2ac generics

Upload: xxljesselxx

Post on 24-Feb-2018

241 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    1/50

    CPs

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    2/50

    Word PICS1. PICS Bad

    1. Fairness- usurps the 1AC in the 10 seconds it takes to read the CP text.2. Infinite Regression and Unpredictabe- there are hundreds of PIC! based on t"pes of peope#

    $ords# and pan panks that the %eg can pick out of# &eaning the Aff can ne'er be prepared.

    (. )ncourages 'ague pan $riting to a'oid PIC!# $hich kis %egati'e ground and ao$s the Aff to

    spike out of negati'e argu&ents.

    *. Counter-Interpretation- negati'es get a CP+s that aren+t PIC! and can run the %et ,enefit as a

    is-Ad- this so'es a fairness cai&s# and is net beneficia $ith a of our standards# incuding

    education because the negati'e strateg" $oud re'o'e around the Ad'antage CP and the %et

    benefit to the CP.

    . /oter for Fairness

    2. Turn- Critiques of speech produces a reactionary politics in

    which change is focused on language directly trading o witheorts to refor! the socioecono!ic root causes of in"ustice,ro$n 01

    (Wendy, Professor Political Science UC Berkeley, Politics Out of History, pg. 353!"

    #!peech codes ki critiue,$ Henry %ouis &ates re'arked in a ))3 essay on *ate speec*. + lt*oug*

    &ates -as referring to -*at *appens -*en hate speech reguations# and the debates about the usurp

    t*e discursi'e space in $hich one &ight ha'e offered a substanti'e politi cal response to bigotedepithets, *is point also applies to pro*iitions against /uestioning fro' -it*in selected political practices

    or institutions. But turning poitica uestions into &oraistic onesas speech codes of an" sort do

    not on" prohibits certain uestions and &an dates certain genufections# it aso expresses a

    profound hostiit" to $ard poitica ife insofar as it seeks to pree&pt argu&ent $ith a egis ated and

    enforced truth. And the reaiation of that patent" unde&ocratic desire can on" and a$a"s

    con'ert e&ancipator" aspirations into reactionar" ones. 0ndeed, it insulates t*ose aspirations fro'/uestioning at t*e 1ery 'o'ent t*at Weerian forces of rationali2ation and ureaucrati2ation are /uite

    likely to e do'esticating t*e' fro' anot*er direction. 3ere $e greet a persistent poitica para dox4

    the &oraistic defense of critica practices# or of an" besieged identit"# $eakens $hat it stri'es to

    fortif" precise" b" seuestering those practices fro& the kind of critica inuir" out of $hich the"

    $ere born. *us &ates 'ig*t *a1e said, #!peech codes# born of socia critiue# ki critiue.$ nd, -e

    'ig*t add, conte&porar" identit"-based institutions# born of socia critiue# in'ariab" beco&e

    conser'a ti'e as the" are forced to essentiaie the identit" and naturaie the boundaries of $hat

    the" once grasped as a contingent effect of histori ca" specific socia po$ers. But &oraistic

    reproaches to certain kinds of speech or argu&ent ki critiue not on" b" dispacing it $ith

    argu&ents about abstract rights 'ersus identit"-bound in5uries# but aso b" configuring poitica

    in5ustice and poitica righteousness as a probe& of re&arks# attitude# and speech rather than as a

    &atter of historica# poitica-econo&ic# and cutura for&ations of po$er. Rather than offeringana"tica" substanti'e accounts of the forces of in5ustice or in5ur"# the" conde&n the

    &anifestation of these forces in particuar re&arks or e'ents. 6here is# in the incination to ban

    (for'ally or infor'ally" certain utterances and to &andate others# a poitics of rhetoric and gesture

    that itsef s"&pto&ies despair o'er effecting change at &ore significant e'es. As 'ast uantities of

    eft and ibera attention go to deter&ining $hat socia" &arked indi'iduas sa"# ho$ the" are

    represented# and ho$ &an" of each kind appear in certain institutions or are appointed to 'arious

    co&&issions# the sources that generate racis po'ert"# 'io ence against $o&en# and other ee&ents

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    3/50

    of socia in5ustice re&ain reati'e" unarticuated and unaddressed.7e are ost as ho$ to ad dress

    those sources8 but rather than exa&ine this oss or disorienta tion# rather than bear the hu&iiation

    of our i&potence# $e posture as if $e $ere sti fighting theig and good fight in our ca&or o'er

    $ords and na&es .4ont 'ourn, 'orali2e.

    #. Per!- do $oth

    %. Turn- Punishing oensi&e language worsens the eects ofthat languageRoskoski and Peabod" 91

    (6att*e- and 7oe, # %inguistic and P*ilosop*ical Criti/ue of %anguage 8rgu'ents,$ )),

    *ttp9::deate.u1'.edu:%irary:4eate*eory%irary:;oskoski"

    If anguage :argu&ents: beco&e a do&inant trend# debaters $i not change their attitudes . Rather

    the" $i &anifest their attitudes in non-debate contexts. Under t*ese conditions, t*e deaters -ill not

    *a1e t*e 'oderating effects of t*e critic or t*e ot*er deaters. !i&p" put# sexis& at ho&e or at unch is

    $orse than sexis& in a debate round because in the round there is a critic to pro'ide negati'e

    though not puniti'e feedback. 6he pubiciation effects of censorship are $e kno$n.:Ps"choogica studies re'ea that $hene'er the go'ern&ent atte&pts to censor speech# the

    censored speech - for that 'er" reason - beco&es &ore appeaing to &an" peope? (Strossen 55)".

    *ese studies -ould suggest t*at anguage $hich is critiued b" anguage :argu&ents: beco&es

    &ore attracti'e si&p" because of the critiue. 3ence anguage :argu&ents: are

    counterproducti'e . Conclusion ;odney S'olla offered t*e follo-ing insig*tful assess'ent of t*e

    interaction et-een offensi1e language and language ?argu'ents?9 6he batte against ;offensi'e speech=+"

    *at -ords -ound see's incontestaly true, and t*at *ateful, racist, 'isogynist, *o'op*oic speec*

    s*ould e 1e*e'ently countered see's incontro1ertily rig*t. But does understanding fro& $here

    speech deri'es its po$er to $ound ater our conception of $hat it &ight &ean to counter that

    $ounding po$erB o $e accept the notion that in5urious speech is attributabe to a singuar sub5ectand actB If $e accept such a 5uridica constraint on thought t*e gra''atical re/uire'ents of

    accountaility as a point of departure, $hat is ost fro& the poitica ana"sis of in5ur" $hen the

    discourse of poitics beco&es fu" reduced to 5uridica reuire&entsBB Indeed# $hen poitica

    discourse is coapsed into 5uridica discourse# the &eaning of poitica opposition runs the risk of

    being reduced to the act of prosecution. Ho- is t*e analysis of t*e discursi1e *istoricity of po-er

    un-ittingly restricted -*en t*e suect is presu'ed as t*e point of departure for suc* an analysisI

    clearly t*eological construction, the postuation of the sub5ect as the causa origin of the perfor&ati'e

    act is understood to generate that $hich it na&es@ indeed, t*is di1inely e'po-ered suect is one for

    -*o' t*e na'e itself is generati1e.

    /. Censorship turns the 0 $loc)ing the freedo! of speech willonly guarantee the do!ination of current pre&ailing discursi&epractices.7ard# 90( 4a1id M. P*.4. Professor of P*ilosop*y at Widener Uni1ersity in Pennsyl1ania. #%irary rends$ P*ilosop*ical 0ssues in Censors*ip and0ntellectual Jreedo', Molu'e 3), Eos < >. Su''er:Jall ))=. Pages GFG!" 6H

    Second, e1en if t*e opinion so'e -is* to censor is largely false, it 'ay contain so'e portion of trut*, a portion denied us if -e suppress t*e speec* -*ic* contains it .

