Datasets:

tvergho

/

DebateCards

like 0

53ce4581b742576041cb2f46975406bfc86d421f055664a42769724f9aa3caf0

No limits to growth---solar energy and the knowledge economy enable clean growth and solve climate change better than degrowth.

Michael Liebreich ‘18, Visiting Professor at Imperial College’s Energy Future Lab, “The Secret of Eternal Growth,” 10/29/18, http://ifreetrade.org/article/the_secret_of_eternal_growth_the_physics_behind_pro_growth_environmentalism

The earth is not an isolated system it receives huge energy from the sun Limits to Growth stemmed from errors in its structure Jackson published Prosperity Without Growth based on a fallacy Limiting climate change will require technology scale. Destroying the world economy is the very opposite the contribution of knowledge to growth is the perfect riposte to those who think growth is the same as physical material use an open, economy will do a better job of addressing climate a flow of energy can drive order out of chaos the economy can grow for as long as there is still a sun

The earth is not an isolated system it receives a huge daily flux of energy from the sun Limits to Growth stemmed entirely from errors in its structure Daly noted that six days’ worth of radiation from the sun contained more useful energy than that embodied in all the fossil fuel reserves known at the time Jackson published Prosperity Without Growth it is based on a fallacy the neo-liberal world economy is currently failing to address severe, systemic environmental challenges, first and foremost among them climate change Climate change is real, serious, and urgent Limiting the impact of climate change will require the application of technology on a heroic scale. Destroying the ability of the world economy to deliver these solutions is the very opposite of what we should be doing Romer’s contribution was to identify the contribution of knowledge to economic growth Romer’s work is the perfect riposte to those who think that economic growth is the same thing as ever-increasing physical material use and pollution an open, liberal, trade-friendly economy will do a better job of addressing climate change and other environmental problems than stalling or reversing economic growth a flow of energy across closed system can drive the creation of “ order out of chaos the economy can grow for as long as there is still a sun in the sky

not an isolated system huge daily flux of energy from the sun errors in its structure all the fossil fuel reserves known at the time Jackson fallacy application of technology Destroying the ability of the world economy to deliver these solutions ever-increasing physical material use “ order out of chaos the economy can grow for as long as there is still a sun in the sky

['The earth, however, is not an isolated system. It may be nearly closed, exchanging limited matter across the planetary boundary, but it is far from isolated, as it receives a huge daily flux of energy from the sun and radiates almost as much away to space. In his book, Georgescu-Roegen even acknowledged the existence of huge solar energy fluxes, but that didn’t stop him from basing his seminal work on a scientific error. Later in his career, after ruefully acknowledging his mistake, he invented a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics, claiming that “material entropy” would forever prevent materials from being perfectly recycled. Pure fake science.', 'Around the same time as Georgescu-Roegen was making up thermodynamic laws, a group of concerned environmentalists calling themselves the Club of Rome invited one of the doyens of the new field of computer modelling, Jay Forrester, to create a simulation of the world economy and its interaction with the environment. In 1972 his marvellous black box produced another best-seller, Limits to Growth (iv), which purported to prove that almost every combination of economic parameters ended up not just with growth slowing, but with an overshoot and collapse. This finding, so congenial to the model’s commissioners, stemmed entirely from errors in its structure, as pointed out by a then fresh-faced young economics professor at Yale, William Nordhaus.', 'A third foundational work in the degrowth canon is Steady State Economics (v) by Herman Daly, later Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank. In it he explains that “the economy is an open subsystem of a finite and nongrowing ecosystem. Any subsystem of a finite nongrowing system must itself at some point also become nongrowing.” It’s a repeat of Georgescu-Roegen’s error. Daly must have known it too, since he noted that six days’ worth of radiation from the sun contained more useful energy (or exergy, to give it its correct name) than that embodied in all the fossil fuel reserves known at the time.', 'The point here is not that solar power is the key to endless growth, though it could well be - nuclear fission and fusion are other strong contenders. The point is that when you scratch the surface of any of the seminal tracts of the degrowth movement, you find they are based on the same fake science, right through to the present day.', 'Jeremy Rifkin’s 1980 Entropy: a New World View (vi) states that “here on earth material entropy is continually increasing and must ultimately reach a maximum”. In 2009, Professor Tim Jackson, the favourite anti-capitalist of the TED generation, published Prosperity Without Growth (vii). In it he pays homage to Daly’s “pioneering case for a ‘steady state economy’” and cheerfully recommends it to students hungering for alternative wisdom – either not understanding or not caring that it is based on a fallacy.', 'This matters because, for all that the neo-liberal world economy has delivered extraordinary improvements in living standards – in life span, levels of education, infant survival, maternal health, poverty reduction, leisure, and so on (viii) – it is currently failing to address severe, systemic environmental challenges, first and foremost among them climate change. Unless the free-trade, pro-growth, pro-trade right offers a coherent plan, it is ceding the argument to the degrowth, anti-capitalist, anti-trade left.', 'Climate change is real, serious, and urgent. That recent IPCC 1.5°C report is based on rigorous research. Of course climate change is being co-opted by the “Academic Grievance Studies” brigade (ix), but that doesn’t make the underlying physical science less real. As the world continues to burn through its remaining carbon budget, as temperatures continue to rise, as the ‘signal’ of climate damage becomes clearer against the background ‘noise’ of weather, the demand for dramatic action will only increase.', 'Limiting the impact of climate change will require the application of technology, both new and yet-to-be-developed, on a heroic scale. Destroying the ability of the world economy to deliver these solutions is the very opposite of what we should be doing. And that is where Nordhaus and Romer come in.', 'Romer’s great contribution was to identify the contribution of knowledge to economic growth. Before his Endogenous Growth Theory, no one could explain differences in growth rates of as much as 10 percent between countries at a similar stage of development. Romer’s work is the perfect riposte to those who think that economic growth is the same thing as ever-increasing physical material use and pollution; it is also the perfect riposte to those who believe that extractive industries can ever deliver long-term wealth and those who believe the same of agricultural subsidies and import tariffs.', 'Nordhaus, for his part, was the creator of the first Integrated Assessment Models, bringing together the physics of climate change, its economic impact, and the functioning of the economy. He was also the first person to suggest that attaching a cost to emissions – low at first but rising – would squeeze greenhouse gases out of the economy. Nordhaus is no climate fundamentalist, famously diverging from the view propounded in the Stern Review, that the world needs super-high carbon taxes immediately. Nordhaus accepted that environmental challenges and climate change will act as a drag on the economy but, unlike others before him, he quantified the drag and showed that it is highly unlikely to reverse economic growth.', 'Nordhaus and Romer are not the only Nobel Prize-winners whose work suggests that an open, liberal, trade-friendly economy – though one pricing in externalities – will do a better job of addressing climate change and other environmental problems than stalling or reversing economic growth.', 'Simon Kuznets, who won the 1971 Nobel Prize for Economics (x), described how a variable can get worse in the early phases of a country’s development, and then improve as growth continues. He focused mainly on inequality, but the Environmental Kuznets Curves has been shown to govern most forms of local pollution.', 'Ilya Prigogine won the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his research into non-equilibrium “dissipative” structures – how a flow of energy across closed system can drive the creation of “order out of chaos” (xi). This is a real scientific expert on entropy proving that the economy can grow for as long as there is still a sun in the sky (which would give us about another five billion years).']

[(8, 17), (18, 19), (19, 21)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-ShVe-Neg-5---Georgetown-Round-1.docx

Dartmouth

ShVe

9d322b7554fe2d2780ea8a4ea5e2f46cccf0d8019261acde1ce35ed6156cec8b

The CP is a mess

Phyllis Schafly 96. MA in gov from Radcliffe College, JD from Wash U @ St Louis. May 1996. “Is a Con Con Hidden in Term Limits?.” The Schiafly Report, Vol. 29, No 10.

bedlam emotions partisan tirades gridlock Con Con would be the worst thing that could happen to America do permanent damage to our nation throw confusion, uncertainty, and court cases make America look foolish in the eyes of the world there are no safeguards at all

Most of us have watched a R N C or D N C We've seen the bedlam of people milling up and down the aisles. We've watched emotions stirred felt the tension when thousands make group decisions Now imagine holding the Conventions together at the same time in the same hall Imagine the confrontations of partisan politician s the clash of liberals and conservatives the tirades all demanding their view prevail . Imagine the gridlock a Con Con would be the worst thing that could happen to America and signal time to "move to Australia." a self-inflicted wound that could do permanent damage to our nation would throw confusion, uncertainty, and court cases around our government al process by opening up our entire Constitution to be picked apart It would make America look foolish in the eyes of the world Under Washington deliberated in complete secrecy and there were no leaks That is obviously impossible Demonstrators would hold court outside the convention hall Nobody can predict the rules The Con Con advocates try to reassure us with talk of a Procedures bill introduced many years ago by the late Sam Ervin -- but Congress consistently refused to pass any Procedures bill . The shenanigans involved in changing the text of the Procedures bill each time it has been reintroduced prove how political the procedures process is bound to be. The Con Con advocates try to tell us that there are "safeguards" that will prevent bad things from happening at a Constitutional Convention. In fact, there are no safeguards at all , and the alleged "safeguards" are just political campaign promises.

R N C D N C bedlam emotions thousands group decisions together same time same hall confrontations of partisan s liberals and conservatives tirades prevail gridlock worst thing that could happen to America "move to Australia." self-inflicted wound permanent damage to our nation confusion, uncertainty, and court cases government entire Constitution picked apart look foolish in the eyes of the world Washington complete secrecy no leaks impossible Demonstrators rules Procedures bill Sam Ervin consistently refused to pass any Procedures bill shenanigans changing the text of the Procedures bill each time it has been reintroduced political no safeguards at all , and the alleged "safeguards" are just political campaign promises.

['', 'Most of us have watched a Republican National Convention or a Democratic National Convention on television. We\'ve seen the bedlam of people milling up and down the aisles. We\'ve watched how the emotions of the crowd can be stirred, and we\'ve felt the tension when thousands of people make group decisions in a huge auditorium. Now imagine holding the Republican and Democratic National Conventions together -- at the same time and in the same hall. Imagine the confrontations of partisan politicians and pressure groups, the clash of liberals and conservatives, and the tirades of the activists -- all demanding that their view of constitutional issues prevail. Imagine the gridlock as the Jesse Helms caucus tries to work out constitutional change with the Jesse Jackson caucus! No wonder Rush Limbaugh said that a Con Con would be the worst thing that could happen to America and that it might signal time to "move to Australia." That\'s what it would be like if the United States calls a new Constitutional Convention (Con Con) for the first time in 209 years. It would be a self-inflicted wound that could do permanent damage to our nation, to our process of self-government, and possibly even to our liberty. A Con Con would throw confusion, uncertainty, and court cases around our governmental process by opening up our entire Constitution to be picked apart by special-interest groups that want various changes. It would make America look foolish in the eyes of the world, unsettle our financial markets, and force all of us to re-fight the same battles that the Founding Fathers so brilliantly won in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. George Washington and James Madison both called our Constitution a "miracle". We can\'t count on a miracle happening again. The most influential players in a new Constitutional Convention would be Big Media (such as Dan Rather and Sam Donaldson) giving on-the-spot interviews and predictions of what they are trying to make happen. The media elite have made themselves players in the political process, not just observers, and a Constitutional Convention would be the biggest media event of our time. It would be an irresistible opportunity for Big Media to guide (if not actually dictate) the result. Under the presidency of George Washington, the original Constitutional Convention of 1787 deliberated in complete secrecy and there were no leaks to the press. That is obviously impossible today. The ratio at the 1988 and 1992 national party conventions was eight reporters per delegate. Demonstrators would hold court outside the convention hall, with the TV cameras giving us daily, live, on-the-spot coverage of pressure groups and radicals demanding constitutional changes. We would have round-the-clock coverage by CNN and C-Span. Demonstrations would be staged by the pro-abortionists and the pro-lifers, the gay activists and their opponents, the radical feminists (Bella Abzug would take time off from her United Nations projects), the environmentalists, the gun control activists, the animal rights extremists, the D.C. Statehood agitators, those who want to relax immigration and those who would restrict it, the homeless, and the unions -- all demanding that their perceived "rights" be recognized in the Constitution. A Constitutional Convention would be confrontational, divisive, and ruled by 20-second television sound-bites. Nobody can predict what the rules or the agenda of a new Constitutional Convention would be. There is nothing in the Constitution or in any law to guide us. The Con Con advocates try to reassure us with talk of a Procedures bill introduced many years ago by the late Senator Sam Ervin -- but Congress has consistently refused to pass any Procedures bill. The shenanigans involved in changing the text of the Procedures bill each time it has been reintroduced prove how political the procedures process is bound to be. The Con Con advocates try to tell us that there are "safeguards" that will prevent bad things from happening at a Constitutional Convention. In fact, there are no safeguards at all, and the alleged "safeguards" are just political campaign promises. None of them is backed up by any statute or court decision. The Constitution tells us nothing except that, if 34 states pass a resolution requesting a Constitutional Convention, Congress "shall" call a Con Con for the purpose of considering "amendments" (in the plural).', '']

[(8, 18)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-Johnson-Sun-Aff-9-Rutgers-Round1.docx

Minnesota

JoSu

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Minnesota/JoSu/Minnesota-Johnson-Sun-Aff-9-Rutgers-Round1.docx

b357c2cc848aab2cb5fbc9a2bfd0133c7983ed082598e758d7a2cdf7ca01a1dd

Specifically, an Indo-Pak nuke war only kills 1% of India and 7% of Pakistan!

