chances of winning have ticked up to 17 percent from 13 percent. In our polls-plusforecast, Trump’s chances are up to 19 percent from 16 percent. Because of the high level of uncertainty in the race, we can’t say the door is closed on a narrow Trump victory. And we’re certainly a week or two removed from the period when every poll brought good news for Clinton: Plenty of polls now show negative trend lines for her (in addition to others that show a positive trend). But the race hasn’t fundamentally changed all that much, and Clinton remains in a strong position.

Public popularity supports nuclear.
Riffkin 15 (Gallup, Inc., 3-30-15, "U.S. Support for Nuclear Energy at 51," Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/182180/support-nuclear-energy.aspx)
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A slim majority of Americans (51) now favor the use of nuclear energy for electricity in the U.S., while 43 oppose it. This level of support is similar to what Gallup found when it last measured these attitudes two years ago, but it is down from the peak of 62 five years ago. Current support is on the low end of what Gallup has found in the past 20 years, with the 46 reading in 2001 the only time that it sank lower. The high point in support for the use of nuclear power, in 2010, was recorded shortly after President Barack Obama announced that the federal government would provide loan guarantees for the construction of two nuclear reactors, the first to be built in the U.S. in three decades. Support has generally dropped since then. However, between 2011 and 2012, support was stable, with 57 favoring nuclear energy. This is notable given that Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster took place shortly after polling in 2011.

Positive Hillary approval ratings key to get Garland confirmed before the election.
Steed 7/29 Jason; extensive experience representing clients in both state and federal appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Texas, the Supreme Court of California, the Supreme Court of Alaska, and the Supreme Court of the United States; former English professor and award-winning writer; Forma Legalis; 7/29/16; “How Garland Gets Confirmed Before the Election”; https://formalegalis.org/2016/07/29/how-garland-gets-confirmed-before-the-election/; JLB (8/3/2016)
My theory: If we get deep into August and the polls are showing not only a strong lead for Clinton but also promising leads in enough of those senate races, it will take only credible whispers of withdrawing Garland’s nomination to make the Republicans nervous enough to go ahead and confirm him before the election. And how do you create a credible threat of withdrawal? By taking the stage before millions of viewers for a week to talk about goals and priorities, and the importance of the Supreme Court, without mentioning Garland. There was an effort to rally Democratic voters behind the importance of appointing the right people to the Supreme Court—but no effort to rally Democratic voters behind Garland. Why? Because absenting Garland from the DNC was a signal. The Party didn’t commit itself to Garland. Clinton didn’t commit herself to Garland. Even Obama didn’t push for Garland. The signal: after this week, the possibility of withdrawing Garland on November 9 is real.
So watch the polls. Senate Republicans are already holding pro forma sessions throughout the summer, to prevent Obama from recess-appointing Garland without them. If they get nervous enough about the polls, it won’t be too hard to pull together an actual session to vote on Garland. They don’t even need hearings, which aren’t required—because everyone already knows Garland is supremely qualified for the job. All they need is a simple majority present to vote. And it could happen before the Court begins its October Term.

Garland will allow the EPA latitude to regulate CO2
Page 3-16 Samantha; Think Progress, Merrick Garland Knows He’s Not a Scientist, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/16/3760853/garland-environmental-record/ DOA: 3-16-16
How do you judge a judge? In the case of Judge Merrick Garland, who President Obama nominated for the Supreme Court on Wednesday, there is not much evidence for or against his environmental record. But as cases against the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and other regulatory actions head to the courts, it’s important to glean what we can. By and large, Garland has a reputation for allowing agencies to do the work they set out to do — and that’s usually a good thing for the environment. Albert Lin, a professor at UC Davis specializing in environmental and natural resources law, clerked for Garland at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and said the judge was thorough and open-minded. “I don’t think he expressed a specific view towards the EPA, per se, but he recognized that government agencies have a role,” Lin told ThinkProgress. “They should have some discretion as to how they function — but he also wasn’t going to give them a free pass.” In 1985, during his time at the Washington, D.C. firm Arnold and Porter, Garland wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review in favor of allowing agencies to have some discretion over how they carry out Congress’ intents. According to Bloomberg, Garland has practiced what he preached. On the D.C. Circuit bench, which is responsible for hearing most administrative cases, such as the recent Clean Power Plan challenge, a third of Garland’s dissents have been over challenges to agency decision-making. In all of those dissents, Garland sided with the agency. And with a deadlocked Congress, further action on the environment is going to continue to come from executive actions intended to protect American’s air, water, and climate under existing frameworks, said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth. Bringing that to a contemporary context, in the Clean Power Plan challenge, one critical issue comes down to whether, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. In fact, there are two conflicting amendments regarding that authority on the books. So, it’s important in this case that the the judges look not only at the Congress’ wording — which is contradictory — but at the intent of the law. This is where Garland presents a possible victory for environmentalists. “He will not just consider the plain language, but what’s the statute trying to accomplish,” Lin said. That means that the judge does not always side with the administration — he sides with what the law is trying to accomplish. Sometimes, that also works out for the environment. In 2004, Garland wrote the majority opinion that ruled against the EPA’s approval of a Washington, D.C. plan to reduce smog that didn’t bring the area into compliance. “We agree with Sierra Club’s principal contention that EPA was not authorized to grant conditional approval to plans that did nothing more than promise to do tomorrow what the Act requires today,” Garland wrote of the Bush-era approval. In a 2012 case Garland again sided with an agency, that time the DEA. Although medical marijuana advocates decried the final decision, during the argument, Garland said something that might cheer environmentalists. “Don’t we have to defer to their judgment?” Garland asked about the agency. “We’re not scientists. They are.” After years of ridiculing the conservative talking point that it’s reasonable to reject the scientific consensus around climate change because “I am not a scientist,” it’s refreshing to hear someone say, I am not a scientist, and therefore we have to listen to scientists. Of course, there are other ways the court can influence environmental policy. “We will see ongoing challenges to money in politics, whether it’s state ballot initiatives, redistricting — there is a whole slew of things that are electorally related that will undoubtedly make their way up to the Supreme Court,” Pica said. Having an Obama-appointed justice “gives us some hope that the Supreme Court can undo some of those terrible rulings that were championed by Scalia on the conservative side of the bench.” As news hit of Garland’s nomination Wednesday, environmental groups called for the Senate to go forward with the confirmation process — something GOP leadership has pledged not to do.