    *e t*ird reason for allo-ing free epression is t*at any opinion #*o-e1er true it 'ay e, if it is not fully,

    fre/uently, and fearlessly discussed, ... -ill e *eld as a dead dog'a, not a li1ing trut*$ (6ill, )5, p. >F".6erely elie1ing t*e trut* is notenoug*, 6ill points out, for e1en a true opinion *eld -it*out full and ric* understanding of its ustification is #a preudice, a elief independent of, and proof against,

    argu'entt*is is not t*e -ay in -*ic* trut* oug*t to e *eld y a rational eing. *is is not kno-ing t*e trut*. rut*, t*us *eld, is ut

    one superstition t*e 'ore, accidentally clinging to t*e -ords -*ic* enunciate a trut*$ (p. >!".Jourt*, t*e'eaning of a doctrine *eld -it*out t*e understanding -*ic* arises in t*e 1igorous deate of its trut*, #-ill e in danger of eing lost, or enfeeled, and depri1ed of its

    1ital effect on t*e c*aracter and conduct t*e dog'a eco'ing a 'ere for'al profession, inefficacious for good, ut cu'ering t*e ground, and pre1enting t*e gro-t*

    of any real and *eartfelt con1iction, fro' reason or personal eperience$ (p. +)". Censors*ip, t*en, is undesirale according to 6illecause, -*et*er t*e ideas censored are true or not, t*e conse/uences of suppression are ad. Censors*ip is-rong ecause it 'akes it less likely t*at trut* -ill e disco1ered or preser1ed, and it is -rong ecause it *as destructi1e conse/uences for t*e intellectual c*aracter of

    t*ose -*o li1e under it. 4eontological argu'ents in fa1or of freedo' of epression, and of intellectual freedo' in

    general, are ased on clai's t*at people are entitled to freely epress t*eir t*oug*ts, and to recei1e t*e epressions

    'ade y ot*ers, /uite independently of -*et*er t*e effects of t*at speec* are desirale or not. *ese entitle'ents take t*e for' of rig*ts ,

    rig*ts to ot* free epression and access to t*e epressions of ot*ers .

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    6/50

    3 CP

    1. Per! 4o the Plan and ha&e the e5ecuti&e pass ane5ecuti&e order for i!ple!entationPer& so'enc" a actors act

    A&os# !cience reporter for ,,C %e$s# 2010

    (7onat*an 'os, *ttp9::ne-s.c.co.uk:>:*i:science:nature:G+F!+!>.st',7anuary >==, as"

    A4S striu' says t*e satellite syste' -ould collect t*e SunDs energy and trans'it it to Aart* 1ia an infrared laser, to

    pro1ide electricity.

    Space solar po-er *as een talked aout for 'ore t*an 3= years . Ho-e1er, t*ere *a1e al-ays een /uestion 'arkso1er its cost, efficiency and safety.

    But striu' elie1es t*e tec*nology is close topro1ing its 'aturity .

    ?oday -e are not at an operational stage@ itDs ust a test,? said c*ief eecuti1e officer Jrancois u/ue. ?0n order to i'ple'ent a solution,

    of course, -e -ould need to find partners*ips and to in1est, to de1elop operational syste's,? *e told BBC Ee-s.

    *ose partners*ips could co'prise space agencies, t*e AU or national go1ern'ents and e1en po-erco'panies, *esaid.

    2. 6o sol&ency and case is a 47 to the CP8 The e5ecuti&e$ranch can9t sol&e the case-only Congress can pro&ide the

    needed funds and o&ersight !eans that they can9t sol&e oildependence or the econo!y.

    Dueni 200*(7effrey, Congressional ;esearc* Ser1ice Policy Papers, ;e/uired for linguists in go1ern'ent agencies, Octoer G, >k+, ---.leis.co'"

    o a large etent finding language /ualified personnel for go1ern'ent agencies is a responsiility of t*e

    Aecuti1e Branc*, ut Congress 'ust appropriate funds for agency efforts, and it conducts o1ersig*t of

    progra's. 0n addition, funding for foreign language instruction in ci1ilian institutionsoriginates in legislation . t t*e presentti'e, a nu'er ofissues in regard to foreign language capailities appear to e recei1ing congressional

    attention. *is report addresses 'any of t*ese issues and is intended as ackground only and -ill not e updated.

    #. CP lin)s to the 6et Bene*t8 :npopular 3s ha&e politicalconsequences and spar) !assi&e congressional $ac)lash. Thise&idence also pro&es that CP can9t capture our lin) turns+$ecause the congress would $e !ore pissed a$out the 5o thanthey would $e happy a$out the s$sp portionRisen *KClay, 6anaging editor ofDemocracy: A Journal of Ideas, 6.. fro' t*e Uni1ersity of C*icago #*e Po-er of t*e Pen9 *e EotSoSecret Weapon of Congress-ary Presidents$ *e 'erican Prospect, 7uly F, *ttp9::---.prospect.org:cs:articlesI

    articleNt*epo-eroft*epenL

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8467472.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8467472.stmhttp://www.lexis.com/http://www.lexis.com/http://www.lexis.com/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8467472.stm
  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    7/50

    *e 'ost effecti1e c*eck on eecuti1e orders *as pro1en to e political. W*en it co'es to eecuti1e orders, #*e president is

    'uc* 'ore clearly responsile,$ says 4ellinger, -*o -as *ea1ily in1ol1ed in crafting orders under Clinton. #Eot only is t*ere no

    in1ol1e'ent fro' Congress, ut t*e president *as to personally sign t*e order.$ ClintonDs &rand StaircaseAscalante

    Eational 6onu'ent eecuti1e order'ay *a1e *elped *i' -in 1otes, ut it also set off a 'assi1e congressional and pulic

    acklas*. ;ig*t-ing 0nternet sites ristled -it* co''ents aout #dictatorial po-ers,$ and ;epulicans -arned of an end to ci1il lierties as

    -e kno- t*e'. #President Clinton is running roug*s*od o1er our Constitution,$ said t*enHouse 6aority %eader 4ick r'ey. 0ndeed, an

    unpopuar executi'e order can ha'e i&&ediate--and asting--poitica conseuences. 0n >==, for ea'ple,Bus*proposedraisingt*e acceptalenu'erofparts per illion of arsenic in drinking -ater. 0t -as a one *e -as

    trying to toss to t*e 'ining industry, and it -ould *a1e o1erturned ClintonDs order lo-ering t*e le1els. But t*e o1er-*el'ingly

    negati1e pulic reaction forced Bus* to /uickly -it*dra- *is proposaland it painted *i' indelily as an

    antien1iron'ental president.

    %. S3P 47 to the CPA. 6heir executi'e order ignores Congressiona egisation that destro"s separation of po$ers

    K;onald 6urner, Uni1ersity of laa'a Sc*ool of %a- professor, 7OU;E% OJ %W < PO%00CS, Winter 199E, p. . (4;&C%:A>F+"L

    *e increased and aggressi1epresidential use of eecuti1e orders can present serious constitutional

    /uestions -*en t*ere are no congressional or constitutional ases for a particular order. Orders nottet*ered to or deri1ed fro' statutes or t*e Constitution raise issues aout t*e legiti'acy of presidential

    legislation ecause, as noted pre1iously, la-'aking is a legislati1e function.*us, t*e issuance of an eecuti1e

    order y a President -it*out a clear statutory or constitutional asis can e inconsistent -it* t*e principle

    of separation of po-ers and t*e se/uential tru'ping in*erent in t*e constitutional syste'. aseless and

    unaut*ori2ed order pro1ides a 'eans for t*e President to su1ert t*e syste' of c*ecks and alances , for

    s*e can 'ake la-s free fro' congressional in1ol1e'ent or agree'ent and is ?ale to 'ake s-eeping

    policy 1alue c*oices -it*out any c*eck y eit*er t*e federal courts or y a 'aority of Congress.? Suc*

    unc*ecked eecuti1e po-er allo-s a President to ?alter t*e distriution of t*e ackground set of pri1ate

    rig*ts entitle'ents ? and to e1ade t*e filtering 'ec*anis's of t*e ica'eral legislature and udicial re1ie- . A1asion is particularlyprole'atic -*en different political parties do'inate different ranc*es of go1ern'ent. n eecuti1e

    order issued y t*e President of one party t*at declares national policy t*at is opposed y t*e opposition

    party -it* a legislati1e 'aority can result in a clas* of ideologies and 1ie-s as to t*e la- t*at s*ouldgo1ern t*e nation .s a result ?strengt*ening a particular institution 'ay not only i'pro1e its effecti1eness ut also t*e relati1e influenceof a particular political party or ideology.?

    ,. !=P checks nucear $ar

    Forrester,Professor at Hastings College of t*e %a- at Uni1ersity of California, )>9K;ay, &eorge Was*ington %a- ;e1ie-, ugustL

    KOn t*e asis of t*is report, the starting fact is that one &an aone has the abiit" to start a nucear $ar. A

    basic theor"--if not the basic theor" of our Constitution--is that concentration of po$er in an" one

    person# or one group# is dangerous to &ankind. 6he Constitution # therefore# contains a strong s"ste&

    of checks and baances # starting $ith the separation of po$ers bet$een the President# Congress# and

    the !upre&e Court. 6he &essage is that no one of the& is safe $ith unchecked po$er . et# in $hat is

    probab" the &ost dangerous go'ern&enta po$er e'er possessed# $e find the potentia for $ord

    destruction odged in the discretion of one person.