Rabb Khan 9, professor @ King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia, he specializes in security issues, foreign relations and terrorism, “Price of an Indo-Pak War”, Newstrack India, 1/20/2009, http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/62680

Natural Resources Defence Council in its report, Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan” has [been] calculated the human costs of an Indo-Pak nuclear conflict exploding a nuclear bomb above the ground does not produce fallout even after such a devastating annihilation about 99 percent of the population in India and 93 percent of the population in Pakistan would survive loss of life would be immense not be large enough to result in extinction of Indo-Pak populations

Natural Resources Defence Council the New York based global think tank, in its report, Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan” has [been] calculated the human costs of an Indo-Pak nuclear conflict Depicting a nuclear war Scenario it says that attack on 10 major cities would result in a combined death toll of 2,862,581 Contrary to ground burst, exploding a nuclear bomb above the ground does not produce fallout even after such a devastating annihilation about 99 percent of the population in India and 93 percent of the population in Pakistan would survive loss of human life would be immense it would not be large enough to result in extinction of Indo-Pak populations

Natural Resources Defence Council human costs Contrary to ground burst, exploding a nuclear bomb above the ground does not produce fallout even after such a devastating annihilation 99 percent of the population in India 93 percent of the population in Pakistan loss of human life would be immense it would not be large enough to result in extinction

['Let us turn to unprecedented casualty in case of a nuclear conflict: Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), the New York based global think tank, in its report, “The Consequences of Nuclear Conflict between India and Pakistan” has [been] calculated the human costs of an Indo-Pak nuclear conflict. As per NRDC estimates, both countries have a total of 50 to 75 nuclear weapons. Depicting a nuclear war Scenario (10 bombs on 10 South Asian cities), it says that attack on 10 major cities – 5 each in India and Pakistan – would result in a combined death toll of 2,862,581, with 1,506,859 severely injured and 3,382,978 slightly injured. On Indian side, death toll is estimated at 1,690,702, while 892,459 and 2,021,106 would be severely and slightly injured respectively. On Pakistan side, a total of 1,171,879 people would die, while, 614,400 and 1,361,872 are to be severely and slightly injured. In another scenario (24 Ground Bursts), NRDC calculated the consequences of 24 nuclear explosions detonated on the ground – unlike the Hiroshima airburst – resulting in significant amounts of lethal radioactive fallout, which is far more severe nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. The report was first appeared in the January 14, 2002, issue of Newsweek (A Face-Off with Nuclear Stakes). Contrary to ground burst, exploding a nuclear bomb above the ground does not produce fallout. For example, can we imagine the consequences of ground burst if the “Little Boy” detonated by the US above Hiroshima at an altitude of 1,900 feet could kill 70,000 people in the immediate effect with some 200,000 died up to 1950? NRDC calculated that 22.1 million people in India and Pakistan would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 roentgen equivalents in man or REM (a large amount of radiation) or more in the first two days of the attack. In addition, about 8 million people would receive a radiation dose of 100 to 600 REM causing severe radiation sickness and potentially death. In all, as many as 30 million people of both countries would be eliminated by nuclear war. Besides fallout, blast and fire would cause substantial destruction within roughly a mile-and-a-half of the bomb craters. However, even after such a devastating annihilation of population, about 99 percent of the population in India and 93 percent of the population in Pakistan would survive the second scenario and their respective military forces would still be intact to continue the conflict. In short, there is nothing to gain from a war, just plenty to lose. Albeit loss of human life would be immense it would not be large enough to result in extinction of Indo-Pak populations or even prevent continuation of a military conflict. Thus, the consequences, though horrific, are not strong enough to rule out Indo-Pak conflict in future. Had size of the Indo-Pak nuclear arsenals equal to those of the US and Russia, a complete annihilation of entire population of the Indian sub-continent would have been possible.']

[(5, 11)]

ndtceda

Kansas-PaSe-Aff-7---Texas-Round-4.docx

Kansas

PaSe

21d157913baf38b1b238197c40ed1b8c2118bd3c57c24947f71ed6130e2247a7

2. NPEs (Non-Practicing Entities) due to AI’s lack of subject expertise

Nietering 22, JD Candidate at University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law (Pressley Nietering, 2022, “WHY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE SHOULDN’T BE A PATENT INVENTOR,” Arizona Law Journal of Emerging Technologies, Volume 5, Article 5, http://azlawjet.com/2022/04/v5a5/)

companies that build AI are unlikely to be involved in the field AI is employed in. This policy would fail to allocate patent s to companies that value them IBM’s involved in law and medicine However does not own a law office or hospital if Watson was to create a patent it would be inefficient because companies are not in the fields they would be NPE NPEs are inefficient they have high social cost in licensing fees to avoid “nuisance” suits and lead to loss of progress in inventive field NPEs would have to undergo policing measures to protect inventive results

Another policy concern associated with AI programmers having patents for the AI-inventions is that software companies that build AI are unlikely to be involved in the field their AI is employed in. This policy would fail to allocate patent right s to companies that most value them IBM’s Watson is involved in law and medicine However , IBM does not own a law office or hospital if Watson was to create a patent for the legal or medical industry, it would be inefficient for IBM to have the patent because these software companies are not in the fields their patents would be in, they would be non-practicing entities NPE NPEs are inefficient for society because they often have a high social cost in the form of licensing fees paid to avoid “nuisance” suits and because they often lead to a loss of progress in an inventive field these NPEs would have to undergo significant policing measures to protect the inventive results of their AI

fail to allocate patent right s to companies that most value them However it would be inefficient high social cost avoid “nuisance” suits loss of progress in an inventive field significant policing measures

['Another policy concern associated with AI programmers having patents for the AI-inventions is that software companies that build AI, such as IBM, are unlikely to be involved in the field their AI is employed in. This policy would, therefore, fail to allocate patent rights to companies that most value them. For example, IBM’s Watson is involved in both law and medicine.[182] However, IBM does not own a law office or hospital.[183] Therefore, if Watson was to create a patent for the legal or medical industry, it would be inefficient for IBM to have the patent. Further, because these software companies are not in the fields their patents would be in, they would be non-practicing entities (NPE). NPEs are inefficient for society because they often have a high social cost in the form of licensing fees paid to avoid “nuisance” suits and because they often lead to a loss of progress in an inventive field.[184] Also, these NPEs would have to undergo significant policing measures to protect the inventive results of their AI.[185]']

[(0, 12)]

ndtceda

Kansas-SpBa-Neg-Franklin-R-Shirley-at-Wake-Forest-Round-3.docx

Kansas

SpBa

ec2f7ae5f99d6c04295972facd68bd243c713223ee1ad900091f34ca61b8a1d9

Thorium, innovation, and recycling minimize REM mining

Martin and Iles 2020 (Abigail Martin, Ph.D. in Environmental Science, Policy and Management from the UC Berkeley, Research Fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School; Alastair Iles, SJD in Environmental law and policy from Harvard, 2020, "The Ethics of Rare Earth Elements Over Time and Space," HYLE--International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 26, No. 1 (2020), pp. 5-30., http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/26-1/martin.htm)

industries that use REEs discovered that they could do without glassmaking abandoned cerium sharply increasing recycling is one strategy which requires implementing a circular flow of REE material Some industries extract REEs from other materials coal ash and mining waste expanded thorium mining also turn up usable r e m Recovering and recycling avoid ongoing injustices of mining efforts are underway to make REE recycling more efficient Researchers develop a process to recover ores using membrane solvent extraction Other s improving method of isolating REEs using molten magnesium in Belgium ionic liquids to separate REEs from magnets Honda found a way to extract rare earths using molten salt as much as 80 percent of REEs recycled blended REE is one alternative to purification the recycling of REEs can also be pursued through a circular economy approach that replace the ‘take-make-dispose’ models . A closed-loop system developed internally would keep REEs and other materials in circulation for as long as possible. This would mean manufacturers take control of their upstream REE supply chains re-circulating REEs rather than purchasing engineers must design products for easy separation so metals are easily removed

Some large industries that use REEs discovered during the 2010 supply scare that they could do without some of them glassmaking largely abandoned cerium for polishing More may be done to find designs that keep REE use to the minimum The lack of replacements suggests sharply increasing recycling is one strategy for REE supply chains, which requires implementing a circular flow of REE material through different stages in a product’s lifecycle, from design, to end-of-life collection, to separation and recycling Some industries are looking for ways to bypass mining entirely by extract ing REEs from other materials . For example power plant coal ash and coal mining waste . expanded thorium mining would also turn up usable r are e arth m inerals. Recovering and recycling rare earth metals is one possible way of avoid ing the ongoing environmental and intergenerational injustices of mining the Japanese mining company Dowa began harvesting circuit boards, hard drives, computer chips and other components for rare earth metals Several efforts are underway to make REE recycling more efficient Researchers working under the US Department of Energy ’ s Critical Materials Institute have focused on develop ing a single-step process to recover REEs from scrap magnets in order to recover the ores from hard drives, magnetic resonance imaging machines, cell phones, and hybrid cars For instance, using membrane solvent extraction , about 3 kilograms of magnets can yield about 1 kilogram of rare earth metals Other researcher s improving method of isolating REEs using molten magnesium Researchers in Belgium are using ionic liquids to separate REEs from magnets , Researchers at Honda have found a way to extract rare earths from nickel-metal hydride batteries from hybrid vehicles by using molten salt , and claim as much as 80 percent of REEs being recycled Manufacturing blended REE materials is one alternative to the challenges of purification Technology companies and other manufacturers may be willing to take blended product that combines REEs as long as the material meets manufacturing requirements. One strategy would be to target supply chains with much larger REE quantities the recycling of REEs can also be pursued at the firm or industry level through a circular economy approach ‘close the loop’ business models that replace the ‘take-make-dispose’ models , or what some now call the ‘linear economy’. A closed-loop system developed internally would keep REEs and other materials in circulation for as long as possible. This would mean manufacturers take control of their upstream REE supply chains , re-circulating REEs rather than purchasing mined REEs or waiting for a sizable market of recycled REEs to develop engineers must design products for easy separation . circuit board may be redesigned so that its metals are easily removed from other plastic, aluminum, and steel parts Policymaking has an important role to play here. Product-centric design for a circular economy must be undertaken in collaboration with policymakers as well as planning and recycling professionals