Clean Power Plan necessary to meet international climate targets.
Fulton 16 Bydeirdre "Nothing Less Than Fate of Planet Hinges on Next Supreme Court Nominee", 2-18-2016, Common Dreams, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/17/nothing-less-fate-planet-hinges-next-supreme-court-nominee, DOA: 2-18-2016
As Washington, D.C. gears up for a Supreme Court showdown, experts this week are predicting that the person chosen to fill Justice Antonin Scalia's seat on the high court bench will have a huge impact on the fate of the planet.
Common Dreams previously reported that several high-profile cases hang in the balance in the wake of Scalia's death. But perhaps none will be as closely watched as the case that pits fossil fuel giants and Republicans against environmentalists and the Obama administration.
"In dying," science journalist John Upton wrote on Sunday, "Scalia may have done more to support global climate action than most people will do in their lifetimes."
That's because, as Upton explained in a separate piece, Scalia's death "means it is now more likely that key EPA rules that aim to curb climate pollution from the power industry will be upheld."
And those rules—namely the Clean Power Plan (CPP), which aims to reduce carbon pollution from power plants—are necessary for the United States to deliver on the promises made at the COP21 climate summit in Paris in December. Without the CPP, Upton argued, "the U.S. would be left without a credible plan for fulfilling its pledge to reduce its climate pollution by a little more than a quarter in 2025 compared with 2005 levels."
One of Scalia's final acts as a Supreme Court justice was to vote in favor of an unprecedented stay on the CPP until it has been reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with arguments set for June 2.
The D.C. Circuit is likely to issue a decision on the Clean Power Plan this fall, which would put the rule back in front of the Supreme Court in spring 2017.
"What happens then will depend on whether the court's now vacant ninth seat has been filled and, if so, by whom," Jack Lienke, a lawyer with the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, wrote on Tuesday. "But in most of the possible scenarios, the EPA faces considerably better odds than it did with Scalia on the bench."
There's something in the air...
If a new justice is confirmed before President Barack Obama leaves office, "it does seem fair to assume that an Obama appointee will be more likely to join with the four liberals to uphold the Clean Power Plan than to vote with the four remaining conservatives to strike it down," Lienke said. The shakiest scenario would be if Obama's successor were to get Scalia's replacement through the Senate in time to weigh in on the CPP. That would be good news for environmentalists if the next president is a Democrat. But even if a Republican wins in November and gets a conservative nominee onto the bench, "the EPA would be no worse off than it was in the immediate aftermath of the stay," Lienke continued. "The court would once again be made up of five conservatives and four liberals, and EPA's best bet would once again be to convince Kennedy or Roberts to break ranks." Or, Lienke concluded: Finally, it's possible that Scalia's seat will still be vacant when the Clean Power Plan reaches the Supreme Court. In that scenario, the most likely result is an even split between the four liberals and four remaining conservatives. And a 4-4 vote results in an automatic affirmance of the decision below, which, in this case, would be the DC Circuit's. Of course, the DC Circuit hasn't made its decision yet, and we can't know for sure what it will be. But the panel of judges assigned to the case is generally viewed as favorable to the EPA, because two of the three were appointed by Democrats—one by President Clinton and the other by Obama himself. Furthermore, the New York Times wrote on Tuesday, "If the Senate were to confirm whomever President Obama nominates to succeed Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative justices on the bench, the Supreme Court would probably become more sensitive to the imperative to combat climate change. That’s not just good news for the Clean Power Plan. It could open the door to more aggressive policies." Given these stakes, it's not surprising that green groups are applying heavy scrutiny to potential nominees, such as federal appellate court judge Sri Srinivasan, who has emerged at the front of the pack of possible Scalia replacements.  The 48-year-old Indian-American has an "inspiring biography," Politico reports on Wednesday. But, reporter Elana Schor continues, "his history of representing large corporations runs the risk of alienating Obama allies looking to gauge his still-developing record on key liberal priorities." Srinivasan's work on cases "in which he defended ExxonMobil and the mining company Rio Tinto have raised particular objections from environmentalists," Politico writes. "He also represented that enduring symbol of corporate excess, former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, in the appeal of the executive’s fraud and conspiracy convictions." Jamie Henn, of 350.org, told Politico that Srinivasan's work for Exxon was a "deeply disturbing" aspect of a "mixed" resume. Jane Kleeb, of Bold Nebraska, put it more starkly. "Any judge that sides with Big Oil over the American people has no place on our Supreme Court," she said in an email to the publication. Still, as Todd Aagaard, vice dean and professor at Villanova University School of Law, told Environment and Energy Publishing, "While all of the nominees would give environmental advocates a fair shot, I doubt any of them would automatically incline to favor the 'pro-environmental' side in a case." Yet "if you look closely at Scalia’s legacy on climate change, it’s hard to picture his replacement (even a Republican appointee!) harboring a more willful disregard for science," Eric Holthaus, a meteorologist and staff writer at Slate, wrote on Monday. "Climate activists, who are increasingly a major part of the electorate, now have a big boost to push for bolder promises from Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders," Holthaus continued. "Backed by a Supreme Court that would presumably place greater value on the planet’s health, there’s nowhere to go but full-speed ahead in the race to reduce humanity’s carbon footprint."