    ,. 7gent CPs Bad81. 6ot reciprocal the 6eg can ta)e any :S;< agent they want we9re

    $ound to the :S;< as a whole.2. ;orces a to de$ate against itself neg steals all our oense and

    arguing against counterplan is arguing against plan.#. :npredicta$le- allows the neg to choose any part of the :S;

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    8/50

    too $ig to research all the possi$le agents.%. 0ills topic speci*c education we don9t tal) a$out the actual i!pacts

    of energy policy we only tal) a$out the process in the :S;==>, Ands, 6eans, and Politics,$ 4issent 6aga2ine Mol. +) 0ssue >, p35F"

    Po$er is not a dirt" $ord or an unfortunate feature of the $ord. It is the core of poitics. Po-er is t*e

    aility to effect outco'es in t*e -orld. Politics, in large part, in1ol1es contests o1er t*e distriution and use

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    12/50

    of po-er. o acco'plis* anyt*ing in t*e political -orld, one 'ust attend to t*e 'eans t*at are necessary to

    ring it aout. nd to de1elop suc* 'eans is to de1elop, and to eercise po-er. 6o sa" this is not to sa" that

    po$er is be"ond &orait". 0t is to say t*at po-er is not reducile to 'orality. s -riters suc* as Eiccolo

    6ac*ia1elli, 6a Weer, ;ein*old Eieu*r, and Hanna* rendt *a1e taug*t. An un"ieding concern $ith

    &ora goodness undercuts poitica responsibiit" .*e concern 'ay e 'orally laudale, reflecting a kind

    of personal integrity, ut it suffers fro' t*ree fatal fla-s9 (" it fais to see that the purit" of one+s intention

    does not ensure the achie'e&ent of $hat one intends. uring 1iolence or refusing to 'ake co''on

    cause -it* 'orally co'pro'ised parties 'ay see' like t*e rig*t t*ing, ut if suc* tactics entail i'potence,t*en it is *ard to 1ie- t*e' as ser1ing any 'oral good eyond t*e clean conscience of t*eir supporters9 (>" itfais to see that in a $ord of rea 'ioence and in5ustice, 'oral purity is not si'ply a for' of

    po-erlessness9 it is often a for' of co'plicity in inustice. 6his is $h"# fro& the standpoint of poiticsas

    opposed to religion pacifis& is a$a"s a potentia" i&&ora stand. 0n categorically repudiating 1iolence,it refuses in principle to oppose certain 1iolent inustices -it* any effect9 and (3" it fais to see that poitics isas &uch about unintended conseuences as it is about intentions 4 it is the effects of action# rather than

    the &oti'es of action# this is &ost significant. 7ust as t*e align'ent -it* #goodJ &a" engender

    i&potence, it is often the pursuit of Kgood Jt*atgenerates e'i. *is is t*e lesson of co''unis' on t*et-entiet* century9 it is not enoug* t*at ones goals e sincere or idealistic9 it is e/ually i'portant, al-ays, to

    ask aout t*e effects of pursuing t*ese goals and to udge t*ese effects in prag'atic and *istorically

    contetuali2ed -ays. Gora absoutis& inhibits this 5udg&ent. 0t alienates t*ose -*o are not true elie1ers.It pro&otes arrogance. And it under&ines poitica effecti'eness.

    ,. 7ny ris) of the i!pact of nuclear war should $e treated asan in*nite ris) $=c of the possi$ility of e5tinction. This cardhas $een gender-!odi*ed.Schell, policy analyst and proliferation expert, 2000 (Jonathan, The Fate of

    the Earth, p. 94-5)

    .o say that human e:tinction is a certainty #ould, of course, $e a misre%resentation=ust as

    it #ould $e a misre%resentation to say that e:tinction can $e ruled out).o $egin #ith, #e>no# that a holocaust may not occur at all)7f one does occur, the adversaries may not use

    all their #ea%ons) 7f they do use all their #ea%ons, the glo$al e?ects, in the o5one andelse#here, may $e moderate) 3nd if the e?ects are not moderate $ut e:treme, theecos%here may %rove resilient enough to #ithstand them #ithout $rea>ing do#ncatastro%hically) .hese are all su$stantial reasons for su%%osing that man>ind #ill not $ee:tinguished in a nuclear holocaust, or even that e:tinction in a holocaust is unli>ely, andthey tend to calm our fear and reduce our sense of urgency) @et at the same time #e arecom%elled to admit that there may $e a holocaust,that the adversaries may use all their#ea%ons, that the glo$al e?ects, including e?ects of #hich #e are as yet una#are, may $esevere, that the ecos%here may su?er catastro%hic $rea>do#n,and that our s%ecies may $ee:tinguished) We ar e left #ith uncertainty, and are forced to ma>e our decisions in a state ofuncertainty )7f #e #ish to act to save our s%ecies, #e have to muster our resolve in s%ite ofour a#areness that the life of the s%ecies may not no# in fact $e eo%ardi5ed) An the otherhand, if #e #ish to ignore the %eril, #e have to admit that #e do so in the >no#ledge thatthe s%ecies may $e in danger of imminent selfdestruction )When the e:istence of nuclear#ea%ons #as made >no#n, thoughtful %eo%le every#here in the #orld reali5ed that if thegreat %o#ers entered into a nucleararms race the human s%ecies #ould sooner or later facethe %ossi$ility of e:tinction) .hey also reali5ed that in the a$sence of internationalagreements %reventing it an arms race #ould %ro$a$ly occur) .hey >ne# that the %ath ofnuclear armament #as a dead end for man>ind) .he discovery of the energy in mass=of!the $asic %o#er of the universe'=and of a means $y #hich man could release that energy

    altered the relationshi% $et#een Bhumans and the source of Btheir life, the earth)7n theshado# of this %o#er, the earth $ecame small and the life of the human s%eciesdou$tful) 7n that sense, the Duestion of human e:tinction has $een on the %olitical agenda

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    13/50

    of the #orld ever since the Erst nuclear #ea%on #as detonated, and there #as no need forthe #orld to $uild u% its %resent tremendous arsenals $efore starting to #orry a$out it) 3t

    ust #hat %oint the s%ecies crossed, or #ill have crossed, the $oundary $et#een merelyhaving the technical >no#ledge to destroy itself and actually having the arsenals at hand,ready to $e used at any second, is not %recisely >no#a$le) ut it is clear that at %resent,#ith some t#enty thousand megatons of nuclear e:%losive %o#er in e:istence, and #ith

    more $eing added every day, #e have entered into the 5one of uncertainty, #hich is to saythe 5one of ris> of e:tinction)ut the !ere ris) of e5tinction has a signi*cance that iscategorically dierent fro! and i!!easura$ly greater than that of any otherris) and as we !a)e our decisions we ha&e to ta)e that signi*cance into account.

    U% to no#, e&ery ris) has $een contained within the fra!e of life e5tinction wouldshatter the fra!e. 7t re%resents not the defeat of some %ur%ose $ut an a$yss in #hich allhuman %ur%oses #ould $e dro#ned for all time) We ha&e no right to place thepossi$ility of this li!itless eternal defeat on the sa!e footing as ris)s that werun in the ordinary conduct of our aairs in our particular transient !o!ent ofhu!an history..o em%loy a mathematical analogy, #e can say that although the ris> ofe:tinction may $e fractional, the sta>e is, humanly s%ea>ing, inEnite, and a fraction of

    in*nity is still in*nity .7n other #ords, once #e learn that a holocaust might lead toe:tinction #e have no right to gam$le, $ecause if #e lose, the game #ill $e over, and

    neither #e nor anyone else #ill ever get another chance).herefore, although, scientiEcallys%ea>ing, there is all the di?erence in the #orld $et#een the mere %ossi$ility that aholocaust #ill $ring a$out e:tinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and#e have no choice $ut to address the issue of nuclear #ea%ons as though #e >ne# for acertainty that their use #ould %ut an end to our s%ecies)7n #eighing the fate of the earth and, #ith it,our o#n fate, #e stand $efore a mystery, and in tam%ering #ith the earth #e tam%er #ith a mystery) We are indee% ignorance) Aur ignorance should dis%ose us to #onder, our #onder should ma>e us hum$le, our humilityshould ins%ire us to reverence and caution, and our reverence and caution should lead us to act #ithout delay to#ithdra# the threat #e no# %ose to the earth and to ourselves)

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    14/50

    0ato 01. Case outweighs8

    7. The collapse of our roads !a)es war certain $ecause econo!iccollapse destroys things such as free trade which currently pre&ent warand e5u$erate tensions $etween countries.

    B. ?cono!ic collapse leads to fa!ine sic)ness and ethics warsulti!ately destroying ci&ili@ation. ?cono!ic growth is )ey to )eep thehigher li&ing standards that pre&ent these things.

    C. ?cono!ic collapse leads to the escalation of social dierencespo&erty would $e worse in a world where the currency &alue dropped andgo&ern!ents would cut )ey progra!s to pre&ent po&erty. 7nd po&ertycreates a cycle of oppression that prioriti@es certain li&es o&er others

    which allows for !ore wars to happen.