['5.1 Reducing and replacing REEs Some large industries that use REEs discovered during the 2010 supply scare that they could do without some of them. When the price of lanthanum soared, oil refinery operators temporarily stopped using this rare earth even though it improves refining efficiency. The glassmaking industry largely abandoned using cerium for polishing. More may be done to find designs that keep REE use to the minimum. However, many REEs needed for high-technology products have no or low potential for adequate substitution with other materials (Graedel et al. 2015). For example, dysprosium (used in permanent magnets in computers and wind turbines), europium and yttrium (used in flat panel displays), and thulium and ytterbium (used in laser technologies) do not have straightforward substitutes available. The lack of replacements suggests sharply increasing recycling is one strategy for REE supply chains, which requires implementing a circular flow of REE material through different stages in a product’s lifecycle, from design, to end-of-life collection, to separation and recycling. 5.2 Innovations to REE manufacturing and bypass mining Some industries that rely on REEs are looking for ways to bypass mining entirely by extracting REEs from other materials. For example, the US could someday obtain these elements as byproducts from power plant coal ash and coal mining waste. And the problem of radioactive material mixed in with ores could end up being positive: If thorium-based nuclear plants prove viable, expanded thorium mining would also turn up usable rare earth minerals. However, insofar as such innovations rely on energy production that poses significant risks to local communities, these approaches cannot satisfy the requirements of environmental justice, let alone intergenerational justice. 5.3 Circular economies for REE recovery and recycling Recovering and recycling rare earth metals is one possible way of avoiding the ongoing environmental and intergenerational injustices of mining. However, only a very small proportion of REEs becomes recycled from products, some estimating less than 1% (Binnemans et al. 2013). One reason is that the amount of rare earth elements that can be recovered from electronics, medical devices, and similar applications is very small, often less than one gram (Bonawandt 2013). Typically, recycling requires that rare earths be separated from metals and alloys created with REEs. For instance, the Japanese mining company Dowa began harvesting circuit boards, hard drives, computer chips and other components for rare earth metals by cutting these components into 2 cm squares, smelting them at 1,400° C, which enables separation of the various components. For every 300 tons of e-waste smelted, the harvestable rare earth material is only about 150 grams. Although REEs are valuable, Dowa would not be profitable were it not for other materials, such as gold, silicon, etc. (Tabuchi 2010). Another issue is that there is no standard method of recycling REEs, and the processes for doing so are considerably costly and environmentally hazardous – some on par with mining. Several efforts are underway to make REE recycling more efficient (Harler 2018). Researchers working under the US Department of Energy’s Critical Materials Institute have focused on developing a single-step process to recover REEs from scrap magnets in order to recover the ores from hard drives, magnetic resonance imaging machines, cell phones, and hybrid cars (ORNL 2019). For instance, using membrane solvent extraction, about 3 kilograms of magnets can yield about 1 kilogram of rare earth metals. Other US researchers have been improving an older method of isolating REEs from magnets and scrap metals using molten magnesium (Bonawandt 2013). Researchers in Belgium are using ionic liquids to separate REEs from magnets, a process that uses trihexyl(tetradecyl)phosphonium chloride to transform metals like iron, cobalt, magnesium, and copper into a liquid phase, leaving the rare earths behind in an aqueous state. Researchers at Japanese car manufacturer Honda have found a way to extract rare earths from nickel-metal hydride batteries from hybrid vehicles by using molten salt, and claim as much as 80 percent of REEs being recycled. In addition to these separation challenges, there are also challenges in handling reclaimed REEs due to their air reactivity, which can render them into oxides if left out in the open for too long. Manufacturing blended REE materials is one alternative to the challenges of purification and the relatively small amounts of pure REE that can be recovered from many products. For instance, scientists and engineers working at Momentum Technologies and the DOE’s Critical Materials Institute are producing a blended REE product from recovered hard drives and other technology waste (Harler 2018). After extracting iron and boron, the recovered rare earth metal product includes a mixture of neodymium, dysprosium, and praseodymium. Technology companies and other manufacturers may be willing to take this blended product that combines all three REEs as long as the material meets manufacturing requirements. One strategy for enhancing the profitability would be to target REE recovery and recycling initiatives in supply chains with much larger REE quantities. For instance, it may be more profitable to work with the REEs in specific supply chains, such as sustainability technologies like wind turbines and electric cars or specific consumer electronics. Some argue that recycling of e-waste will have little impact on REE supplies until there is enough material in the recycling stream to keep up with REE demand. This assumes that manufacturers’ only recourse is to wait for a steady flow of recycled REEs to become available for purchase on the world market. However, the recycling of REEs can also be pursued at the firm or industry level through a circular economy approach. The term ‘circular economy’ refers to ‘close the loop’ business models that replace the ‘take-make-dispose’ models, or what some now call the ‘linear economy’. Individual firms could take a product-centric approach to closing the loop for REE reuse as well. A closed-loop system developed internally would keep REEs and other materials in circulation for as long as possible. This would mean that downstream manufacturers, product designers, engineers, and business take control of their upstream REE supply chains, re-circulating REEs rather than purchasing mined REEs or waiting for a sizable market of recycled REEs to develop. Such product-centric design approaches require attention to disassembly: designers and engineers must understand how complex products break down into component parts and how particular materials behave in order to design products for easy separation. For instance, the circuit board of an electronic product may be redesigned so that its metals are easily removed from other plastic, aluminum, and steel parts. Product-centric recycling systems must be designed by those with knowledge of the chemical and physical properties of waste containing REEs, physical separation methods, physical and chemical recycling methods, as well as the thermodynamics of a specific plant’s processing to assess material performance with regard to energy efficiency, durability, and manufacturing compatibility, in addition to recyclability (UNEP 2013, Kaya 2016). Liberation modeling is an important tool in this regard because it focuses on defining recyclate grades in a way that allows a common language to develop among engineers, policy specialists, and environmentalists about the trade-offs of different design approaches (UNEP 2013). Policymaking has an important role to play here. Product-centric design for a circular economy must be undertaken in collaboration with policymakers as well as planning and recycling professionals who can help design collection systems for waste products and discourage informal or illegal disposal. Producer-responsibility laws, recycling targets, and other policy-based incentives can help to incentivize circular economy innovations from specific manufacturers and entire industries. For instance, the 2012 European Parliament law to reduce electronic waste requires member states to collect 45 tons of e-waste for every 100 tons of electronic goods sold in the previous three years, which has pushed companies and governments to develop better collection systems. In 2015, the European Commission launched its Action Plan on the Circular Economy, which aims to go further by pushing companies to re-design products to be durable and made with materials that can be re-used again and again.']

[(0, 20)]

ndtceda

Kansas-Harris-Wilkus-Aff-7%20-%20Minnesota-Round6.docx

Kansas

HaWi

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kansas/HaWi/Kansas-Harris-Wilkus-Aff-7%2520-%2520Minnesota-Round6.docx

a84f8102d7f47bd834e1867aa63b5e674695e8bd5408683d86d9dab4de12f807

Replacing the CWS is a bold move that energizes the base

NLR 19 – National Law Review, “Antitrust Enforcement “Reform” as a Political Issue: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”, 11/8/2019, https://www.natlawreview.com/article/antitrust-enforcement-reform-political-issue-good-bad-and-ugly

some antitrust reforms are eclipsing “Better Deal” in scope. For example Replacing the c w s contests invite surprising proposals to energize a candidate’s political base , and antitrust is no exception

In the 2020 race, some proposed antitrust enforcement reforms are eclipsing that “Better Deal” platform in scope. For example Sanders recently proposed antitrust enforcement changes, including: Replacing the c onsumer w elfare s tandard for merger reviews contests often invite surprising proposals intended to energize a candidate’s political base , and the scope of the proposals for antitrust enforcement reform is no exception

c onsumer w elfare s tandard surprising proposals energize a candidate’s political base

['In the 2020 presidential race, some proposed antitrust enforcement reforms are eclipsing that “Better Deal” platform in scope. For example, Bernie Sanders recently proposed antitrust enforcement changes, including:', 'Replacing the consumer welfare standard for merger reviews; ', 'Breaking up “existing monopolies and oligopolies” that have “accumulated dominant market share and are able to wield their market power in anti-competitive ways;”', 'Taking “antitrust enforcement out of the control of the captured judiciary” and allowing the agencies (or at least FTC) to “halt mergers without challenging them in federal court;”', 'Reviewing and, “when necessary,” unwinding previously approved transactions;', 'Directing the agencies to “establish new guidelines that restrict mergers and acquisitions,” which include a “special focus on economic security, job security, and competition,” and “bright-line merger guidelines that set caps for vertical mergers, horizontal mergers, and total market share;”', 'Rejecting all mergers involving companies found to engage in certain behaviors: “No merger will be approved for companies that engage in the behaviors identified by the FTC as harming workers, competition, or fair pricing;” and ', 'Banning the “revolving door of personnel” between industries and regulators. ', 'Proposed antitrust enforcement “reforms” were even discussed during the fourth televised debate of Democratic Party candidates, held on October 15, 2019. Senator Warren repeated her call to break up certain consummated mergers involving “Big Tech” firms and has proposed a “platform utility” rule” that would bar Big Tech firms from selling products that competed with third-party vendors on the platforms controlled by those firms. Senator Warren and other candidates have repeated calls for increased agency scrutiny of mergers. ', 'Presidential primary contests often invite surprising proposals, whether politically viable or not, intended to energize a candidate’s political base, and the scope of the proposals for antitrust enforcement reform is no exception. The “New Brandeis School” view of competition, moreover, a relatively new academic proposal that challenges the “Chicago School” focus on consumer welfare, cites market structure as a better inquiry for competition policy, recognizes that numerous federal agencies (and state governments) exercise “antimonopoly” powers already, and proposes direct government regulation of some large firms. ']

[(0, 6), (7, 8)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-Adam-Kiihnl-Neg-Fullertown-Round3.docx

Kentucky

AdKi

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kentucky/AdKi/Kentucky-Adam-Kiihnl-Neg-Fullertown-Round3.docx

bb25e7e87c37a3a995f16281b2f8b9b9fb603ab9c3b2a89a6288e428fe147cb7

They conceded ASI is self-interested---that proves misalignment.

Carlsmith ’22 [Joseph; Submitted June 16; senior research analyst at Open Philanthropy focusing on risks to humanity's long-term future, and a doctoral student in philosophy at the University of Oxford; Arxiv, “Is Power-Seeking AI an Existential Risk?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.13353]

extinction play role in misaligned AI AI need not be motivated by “ hatred ” Nor need it want to use atoms for anything if humans are threatening objectives destruction be useful bio chem nuc weapons and drones new types of weaponry surveillance , and attacks on survival

extinction could play a key role in a misaligned AI system’s pursuit of other ends AI need not be intrinsically motivated by “ hatred ” of humans. Nor need it want to use atoms humans are made out of for anything else if humans are actively threatening its objectives destruction /harm might be instrumentally useful mechanisms include: bio logical / chem ical / nuc lear weapons advanced and weaponized drones robots new types of advanced weaponry surveillance , and attacks on conditions of human survival food, water, air, energy, habitable climate

extinction misaligned AI intrinsically hatred atoms threatening destruction instrumentally useful bio chem nuc drones robots advanced weaponry surveillance attacks human survival

['Destructive capacity. Ultimately, one salient route to disempowering humans would be widespread destruction, coercion, and even extinction; and the threats in this vein could play a key role in a PS-misaligned AI system’s pursuit of other ends.160 ', '<<FOOTNOTE 160 BEGINS>>', '160. To be clear: the AI need not be intrinsically motivated by anything like “hatred” of humans. Nor, indeed, need it want to literally use the atoms humans are made out of for anything else. Rather, if humans are actively threatening its pursuit of its objectives, or competing with it for power and resources, various types of destruction/harm might be instrumentally useful to it.', '<<FOOTNOTE 160 ENDS>>', 'Possible mechanisms here include: biological/chemical/nuclear weapons; advanced and weaponized drones/robots; new types of advanced weaponry; ubiquitous monitoring, surveillance, and confinement; attacks on (or sufficient indifference to) background conditions of human survival (food, water, air, energy, habitable climate); and so on.161 ', '<<FOOTNOTE 161 BEGINS>>']

[(0, 9), (9, 9), (10, 13)]

ndtceda

Michigan-PiPh-Neg-Run-for-the-Roses-Round-7.docx

Michigan

PiPh

7a930d3ab7df17957dfb09c02f0f22cb7e96f7ec382c95866e6b8d5fa267f50e

The plan sends a protectionist shockwave that ends free trade

Allison Murray 19, JD from the Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Law School, BS in Business Administration from the University of Redlands, Judicial Law Clerk at the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, Former Corporate Paralegal at Boeing, Degree in Economics and Management from the University of Oxford, “Given Today's New Wave of Protectionism, Is Antitrust Law the Last Hope for Preserving a Free Global Economy or Another Nail in Free Trade's Coffin?”, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, Volume 42, Number 1, 42 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 117, Winter 2019, p. 117-119

Now a tariff sends a shockwave of global consequences nations achieve protection through subtle vehicles , like antitrust It is a fear that antitrust may be overused and inequitably applied "once formal barriers come down, other issues become important Antitrust can form a barrier resulting in tariff-like measures the perception of antitrust as protectionist cause the death of even the smallest semblance of trade that remains today