Global warming definitively causes extinction
Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, “Climate Change and Implications for National Security,” International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/, Accessed 7/11/16)
Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was to be reflected on a single one-year calendar then the dinosaurs died off sometime late in the afternoon of December 27th and modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, or at around lunchtime on December 28th. Therefore, human life on earth is very recent. Sometime on December 28th humans made the first fires – wood fires – neutral in the carbon balance. Now reflect on those most recent 200,000 years again on a single one-year calendar and you might be surprised to learn that the industrial revolution began only a few hours ago during the middle of the afternoon on December 31st, 250 years ago, coinciding with the discovery of underground carbon fuels. Over the 250 years carbon fuels have enabled tremendous technological advances including a population growth from about 800 million then to 7.5 billion today and the consequent demand to extract even more carbon. This has occurred during a handful of generations, which is hardly noticeable on our imaginary one-year calendar. The release of this carbon – however – is changing our climate at such a rapid rate that it threatens our survival and presence on earth. It defies imagination that so much damage has been done in such a relatively short time. The implications of climate change is the single most significant threat to life on earth and, put simply, we are not doing enough to rectify the damage. This relatively very recent ability to change our climate is an inconvenient truth; the science is sound. We know of the complex set of interrelated national and global security risks that are a result of global warming and the velocity at which climate change is occurring. We worry it may already be too late. Climate change writ large has informed few, interested some, confused many, and polarized politics. It has already led to an increase in natural disasters including but not limited to droughts, storms, floods, fires etc. The year 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to an American Meteorological Society (AMS) report. Research suggests that climate change is already affecting human displacement; reportedly 36 million people were displaced in 2008 alone because of sudden natural disasters. Figures for 2010 and 2011 paint a grimmer picture of people displaced because of rising sea levels, heat and storms. Climate change affects all natural systems. It impacts temperature and consequently it affects water and weather patterns. It contributes to desertification, deforestation and acidification of the oceans. Changes in weather patterns may mean droughts in one area and floods in another. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, sea levels rise but perennial river water supplies are reduced because glaciers are retreating. As glaciers and polar ice caps melt, there is an albedo effect, which is a double whammy of less temperature regulation because of less surface area of ice present. This means that less absorption occurs and also there is less reflection of the sun’s light. A potentially critical wild card could be runaway climate change due to the release of methane from melting tundra. Worldwide permafrost soils contain about 1,700 Giga Tons of carbon, which is about four times more than all the carbon released through human activity thus far. The planet has already adapted itself to dramatic climate change including a wide range of distinct geologic periods and multiple extinctions, and at a pace that it can be managed. It is human intervention that has accelerated the pace dramatically: An increased surface temperature, coupled with more severe weather and changes in water distribution will create uneven threats to our agricultural systems and will foster and support the spread of insect borne diseases like Malaria, Dengue and the West Nile virus. Rising sea levels will increasingly threaten our coastal population and infrastructure centers and with more than 3.5 billion people – half the planet – depending on the ocean for their primary source of food, ocean acidification may dangerously undercut critical natural food systems which would result in reduced rations. Climate change also carries significant inertia. Even if emissions were completely halted today, temperature increases would continue for some time. Thus the impact is not only to the environment, water, coastal homes, agriculture and fisheries as mentioned, but also would lead to conflict and thus impact national security. Resource wars are inevitable as countries respond, adapt and compete for the shrinking set of those available resources. These wars have arguably already started and will continue in the future because climate change will force countries to act for national survival; the so-called Climate Wars. As early as 2003 Greenpeace alluded to a report which it claimed was commissioned by the Pentagon titled: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security. It painted a picture of a world in turmoil because global warming had accelerated. The scenario outlined was both abrupt and alarming. The report offered recommendations but backed away from declaring climate change an immediate problem, concluding that it would actually be more incremental and measured; as such it would be an irritant, not a shock for national security systems. In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) – Institute of Public Research – convened a board of 11 senior retired generals and admirals to assess National Security and the Threat to Climate Change. Their initial report was published in April 2007 and made no mention of the potential acceleration of climate change. The team found that climate change was a serious threat to national security and that it was: “most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.” The team made recommendations from their analysis of regional impacts which suggested the following. Europe would experience some fracturing because of border migration. Africa would need more stability and humanitarian operations provided by the United States. The Middle East would experience a “loss of food and water security (which) will increase pressure to emigrate across borders.” Asia would suffer from “threats to water and the spread of infectious disease. ” In 2009 the CIA opened a Center on Climate Change and National Security to coordinate across the intelligence community and to focus policy. In May 2014, CNA again convened a Military Advisory Board but this time to assess National Security and the Accelerating Risk of Climate Change. The report concludes that climate change is no longer a future threat but occurring right now and the authors appeal to the security community, the entire government and the American people to not only build resilience against projected climate change impacts but to form agreements to stabilize climate change and also to integrate climate change across all strategy and planning. The calm of the 2007 report is replaced by a tone of anxiety concerning the future coupled with calls for public discourse and debate because “time and tide wait for no man.” The report notes a key distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and agreements (ways to stabilize climate change) and states that: Actions by the United States and the international community have been insufficient to adapt to the challenges associated with projected climate change. Strengthening resilience to climate impacts already locked into the system is critical, but this will reduce long-term risk only if improvements in resilience are accompanied by actionable agreements on ways to stabilize climate change. The 9/11 Report framed the terrorist attacks as less of a failure of intelligence than a failure of imagination. Greenpeace’s 2003 account of the Pentagon’s alleged report describes a coming climate Armageddon which to readers was unimaginable and hence the report was not really taken seriously. It described: A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the U.S. and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. The CNA and Greenpeace/Pentagon reports are both mirrored by similar analysis by the World Bank which highlighted not only the physical manifestations of climate change, but also the significant human impacts that threaten to unravel decades of economic development, which will ultimately foster conflict. Climate change is the quintessential “Tragedy of the Commons,” where the cumulative impact of many individual actions (carbon emission in this case) is not seen as linked to the marginal gains available to each individual action and not seen as cause and effect. It is simultaneously huge, yet amorphous and nearly invisible from day to day. It is occurring very fast in geologic time terms, but in human time it is (was) slow and incremental. Among environmental problems, it is uniquely global. With our planet and culture figuratively and literally honeycombed with a reliance on fossil fuels, we face systemic challenges in changing the reliance across multiple layers of consumption, investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix!