    C. %ucear crisis turns the D causes poitica repression and t"rann"

    Gartin >2(Professor of Social Sciences in the School of Social Sciences, Media andCommunication at the University of Wollongong, 1982 rian, !"o# the PeaceMovement Should $e Pre%aring for &uclear War,' ulletin of Peace Pro%osals, ol)1*, &o) 2, 1982, %%) 1+91-9 .C /0201

    0n addition to t*e i'portant p*ysical effects of nuclear -ar t*ere -ould e i'portant indirect political effects.It see&s 'er" ike" that there $oud be strong &o'es to &aintain or estabish authoritarian rue as a

    response to crises preceding or foo$ing nucear $ar. A1er since Hiros*i'a, the threat of nucear

    destruction has been used to prop up repressi'e institutions, under t*e pretet of defending against t*e

    Dene'yD.K3L *e actuality of nuclear -ar could easily result in t*e cul'ination of t*is trend. Harge seg&entsof the popuation coud be &anipuated to support a repressi'e regi&e under the necessit" to defend

    against further threats or to obtain re'enge. li'ited nuclear -ar 'ig*t kill so'e *undreds of t*ousands

    or tens of 'illions of people, surely a 'aor tragedy. But anot*er tragedy could also result9the

    estabish&ent# possib" for decades# of repressi'e ci'iian or &iitar" ruein countries suc* as 0taly,

    ustralia and t*e US, e1en if t*ey -ere not directly in1ol1ed in t*e -ar. 6he possibiit" of grassroots

    &obiisation for disar&a&ent and peace $oud be great" reduced e'en fro& its present e'es. For

    such de'eop&ents the peope and the peace &o'e&ents of the $ord are arge" unprepared.

    2. Per! 4o Both8 We can re"ect nuclear testing while trying topre&ent war these are not !utually e5clusi&e.

    #. 0ato needs to do so!e updates 6uclear weapons testing ise5clusi&ely &irtual nowI))) !pectru& (ec* Ee-s, *ttp9::spectru'.ieee.org:energy:nuclear:nucleartestinggoes1irtual. 49!:>:=" l

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    15/50

    0n Octoer, the U.!. %ationa %ucear !ecurit" Ad&inistrationofficially dedicatedt-o stateoft*eartsuperco&puters thats*ould ao$ the United !tates? nucear $eapons arsena to be keptin -orking

    order $ithout the need forunderground testing. One of t*ose is no- t*e fastest co'puter e1er uilt.ccording to t*e EES, a ne- 0B6 Blue&ene:% and an 0B6 Purple syste' *a1e een successfully installed and tested at t*e recentlyco'pleted erascale Si'ulation Jacility at %a-rence %i1er'ore Eational %aoratory, in California. Euclear scientists -ill use t*e t-o

    super'ac*ines to run t*reedi'ensional si'ulations at di22ying speeds to ac*ie1e 'uc* of t*e nuclear -eapons analysis t*at -as

    for'erly acco'plis*ed y underground nuclear testing, capping a long ca'paign to use 1irtual testing in place of p*ysical -eapons

    detonations.

    ?*e unprecedented co'puting po-er of t*ese t-o superco'puters is 'ore critical t*an e1er to 'eet t*e ti'eurgent issues related to'aintaining our nationDs aging nuclear stockpile -it*out testing,? said EES d'inistrator %inton J. Brooks. ?Purple represents t*e

    cul'ination of a successful decadelong effort to create a po-erful ne- class of superco'puters. Blue&ene:% points t*e -ay to t*e

    future and t*e co'puting po-er -e -ill need to i'pro1e our aility to predict t*e e*a1ior of t*e stockpile as it continues to age.?

    Brooks announced on >! Octoer t*at t*e Blue&ene:% *ad perfor'ed a record >G=.F trillion floatingpoint operations per second on t*e

    industry standard %inpack enc*'ark test suite. *e %inpack test is used to deter'ine t*e perfor'ance of t*e -orldDs fastest co'puters,-*ic* are ranked in t*e routinely updated op 5== list. *e ne- record doules t*e pre1ious top perfor'ance, ac*ie1ed in 6arc* y an

    earlier configuration of t*is sa'e %i1er'ore Blue&ene:% syste'.

    6his co&puting ad'anceis a significant acco'plis*'ent. 0t shoud i&pro'e the prospects of the United

    !tates? agreeing to per&anent" stop ph"sica nucear $eapons testing, under t*e Co'pre*ensi1e Euclear estBan reaty, -*ic* -as concluded in ))F. nd on a related front, t*e a-ard of t*is yearDs Eoel Peace Pri2e to t*e Miennaased

    0nternational to'ic Anergy gency and its director general, 6o*a'ed AlBaradei Ksee Willia' S-eetDs ne-s co''entary ?*e to'ic

    Anergy gencyDs Peace Pri2e?L is a 1ictory for t*e defenders of t*e Euclear EonProliferation reaty. aken toget*er, 1irtual testing

    tec*nology and t*e reaffir'ation of t*e i'portance of nuclear ar's control pro'ise to 'ake t*e real -orld a safer place.

    %. ;=w8 3ur interpretation the negati&e !ust defend thestatus quo or a legiti!ate go&ern!ent counterplan.

    This is a &oting issue8

    7A ) 'S1 p.a.". ypical total annual 1alues 1ary et-een .= and 3.5 'S1 (a1erage >.+ 'S1 p.a.". In so&e

    regionst*e background radiation is up to 100 ti&es higher. %o ad'erse genetic or other har&fu effectsincuding cancer for&ation ha'e been obser'ed inplants, ani'als or hu&ans in these areas despite such

    exposure for countess generations(". =ur o$n bodies aso contain radioacti'e potassiu& *0 and

    carbon 1*-*ic* disintegrate -it* a co'ined total of aout !5== disintegrations per second.

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    16/50

    ,. Turn8 Dadiation increases i!!une syste! sta$ility anddecreases the ris) of cancerHucke" >(.4, Professor A'eritus of t*e Uni1ersity of 6issouri,*ttp9::---.nci.nl'.ni*.go1:p'c:articles:P6C>5)>))=:, 49 !:>:="l

    Gedia reports of deathsand de1astation produced b" ato&ic bo&bs con'inced peopearound the $ord

    that a ioniing radiation is har&fu. *is concentrated attention on fear of 'iniscule doses of radiation.

    Soon t*e linear no t*res*old (%E" paradig' -as con1erted into la-s. Scientifically 1alid infor'ation aoutt*e *ealt* enefits fro' lo- dose irradiation -as ignored. 3ere are studies $hich sho$ increased heath inLapanese sur'i'ors of ato&ic bo&bs. Para&eters incude decreased &utation# euke&ia and soid

    tissue cancer&ortait" rates# and increased a1erageifespan .Aac* study e*iits a t*res*old t*at

    repudiates t*e %E dog'a. *e a1erage t*res*old for acute eposures to ato'ic o's is aout == cS1.Conclusions fro' t*ese studies of ato'ic o' sur1i1ors are9

    One urst of lo- dose irradiation elicits a lifeti'e of i'pro1ed *ealt*.

    0'pro1ed *ealt* fro' lo- dose irradiation negates t*e %E paradig'.

    Affecti1e triage s*ould include radiation *or'esis for sur1i1or treat'ent.#*e collected data strongly suggest t*at lo-le1el radiation is not *ar'ful, and is, in fact, fre/uently

    8apparently eneficial for *u'an *ealt*.$

    Qondo, ))3

    6ost people elie1e t*e %E (linear no t*res*old" paradig' for radiation and its corollary9 all ioni2ing

    radiation is *ar'ful. 6he de'astation and har& fro& ato&ic bo&b s in Lapan do&inated the &edia andconfir&ed the H%6 dog&afor people around t*e -orld. *e %E dog'a 'ust e true9 it is in our tets@ it

    is taug*t in sc*ools and uni1ersities@ it is constantly assu'ed in t*e 'edia@ and it is t*e la- in 'any

    countries.Ho-e1er, there is a faac". s t*e Jrenc* p*ilosop*er, 7ean de la Bruyere (F+5F)F", noted9 #*e eact

    contrary of -*at is generally elie1ed is often t*e trut*.$ (Bruyere, FGG". 0n order to 'ake t*e' elie1e t*e

    %E dog'a, radioiologists *a1e consistently 'isled students, p*ysicians, professors, t*e 'edia, t*e pulic,

    go1ern'ent ad1isory oards, and *eads of nations. About thirt" specific exa&pes of this deception ha'e

    been presented @%uckey, >==Ga".6his report re'ie$sunpulici2ed studies of o$ dose exposures fro& ato&ic bo&bs in Lapanese

    sur'i'ors. 6he consistent benefits fro&lo- dose exposures to radiation fro& ato&ic bo&bs negate the

    H%6 paradig& and indicate a singe exposure to o$ dose irradiation produces a ifeti&e of i&pro'ed

    heath.