Trump. Le Pen. Brexit. Protectionist rhetoric has consumed the international political stage. Western countries were once the drivers of economic globalization , relying on the prospect of removing trade barriers Although free world trade has never been perfected , past world leaders have eliminated most protectionist mechanisms by implementing multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. These webs of agreements have bolstered decades of support for free trade By and large, tariff policie s and other forms of protectionism were dramatically reduced Now when a government imposes a tariff sends a shockwave of significant global consequences the end of the tariff era forced nations to achieve protection ist goals through more subtle trade vehicles , like antitrust law It is a fear of many that antitrust law may be come overused and inequitably applied to achieve protectionist aims Although Trump imposed tariffs it appears that his intent is to limit this to a specific industry rather than institute a widespread policy Many still hope his action will be retracted and is merely a strong negotiation tactic Given the continuation of cooperative trade agreements leaders will rely on existing avenues to meet protectionist aims. Again , we find ourselves relying squarely on antitrust law , the more subtle and widely accepted mechanism of restricting trade "once formal trade barriers come down, other issues become more important ." Among the important issues lies antitrust law . Antitrust and competition laws can form a subtle trade barrier resulting in the imposition of tariff-like measures the perception of enforcement of antitrust laws as an abusive and solely protectionist mechanism may cause the death of even the smallest semblance of international free trade that remains in the international marketplace today

rhetoric consumed drivers economic globalization prospect removing perfected most bolstered decades of support tariff s other forms dramatically reduced Now sends a shockwave global consequences protection subtle trade vehicles antitrust fear be overused inequitably applied limit specific widespread policy retracted negotiation tactic continuation cooperative trade agreements existing avenues antitrust law more subtle mechanism formal more important antitrust law Antitrust form a subtle trade barrier imposition of tariff-like measures perception death of even the smallest semblance of international free trade that remains

['INTRODUCTION', 'Trump. Le Pen. Brexit. Protectionist rhetoric has consumed the international political stage. Western countries and their leaders were once the drivers of economic globalization, relying on free-market speeches and the prospect of removing trade barriers to appeal to their constituents. 1They pointed fingers at other countries engaging in or encouraging protectionist behavior and challenged them in the court of public opinion and elsewhere to stop their antics. The "our country first, world trade after" mentality was widely politicized and vilified. Now, it seems that Western national leaders are championing the very protectionism that they once criticized. 2', 'Although a system of truly free world trade has never been perfected, past world leaders have eliminated most of the protectionist trade mechanisms that once ran rampant in the international economy. They did so by implementing multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. These webs of agreements have bolstered decades of support for free trade, or at least some version of it. By and large, tariff policies and other forms of protectionism were either eliminated or dramatically reduced. [*118] Now, as we have seen in the media, when a government imposes a tariff, it becomes a rather extreme political statement which sends a shockwave of significant global consequences.', "Protectionism did not end when the age of overbearing tariff policies did, despite then-leaders' best efforts to vilify it. Rather, the end of the tariff era forced nations to achieve protectionist goals through more subtle trade vehicles, like antitrust law. 3So, the recent resurgence of protectionist rhetoric should mean that these subtle trade vehicles, including antitrust law, will be relied on more heavily. It is a fear of many that antitrust law may become overused and inequitably applied to achieve and combat protectionist aims.", 'Notwithstanding the recent uptick in tariff threats, it is unlikely that all Western leaders will revamp or terminate the trade agreements set forth by their predecessors and bring back the kinds of tariff policies that once existed in their place. Although in the United States ("U.S."), President Trump recently imposed tariffs on steel imports, it appears that his intent is to limit this behavior to a specific industry rather than institute a widespread policy favoring the use of tariffs generally. 4To remedy bad behavior in a specialized set of industries is not to instigate a global paradigm shift. This purpose is underscored by his use of the national security exemption, which is largely interpreted as being used for individual situations rather than general policy schemes. 5 Many still hope that his course of action will be retracted and is merely a strong negotiation tactic. However, there is no doubt that Trump is far more comfortable than past leaders with subverting the status quo on trade relations.', 'Trump is not the only high-profile leader flirting with staunch protectionism. Western leaders in the E.U. appear to be growing more comfortable than their predecessors with considering similar policies. However, Western lawmakers themselves do not seem as persuaded by the statements of their leadership. The general sentiment among international policymakers is that there has been too much political wherewithal spent on loosening international trade barriers to take actions [*119] that could counteract that progress. 6Presidential actions taken because of dissatisfaction with current global trade relations aside, a complete overhaul of trade agreements may be too daunting and difficult a task, especially absent ample political support in legislative bodies.', 'Given the anticipated continuation of cooperative trade agreements and the proliferation of protectionist rhetoric as the new norm of public opinion, leaders will be forced to rely on existing avenues to meet protectionist aims. Again, we find ourselves relying squarely on antitrust law, the more subtle and widely accepted mechanism of restricting trade, to address perceived inequities. In the words of the World Trade Organization ("WTO"), "once formal trade barriers come down, other issues become more important." 7 Among the important issues lies antitrust law. Antitrust and competition laws can form a subtle trade barrier resulting in the imposition of tariff-like measures.', 'Antitrust law can be enforced to reach protectionist aims and to combat them. It is a tool that allows nations to achieve individual protectionist aims without undermining the future of trade between countries and the cooperative framework underpinning the relatively delicate global free trade enjoyed today. However, the perception of enforcement of antitrust laws as an abusive and solely protectionist mechanism may cause the death of even the smallest semblance of international free trade that remains in the international marketplace today.']

[(8, 17)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-Adam-Kiihnl-Neg-Kentucky-Round5.docx

Kentucky

AdKi

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kentucky/AdKi/Kentucky-Adam-Kiihnl-Neg-Kentucky-Round5.docx

aa6cad2a25d81007cca90c83e5826c308facdc6bca931fdf45f4a3b9af2b02fc

They lose the rev and the alt right gets way worse – turns every link

Culp & Bond-Graham 14 (Visiting Assistant Professor of Rhetoric Studies at Whitman College; a sociologist and investigative journalist, ANDREW CULP and DARWIN BOND-GRAHAM, Left Gun Nuts, )

Over-represented among gun owners are white reactionary men gun culture would coopt any revolution with a lethal cocktail of masculinity, racism, and provincialism guns would empower warlords with petty political agendas, not freedom fighters. fantasies about armed struggle are the same half-baked ideas as those held by the secessionist Right a leftist revolution would be a fight amongst settler colonialists for political authoristy

Over-represented among current gun owners are white reactionary men toxic gun culture would coopt any new American revolution with a lethal cocktail of supercharged masculinity, racism, and provincialism fantasized about in post-apocalyptic scenes. If the United States ever comes to another civil war, the first thing to die under a barrage of lead will be our hope for a more just and democratic society guns would empower warlords with petty political agendas, not egalitarian-minded freedom fighters. Left insurrectionists are more focused on the U.S. Government as the singular impediment to their variant of utopia This is a classic example of radical posturing done in the name of some distant hypothetical moment, and it ignores the actual harm each and every day guns kill upwards of 30,000 Americans every year, virtually all of these deaths serving absolutely no political purpose in the fight for a more democratic society Left fantasies about armed struggle are the same half-baked ideas as those held by the secessionist Right a leftist revolution in the United States would not kick out a small minority of foreign occupiers but would be a fight amongst settler colonialists for political authoristy

white reactionary men coopt supercharged masculinity, racism, and provincialism half-baked ideas

['', 'The more radical variant of this argument is that “the people” need guns to wage an eventual revolution and liberate themselves from the shackles of the state and corporate America. Gun control need not dampen the spirit of those still hoping for a revolution, even if such a revolution is highly unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. What stands in the way of such leftist dreams are the vast majority of current gun owners. Over-represented among current gun owners are white reactionary men, the types who regularly expresses their desire to shoot on sight the “Muslim socialist” president of the United States, and who “muster” along the U.S.-Mexico boarder with their weaponry to defend the nation against “alien” immigrants. As it stands, toxic gun culture would coopt any new American revolution with a lethal cocktail of supercharged masculinity, racism, and provincialism fantasized about in post-apocalyptic scenes. If the United States ever comes to another civil war, the first thing to die under a barrage of lead will be our hope for a more just and democratic society; guns would empower warlords with petty political agendas, not egalitarian-minded freedom fighters. The most likely cultural shift away from reactionary gun ownership will not happen in cooperation with the Right and their politics, but against it. Gun control is the best place to start. Disarming the Right will do more to advance goals toward a revolutionary democratic transformation of America than trying to beat the Right-wingers (and the U.S. government!) in an arms race. Of course Left insurrectionists who advocate the right to bear arms are more focused on the U.S. Government as the singular impediment to their variant of utopia. This dream is sadly a classic example of radical posturing done in the name of some distant hypothetical moment, and it ignores the actual harm that guns cause each and every day. In the real world, guns kill upwards of 30,000 Americans every year, virtually all of these deaths serving absolutely no political purpose in the fight for a more democratic society. Most of these deaths are just tragic accidents or suicides, many of which would not end in death if guns were not in the mix. Left fantasies about armed struggle are the same half-baked ideas as those held by the secessionist Right. What varies for Leftists is the template of decolonial struggles; yet a leftist revolution in the United States would not kick out a small minority of foreign occupiers, as happened in India and Vietnam, but would be a fight amongst settler colonialists for political authoristy. This is why the worn “Zapatistas defense” touted by the radical left is a bad analogy for the United States context – the Zapatistas started a peasant rebellion that kicked outsiders off their landbase, a task for which wooden cutouts of guns turned out to be more effective than the real thing.']

[(0, 21)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-Davis-Parrish-Neg-Indiana-Round2.docx

Minnesota

DaPa

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Minnesota/DaPa/Minnesota-Davis-Parrish-Neg-Indiana-Round2.docx

7361ed54b5c912e764dd8775c4b44deac2ce9a970daa768440bbfc3805d41ef3

Reality isn’t impermanent – the 1AC is enshrined external to our cravings, plan is the only viable solution

Rachel 11 (blogger, try contesting “author quals” in a Buddhism debate, we dare you, “The Cause of Suffering,” , August 16, 2011//shree)

Do we create all of our suffering? there is more than what we cause with craving. Going beyond societal causes of suffering, the insidiousness of this teaching becomes clear there is much that can be avoided about physical and mental suffering by changing things outside of ourselves teaching ignores any interplay between the personal and society This leads to a closed mind toward other causes

Do we really create all of our suffering? there is more to suffering than what we cause with our craving. Going beyond the simple, to the societal causes of suffering, the insidiousness of this teaching becomes clear there is much that can be avoided about physical and mental suffering by changing things outside of ourselves some suffering might be caused because people afflicted are craving The many other factors that actually preceded are never addressed His teaching ignores any interplay between the personal and the larger society This leads to a closed mind toward other potential causes

['Basically, life is suffering. And we create our suffering by thirsting or craving for what we cannot have. But are these really all the causes of suffering? Do we really create all of our suffering? I would argue that there is more to suffering than what we cause with our craving. Fighting with reality surely adds to our suffering – if I do not accept that I am sick, for example, and moan the whole time that I shouldn’t be sick, I will suffer more. But the original illness is suffering as well – as the Buddha taught –and it is caused by some sort of germ or an autoimmune attack of the body. So, even in the simple case of, say, a cold, there are two elements of suffering: the actual cold, which is caused by a virus, and possibly my mental fight with reality. There are thus two causes: only one is caused by craving (“I wish I were healthy”), the other is caused by something unknown at the time of the Buddha. Yet, his Second Noble Truth is not questions, not amended. Going beyond the simple, to the societal causes of suffering, the insidiousness of this teaching becomes clear. Despite what the Buddha taught, there is much that can be avoided about physical and mental suffering by changing things outside of ourselves. The story of a water pump spreading cholera might be a good example here. Cholera certainly creates suffering but the causes of this suffering are manifold: there is the cholera bacterium, there is the pump handle that is teaming with the bacterium, (going beyond the story) there is the city that is refusing to belief that the pump handle is the problem, and there is the merchant who charges more for a pump handle than the villagers can afford. True, some suffering might be caused because people afflicted with cholera are craving to be healthy again (who wouldn’t!). The many other factors that actually preceded the illness are never addressed by the Buddha. His teaching ignores any interplay between the personal and the larger society. He essentially teaches us that suffering is our fault and we can overcome it simply by changing our minds. This leads to a closed mind toward other potential causes. ']

[(0, 9)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-Shankar-Vergho-Aff-4%20-%20Dartmouth-Round3.docx

Dartmouth

ShVe

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Dartmouth/ShVe/Dartmouth-Shankar-Vergho-Aff-4%2520-%2520Dartmouth-Round3.docx

a40227187f19868215c55d483815d455a858049bd0ae8af46afc368f4741b49e

No uncertainty---SCOTUS won’t grant fetal personhood now because there’s no precedent---the plan reverses that!

Kelsey Reichmann 9-14-2022. Reporter covering the Supreme Court and politics for Courthouse News Service. "With Roe out the door, the next big abortion battle is already on the Supreme Court steps," https://www.courthousenews.com/with-roe-out-the-door-the-next-big-abortion-battle-is-already-on-the-supreme-court-steps/.