Tournament: Meadows Misc | Round: Quads | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
Nuke power key to avoiding price volatility.  
Spencer 7 (Jack, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, “Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes,” November 15th, 2007, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/competitive-nuclear-energy-investment-avoiding-past-policy-mistakes)
The Effect on Ratepayers The near death of the U.S. nuclear energy industry has harmed both investors and consumers. First, ratepayers eventually pay for the increased costs of generating electricity. More important, by removing nuclear energy from America's energy portfolio, anti-nuclear activists have limited the choices available to America's energy producers and consumers. Limiting choice has two inevitable results: higher prices and lower quality. Without nuclear energy as an option and with coal being frowned upon, utilities started moving toward natural gas power plants. This growing reliance on natural gas has caused electricity prices to follow the volatility of natural gas prices. As demand for natural gas has increased, prices have become even more volatile.

That causes econ decline.
Entine  (Jon; 2/4/2009; Adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “U.S. and Climate Change--Rescue of the Planet Postponed?”, AEI. http://aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.29333/pub_detail.asp)
The correlation between economic growth and energy costs is high and negative; when energy costs go up, productivity takes a nosedive. In these extraordinary times, arguably the top priority must be to ensure that a secular financial downturn doesn't turn into a worldwide structural depression. If that happens, both the economy and the environment will be losers.

Economic collapse causes war.
Harris and Burrows 9 Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf Increased Potential for Global Conflict
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lynbrook YZ | Judge: Adam Torson
Nuclear fusion’s the most promising possibility for space colonization.
Wall, senior writer at Space, 13
Mike Wall, Space, 6-11-2013, "NASA Eyeing Nuclear Fusion Rockets for Future Space Exploration," Space, http://www.space.com/21519-nasa-fusion-rocket-space-exploration.html
Rockets that harness the power of nuclear fusion may provide the next big leap in humanity's quest to explore the final frontier, NASA's science chief says. Nuclear fusion rockets could slash travel times through deep space dramatically, potentially opening up vast swathes of the solar system to human exploration, said John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate. "It's transformative," Grunsfeld said last month after his presentation at Maker Faire Bay Area in San Mateo, Calif., a two-day celebration of DIY science, technology and engineering. "You could get to Saturn in a couple of months. How fantastic would that be?" Superfast Propulsion Concepts (Images) For a little perspective: NASA's robotic Cassini spacecraft blasted off in October 1997 and didn't enter Saturn orbit until July 2004. Speeding things up Traditional chemical propulsion systems can get humans to destinations in deep space, but with a lot of travel time. For example, a roundtrip manned mission to the vicinity of Mars, which NASA aims to execute by the mid-2030s, would require about 500 days of spaceflight. Speeding up the trip to Mars, or anywhere else, is desirable for a number of reasons — to minimize the radiation dose astronauts receive during the journey, for example, and to save money on consumables such as food and water. So NASA and researchers around the world have been investigating advanced propulsion technologies, including space-bending "warp drives," enormous solar sails and matter-antimatter engines. Nuclear fusion is perhaps the most promising of these possibilities,

Colonizing space is the only hope for survival-it’s try or die
Matheny, 2011 (Pending) (Jason Gaverick, research associate with the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, “Ought we worry about human extinction?”, http://jgmatheny.org/extinctionethics.htm)
Animal life has existed on Earth for around 500 million years. Barring a dramatic intervention, all animal life on Earth will die in the next several billion years. Earth is located in a field of thousands of asteroids and comets. 65 million years ago, an asteroid 10 kilometers in size hit the Yucatan , creating clouds of dust and smoke that blocked sunlight for months, probably causing the extinction of 90 of animals, including dinosaurs. A 100 km impact, capable of extinguishing all animal life on Earth, is probable within a billion years (Morrison et al., 2002). If an asteroid does not extinguish all animal life, the Sun will. In one billion years, the Sun will begin its Red Giant stage, increasing in size and temperature. Within six billion years, the Sun will have evaporated all of Earth’s water, and terrestrial temperatures will reach 1000 degrees -- much too hot for amino acid-based life to persist. If, somehow, life were to survive these changes, it will die in 7 billion years when the Sun forms a planetary nebula that irradiates Earth (Sackmann, Boothroyd, Kraemer, 1993; Ward and Brownlee, 2002). Earth is a dangerous place and animal life here has dim prospects. If there are 10^12 sentient animals on Earth, only 10^21 life-years remain. The only hope for terrestrial sentience surviving well beyond this limit is that some force will deflect large asteroids before they collide with Earth, giving sentients another billion or more years of life (Gritzner and Kahle, 2004); and/or terrestrial sentients will colonize other solar systems, giving sentients up to another 100 trillion years of life until all stars begin to stop shining