    . :sing representations of 6uclear War allows us to critici@ethe e5istence of dangerous weapons

    Foard 9(3ssociate Professor of 4eligion, 3ri5ona State, (6ames, !7magining &uclearWea%ons "iroshima, 3rmageddon, and the 3nnihilation of the Students of 7chioSchool,' 6ournal of the 3merican 3cademy of 4eligion,htt%00aar)o:fordournals)org0cgi0re%rint0;". Specifically, i&ages of a

    nucear Ar&ageddon ha'e heped us perfor& t$o sorts of cutura tasks funda&enta for i&agining

    nucear $eapons9 t*ose in1ol1ing difference and t*ose in1ol1ing representation. By ?difference? 0 'ean

    ot* the articuation of $hat &akes nucear $eapons different fro& other $eapons and the conseuent

    refection on the different hu&an situation engendered b" the&. By ?representation? 0 'ean the

    expressions $hich seek to describe the use of nucear $eapons and incorporate that description into

    structures of &eaning Ar&ageddon per&its us to define the difference of nucear $eapons b" their

    capacit" to destro" the hu&an speciesin a -ar t*at no one -ill -in. 0t also *as suggested to 'any,

    particularly literary critics ut also so'e nuclear strategists, t*at nuclear -ar is ut an i'aginary e1ent,

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592990/#b7-drp-06-0369http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592990/#b4-drp-06-0369http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592990/#b14-drp-06-0369http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592990/#b7-drp-06-0369http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592990/#b4-drp-06-0369http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592990/#b14-drp-06-0369
  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    17/50

    di1orced fro' reality, suc* t*at all representations are, to use t*e 'ost fa'ous p*rase, ?faulously tetual?

    (4erridaD>3".

    /. Per!8 4o the plan and then the alternati&e.

    E. 3ur rhetoric is irrele&ant outco!es are the only !oralthings that ha&e weight in the political process our intentionsare irrele&ant.Isaac 2 (7effrey C 0saac, 0ndiana Uni1ersity 7a'es H. ;udy Professor of Political Science and Center for t*e Study of 4e'ocracy and Pulic%ife director, Spring >==>, Ands, 6eans, and Politics,$ 4issent 6aga2ine Mol. +) 0ssue >, p35F"

    Po$er is not a dirt" $ord or an unfortunate feature of the $ord. It is the core of poitics. Po-er is t*e

    aility to effect outco'es in t*e -orld. Politics, in large part, in1ol1es contests o1er t*e distriution and use

    of po-er. o acco'plis* anyt*ing in t*e political -orld, one 'ust attend to t*e 'eans t*at are necessary toring it aout. nd to de1elop suc* 'eans is to de1elop, and to eercise po-er. 6o sa" this is not to sa" that

    po$er is be"ond &orait". 0t is to say t*at po-er is not reducile to 'orality. s -riters suc* as Eiccolo

    6ac*ia1elli, 6a Weer, ;ein*old Eieu*r, and Hanna* rendt *a1e taug*t. An un"ieding concern $ith

    &ora goodness undercuts poitica responsibiit" .*e concern 'ay e 'orally laudale, reflecting a kindof personal integrity, ut it suffers fro' t*ree fatal fla-s9 (" it fais to see that the purit" of one+s intention

    does not ensure the achie'e&ent of $hat one intends. uring 1iolence or refusing to 'ake co''on

    cause -it* 'orally co'pro'ised parties 'ay see' like t*e rig*t t*ing, ut if suc* tactics entail i'potence,t*en it is *ard to 1ie- t*e' as ser1ing any 'oral good eyond t*e clean conscience of t*eir supporters9 (>" itfais to see that in a $ord of rea 'ioence and in5ustice, 'oral purity is not si'ply a for' of

    po-erlessness9 it is often a for' of co'plicity in inustice. 6his is $h"# fro& the standpoint of poiticsas

    opposed to religion pacifis& is a$a"s a potentia" i&&ora stand. 0n categorically repudiating 1iolence,it refuses in principle to oppose certain 1iolent inustices -it* any effect9 and (3" it fais to see that poitics isas &uch about unintended conseuences as it is about intentions 4 it is the effects of action# rather than

    the &oti'es of action# this is &ost significant. 7ust as t*e align'ent -it* #goodJ &a" engender

    i&potence, it is often the pursuit of Kgood Jt*atgenerates e'i. *is is t*e lesson of co''unis' on t*et-entiet* century9 it is not enoug* t*at ones goals e sincere or idealistic9 it is e/ually i'portant, al-ays, to

    ask aout t*e effects of pursuing t*ese goals and to udge t*ese effects in prag'atic and *istorically

    contetuali2ed -ays. Gora absoutis& inhibits this 5udg&ent. 0t alienates t*ose -*o are not true elie1ers.It pro&otes arrogance. And it under&ines poitica effecti'eness.

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    18/50

    Chernus 01. Case outweighs8

    7. The collapse of our roads !a)es war certain $ecause econo!iccollapse destroys things such as free trade which currently pre&ent warand e5u$erate tensions $etween countries.

    B. ?cono!ic collapse leads to fa!ine sic)ness and ethics warsulti!ately destroying ci&ili@ation. ?cono!ic growth is )ey to )eep thehigher li&ing standards that pre&ent these things.

    C. ?cono!ic collapse leads to the escalation of social dierencespo&erty would $e worse in a world where the currency &alue dropped andgo&ern!ents would cut )ey progra!s to pre&ent po&erty. 7nd po&ertycreates a cycle of oppression that prioriti@es certain li&es o&er others

    which allows for !ore wars to happen.

    . %ucear crisis turns the D causes poitica repression and t"rann"

    Gartin >2(Professor of Social Sciences in the School of Social Sciences, Media andCommunication at the University of Wollongong, 1982 rian, !"o# the PeaceMovement Should $e Pre%aring for &uclear War,' ulletin of Peace Pro%osals, ol)1*, &o) 2, 1982, %%) 1+91-9 .C /0201

    0n addition to t*e i'portant p*ysical effects of nuclear -ar t*ere -ould e i'portant indirect political effects.It see&s 'er" ike" that there $oud be strong &o'es to &aintain or estabish authoritarian rue as a

    response to crises preceding or foo$ing nucear $ar. A1er since Hiros*i'a, the threat of nucear

    destruction has been used to prop up repressi'e institutions, under t*e pretet of defending against t*e

    Dene'yD.K3L *e actuality of nuclear -ar could easily result in t*e cul'ination of t*is trend. Harge seg&entsof the popuation coud be &anipuated to support a repressi'e regi&e under the necessit" to defend

    against further threats or to obtain re'enge. li'ited nuclear -ar 'ig*t kill so'e *undreds of t*ousands

    or tens of 'illions of people, surely a 'aor tragedy. But anot*er tragedy could also result9the

    estabish&ent# possib" for decades# of repressi'e ci'iian or &iitar" ruein countries suc* as 0taly,

    ustralia and t*e US, e1en if t*ey -ere not directly in1ol1ed in t*e -ar. 6he possibiit" of grassroots

    &obiisation for disar&a&ent and peace $oud be great" reduced e'en fro& its present e'es. For

    such de'eop&ents the peope and the peace &o'e&ents of the $ord are arge" unprepared.

    2. ;=w- The a getFs to weigh our i!pacts as a defense of ourrepresentations.Standards87. ;airness8 They !oot the / !inutes of the 17CB. ?ducation8 They ta)e away all policy education

    C. >oter for fairness and education)

    #. Per! 4o $oth

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    19/50

    %. :sing representations of 6uclear War allows us to critici@ethe e5istence of dangerous weapons

    Foard 9(3ssociate Professor of 4eligion, 3ri5ona State, (6ames, !7magining &uclearWea%ons "iroshima, 3rmageddon, and the 3nnihilation of the Students of 7chio

    School,' 6ournal of the 3merican 3cademy of 4eligion,htt%00aar)o:fordournals)org0cgi0re%rint0;". Specifically, i&ages of a

    nucear Ar&ageddon ha'e heped us perfor& t$o sorts of cutura tasks funda&enta for i&agining

    nucear $eapons9 t*ose in1ol1ing difference and t*ose in1ol1ing representation. By ?difference? 0 'eanot* the articuation of $hat &akes nucear $eapons different fro& other $eapons and the conseuentrefection on the different hu&an situation engendered b" the&. By ?representation? 0 'ean the

    expressions $hich seek to describe the use of nucear $eapons and incorporate that description into

    structures of &eaning Ar&ageddon per&its us to define the difference of nucear $eapons b" their

    capacit" to destro" the hu&an speciesin a -ar t*at no one -ill -in. 0t also *as suggested to 'any,

    particularly literary critics ut also so'e nuclear strategists, t*at nuclear -ar is ut an i'aginary e1ent,

    di1orced fro' reality, suc* t*at all representations are, to use t*e 'ost fa'ous p*rase, ?faulously tetual?

    (4erridaD>3".