Catholics for Life petition asks if fetuses are entitled to rights This is the next battleground fetal personhood there's a lot of sympathy on the court for fetal personhood It is unclear if the court will take up this case experts have doubts about expanding rights to fetuses the argument is more radical than Dobbs, as there is no precedent that supports the concept of fetuses being ‘persons’

Catholics for Life are asking the court to reevaluate who is covered under the 14th Amendment Their petition asks if fetuses are entitled to due process and equal protection rights This is the next battleground in the anti-abortion movement: the recognition of fetal personhood there's a lot of sympathy on the court for the fact of fetal personhood It is unclear if the court will take up this case experts have doubts about expanding rights to fetuses the argument in this case is even more radical than Dobbs, as there is no precedent that supports the concept of fetuses being ‘persons’ within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution

next battleground recognition of fetal personhood there's a lot of sympathy on the court for the fact of fetal personhood unclear if the court will take up this case experts have doubts no precedent

['Catholics for Life and two pregnant people filing on behalf of their fetuses are asking the court to reevaluate who, in light of the justices’ June ruling, is covered under the 14th Amendment. Their petition asks if fetuses are entitled to due process and equal protection rights in the Constitution. ', '“As this Court held in Dobbs, abortion laws are different from all others,” Diane Messere Magee, an attorney from the Law Offices of Diane Messere Magee, wrote in the petition. “Do unborn human beings, at any gestational age, have any rights under the United States Constitution? Or, has Dobbs relegated all unborn human beings to the status of persona non grata in the eyes of the United States Constitution — below corporations and other fictitious entities? No state court or legislature can answer this question. Only this Court can — as the final arbiter of what the United States Constitution means.” ', 'This is the next battleground in the anti-abortion movement: the recognition of fetal personhood. If fetuses are granted personhood status, then they are entitled to constitutional rights. The court’s recognition of fetal personhood rights would prevent even abortion-friendly states from protecting reproductive rights. ', '“It is not surprising that anti-abortion advocates would argue that the Dobbs decision be stretched to recognize the idea of ‘fetal personhood,’” said Katherine Franke, professor of law and director of the Center for Gender & Sexuality Law at Columbia University. “Overruling Roe v. Wade was never the end game for many of these advocates, so it was just a matter of time before a case making this argument made its way to the Supreme Court.” ', 'The concept of personhood is not new to the Supreme Court docket. ', "“What it means is that you're a holder of rights. … It's the facet of identity that signifies rights holding,” Morgan Marietta, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, said in a phone call. ", 'In fact, many big decisions over the 20th century were about personhood. Brown v. Board of Education — which found that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional — recognized the personhood of nonwhites. United States v. Virginia — which held that the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions were unconstitutional — recognized the personhood rights of women. ', 'By contrast, the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 declared that fetuses did not have personhood rights. Dobbs changes that. ', "“The most radical thing that was said in ‘73 was the court saying, absolutely, that a fetus is not a person, and Americans just don't agree,” Marietta said. “They're just deeply divided. We've been fighting over this for 30 years, and the court just changed it back to the states.” ", 'What this new petition before the court signifies is the thought from some that the court should not have turned this question back to the states and instead should answer it themselves. ', 'The petition from Catholics for Life and the two pregnant people stems from a Rhode Island law — the Reproductive Privacy Act — that codified Roe into law. The Rhode Island Supreme Court dismissed their challenge to the law for lack of standing, finding that fetuses do not have the right to bring a case before the court. ', 'After Dobbs, however, the challengers now see an opportunity to advance their case. ', '“This Court’s Dobbs holding, that ‘Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,’ and its further overruling of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey surely signal rejection of this Court’s statement in Roe that, ‘[t]he word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,’” the petition states. “The Fourteenth Amendment has no textual definition of the term ‘any person’ therein. And it neither includes nor excludes unborn human beings specifically.” ', 'Court watchers and reproductive rights experts warned that these challenges would be coming after Dobbs. The majority opinion — written by Justice Samuel Alito — gave credence to ideas of fetal personhood in a way the court never had before. ', "“This is a deeply disputed fact in American culture and politics right now, and even the words that you use indicates which of the possible facts you think are true,” Marietta said. “So in the decision, when they use the word ‘fetus,’ that means something, and when they use ‘unborn child’ that means something else. Alito several times used ‘unborn’ which is the indication of personhood. So I do think that there's a lot of sympathy on the court for the fact of fetal personhood.” ", 'It is unclear if the court will take up this case. Four justices would have to agree to hear the case, and five would be needed for a majority ruling. While the conservative majority was able to coalesce around a vote to overturn Roe, experts have doubts about expanding rights to fetuses. ', '“I doubt the court will take this case, as the justices, especially Chief Justice Roberts, will want the dust kicked up by the Dobbs decision to settle before they take up another explosive abortion case,” Franke said. “In fact, the argument in this case is even more radical than the one made in Dobbs, as there is no precedent that supports the concept of fetuses being ‘persons’ within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution.” ', '']

[(7, 21)]

ndtceda

Emory-MoSa-Neg-JW-Patterson-Debates-hosted-by-UK-Round-2.docx

Emory

MoSa

1743e42f74a00a25b8a98e0fdb3c23be76b45a6a74ebbe33e2aa528d08a638e7

Reasserting state sovereignty counterbalances governance failures from federal encroachment---extinction.

Mihalakas ’19 [Nasos; May 21; Global Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, LL.M. from University College London, J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law; The Federalism Project, “The Need for Governance Reform – Symptoms vs. Cause,” ]

We face ‘ economic insecurity challenges ’, from prolif Korea ISIS and terror to warming these are symptoms of a greater problem that risk failures within years This is failing governance a transfer from States There is so much at the Fed it makes targets of lobbying negotiations impossible and created unbalanced system unless we address ‘ systemic ’ failures and fix process , we will never get solutions to societal challenges to address the cause return powers to the States Otherwise dysfunction will get worse

We also face ‘ economic challenge s ,’ like stagnant salaries and job insecurity And ‘ external challenges ’, from nuclear prolif eration in the Korea n peninsula, to ISIS and global terror ism, to global warming these issues are but symptoms of a greater cause . Their existence is being caused by a much greater problem that risk permanent societal failures within the next 20 to 30 years This greater cause is our very own failing system of governance !!! During the past 200 years, we witnessed a steady transfer of power away from the States and into the Fed eral There is so much power concentrated at the Fed eral level that it makes Washington constant targets of special interests and lobbying makes negotiations for compromise impossible and it has created a highly unbalanced system unless we address these ‘ systemic ’ failures of our system of governance and fix the process , we will never get lasting solutions to our current and future societal challenges Concentration of power has reached a point of pure dysfunction . The proof of the unsustainable nature of our current system is income inequality If we want to address the underlying cause then we need to return ing powers back to the States Otherwise , gridlock and dysfunction at the Federal level will only get worse !

economic s stagnant insecurity external challenges nuclear prolif Korea ISIS global terror global warming symptoms greater cause greater problem societal failures failing system governance States Fed so much concentrated Fed constant targets special interests lobbying negotiations highly unbalanced systemic fix the process never lasting solutions current future societal challenges pure dysfunction proof unsustainable nature underlying cause return powers States gridlock dysfunction get worse

['There is no doubt that we live in “challenging” times. We face ‘social challenges,’ from racial discrimination to gender inequality, women’s rights (reproductive or otherwise) that will have to be addressed, LGBTQ issues (recognition of gay marriage), a gun violence epidemic due to both inadequate gun control laws but also excessive violence in our society, etc. We also face ‘economic challenges,’ like stagnant salaries and low wages, job insecurity (due to automation or outsourcing), taxes that are too high for some and not high enough for others, mounting student debt, and yes massive income inequality. And, of course, we do face ‘external challenges’, from nuclear proliferation in the Korean peninsula, to ISIS and religiously motivated global terrorism, to global warming and climate change!', 'Yet, most of these issues are but symptoms of a greater cause. Their existence, or our inability to overcome them, is being caused by a much greater problem in our society that unless we address soon we risk permanent societal failures within the next 20 to 30 years.', 'This greater cause is our very own\xa0failing system of governance!!!', 'Though brilliant in its original construction by the founding fathers, our Federal system of governance (separation of powers, check and balances, separate Federal and State governments) is grossly off track and highly unbalanced. During the past 200 years, we witnessed a steady transfer of power away from the States and into the Federal government, and within the Federal government we saw a similar steady concentration of power in the hands of the Executive (the singular President), and to a certain extend the Supreme Court (due to Congressional acquiescence).', 'This did not happen due to some conspiracy by the ‘powerful elite’ or through interference by foreign powers. It happened gradually (almost naturally), as a response to major failures at the State level: in dealing with slavery and racial discrimination (see Civil War and Jim Crow laws in the south), in dealing with market failures and the need to regulate business and provide a safety net (see Great Depression, The New Deal and the Great Society), in fighting a Cold War with the Soviet Union (see expansion of military and intelligence services to advance US foreign policy).', 'Today, power and authority to deal with issues and solve problems is highly concentrated at the Federal level, away from ordinary people and their ability to monitor let alone influence elected politicians.\xa0', 'There is so much power concentrated at the Federal level, and in particular in the hands of one person (the President) that it makes Washington politicians constant targets of special interests and lobbying organizations, makes negotiations for compromise impossible because there is so much at stake, and it has created a highly unbalanced system (where “checks and balances” are not fully implemented and more often can’t work effectively).', 'Washington gridlock, dysfunction, polarization, and partisanship have led to the inability to pass a budget (balanced or otherwise), or address the need for immigration reform, or provide for adequate healthcare coverage and affordable prescription drugs, or even implement proper tax reform. Therefore, unless we address these ‘systemic’ failures of our system of governance, unless we\xa0implement institutional changes\xa0and\xa0fix the process, we will never get lasting solutions to our current and future societal challenges.', 'Unfortunately, there is no one thing we can do, no ‘magic bullet’ that can fix the dysfunction of our Federal system of governance (because it’s not just ‘the Federal government’ that needs reform, but also/primarily Congress and the Judiciary). Rather, there are several things (from specific process changes through laws/regulations to Constitutional amendments) that we will have to changes now, in order to see improvement in the function of our system of governance in the next 20 to 30 years.', 'There is a parallel example to this system of governance failures, and it’s that of ‘global warming.’\xa0 Global temperatures have been rising, due to greenhouse gases (caused by human activity – burning fossil fuels like coal and oil), presenting an existential threat to our planet and our way of life. However, fossil fuels are not inherently evil, used by certain people bent on the destruction of humanity!\xa0 Energy from fossil fuels was instrumental in facilitating the industrial revolution, which brought progress and technological innovations during the past 150 years, that helped the whole world to advance, prosper, and better connect. It was not until recently that we realized that the constantly expanding use of fossil fuels by humans is contributing to rising temperatures, and if we don’t do something now to ‘bent the curve’, then in 20 to 30 years from now temperatures will rise to levels that can be devastating to the planets ecosystem, and by extension us humans.', 'Concentration of power at the Federal level, over the past 200 years, though not inherently evil (downright necessary and proper during some critical periods), has reached a point of pure dysfunction. The proof of the unsustainable nature of our current system (like rising temperatures are a proof of global warming) is income inequality. During the past 50 years, we have witnessed a steady concentration of wealth at the hands of the top 10% (and primarily the top 1%).', 'And although one can look at our society today statically and say: “things are still ok: there are rich people and poor people, and we are still the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world – so what’s the problem?”… the trend keeps going upwards: currently over 70% of our national wealth is concentrated at the hands for the top 10%. When do we need to do something to stop this trend?\xa0 When it gets to 80%, or 90%?', 'Democrats and Republicans (now thanks to Donald Trump) both agree on the existence of a ‘powerful elite, in cahoots with the political establishment, bent on exploiting the middle class’… yet both party’s solution is the same: win political power and cut or raise taxes, regulate more or less, appoint some type of judges… in essence, deal with the symptoms and not the underlying cause!', 'If we want to address the underlying cause of income inequality (and outsourcing of jobs, health-care failures, racial tensions, education funding, women’s rights, public housing, etc.), then we need to reform our system of governance, before we can consider specific policy priorities. By fixing the legislative process, restoring proper checks, correcting the imbalance within the government branches and returning powers back to the States… we can get on a path where we see real results within the next 20 to 30 years.', 'Otherwise, gridlock and dysfunction at the Federal level will only get worse!', 'Con Con CP', '']

[(0, 13)]

ndtceda

Michigan-DoPh-Neg-Northwestern-Doubles.docx

Michigan

DoPh

bfa87564d70422d203ba7f05ab3f88945d3beab15d049c158762ef79eda577f7

Only the counterplan fosters adoption, safety and innovation.