 (Adams and Laughlin, 1997). Life might survive even longer if it exploits non-stellar energy sources. But it is hard to imagine how life could survive beyond the decay of nuclear matter expected in 1032 to 1041 years (Adams and Laughlin, 1997). This may be the upper limit on the future of sentience.4 Deflecting asteroids and colonizing space could delay the extinction of Earth-originating sentience from 10^9 to 10^41 years. Assuming an average population of one trillion sentients is maintained (which is a conservative assumption under colonization5), these interventions would create between 10^21 and 10^53 life-years. At present on Earth, only a human civilization would be remotely capable of carrying out such projects. If humanity survives the next few centuries, it’s likely we will develop technologies needed for at least one of these projects. We may already possess the technologies needed to deflect asteroids (Gritzner and Kahle, 2004; Urias et al., 1996). And in the next few centuries, we’re likely to develop technologies that allow colonization. We will be strongly motivated by self-interest to colonize space, as asteroids and planets have valuable resources to mine, and as our survival ultimately requires relocating to another solar system (Kargel, 1994; Lewis, 1996).

Tournament: Greenhill RR Misc | Round: 9 | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
Text: The 50 United States and Washington D.C. should prohibit the production of nuclear power.
Nuclear power is traditionally part of states' authority
Garvey 11 Todd Garvey (legislative lawyer), "State Authority to Regulate Nuclear Power: Federal Preemption Under the Atomic Energy Act," Congressional Research Service, 9/6/2011
Under the Court’s existing jurisprudence, it is clear that a state may, based on a non-safety rationale, prohibit the construction of a new nuclear power plant pursuant to an “initial decision regarding the need for power.”133 Indeed, the Court has made clear that “Congress has left sufficient authority in the States to allow the development of nuclear power to be slowed or even stopped for economic reasons.”134 Additionally, the Court has cited a NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board holding that “even in the face of the issuance of a NRC construction permit” states “retain the right” to preclude construction.135 Thus, it seems likely that a decision by the NRC to approve the construction of a specific plant does not necessarily mean that the plant will be built if the state determines that it is not economically prudent to do so.136 It is an open question as to whether these established principles also apply in the “operation” context, in addition to the “construction” context. However, it could be argued that given the Court’s repeated union of “construction and operation,” if a state may preclude construction of a plant in the face of a NRC approved construction license, the state may also preclude the operation of the plant in the face of a NRC approved operating license. Additionally, the Court has established that the AEA reserves to the states the authority to regulate nuclear plants on the basis of a “need” for power. In practice, this principle has been applied with respect to a state threshold determination as to whether more nuclear electrical generation is needed. However, it seems logical to suggest that if a state has the authority to determine whether more power is needed, it would also have the authority to determine whether less electrical generation is needed. Such an interpretation would require that states have the authority to shut down existing power plants where the state determines that current power generation is excessive. Moreover, if courts were to adopt the Entergy position, once a state permitted the construction of a nuclear power plant, it would be unable to reassess that determination in the face of changing power needs. Thus, the state would be potentially bound by its initial decision to permit the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant. For example, if a state had a valid nonsafety rationale for seeking to terminate the operation of a plant, Entergy’s interpretation of the AEA’s preemptive effects may prevent that state from ceasing operation of the nuclear plant as long as the NRC renews the plant’s license. Vermont argues that the NRC has recognized that the states have the final word in determining whether a federally licensed plant continues to operate. For example, in discussing its newly adopted regulations governing license renewal, the NRC noted that “after the NRC makes its decision based on the safety and environmental considerations, the final decision on whether or not to continue operating the nuclear plant will be made by the utility, State, and Federal (nonNRC) decisionmakers.”137 While the identified sources may suggest this position, it does not seem that any statute, regulation, or other binding authority exists to confirm the NRC’s understanding that the states retain the ultimate decision as to whether a licensed nuclear power plant continues to operate. Additionally, it is congressional intent, rather than the position of the NRC, that is essential in determining the division of authority under the AEA. The outcome of the Vermont Yankee case will likely have a lasting impact on state authority to regulate and terminate the operation of existing nuclear power plants. Prior case law suggests that the question of whether the Vermont General Assembly enacted Acts 74, 160, and 189 for the purposes of regulating radiological safety will likely be critical to the court’s holding. If the court determines that the laws were not grounded in safety concerns and are not otherwise preempted, the case could stand as an expansion of state regulatory authority over nuclear power. To the contrary, if the court finds that the Vermont laws intrude on federal authority and are preempted, the case would highlight states’ limited authority over licensed and operating nuclear power plants.

Tournament: Loyola Misc | Round: 9 | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
The standard is maximizing expected wellbeing.