    '. Chernus9s ignorance of e!pirical research !a)es hisargu!ent non-falsi*a$le and useless!u&&ers 91 (Craig, 6t llison U Psyc*, *ttp9::---.-su.edu:Rrians:ntc:ECF.pdf, 49 F:3=:=" l

    s a central t*e'e, %ucear Gadness9 ;eligion and t*e Psyc*ology of t*e Euclear ge statest*at9 K6heuestion to be asked about nucear $eapons . . . is4 7hat fantas" i&ages are e&bedded in ourattitudes

    and beha'iorsI$ (p. G3". But Ps"choog"as a discipline and profession is based on e&pirica research# not

    fantas" i&ages. ut*or 0ra Chernus does ackno$edget*at his approach is not easi" inter$o'en $ith

    for&a ps"choogica research(discussing t*eologian Paul illic*, p. +G@ also pp. =5 =F". But hene1ert*eless uses argu&ents, suc* as t*ose fro' 6ircea Aliade, that Kcan be neither 'erified nor fasified

    y e'pirical researc*$ (p. )3", an o'inous note for social scientists reading t*e ook. Chernus o'erooks

    'ast areas of e&pirica research in poitica science # econo&ics# poitica ps"choog"# and e'en the

    scientific e'idence on nucear $inter, stating t*at #t*e e'pirical reality of a largescale use of nuclear

    -eapons eludes scientific understanding$ (p. F+". s one ea'ple to t*e contrary, in psyc*ology there ha'e

    been innu&erabeeperi'ental studies of i&ager", ot* in ter's of i'aginal t*inking, and a narro$er

    iteraturespecifically focusing on nucear i&ager"(e.g., 7ournal of Social 0ssues, 1. 3)KL". !kirting these

    see&s to be a gross o&issionin a ook purporting to use i'agery as a asis for a psyc*ological

    understanding of t*e nuclear age.

    ,. 3ur rhetoric is irrele&ant outco!es are the only !oral

    things that ha&e weight in the political process our intentionsare irrele&ant.Isaac 2 (7effrey C 0saac, 0ndiana Uni1ersity 7a'es H. ;udy Professor of Political Science and Center for t*e Study of 4e'ocracy and Pulic%ife director, Spring >==>, Ands, 6eans, and Politics,$ 4issent 6aga2ine Mol. +) 0ssue >, p35F"

    Po$er is not a dirt" $ord or an unfortunate feature of the $ord. It is the core of poitics. Po-er is t*eaility to effect outco'es in t*e -orld. Politics, in large part, in1ol1es contests o1er t*e distriution and use

    of po-er. o acco'plis* anyt*ing in t*e political -orld, one 'ust attend to t*e 'eans t*at are necessary to

    ring it aout. nd to de1elop suc* 'eans is to de1elop, and to eercise po-er. 6o sa" this is not to sa" that

    po$er is be"ond &orait". 0t is to say t*at po-er is not reducile to 'orality. s -riters suc* as Eiccolo

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    20/50

    6ac*ia1elli, 6a Weer, ;ein*old Eieu*r, and Hanna* rendt *a1e taug*t. An un"ieding concern $ith&ora goodness undercuts poitica responsibiit" .*e concern 'ay e 'orally laudale, reflecting a kind

    of personal integrity, ut it suffers fro' t*ree fatal fla-s9 (" it fais to see that the purit" of one+s intention

    does not ensure the achie'e&ent of $hat one intends. uring 1iolence or refusing to 'ake co''oncause -it* 'orally co'pro'ised parties 'ay see' like t*e rig*t t*ing, ut if suc* tactics entail i'potence,

    t*en it is *ard to 1ie- t*e' as ser1ing any 'oral good eyond t*e clean conscience of t*eir supporters9 (>" it

    fais to see that in a $ord of rea 'ioence and in5ustice, 'oral purity is not si'ply a for' of

    po-erlessness9 it is often a for' of co'plicity in inustice. 6his is $h"# fro& the standpoint of poiticsasopposed to religion pacifis& is a$a"s a potentia" i&&ora stand. 0n categorically repudiating 1iolence,

    it refuses in principle to oppose certain 1iolent inustices -it* any effect9 and (3" it fais to see that poitics is

    as &uch about unintended conseuences as it is about intentions 4 it is the effects of action# rather than

    the &oti'es of action# this is &ost significant. 7ust as t*e align'ent -it* #goodJ &a" engender

    i&potence, it is often the pursuit of Kgood Jt*atgenerates e'i. *is is t*e lesson of co''unis' on t*e

    t-entiet* century9 it is not enoug* t*at ones goals e sincere or idealistic9 it is e/ually i'portant, al-ays, to

    ask aout t*e effects of pursuing t*ese goals and to udge t*ese effects in prag'atic and *istorically

    contetuali2ed -ays. Gora absoutis& inhibits this 5udg&ent. 0t alienates t*ose -*o are not true elie1ers.It pro&otes arrogance. And it under&ines poitica effecti'eness.

    . Chernus9s !ethod relies on out dated and dispro&enpsychoanalytic theory!u&&ers 91 (Craig, 6t llison U Psyc*, *ttp9::---.-su.edu:Rrians:ntc:ECF.pdf, 49 F:3=:=" l

    *e only e1idence for nu'ing in t*e ook is %iftons oser1ations of 1icti's in Hiros*i'a, -*ic* are t*en

    linked to potential 1icti's of t*e conte'porary nuclear t*reat. %ifton *i'self recently associated t*e t*oug*t

    processes in perpetrating Ea2i 'ass killing, and in conte'porary #perpetrators$ of t*e nuclear t*reat, -*ic*-ould *a1e een 1ery rele1ant to reference *ere (%ifton and 6arkusen, ))=". 6he tendenc" throughout%ucear Gadness is to increasing" ea'e theinitial e'idence and begin describing e'ents as

    sc*i2op*renic, neurotic or &ad. 6he &enta heath &etaphorsin Euclear 6adness are rooted in pre-

    190s ps"choana"sis. (A1en continual reference to #*e o'$ rat*er t*an #s'art 'issiles,$ for ea'ple, isoutdated." C*ernus states Psyc*ologists 'ay identify nuclear -eapons -it* interpersonal *ostility,

    do'inance needs, repressed rage, or 'agical defenses against insecurity. Jreudians -ill find a 'apping of

    infantile o'nipotence desires. 7ungians -ill find arc*etypal patterns of all sorts. *eologians -ill consider

    t*e o' a 'apped replication of our traditional i'age of &od. But all -ill attest t*e eistence of socialfantasy. (p. 3>. 0nfantile o'nipotence desiresI ll -ill attest to t*e eistence of social fantasyI %ucearGadnessdoes, ut it is sure" a step back$ards for an" reader atte&pting to earn so&ething of

    expanations in conte&porar" poitica ps"choog" .In re"ing on cinica &etaphors fro& o'er fort"

    "ears ago# Chernus has tied his phiosoph" to aclinical approach $ith itteactual e'idence# and $hich

    isgenerally no onger accepted. Psyc*ic nu'ing and 'ental illness could e used successfully if not

    treated as ust a 'etap*orical eplanation for nuclear irrationality. *is is a difference et-een %iftons

    ()F!" actual psyc*iatric oser1ations and C*ernuss nu'ing 'etap*or. But Euclear 6adness d-ells on

    descripti1e i'ages and si'iles, not actually pursuing responses to t*e nuclear t*reat using eit*er side ofpsyc*ology9 (a" t*e eperi'ental and oser1ational ases, -*ic* *a1e een etensi1ely docu'ented, or ("

    clinical psyc*opat*ology, -*ic* -ould e -ort* seriously pursuing. One could propose 1ery real psyc*iatric

    grounds for t*e suicidal nature of eing a passi1e ystander or *a1ing 1ested interests in t*e nuclear ar's

    race (see C*arny, )GF". 6asking, nu'ing, rationali2ing, or *o-e1er ignoring t*e potential for nuclearo'nicide is a psyc*ological process t*at poses a 1ery real t*reat to *u'an life, and 'ay t*us fit t*e criteria

    for inclusion as a pat*ological disorder in t*e 4iagnostic and Statistical 6anual of 6ental 4isorders 000

    ('erican Psyc*iatric ssociation, )G!".

    /. ;earing nuclear weapons is the only way to pre&ent nuclearo!nicide.

    Gar&ard 6uclear Study

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    21/50

    .he Duestion is grisly, $ut nonetheless it must $e as>ed) &uclear #ar Bsic cannot$e a&oided si!ply $y refusing to thin) a$out it) 7ndeed the tas> of reducingthe li>elihood of nuclear #ar should $egin #ith an e?ort to understand how it!ight start) When strategists in Washington or Mosco# study the %ossi$le originsof nuclear #ar, they discuss !scenarios,' imagined seDuences of future events thatcould trigger the use of nuclear #ea%onry) Scenarios are, of course, s%eculative

    e:ercises) .hey often leave out the %olitical develo%ments that might lead to theuse of force in order to focus on military dangers) .hat nuclear #ar scenarios areeven more s%eculative than most is something for #hich #e can $e than>ful, for itreFects humanityGs fortunate lac> of e:%erience #ith atomic #arfare since 19+-) utimaginary as they are, nuclear scenarios can hel% identify %ro$lems not understoodor dangers not yet %revented $ecause they have not $een foreseen)

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    22/50

    27C Theory

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    23/50

    'H State ;iat Bad

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    24/50

    'H State ;iat

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    25/50

    State Coop ;iat Bad

    Interpretation8 The negati&e gets 'H states CPs that do not *atcooperation.