Stern et al., 22 – Prof of Business Administration @ Harvard Business School

adoption remains tepid AI liability insurance can mitigate liability risks in a way aligned with the interests of health care’s stakeholders insurance will encourage high-quality AI AI insurance reduce uncertainty with liability risk and increase innovation insurance play a key role in health care market for AI liability insurance likely impact incentives for adoption foster the growth of AI in health care more broadly AI liability insurance facilitate adoption of AI tools reduce error for a human decision-maker Without liability insurance practitioners and health care organization leaders will hesitate to use AI tools

Despite enthusiasm to apply AI) to medicine adoption remains tepid Well-designed AI liability insurance can mitigate predictable liability risks and uncertainties in a way that is aligned with the interests of health care’s main stakeholders , including patients, physicians, and health care organization leadership insurance will encourage the use of high-quality AI insurers will be most keen to underwrite those products that are demonstrably safe and effective well-designed AI insurance products reduce the uncertainty associated with liability risk for both manufacturers and clinician users increase innovation competition, adoption, and trust in beneficial technological advances There is a gap in conversation about medical AI) that fails to account for the ways insurance play a key role in health care . the market for AI liability insurance products likely to impact incentives for the development and adoption These insurance products play important role in supporting regulatory sandboxes Health care leaders benefit from discussing how a market for AI liability insurance foster the growth of AI in health care more broadly Despite the development of hundreds of systems adoption of AI in medicine has been slower than many expected There are a number of likely reasons unclear financial incentives, difficulties in accessing high-quality, unbiased data for building difficulties in workflow integration and uncertain legal doctrine on liability The question of AI liability has received some attention reveals that legal uncertainty and unpredictability are still dominant features of the medical AI landscape Physicians and health systems may be liable under malpractice and other negligence theories, while manufacturers and algorithm developers may be subject to product liability. AI liability insurance facilitate adoption of AI tools reduce the margin of error for a human decision-maker well-designed AI liability insurance mitigate liability risks and uncertainties for stakeholders Without liability insurance , medical practitioners and health care organization leaders will hesitate to use AI tools Technology developers will similarly hesitate to commercialize and deploy such products when liability issues persist unaddressed by insurance

adoption remains tepid insurance can mitigate predictable liability risks and uncertainties aligned with the interests of stakeholders insurance will encourage the use of high-quality AI reduce the uncertainty increase innovation play a key role in health care . impact incentives for the development and adoption foster the growth of AI in health care more broadly financial incentives, difficulties in accessing high-quality, unbiased data for building workflow integration AI liability has received some attention mitigate liability risks and uncertainties for stakeholders Without liability insurance medical practitioners and health care organization leaders will hesitate to use AI tools Technology developers will similarly hesitate to commercialize and deploy such products unaddressed by insurance

['(Ariel Dora Stern: Associate Professor of Business Administration in the Technology and Operations Management Unit at Harvard Business School, Avi Goldfarb: Rotman Chair in Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare, Joseph L. Rotman School of Managemen, Timo Minssen: Professor of Law, University of Copenhagen, W. Nicholson Price: Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School. 3-16-2022, "AI Insurance: How Liability Insurance Can Drive the Responsible Adoption of Artificial Intelligence in Health Care", NEJM Catalyst, https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.21.0242)//Neo', 'Despite enthusiasm about the potential to apply artificial intelligence (AI) to medicine and health care delivery, adoption remains tepid, even for the most compelling technologies. In this article, the authors focus on one set of challenges to AI adoption: those related to liability. Well-designed AI liability insurance can mitigate predictable liability risks and uncertainties in a way that is aligned with the interests of health care’s main stakeholders, including patients, physicians, and health care organization leadership. A market for AI insurance will encourage the use of high-quality AI, because insurers will be most keen to underwrite those products that are demonstrably safe and effective. As such, well-designed AI insurance products are likely to reduce the uncertainty associated with liability risk for both manufacturers — including developers of software as a medical device — and clinician users and thereby increase innovation, competition, adoption, and trust in beneficial technological advances.', 'There is a gap in much of the conversation about medical artificial intelligence (AI) that fails to account for the ways in which insurance products play a key role in health care. Despite growing interest and enthusiasm for AI, there is little discussion about the role of AI liability insurance in AI uptake for health care. However, the market for AI liability insurance products is likely to impact incentives for the development and adoption of high-quality AI tools and products. These insurance products could also play an important role in supporting regulatory sandboxes, depending on risk categories, as envisaged by some policy makers.1 Health care leaders would benefit from discussing how a market for AI liability insurance could help foster the growth of AI in health care more broadly.', 'Much of the recent adoption of AI has been driven by advances in machine learning (ML), a subfield of computer science.2-4 There are a number of health care settings in which AI-based solutions (e.g., for diagnosis) already demonstrate a level of performance comparable to that of expert clinicians.5,6 In other settings (e.g., risk stratification), ML models may outperform existing paradigms, although comprehensive evidence is still pending.7', 'Despite the development of hundreds of systems that have been cleared by the U.S. FDA and European Union (EU) notified bodies, the adoption of AI in medicine has been slower than many expected.8,9 There are a number of likely reasons for this pace, including unclear, nonexistent, or misaligned financial incentives, difficulties in accessing high-quality, unbiased data for building (“training”) algorithms, difficulties in workflow integration and implementation at scale, privacy concerns, and uncertain legal doctrine on liability (i.e., responsibility for harms that occur during use).8,10-11', 'The question of AI liability has received some attention by policy makers and legislators, most notably in the European Parliament.12,13 There is also an ongoing debate about the appropriate form and degree of liability and responsibility. This reveals that legal uncertainty and unpredictability are still dominant features of the medical AI landscape, yet strategies for the management of this legal uncertainty and unpredictability are typically required for research and development investments, marketing, product adoption, and, ultimately, ongoing user trust. Physicians and health systems may be liable under malpractice and other negligence theories, while manufacturers and algorithm developers may be subject to product liability.14', 'Our purpose in this article is to address how AI liability insurance can facilitate adoption of AI tools that will, by design, reduce the margin of error for a human decision-maker, whether those tools involve full automation or keep a human in the loop. We do not explore how care delivery should be modified for (each/every) application of an AI product. Thus, we focus on liability-related challenges to AI adoption in health care. We propose that, as discussed in other industries,15 well-designed AI liability insurance has the potential to mitigate liability risks and uncertainties for stakeholders, and to do so in a way that is aligned with patient, physician, and health care organization leadership interests. Without liability insurance, medical practitioners and health care organization leaders will hesitate to use AI tools — including software as a medical device (SaMD) — to support diagnosis and treatment. Technology developers will similarly hesitate to commercialize and deploy such products when liability issues persist and/or when they remain uncertain or unaddressed by insurance.', 'T-Vest']

[(0, 5), (6, 12), (12, 16)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-ShVe-Neg-4---Gonzaga-Round-1.docx

Dartmouth

ShVe

02474903f6c1f75615d59f008a01bb8a50f538819a508c98369b34915693fa10

PC actively alienates Manchin – he hates Biden’s negotiating tactic.

Emily Cochrane and Michael Shear 12/20/21. Reporter in the Washington bureau, covering Congress. Two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, member of team that won the Public Service Medal for Covid coverage in 2020. “Biden Tries to Salvage Domestic Policy Bill After Rift With Manchin”. NYT. Dec 20 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/20/us/politics/build-back-better-schumer-manchin.html

obstacles political and substantive loomed rift had roots in frayed nerves and wide gulf between Manchin and Biden Biden named Manchin in a statement conceding negotiations would slip the senator was furious Manchin critique Biden Manchin faulted the White House for misplaced assumption he could be pressured they figured we can beat one person up it appeared hard to overstate ill will president’s optimism has been built on Biden’s belief in negotiations he built his career on in the Senate His expectation was Manchin would adhere to old rules the senator’s declaration shattered belief Manchin was negotiating in good faith

the obstacles to success for the president personal, political and substantive loomed larger than ever Democrats engaged in new infighting Manchin declare on Fox I’ve tried everything humanly possible The rift had roots in exchanges that revealed the frayed nerves on both sides and the wide policy gulf between Manchin and Biden When word leaked Manchin did not support the child tax credit Manchin was furious and snapped at reporters offering a profane denial Biden named Manchin in a statement conceding that negotiations would slip in 2022 the senator was furious with the tone of the Thursday statement by Friday, the senator had scheduled the appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” where he declared that he was no longer interested in negotiating. Manchin offered an unsparing critique of efforts by Biden in a 14-minute interview with a local West Virginia broadcaster. Manchin directly faulted the White House staff for a misplaced assumption he could be pressured into accepting such a large package he said the president failed to adequately respond to his concerns and cut down the measure I knew what they could not do they just never realized because they figured surely to God we can move one person Surely we can badger and beat one person up Despite efforts by the White House it appeared hard to overstate the ill will created by Manchin’s decision to reject a plan Biden I believe that we will bridge our differences he said. the president’s optimism has been built on Biden’s belief in the good-faith negotiations that he built his career on during 37 years in the Senate His expectation was that Manchin would adhere to the old rules of that chamber, working toward a solution the West Virginia senator’s declaration he was done negotiating appears to have shattered the president’s belief that Mr. Manchin was negotiating in good faith The statement from Psaki said as much.

personal, political and substantive new infighting I’ve tried everything humanly possible frayed nerves wide policy gulf furious snapped furious tone of the Thursday statement no longer interested in negotiating. unsparing critique directly faulted the White House staff pressured failed respond to his concerns Surely we can badger and beat one person up efforts by the White House ill will optimism good-faith negotiations adhere to the old rules of that chamber, working toward a solution shattered good faith

['But the obstacles to success for the president — personal, political and substantive — loomed larger than ever as the holiday week began. Democrats engaged in new bouts of infighting, and there was little evidence that the Sunday night call had alleviated the concerns that led Mr. Manchin to declare on “Fox News Sunday”: “I’ve tried everything humanly possible. I can’t get there.”', 'The rift had its roots in a series of exchanges over seven days that revealed the frayed nerves on both sides and the wide policy gulf that still existed between Mr. Manchin and Mr. Biden.', 'Early last week, the pair spoke privately, in conversations that aides from both offices described as productive and cordial. On Tuesday, as both men tried to reach a compromise, Mr. Manchin offered the president a counterproposal, reported earlier by The Washington Post, that included funds for climate change provisions, universal prekindergarten and expanded access to health care — but no money for extending an expanded version of the child tax credit.', 'When word leaked the next day that Mr. Manchin did not support the child tax credit as written — a cornerstone of the plan and a priority for most Democrats — Mr. Manchin was furious and snapped at Capitol Hill reporters, offering a profane denial that he wanted to remove the child tax credit provision entirely.', 'And by Thursday, Mr. Biden directly named Mr. Manchin in a statement conceding that negotiations would slip in 2022, though he expressed optimism that the pair would resolve their differences. Steve Clemons, a longtime Washington journalist who is close to Mr. Manchin, later wrote in The Hill, a political news website, that the senator was furious with the tone of the Thursday statement, viewing it as blaming Mr. Manchin alone for blocking the legislation.', 'Mr. Manchin’s office declined to comment. But by Friday, the senator had scheduled the appearance on “Fox News Sunday,” where he declared that he was no longer interested in negotiating.', 'On Monday morning, a few hours after speaking with the president, Mr. Manchin offered an unsparing critique of the efforts by the Biden administration and senior Democrats on Capitol Hill to pass the spending bill in a 14-minute interview with a local West Virginia broadcaster.', 'Mr. Manchin directly faulted the White House staff and top Democrats for what he described as a misplaced assumption that he could be pressured into accepting such a large package. And he said that over months of negotiations, the president and his allies failed to adequately respond to his concerns and sufficiently cut down the scope and size of the measure.', '“I knew where they were and I knew what they could and could not do — they just never realized it because they figured, surely to God we can move one person,” Mr. Manchin said. “Surely we can badger and beat one person up, surely we can get enough protesters to make that person uncomfortable enough they’ll just say, ‘OK, I’ll vote for anything, just quit.’”', 'Despite Monday’s efforts by the White House, it appeared hard to overstate the ill will that was created by Mr. Manchin’s decision to reject a plan already heavily curtailed in hopes of satisfying his concerns. Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington, the chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, warned that “no one should think that we are going to be satisfied with an even smaller package.”', '', '', '', '“We did rely on the president’s word that he had a commitment from Joe Manchin, and I have said I don’t believe the president lied about that,” Ms. Jayapal said, adding that she spoke with Mr. Manchin on Monday. “If the president of the United States cannot rely upon the commitment of a member of his own party, obviously, that’s a problem.”', '“That lack of integrity is stunning in a town where people say the only thing that you have is your word,” she added.', 'Some Democrats said they believed Mr. Manchin, often vague and at times contradictory in his public statements, had raised new demands in recent days, after successfully pushing to remove key climate programs and whittling down the overall cost. They pointed to Mr. Manchin’s comments in October, where he called the president’s framework “the product of months of negotiations and input from all members of the Democratic Party” and indicated talks would continue.', 'For Mr. Biden, the stakes are enormous. Just Thursday, he had expressed optimism that he would find a path to compromise with Mr. Manchin.', '“I believe that we will bridge our differences and advance the Build Back Better plan,” he said.', 'But much of the president’s optimism has been built on Mr. Biden’s belief in the kind of good-faith negotiations that he built his career on during 37 years in the Senate. One of his favorite lines is to declare that people can trust him because he has given his “word as a Biden” to follow through.', 'His expectation, according to people familiar with his thinking, was that Mr. Manchin, whom he considers a friend, would adhere to the old rules of that chamber, working toward a solution even if they disagreed about the details.', 'But the West Virginia senator’s declaration on Sunday that he was done negotiating appears to have shattered the president’s belief that Mr. Manchin was negotiating in good faith. The subsequent statement on Sunday from Ms. Psaki — which Mr. Biden personally approved — said as much.']