1. No act omission distinction for states since their implicit approvals of actions still entail moral responsibility
   Sunstein  05
   Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. The University of Chicago Law School. “Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs.” JOHN M. OLIN LAW and ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 239. The Chicago Working Paper Series. March 2005 AJ
   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.
   2. Ethical uncertainty means we should prevent existential risk to ensure the future has value regardless of true moral theory. It’s an epistemic prerequisite
   Bostrom 11 Nick Bostrom. “Existential Risk Prevention As the Most Important Task for Humanity”, 2011, Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford
   These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential risk; they also suggest a new way of thinking about the ideal of sustainability. Let me elaborate.¶ Our present understanding of axiology might well be confused. We may not now know — at least not in concrete detail — what outcomes would count as a big win for humanity; we might not even yet be able to imagine the best ends of our journey. If we are indeed profoundly uncertain about our ultimate aims, then we should recognize that there is a great option value in preserving — and ideally improving — our ability to recognize value and to steer the future accordingly. Ensuring that there will be a future version of humanity with great powers and a propensity to use them wisely is plausibly the best way available to us to increase the probability that the future will contain value.
   Extinction is the worst harm to health and wellbeing, both of which are impacts in the AC.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Polytechnic JL | Judge: Joseph Barquin, Fred Ditzian, Nick Steele
Carbon Link—Nuclear Power key to Prevent Warming
Magill 15 Bobby;  Senior Science Writer for Climate Central; Scientific American; 1/30/2015; “Nuclear Power Needs to Double to Curb Global Warming”; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-needs-to-double-to-curb-global-warming/; JLB (8/8/2016)
The International Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency suggest in a report released Thursday that nuclear will have such a significant role to play in climate strategy that nuclear power generation capacity will have to double by 2050 in order for the world to meet the international 2°C (3.6°F) warming goal.
With fossil fuels growing as sources of electricity across the globe, the IEA sees nuclear power as a stable source of low-carbon power helping to take polluting coal-fired plants offline.
To accomplish the needed CO2 emissions cuts to keep warming no greater than 2°C, the IEA says global nuclear power generation capacity needs to increase to 930 gigawatts from 396 gigawatts by 2050. With nearly 100 nuclear reactors, the U.S. has more nuclear power plants than any other country, representing 105 gigawatts of production. France, Japan, Russia and China round out the top five countries using nuclear power.
Globally, nuclear energy is already making a comeback with 72 nuclear reactors now under construction worldwide, mainly in Asia.
“This marked the greatest number of reactors being built in 25 years,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said in a statement. “Nuclear energy also remains the second-largest source of low-carbon electricity worldwide. And, indeed, if we are to meet our collective climate goals, nuclear energy is critical.”
All forms of low-carbon energy must be employed to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, she said.
That conclusion is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s findings last year that global carbon dioxide emissions need to be capped at 450 parts per million in order to prevent warming greater than 2°C, Robert N. Stavins, director of the Project on Climate Agreements at Harvard University and a drafting author of the IPCC’s Working Group III Report, said.
“It is virtually inconceivable that the 2 degree or 450 parts per million target as a cap can be achieved in this century without a variety of factors, among which are substantially greater reliance on nuclear power than current trajectories would suggest,” Stavins, who is unaffiliated with the IEA’s report, said.
Charles Kolstad, professor of economic policy research at Stanford University, suggested the IEA’s conclusions may be too strident.
“Nuclear is not necessary to meet any target except the most stringent,” he said. “The IPCC relies heavily on CCS (carbon capture and storage). Nuclear would certainly help, though.”
That’s because global power demand is growing and nuclear is a good alternative to coal, the main source of power in parts of the world where cheap natural gas is unavailable to replace coal, he said.
The IEA said nuclear reactor safety issues raised by Fukushima can be addressed by strong regulations, independent regulators, a culture of safety surrounding nuclear plants and the development of new safety technology, the report says.
Shift Link—Japan proves; nuclear substitutes will increase emissions.
Korosec 11
KIRSTEN KOROSEC, Fortune journalism, “Germany's Nuclear Ban: The Global Effect” Money Watch, May 31, 2011, 4:28 PM http://www.cbsnews.com/news/germanys-nuclear-ban-the-global-effect/ Bob
Japan also has ditched plans to build 14 more reactors. The power capacity lost by retiring old plants and canceling the 14 new ones would be about 399 billion kilowatt-hours by 2030, according to the Breakthrough Institute. To replace that lost generation would require a nearly 49-fold increase in electricity generated by wind, solar and geothermal. The impact: Japan is left with imported coal, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and renewable energy for its power needs. But in all likelihood Japan will rely primarily on imported coal and LNG, two options that will increase emissions. Renewable energy will ramp up, but the obstacles are too numerous to allow it to completely replace the lost nuclear power capacity.
Renewables Link—Renewables need NP to be effective.
Plumer 8/2 Brad; enior editor at Vox.com, previously a reporter at the Washington Post; Vox; “Nuclear power and renewables don’t have to be enemies. New York just showed how.”; 8/2/16; http://www.vox.com/2016/8/2/12345572/new-york-nuclear-wind-solar; JLB (9/11/16)
Consider, if you will, two basic facts about clean energy in the United States. Nuclear power is the country’s largest source of carbon-free energy, supplying about 19 percent of our electricity, but it’s barely growing. Wind and solar are smaller, at about 8 percent, but they’re growing much more rapidly. Put those together, and you get an intuitive blueprint for reducing US carbon dioxide emissions: Protect the nuclear base, and then scale up wind and solar on top of that, displacing fossil fuels as you go. Seems reasonable, no? Yet, oddly enough, many states have struggled with this simple concept. Even as policymakers have stepped up subsidies for renewable energy, they’ve been letting their nuclear plants shut down prematurely — to be replaced by dirtier natural gas. We’ve already seen this in California, Vermont, Wisconsin. And it’s going to keep happening in the years ahead without serious policy changes. These early nuclear retirements are poised to wipe out many of the impressive gains made by renewables. So it’s significant news that, this week, New York state offered a fresh approach to this problem. On Monday, the state’s public service commission approved an extremely aggressive clean energy standard that will require utilities to get 50 percent of their electricity from wind, solar, hydro, and other renewable sources by 2030. But — importantly — New York will also offer subsidies to keep open three large existing nuclear power plants that are suffering economically in this shifting energy landscape and were in danger of shutting down prematurely. This way, the state isn’t just taking one step forward, two steps back, on climate change. (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) The James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant in Scriba, New York, was in danger of closing at the end of the year. It’s a potential template for other states with reactors in danger of closing before the end of their life span. New York’s move contrasts sharply with California, where regulators are mulling a proposal to close the state’s last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, and replace it entirely with renewables and efficiency. It will be interesting to compare the two states in the years ahead and see which approach yields better results. More broadly, New York’s plan offers a model of how renewables and nuclear might work together to fight global warming. This notion has been surprisingly controversial of late, particularly after the Diablo Canyon fight. Eduardo Porter of The New York Times recently wrote a column arguing that the growth of subsidized renewables is hurting nuclear in energy markets — a perverse outcome. Yet as Jesse Jenkins, an energy researcher studying low-carbon electricity systems at MIT, put it to me: “It’s important to unpack this. It’s not renewables killing nuclear. It’s policies that fail to recognize the contributions of both renewables and nuclear. But those policies can change — as they did this week in New York.” Why New York state wants both renewables and nukes Let’s start with a graph of New York’s electricity mix, circa 2014. It’s mostly natural gas, nuclear power, and hydro — with a bit of coal, solar, and wind mixed in: (Nuclear Energy Institute) Under Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the state is trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030 and become a leader on climate change. With the cost of solar and wind falling dramatically, renewables were a natural focus. The state is embarking on a radical plan to revamp utility models to accommodate renewables. Hence the proposal to grow hydro, wind, solar, and biomass from 27 percent today to 50 percent by 2030. That’s a daunting goal, and we’ll see if it’s doable. (You can read a skeptical take here.) At the same time, New York’s other big source of clean energy — nuclear — was in danger. A combination of cheap natural gas from the US fracking boom and stagnating electricity demand has caused nuclear revenues to plummet. As a result, reactors at three upstate plants — Fitzpatrick, Ginna, and Nine Mile — were in danger of shutting down prematurely, squeezed between high fixed costs and declining revenues: (Nuclear Energy Institute) (I’ll get to the fourth plant, Indian Point, below: it’s in better financial shape due to higher revenues from downstate markets, but it’s facing political pressure to close.) One reaction here might be: “Fine, let the dinosaur reactors die. If they can’t compete in the market, who needs ’em?” But as it turns out, the state does need them if it wants to cut emissions. Among other things, New York’s Public Service Commission concluded that wind and solar wouldn’t be able to scale up fast enough to replace the lost reactors. If nuclear vanished, the state would end up burning more natural gas and greenhouse gas emissions would rise. What’s more, replacing the steady baseload power from reactors with intermittent renewables could create reliability problems in upstate regions.