    ;irst8

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    26/50

    (ope@ CP Bad

    (ope@ CP B74 C=I the 6?< can run 'H states CPs that do not!andate the de&olution of federal power.

    ;IDST education preser&es de$ate o&er )ey questions ofi!ple!entation grounding the de$ate in the federalis!literature encouraging $etter research and process de$ates.

    S?C364 ground *ating co!pliance eli!inates ground for7;; oense $ased on state i!ple!entation or atte!pts atinno&ation

    Third is lit $ase8 There is no literature $ase on the ar!ati&eside that answers the de&olution of power (ope@ CPs areuniquely $ad.

    3ur interp sol&es all their oense8 States CPs !ay $e good forde$ate $ut (ope@ CPs are $ad.

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    27/50

    Condo Bad J

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    28/50

    Condo8 Short8 4ispo Interp

    . Counter Interpretation- 6eg oter for ;airness

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    29/50

    Condo8 Short8 :ncondo Interp

    . Counter Interpritation8 6eg gets one unconditional

    ad&ocacy8 3nly way to access our standards.

    7. 27C Strategy- Kultiple Worlds force ar!ati&e underco&erage and !a)es the! a !o&ing target.

    B. ?ducation- 6eg9s will choose the easy out world&iew toa&oid clash.

    C. >oter for ;airness and education

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    30/50

    Condo8 Short8 3ne conditional ad&ocacy

    Counter Interpretation8 The neg gets one conditional ad&ocacy8

    Sol&es their oense.

    7. 27C Strategy- Kore than one conditional world forcesar!ati&e under co&erage and !a)es the! a !o&ing target.

    B. ?ducation- 6eg9s will choose the easy out world&iew toa&oid clash.

    C. >oter for ;airness and education

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    31/50

    Condo8 (ong8 4ispo Counter Interp

    Interpritation8 The 6egati&e gets one dispositional ad&ocacy.

    7. Condo discourages the reading of oense= disads to a CP$ecause they will "ust )ic) it.

    1. Causes a loss of education on the counter plan sincewe ne&er learn the oensi&e reasons why it is $ad.

    2. S)ews ;airness8 We can9t read our $est answers$ecause they are not counted as oense in the round.

    #. They will always )ic) the Lows with the least clash

    which !eans any education we do gain is !ini!al.

    B. Creates an incenti&e to not entirely research a CP $ecausethey can "ust )ic) the CP )ills education.

    C. 6ot reciprocal8 We can9t )ic) the plan and we only get oneplan.

    4. De"ect the tea! for fairness and education

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    32/50

    Condo8 (ong8 :ncondo Counter Interp

    Counter Interpretation8 The negati&e gets one unconditionalad&ocacy.

    7. Condo discourages the reading of oense= disads to a CP$ecause they will "ust )ic) it.

    1. Causes a loss of education on the counter plan sincewe ne&er learn the oensi&e reasons why it is $ad.

    2. S)ews ;airness8 We can9t read our $est answers$ecause they are not counted as oense in the round.

    #. They will always )ic) the Lows with the least clash

    which !eans any education we do gain is !ini!al.

    B. Creates an incenti&e to not entirely research a CP $ecausethey can "ust )ic) the CP )ills education.

    C. 6ot reciprocal8 We can9t )ic) the plan and we only get oneplan.

    4. De"ect the tea! for fairness and education

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    33/50

    PICs Bad

    PICS Bad

    1. ;airness- usurps the 17C in the 1H seconds it ta)es to readthe CP te5t.

    2. In*nite Degression and :npredicta$le- there are hundreds ofPICS $ased on types of people words and plan plan)s that the6eg can pic) out of !eaning the 7 can ne&er $e prepared.

    #. ?ncourages &ague plan writing to a&oid PICS which )ills6egati&e ground and allows the 7 to spi)e out of negati&e

    argu!ents.

    %. Counter-Interpretation- negati&es get all CP9s that aren9tPICS and can run the 6et Bene*t as a 4is-7d- this sol&es allfairness clai!s and is net $ene*cial with all of our standardsincluding education $ecause the negati&e strategy wouldre&ol&e around the 7d&antage CP and the 6et $ene*t to theCP.

    '. >oter for ;airness

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    34/50

    Consult Bad

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    35/50

    Consult Counterplans are a &oter for fairness.

    1. :npredicta$le- in*nite nu!$er of actors to consult and thenet $ene*t only has to $e tiny to outweigh the 7;;.

    2. 7

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    36/50

    4elay CPs Bad

    1. :npredicta$le- we can9t predict what ti!e they9ll delayaction to.

    2. :nfair research $urden- it9s dicult to research the future$ecause the future is uncertain.

    #. 0ills 7 ground- it9s dicult to produce oense against theuncertain future.

    %. ?ducation- we don9t learn a$out the future we "ust guess.

    '. Ti!e s)ew- they steal the entire 1ac with a counterplan thatdoes the plan.

    ,. ;orces us to de$ate against oursel&es- they pass our planforcing us to de$ate against our plan which is unfair.

    . In*nite regression- they could pic) an in*nite nu!$er ofti!es to delay action to.

    /. >oter for fairness and education.

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    37/50

    Conditions CP 27C

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    38/50

    C. Plan plus the plan doesn9t preclude 76M ?(?K?6T of theCP. The fact that the CP te5t includes 7(( the plan te5t pro&esits plan plus which "usti*es any per!utation.

    4. Counter interpretation They get consult counter plans.

    7ccesses all their education argu!ents and allows e5ternaldisads with lin)s to plan action li)e relations.

    ?. Independent &oter 2ac s)ew already happened re"ect thetea! to preser&e co!petiti&e equity

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    39/50

    6o 7lt Te5t Bad

    6o Te5t to the 7lternati&e is $ad8

    7 no sta$le ground we lose our a$ility to produce strategicoense and per!utations without a te5t there is an incenti&efor the negati&e to shift their alternati&e to nullify the 27C

    B Deciprocity we ha&e a sta$le te5t if they can clai! tosol&e the ar!ati&e and change the status quo they shouldha&e one too

    C it9s a &oting issue for the reasons a$o&e and co!petiti&e

    equity you should err a on theory $ecause they ha&e thestructural ad&antage of the $loc) and !ore di&erse strategicoptions

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    40/50

    ;loating PI0s Bad

    7 6o te5t they should not $e a$le to sol&e anythingwithout a te5t it destroys our a$ility to produce oense andper!utations

    B Conditional Their argu!ent is a conditional ad&ocacywhich destroys strategic ground and fairness $y allowing thenegati&e to drop their ad&ocacy at any point.

    C

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    41/50

    De"ect 7lts Bad

    1. Their re"ection alternati&e is illegiti!ate and a &oting issuefor the following reasons8

    7.

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    42/50

    7gent Counterplans Bad1. 6ot reciprocal the 6eg can ta)e any :S;< agent they want

    we9re $ound to the :S;< as a whole.

    2. ;orces a to de$ate against itself neg steals all our oenseand arguing against counterplan is arguing against plan.

    #. :npredicta$le- allows the neg to choose any part of the:S;

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    43/50

    27C I!pact 4efense

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    44/50

    War!ing

    1. It9s too late past e!issions guarantee loc)ed weathercycles for the ne5t 1HHH years the cloc> on climate change,'htt%00arstechnica)com0science0ne#s029010studytoolatetoturn$ac>thecloc>onclimatechange)ars

    .his #ee>Is P&3S $rings #ith it some $ad ne#s on the climate front e&en if policy !a)ers and thegeneral pu$lic get on $oard with drastic C32 e!ission cuts itFs alreadytoo late to pre&ent serious changes to the planetFs cli!ate, and those changed #ill $eremar>a$ly %ersistent) .hose are the Endings of a grou% of researchers from the US, S#it5erland, and Jrance) 7n their %a%er, they

    loo> at the e?ect of increasing CA2 over millennial time frames, and itIs #orrisome stu?) Currently, C32 le&els in theat!osphere are around #/' pp! a #' percent increase o&er pre-industrialle&els . The !ost opti!istic scenarios arri&e at a *gure of %'H pp! as the$est we !ight $e a$le to achie&e in the co!ing decades $ut e&en at thatle&el changes in precipitation patterns te!perature increases and a risein sea le&el appear to $e loc)ed in for at least the ne5t thousand years).hedynamics of the oceans are to $lame) 3ccording to Susan Soloman, Senior Scientist at &A33 and lead author, K7n the long run, $othcar$on dio:ide loss and heat transfer de%end on the same %hysics of dee%ocean mi:ing) .he t#o #or> against each other to >ee%tem%eratures almost constant for more than a thousand years, and that ma>es car$on dio:ide uniDue among the maor climate

    gases)K Ane of the most %rofound e?ects loo>s to $e a se&ere decrease in rainfall that will aectthe southeastern :S the Kediterranean southern 7sia and swathes ofsu$tropical 7frica and South 7!erica. Sea le&els are going to rise too.Without even accounting for melting ice sheets, the sheer thermal e:%ansion of the LarthIs oceans #ill $e $et#een )+1m, and as#ith the tem%erature rise and the changes to rainfall, these e?ects loo> set to %ersist for at least until the year *)