[(6, 18), (27, 38)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-Bald-ChangDeutsch-Aff-00%20-%20ndt-Round4.docx

Dartmouth

BaCh

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Dartmouth/BaCh/Dartmouth-Bald-ChangDeutsch-Aff-00%2520-%2520ndt-Round4.docx

5169dd9af049d59c57dd6f0aaaeefa058af786a759e3822ad80fd7ee65db89ea

Clayton quite literally doesn’t say a link argument.

Clayton 21 – PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University.

As a result of exposure to information about conflict weak Republicans demonstrate lower affect toward party, decreased perceptions that the Democratic Party poses a threat to democracy, and demonstrate increased favorability toward the Democratic Party These suggest intraparty conflict may be an avenue through which weak partisans could defect

As a result of exposure to information about conflict over the issue of voter fraud among Republican elites , weak Republicans demonstrate lower affect toward their party, decreased perceptions that the Democratic Party poses a threat to American democracy, and even demonstrate increased favorability toward the Democratic Party . These findings suggest that intraparty conflict may be an avenue through which weak partisans could be inclined to defect Considering that campaigns and elections in the United States’ two-party system focus primarily on capturing swing voters these results imply that parties may want to consider emphasizing internal cohesion and downplaying interparty divisions in their messaging to potential supporters

exposure conflict Republican elites weak lower affect decreased perceptions threat increased favorability Democratic Party intraparty conflict weak partisans defect campaigns elections primarily swing voters internal cohesion downplaying interparty divisions messaging

['Katherine Clayton, “Does Intraparty Conflict Impact Partisan Attitudes? The Case of Voter Fraud in the 2020 Election,” 13 May 2021, pp. 28-29, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3845559.', 'When I compare the treatment effects among weak and strong partisans in my sample, however, I observe a different pattern of results. As a result of exposure to information about conflict over the issue of voter fraud among Republican elites, weak Republicans demonstrate lower affect toward their party, decreased perceptions that the Democratic Party poses a threat to American democracy, and even demonstrate increased favorability toward the Democratic Party. These findings suggest that intraparty conflict may be an avenue through which weak partisans could be inclined to defect. Considering that campaigns and elections in the United States’ two-party system focus primarily on capturing swing voters (e.g., Frymer 1999), these results imply that parties may want to consider emphasizing internal cohesion and downplaying interparty divisions in their messaging to potential supporters (e.g., Van de Wardt 2014).', '', '', '']

[(0, 10)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-PhJo-Aff-00---NDT-Round-3.docx

Minnesota

PhJo

4b71f6052e7d12cce59c189ccf1050cc80567f4532cec1c8276f7a02c7ebf8af

Analysis of cyberspace is crucial — our scholarship is part of an iterative process that enables scholars and policymakers to halt future cyberwars

Demchak 14 — Chris C. Demchak Codirector, Center for Cyber Conflict Studies (C3S) United States Naval War College Newport, RI, USA Jan-Frederik Kremer · Benedikt Müller Editors 1 3 Cyberspace and International Relations Theory, Prospects and Challenges

terms capture complex process then semantic infiltration’ alters the perceptions of scholars and activists alike and open up cognitive opportunities for new theorization and new strategic discussions the enduring dichotomy between the technically literate and the political systems is particularly influential in an increasingly conflictual cybered international system because the intellectual and cognitive barriers also inhibit progressive cooperation and inevitably between nations

The calls for “norms” are part of a widely circulating variety of arguments about a less conflictual cybered international system If the terms capture a complex process then semantic infiltration’ alters the perceptions of scholars and activists alike and open up cognitive opportunities for new theorization and new strategic discussions the enduring dichotomy between the technically literate and the political systems is particularly influential in an increasingly conflictual cybered international system because the intellectual and cognitive barriers also inhibit progressive cooperation and inevitably between nations

semantic infiltration’ cognitive opportunities increasingly conflictual cybered international system the intellectual and cognitive barriers progressive cooperation between nations

['In one further area of note, this book captures several debates as they stand today, as well as possibly new elements of an emergent lexicon. The chapters with calls for “norms” to be developed and, by inference, imposed by the senior nations of the global deeply cybered community of nations such as the US are part of a widely circulating variety of arguments about how and who might best nurture a less conflictual cybered international system. It is to be expected that this book would reflect those discussions. Several interesting chapters, however, offer new terms useful in decomposing the cognitive and structural complexity of cybered conflict. If the terms capture a complex process in a short form or image such as “lawfare7 ” or “cyber Westphalia,8 ” then a form of ‘semantic infiltration’ slowly alters the perceptions of scholars and activists alike and open up cognitive opportunities for new theorization and new strategic discussions. In particular, Matthew Crosston (“Phreak the Speak: the Flawed Communications within Cyber Intelligentsia”) offers the term, a “Chinese knowledge wall,” to capture the enduring dichotomy between the technically literate and the political systems focused scholars and practitioners long noted by the scholars of the large-scale socio-technical systems (LTS) literature such as Mayntz and Hughes, Comfort, and LaPorte, among others9 . Crosston argues that this dichotomy is particularly influential in an increasingly conflictual cybered international system because the intellectual and cognitive barriers also inhibit progressive cooperation between domestic communities, and inevitably between nations']

[(0, 10)]

ndtceda

Kansas-Park-Hines-Aff-Rutgers-Semis.docx

Kansas

PaHi

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kansas/PaHi/Kansas-Park-Hines-Aff-Rutgers-Semis.docx

6e58155a4a676157ab111cc6a820e93a699d2008e1c10bb5718e57925221af66

There is substantial potential for engagement.

Jihwan Hwang 23, Professor, Department of International Relations, University of Seoul, "Recurring Patterns in North Korean Nuclear Crises," National Interest, 10/19/2023, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/korea-watch/recurring-patterns-north-korean-nuclear-crises-206985.

does not mean No Ko will never return to the table unlikely to move to complete denuc challenging is persuading Pyongyang to implement agreements U S has been primarily focused on intensifying deterrence pattern may emerge during Biden this may catalyze new talks with No Ko

it does not mean No Ko will never return to the negotiation table No Ko is unlikely to move to a complete denuc learization has had several agreements with the U S including the Agreed Framework Six-Party Talks the “Leap-Day Deal” and the Singapore Summit t it has failed to implement those agreements the most challenging question in U.S. diplomacy is persuading Pyongyang to implement the agreements we find they have a similar pattern The U S has been involved in diplomatic engagements but primarily focused on intensifying deterrence when No Ko conducted nuclear and missile provocations pattern may emerge during the Biden administration Even with Pyongyang’s hardline policy of “heads-on breakthrough,” this crisis may catalyze new talks with No Ko

does not No Ko never return No Ko unlikely complete denuc learization several agreements U S Agreed Framework Six-Party Talks “Leap-Day Deal” Singapore Summit most challenging question persuading similar U S primarily intensifying deterrence No Ko may emerge Biden hardline policy catalyze new talks No Ko

['Will North Korea give up its nuclear weapons? Probably not in the near future. However, it does not mean North Korea will never return to the negotiation table. Despite several denuclearization pledges by North Korean leaders and U.S. diplomatic efforts to guarantee the regime’s security, North Korea is unlikely to move to a complete denuclearization. North Korea has had several agreements with the United States, including the Agreed Framework in 1994, Six-Party Talks from 2003 to 2009, the “Leap-Day Deal” in 2012, and the Singapore Summit in 2018, but it has failed to implement those agreements.', 'One of the most challenging questions in U.S. diplomacy is persuading Pyongyang to implement the agreements. When we look at these agreements, we find that they have a similar pattern. A crisis catalyzed talks, which stalled for a considerable period but eventually reached a consensus. Nonetheless, when they reached the implementation stage, the agreements collapsed. The United States has been involved in diplomatic engagements with North Korea to de-escalate the crisis but primarily focused on intensifying sanctions and deterrence when North Korea conducted nuclear and missile provocations.', "It is essential to understand this pattern when analyzing U.S. agreements with North Korea. In particular, the process of reaching an agreement includes two different phases: crisis and negotiation. What caused the crisis each time before the U.S. obtained a deal with North Korea? In what conditions and circumstances did the denuclearization dialogue proceed after the crisis? What factors led to an agreement on denuclearization with North Korea, and what conditions were agreed upon? The key issues here are the crisis in the process leading to the denuclearization negotiation and the failure of the implementation, finally leading to the agreement's collapse. So, it is necessary to assess the three-decade-long U.S. diplomacy toward the denuclearization of North Korea and its failed efforts through the crisis and negotiation phases.", 'This pattern may also emerge during the Biden administration. Even with Pyongyang’s hardline policy of “heads-on breakthrough,” this crisis may catalyze new talks with North Korea. Of course, it does not necessarily mean that there would be another agreement between the United States and North Korea. The Biden administration has not pursued any active North Korea policy to break out of this pattern. President Biden reiterated the goal of the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and described his North Korea policy as a “calibrated and practical approach.” ', '']

[(7, 15)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-DiGr-Aff-Shirley-Doubles.docx

Kentucky

DiGr

93c1ce5938e7126bb1e010374175ce5cda2710c69dbab27bd0671da92de2c0e8

Even if tech’s dangerous, it’s the only thing that stops massive die offs

Haeberlin, 4 – nuclear engineer, led the Nuclear Safety and Technology Applications Product Line at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Scott, A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity, p. 31-40)

without fertilizers we couldn't feed the population We just couldn't you can go to a "self-sustaining" energy economy as long as you are willing to shoot between 2 out of 3 of your neighbors we have 50 years before we exceed the carrying capacity That means 5 out of 6 of us have got to go, plus no new babies if you let tech get better, the picture need not be so bleak We haven't made all our farmland as productive there are alternatives to fossil fuels If we turn away from tech the human race will starve if we accept that it is tech that makes us human, that technology uniquely identifies us as the only animal that can choose its future, we can choose to make a better world technology makes us human Without it, we are just slightly smarter monkeys