Fear mongering link—Coal Kills 4,000 times more people than nuclear power; focus on NP prohibition ignores the developing world.
Roos 11 Jerome; The Breakthrough Institute (researcher); 4/11/11; "Coal Kills 4,000 Times More People Per Unit of Energy than Nuclear"; http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/coal_kills_4000_times_more_peo; JLB (9/11/16)
When you actually do the math, coal kills somewhere on the order of 4,000 times more people per unit of energy produced than nuclear power. Or to put it another way, outdoor air pollution, caused principally by the combustion of fossil fuels, kills as many people every 29 hours as will eventually die due to radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, according to World Health Organization figures (Source: nuclear; air pollution).¶ Yet since coal-related deaths have a much lower profile than nuclear disasters, and because they largely occur in the conveniently far-away obscurity of the developing world, they tend to be severely underreported by the mainstream media in the West. ¶ So while all eyes turned to Fukushima, the grinding, every-day death and illness caused by the air pollution, toxic contamination, and mercury poisoning leaching from the world's coal plants and oil refineries and the tailpipes of roughly a billion cars and trucks continued unabated -- and continued to go largely unmentioned.¶ For some reason, as the formerly anti-nuclear environmentalist George Monbiot has argued, greens seem to care a great deal about scientific consensus when it's about climate change, but when it comes to nuclear energy far too many are very willing to dismiss factual evidence and spread dishonest information. The reality we will have to deal with is that fossil fuels, and coal in particular, kill many times more people than nuclear.