    2. Gu!ans will adapt to a cli!ate-changed world - e!pirics

    Kc4er!ott(Science and Climate Change sta? #riter for the iscovery &et#or>su$site .reehugger 2H12Mat, !L::onIs CLA is 4ight, We Will 3da%t to Climate Change,' 6une 29, 212,htt%00###)treehugger)com0climatechange0e::onsceoright#e#illada%tclimatechange)html 00C;

    (0'age Caption9 Unprecedented -ildfires are urning in t*e 'erican -est. W*at does ig oil *a1e to say aout

    cli'ate c*angeI #We *a1e spent our entire eistence adapting. Well adapt.$ Aon6oil CAO ;ed illerson,

    F:>!:>" 0D' a day late to t*is i'age ao1e and t*e social 'edia outrage around it, ut 0D1e een t*inking, and

    unfortunately Aon6oilDs CAO is rig*t. *atDs t*e unfas*ionale t*ing to say in green circles, ut *e is rig*t.Hu'anity *as spent its ti'e on t*is planet adapting. Bot* adapting t*e -orld -e in*ait to 'eet our needs, on

    1arious ti'escales and o1er 1arious areas of t*e gloe, as -ell as adapting to t*e local conditions under -*ic*

    -e li1e. nd, -e -ill adapt to cli'ate c*ange . But ne1ert*eless, t*e state'ent is ofuscation of t*e *ig*estorder@ it is literally true ut contetually entirely false. nd it is t*ere -*ere itDs deep insidiousness resides. Ho-

    'any *u'ans t*e planet can support in a -orld t*at is >C, 3C, +FC -ar'er on a1erage-it* all t*eecosyste', iodi1ersity, agricultural c*anges t*at ringsis a 1ery 'uc* open /uestion. *e odds are solidly in

    fa1or of far less t*an it no- does, ust ecause of cli'ate c*ange, ignoring resource o1erconsu'ption andpopulation gro-t*. W*ic* is all to say, t*at -*ile *u'anity -ill adapt to a cli'ate c*anged -orld is true, t*ere

    is no dout t*at cli'ate c*ange -ill create, in co'parison to today, let alone a preindustrial, lo-er population

    -orld, a -orld t*at is less ountiful, prone to 'ore etre'es of te'perature and -eat*er in 'any places, less

    fecundand since -eDre talking aout *u'an adaptation, 'ore difficult to li1e in and less conduci1e to *u'anci1ili2ation.

    http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/exxons-ceo-right-we-will-adapt-climate-change.htmlhttp://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/exxons-ceo-right-we-will-adapt-climate-change.htmlhttp://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/exxons-ceo-right-we-will-adapt-climate-change.htmlhttp://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/exxons-ceo-right-we-will-adapt-climate-change.html
  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    45/50

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    46/50

    4isease

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    47/50

    Bio-4

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    48/50

    War

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    49/50

    >T(1. >alue to life is su$"ecti&e the indi&idual decides how !uch

    &alue their life has not their critique.

    2. 7ny ris) of the i!pact of nuclear war should $e treated asan in*nite ris) $=c of the possi$ility of e5tinction. N.his card has$een gendermodiEed) Schell, %olicy analyst and %roliferation e:%ert, 2HHH(6onathan, !.he Jate of the Larth', %) 9+-

    .o say that human e:tinction is a certainty #ould, of course, $e a misre%resentation=ust as

    it #ould $e a misre%resentation to say that e:tinction can $e ruled out).o $egin #ith, #e>no# that a holocaust may not occur at all)7f one does occur, the adversaries may not useall their #ea%ons) 7f they do use all their #ea%ons, the glo$al e?ects, in the o5one andelse#here, may $e moderate) 3nd if the e?ects are not moderate $ut e:treme, theecos%here may %rove resilient enough to #ithstand them #ithout $rea>ing do#n

    catastro%hically) .hese are all su$stantial reasons for su%%osing that man>ind #ill not $ee:tinguished in a nuclear holocaust, or even that e:tinction in a holocaust is unli>ely, andthey tend to calm our fear and reduce our sense of urgency) @et at the same time #e arecom%elled to admit that there may $e a holocaust,that the adversaries may use all their#ea%ons, that the glo$al e?ects, including e?ects of #hich #e are as yet una#are, may $esevere, that the ecos%here may su?er catastro%hic $rea>do#n,and that our s%ecies may $ee:tinguished) We ar e left #ith uncertainty, and are forced to ma>e our decisions in a state ofuncertainty )7f #e #ish to act to save our s%ecies, #e have to muster our resolve in s%ite ofour a#areness that the life of the s%ecies may not no# in fact $e eo%ardi5ed) An the otherhand, if #e #ish to ignore the %eril, #e have to admit that #e do so in the >no#ledge thatthe s%ecies may $e in danger of imminent selfdestruction )When the e:istence of nuclear#ea%ons #as made >no#n, thoughtful %eo%le every#here in the #orld reali5ed that if thegreat %o#ers entered into a nucleararms race the human s%ecies #ould sooner or later face

    the %ossi$ility of e:tinction) .hey also reali5ed that in the a$sence of internationalagreements %reventing it an arms race #ould %ro$a$ly occur) .hey >ne# that the %ath ofnuclear armament #as a dead end for man>ind) .he discovery of the energy in mass=of!the $asic %o#er of the universe'=and of a means $y #hich man could release that energy

    altered the relationshi% $et#een Bhumans and the source of Btheir life, the earth)7n theshado# of this %o#er, the earth $ecame small and the life of the human s%eciesdou$tful) 7n that sense, the Duestion of human e:tinction has $een on the %olitical agendaof the #orld ever since the Erst nuclear #ea%on #as detonated, and there #as no need forthe #orld to $uild u% its %resent tremendous arsenals $efore starting to #orry a$out it) 3t

    ust #hat %oint the s%ecies crossed, or #ill have crossed, the $oundary $et#een merelyhaving the technical >no#ledge to destroy itself and actually having the arsenals at hand,ready to $e used at any second, is not %recisely >no#a$le) ut it is clear that at %resent,#ith some t#enty thousand megatons of nuclear e:%losive %o#er in e:istence, and #ith

    more $eing added every day, #e have entered into the 5one of uncertainty, #hich is to saythe 5one of ris> of e:tinction)ut the !ere ris) of e5tinction has a signi*cance that iscategorically dierent fro! and i!!easura$ly greater than that of any otherris) and as we !a)e our decisions we ha&e to ta)e that signi*cance into account.

    U% to no#, e&ery ris) has $een contained within the fra!e of life e5tinction wouldshatter the fra!e. 7t re%resents not the defeat of some %ur%ose $ut an a$yss in #hich allhuman %ur%oses #ould $e dro#ned for all time) We ha&e no right to place thepossi$ility of this li!itless eternal defeat on the sa!e footing as ris)s that werun in the ordinary conduct of our aairs in our particular transient !o!ent of

  • 7/24/2019 2AC Generics

    50/50

    hu!an history..o em%loy a mathematical analogy, #e can say that although the ris> ofe:tinction may $e fractional, the sta>e is, humanly s%ea>ing, inEnite, and a fraction ofin*nity is still in*nity .7n other #ords, once #e learn that a holocaust might lead toe:tinction #e have no right to gam$le, $ecause if #e lose, the game #ill $e over, andneither #e nor anyone else #ill ever get another chance).herefore, although, scientiEcallys%ea>ing, there is all the di?erence in the #orld $et#een the mere %ossi$ility that a

    holocaust #ill $ring a$out e:tinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and#e have no choice $ut to address the issue of nuclear #ea%ons as though #e >ne# for acertainty that their use #ould %ut an end to our s%ecies)7n #eighing the fate of the earth and, #ith it,our o#n fate, #e stand $efore a mystery, and in tam%ering #ith the earth #e tam%er #ith a mystery) We are indee% ignorance) Aur ignorance should dis%ose us to #onder, our #onder should ma>e us hum$le, our humilityshould ins%ire us to reverence and caution, and our reverence and caution should lead us to act #ithout delay to#ithdra# the threat #e no# %ose to the earth and to ourselves)