Global warming definitively causes extinction
Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, “Climate Change and Implications for National Security,” International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/, Accessed 7/11/16, HWilson)
Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was to be reflected on a single one-year calendar then the dinosaurs died off sometime late in the afternoon of December 27th and modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, or at around lunchtime on December 28th. Therefore, human life on earth is very recent. Sometime on December 28th humans made the first fires – wood fires – neutral in the carbon balance. Now reflect on those most recent 200,000 years again on a single one-year calendar and you might be surprised to learn that the industrial revolution began only a few hours ago during the middle of the afternoon on December 31st, 250 years ago, coinciding with the discovery of underground carbon fuels. Over the 250 years carbon fuels have enabled tremendous technological advances including a population growth from about 800 million then to 7.5 billion today and the consequent demand to extract even more carbon. This has occurred during a handful of generations, which is hardly noticeable on our imaginary one-year calendar. The release of this carbon – however – is changing our climate at such a rapid rate that it threatens our survival and presence on earth. It defies imagination that so much damage has been done in such a relatively short time. The implications of climate change is the single most significant threat to life on earth and, put simply, we are not doing enough to rectify the damage. This relatively very recent ability to change our climate is an inconvenient truth; the science is sound. We know of the complex set of interrelated national and global security risks that are a result of global warming and the velocity at which climate change is occurring. We worry it may already be too late. Climate change writ large has informed few, interested some, confused many, and polarized politics. It has already led to an increase in natural disasters including but not limited to droughts, storms, floods, fires etc. The year 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to an American Meteorological Society (AMS) report. Research suggests that climate change is already affecting human displacement; reportedly 36 million people were displaced in 2008 alone because of sudden natural disasters. Figures for 2010 and 2011 paint a grimmer picture of people displaced because of rising sea levels, heat and storms. Climate change affects all natural systems. It impacts temperature and consequently it affects water and weather patterns. It contributes to desertification, deforestation and acidification of the oceans. Changes in weather patterns may mean droughts in one area and floods in another. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, sea levels rise but perennial river water supplies are reduced because glaciers are retreating. As glaciers and polar ice caps melt, there is an albedo effect, which is a double whammy of less temperature regulation because of less surface area of ice present. This means that less absorption occurs and also there is less reflection of the sun’s light. A potentially critical wild card could be runaway climate change due to the release of methane from melting tundra. Worldwide permafrost soils contain about 1,700 Giga Tons of carbon, which is about four times more than all the carbon released through human activity thus far. The planet has already adapted itself to dramatic climate change including a wide range of distinct geologic periods and multiple extinctions, and at a pace that it can be managed. It is human intervention that has accelerated the pace dramatically: An increased surface temperature, coupled with more severe weather and changes in water distribution will create uneven threats to our agricultural systems and will foster and support the spread of insect borne diseases like Malaria, Dengue and the West Nile virus. Rising sea levels will increasingly threaten our coastal population and infrastructure centers and with more than 3.5 billion people – half the planet – depending on the ocean for their primary source of food, ocean acidification may dangerously undercut critical natural food systems which would result in reduced rations. Climate change also carries significant inertia. Even if emissions were completely halted today, temperature increases would continue for some time. Thus the impact is not only to the environment, water, coastal homes, agriculture and fisheries as mentioned, but also would lead to conflict and thus impact national security. Resource wars are inevitable as countries respond, adapt and compete for the shrinking set of those available resources. These wars have arguably already started and will continue in the future because climate change will force countries to act for national survival; the so-called Climate Wars. As early as 2003 Greenpeace alluded to a report which it claimed was commissioned by the Pentagon titled: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security. It painted a picture of a world in turmoil because global warming had accelerated. The scenario outlined was both abrupt and alarming. The report offered recommendations but backed away from declaring climate change an immediate problem, concluding that it would actually be more incremental and measured; as such it would be an irritant, not a shock for national security systems. In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) – Institute of Public Research – convened a board of 11 senior retired generals and admirals to assess National Security and the Threat to Climate Change. Their initial report was published in April 2007 and made no mention of the potential acceleration of climate change. The team found that climate change was a serious threat to national security and that it was: “most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.” The team made recommendations from their analysis of regional impacts which suggested the following. Europe would experience some fracturing because of border migration. Africa would need more stability and humanitarian operations provided by the United States. The Middle East would experience a “loss of food and water security (which) will increase pressure to emigrate across borders.” Asia would suffer from “threats to water and the spread of infectious disease. ” In 2009 the CIA opened a Center on Climate Change and National Security to coordinate across the intelligence community and to focus policy. In May 2014, CNA again convened a Military Advisory Board but this time to assess National Security and the Accelerating Risk of Climate Change. The report concludes that climate change is no longer a future threat but occurring right now and the authors appeal to the security community, the entire government and the American people to not only build resilience against projected climate change impacts but to form agreements to stabilize climate change and also to integrate climate change across all strategy and planning. The calm of the 2007 report is replaced by a tone of anxiety concerning the future coupled with calls for public discourse and debate because “time and tide wait for no man.” The report notes a key distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and agreements (ways to stabilize climate change) and states that: Actions by the United States and the international community have been insufficient to adapt to the challenges associated with projected climate change. Strengthening resilience to climate impacts already locked into the system is critical, but this will reduce long-term risk only if improvements in resilience are accompanied by actionable agreements on ways to stabilize climate change. The 9/11 Report framed the terrorist attacks as less of a failure of intelligence than a failure of imagination. Greenpeace’s 2003 account of the Pentagon’s alleged report describes a coming climate Armageddon which to readers was unimaginable and hence the report was not really taken seriously. It described: A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the U.S. and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. The CNA and Greenpeace/Pentagon reports are both mirrored by similar analysis by the World Bank which highlighted not only the physical manifestations of climate change, but also the significant human impacts that threaten to unravel decades of economic development, which will ultimately foster conflict. Climate change is the quintessential “Tragedy of the Commons,” where the cumulative impact of many individual actions (carbon emission in this case) is not seen as linked to the marginal gains available to each individual action and not seen as cause and effect. It is simultaneously huge, yet amorphous and nearly invisible from day to day. It is occurring very fast in geologic time terms, but in human time it is (was) slow and incremental. Among environmental problems, it is uniquely global. With our planet and culture figuratively and literally honeycombed with a reliance on fossil fuels, we face systemic challenges in changing the reliance across multiple layers of consumption, investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix!

Tournament: Greenhill Misc | Round: 9 | Opponent: Misc | Judge: Misc
Plan flaw - The use of the word will in the plan allows uncertainty of the time of implementation and of implementation of the aff itself.
Bishop 11
Keith R. Bishop - California Commissioner of Corporations and Interim Savings and Loan Commissioner, currently partner at Allen Matkins’ Corporate Law Group: “When Shall/Will/Must/May We Meet Again?” California Corporate Law 11/29/11; http://calcorporatelaw.com/2011/11/when-shallwillmustmay-we-meet-again/
Lawyers are very fond of using the word “shall” in articles of incorporation, bylaws and agreements.  Using “shall” instead of “will” seems to add a certain level of formality (or perhaps pretension).  It may also be intended to convey the meaning that something must happen and not simply that it may happen in the future.
Indeed, there is an etymological basis for a distinction between “shall” and “will”.  Both are Old English words: “shall” is derived from sceal meaning to owe while “will” is derived from from “willan” meaning to desire or wish.

Small mistakes have huge legislative consequences-turns case.
Heath 06 Brad, USA Today, 11-21-06, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-20-typo-problems_x.htm
In the legislative world, such small errors, while uncommon, can carry expensive consequences. In a few cases around the nation this year, typos and other blunders have redirected millions of tax dollars or threatened to invalidate new laws.