because without that use of fertilizers we couldn't produce the food to feed the population . We just couldn't do it. If you used no fertilizers or pesticides you could get 500 kilograms of grain from a hectare in a dry climate and as much as 1000 kilograms in a humid cli mate. If you got organic and used animal manure as fertilizer, assuming you could find enough, you might get as much as 2000 For a sense of scale, the average in the United States, we get about 4500 kilograms per hectare on the average. In serious cornfields with fertilizer, irrigation, and pesticides, the value is 7000 Modern mechanized, chemically supported agriculture produces 7 to 14 times the food that you would get without those advantages. Even the best organic farming would produce only 30 to 45% of the food value and that is assuming you could get the manure you needed to make it work. In very stark terms, without the chemically enhanced farming we would have probably something like one-fifth the food supply we have now. That means four-fifths the population would not be fed you can go to a "self-sustaining" energy economy as long as you are willing to shoot between 2 out of 3 of your neighbors Cohen looked at all the various population estimates and concluded that most fell into the range of 4 to 16 billion we have got no more than 50 years before we exceed the nominal carrying capacity of the earth. What it comes down to is that if you choose the fully sustainable, non-fossil fuel long-term options with only limited social integration, the various estimates Cohen looked at give you a number like 1 billion or less people that the earth can support. That means 5 out of 6 of us have got to go, plus no new babies without an offsetting death. On the other hand, if you let tech nology continue to do its thing and perhaps get even better, the picture need not be so bleak . We haven't made all our farmland as productive as it can be. There is also a lot of land that would become arable if we could get water to it. And, of course there are alternatives to fossil fuels to provide the energy to power that technology. the near-term future of the human race depends on technology. If we turn away from tech nology, a very large fraction of the current and future human race will starve . However, if we accept that it is tech nology that makes us human, that technology uniquely identifies us as the only animal that can choose its future, we can choose to live, choose to make it a better world for everyone and all life. think about what ties all the planetwide interconnection, Without technology, you get what is available within your personal reach, and what you produce is available only to those who are near enough that you can personally carry it to them on your own two feet. Technology makes our world work. It gives you personally a productive and socially valuable way to make both a living and to provide your contribution to the rest of us . What would your life be like without technology? Could you do what you currently do? Would anyone be able to use what you do? Would anyone pay you for that? Hopefully, you are prepared to see the true critical value of technology to human existence. technology is what makes us human . Without it, we are just slightly smarter monkeys . You may feel that 6 billion of us are too many, and that may very well be I don't know how to make that value decision Which particular person does one select as being one of the excess ones However, the fact is that there are 6 billion of us, and it looks like we are headed for 10 to 12 billion in the next 50 years Without not only the technology we have, but significantly better and more environmentally friendly technology, the world is going to get ugly with the right technologies we can not only support those numbers, we can do it while we close the gap between the haves and have-nots. We can make it a better place for everyone. It takes technology and the energy to drive it. Choosing technology is what we have to do to secure the evolutionary selection of us as a successful species we are not the chosen, unless. Unless we choose us We humans have the unique ability and opportunity to choose either our evolutionary success or failure. A choice of technology gives us a chance. A choice rejecting technology dooms us as a species and gives the cockroaches the chance in our place Nature doesn't care what survives If we care, we have to choose correctly.

['', 'Well, then let\'s not do that, huh? Well, no, not hardly, because without that use of fertilizers we couldn\'t produce the food to feed the population. We just couldn\'t do it. Here are some comparisons." ', 'If you used no fertilizers or pesticides you could get 500 kilograms of grain from a hectare in a dry climate and as much as 1000 kilograms in a humid climate. If you got organic and used animal manure as fertilizer, assuming you could find enough, you might get as much as 2000 kilograms per hectare. For a sense of scale, the average in the United States, where recall we only get half the food value to hectare as the intensively farmed Chinese crop land, we get about 4500 kilograms per hectare on the average. In serious cornfields with fertilizer, irrigation, and pesticides, the value is 7000 kilograms per hectare. ', 'Modern mechanized, chemically supported agriculture produces 7 to 14 times the food that you would get without those advantages. Even the best organic farming would produce only 30 to 45% of the food value you would get from the same sized chemically fertilized farm, and that is assuming you could get the manure you needed to make it work. ', 'In very stark terms, without the chemically enhanced farming we would have probably something like one-fifth the food supply we have now. That means four-fifths the population would not be fed, at least as we are organized now. So, no, just giving up on fertilizers is not in the deal. ', "However, we could get the hydrogen and energy from sources other than natural gas. Nuclear energy could be used to provide electricity to extract hydrogen from water and produce the process heat required to combine the hydrogen and nitrogen from the air. That is just a thought to stick in your mind. While we are looking at energy use in agriculture, here are a few more numbers for you.10 If you look at the energy input into agriculture and the energy you get out, you see some interesting facts. By combining the energy used to make fertilizers and pesticides, power irrigation, and run the farm machinery in the United States, we use about 0.7 kcal of fossil fuel energy for each 1 kcal of food we make. This doesn't include the energy needed to process and transport the food. In Europe where they farm more intensely, the amount of energy out is just about the same as energy in. In Germany and Italy the numbers are 1.4 and 1.7 kcal energy input to each 1 kcal output respectively. The point is you need energy to feed people, well at least a lot of people.", 'Which gets us back to Cohen and his question. One of the studies he examined looked at a "self-sustaining solar energy system." For the United States, this would replace all fossil energy and provide one-fifth to one-half the current energy use. The conclusion of the study was that this would either produce" a significant reduction in our standard of living ... even if all the energy conservation measures known today were adopted" or if set at the current standard of living, "then the ideal U.S. population should be targeted at 40-100 million people." The authors of that study then cheerfully go on to point out that we do have enough fossil fuel to last a least a century, as long as we can work out the pesky environmental problems. So, you can go to a "self-sustaining" energy economy as long as you are willing to shoot between 2 out of 3 and 6 out of 7 of your neighbors.', "And this is a real question. The massive use of fossil fuel driven agriculture to provide the fertilizers and pesticides, and power the farm equipment, is a) vitally important to feed everyone, and b) something we just can't keep up in a business-as-usual fashion. Sustainable means you can keep doing it. Fossil energy supplies are finite; you will run out some time. Massive use of fossil energy and the greenhouse gases they produce also may very well tip the planet into one of those extinction events in which a lot of very bad things happen to a lot of the life on the earth.", 'O.K. to Cohen\'s big question, how many people can the earth support? What it comes down to is that the "Well, it depends" answer depends on', '• what quality of life you will accept,', '• what level of technology you will use, and', '• what level of social integration you will accept.', 'We have seen some of the numbers regarding quality of life. Clearly if you are willing to accept the Bangladesh diet, you can feed 1.8 times more people than if you chose the United States diet.', 'If you choose the back-to-nature, live like our hearty forefathers, level of technology, you can feed perhaps one-fifth as many people as you can with modern chemical fertilized agriculture. The rest have to go.', 'And here is the tough one. You can do a lot better, get a lot more people on the planet, if you just force a few things. Like, no more land wasted in growing grapes for wine or grains for whiskey and beer. No cropland used for tobacco. No more grain wasted on animals for meat, just grain for people. No more rich diets for the rich countries, share equally for everyone. No more trade barriers; too bad for the farmers in Japan and France, those countries would just have to accept their dependence on other countries for their food. It is easy to see that at least some of those might actually be a pretty good thing; however, the kicker is how do you get them to happen? After all, Mussolinill did make the trains run on time. How could you force these things without a totalitarian state? Are you willing to give up your ability to choose for yourself for the common good? It is not pretty, is it?', 'Cohen looked at all the various population estimates and concluded that most fell into the range of 4 to 16 billion. Taking the highest value when researchers offered a range, Cohen calculated a high median of 12 billion and taking the lower part of the range a low median of 7.7 billion. The good news in this is 12 billion is twice as many people as we have now. The bad news is that the projections for world population for 2050 are between 7.8 and 12.5 billion. That means we have got no more than 50 years before we exceed the nominal carrying capacity of the earth. Cohen also offers a qualifying observation by stating the "First Law of Information," which asserts that 97.6% of all statistics are made up. This helps us appreciate that application of these numbers to real life is subject to a lot of assumptions and insufficiencies in our understanding of the processes and data. ', 'However, we can draw some insights from all of this. What it comes down to is that if you choose the fully sustainable, non-fossil fuel long-term options with only limited social integration, the various estimates Cohen looked at give you a number like 1 billion or less people that the earth can support. That means 5 out of 6 of us have got to go, plus no new babies without an offsetting death. ', "On the other hand, if you let technology continue to do its thing and perhaps get even better, the picture need not be so bleak. We haven't made all our farmland as productive as it can be. Remember, the Chinese get twice the food value per hectare as we do in the United States. There is also a lot of land that would become arable if we could get water to it. And, of course, in case you need to go back and check the title of this book, there are alternatives to fossil fuels to provide the energy to power that technology. ", "So given a positive and perhaps optimistic view of technology, we can look to some of the high technology assumption based studies from Cohen's review. From the semi-credible set of these, we can find estimates from 19 to 157 billion as the number of people the earth could support with a rough average coming in about 60 billion. This is a good time to be reminded of the First Law of Information. The middle to lower end of this range, however, might be done without wholesale social reprogramming. Hopefully we would see the improvement in the quality of life in the developing countries as they industrialize and increase their use of energy. Hopefully, also this would lead to a matching of the reduction in fertility rates that has been observed in the developed countries, which in turn would lead to an eventual balancing of the human population. ", "The point to all this is the near-term future of the human race depends on technology. If we turn away from technology, a very large fraction of the current and future human race will starve. If we just keep on as we are, with our current level of technology and dependence on fossil fuel resources, in the near term it will be a race between fertility decrease and our ability to feed ourselves, with, frankly, disaster the slight odds-on bet. In a slightly longer term, dependence on fossil fuels has got to lead to either social chaos or environmental disaster. There are no other end points to that road. It doesn't go anywhere else.", 'However, if we accept that it is technology that makes us human, that technology uniquely identifies us as the only animal that can choose its future, we can choose to live, choose to make it a better world for everyone and all life. This means more and better technology. It means more efficient technology that is kinder to the planet but also allows humans to support large numbers in a high quality of life. That road is not easy and has a number of ways to screw up. However, it is a road that can lead to a happier place, a better place. ', 'Two Concluding Thoughts on the Case for Technology', 'Two more points and I will end my defense of technology. First, I want to bring you back from all the historical tour and all the numbers about population to something more directly personal. Let me ask you two questions.', 'What do you do for a living?', 'What did you have for breakfast?', "Don't see any connection between these questions or of their connection to·the subject of technology? Don't worry, the point will come out shortly. I am just trying to bring the idea of technology back from this grand vision to its impact on your daily life.", 'Just as a wild guess, your answer to the first question was something that, say 500 years ago, didn\'t even exist. If we look 20,000 years ago, the only job was" get food." Even if you have a really directly socially valuable job like a medical doctor, 20,000 years ago you would have been extraneous. That is, the tribe couldn\'t afford you. What, no way! A doctor could save lives, surely a tribe would value such a skill. Well, sure, but the tribe could not afford taking one of their members out of the productive /I getting the food" job for 20 years while that individual learned all those doctor skills.', 'If you examine the "what you do for a living" just a bit I think you will see a grand interconnectedness of all things. I personally find it pretty remarkable that we have a society that values nuclear engineers enough that I can make a living at it. Think about it. Somehow what I have done has been of enough value that, through various taxpayer and utility ratepayers, society has given me enough money for food and shelter. The tribe 20,000 years ago wouldn\'t have put up with me for a day.', 'You see, that is why we as humans are successful, wildly successful in fact. We work together. "Yeah, sure we do," you reply, " read a newspaper lately?" Well, O.K., we fuss and fight a good deal and some of us do some pretty stupid and pretty mean things. But the degree of cooperation is amazing if you just step back a bit.', "O.K., what did you have for breakfast: orange juice, coffee, toast, maybe some cereal and milk? Where do these things come from? Orange juice came from Florida or California. Coffee came from South America. Bread for the toast came perhaps from Kansas; cereal, from the Mid-West somewhere. The jam on the toast may have come from Oregon, or maybe Chile. Milk is probably the only thing that came from within a hundred miles of your breakfast table. Think about it. There were hundreds of people involved in your breakfast. Farmers, food-processing workers, packaging manufacturers, transportation people, energy producers, wholesale and retail people. Perhaps each one only spent a second on their personal contribution to your personal breakfast, but they touch thousands of other people's breakfasts as well. In turn, you buying the various components of your breakfast supported, in your part, all those people. They in turn, in some way or another, bought whatever you provide to society that allowed you to buy breakfast. Pretty amazing, don't you think? ", 'Now when you look at all that, think about what ties all the planetwide interconnection, Yep, you guessed it: technology. Without technology, you get what is available within your personal reach, and what you produce is available only to those who are near enough that you can personally carry it to them on your own two feet. Technology makes our world work. It gives you personally a productive and socially valuable way to make both a living and to provide your contribution to the rest of us. ', 'I want you to stop a minute and really think about that. What would your life be like without technology? Could you do what you currently do? Would anyone be able to use what you do? Would anyone pay you for that? "But I am a school teacher," you say, "of course, they would pay me!" Are you sure? Why do you need schools if there is no technology? All I need is to teach the kid how to farm and how to hunt. Sons and daughters can learn that by working in the fields along with their parents. See what I mean? ', 'Now, I have hopefully reset your brain. Sure, you are still going to be hit with daily "technology is bad" messages. Hopefully, you are a bit more shielded against that din, and you have been given some perspective to balance that message and are prepared to see the true critical value of technology to human existence. The point is that technology is what makes us human. Without it, we are just slightly smarter monkeys. ', "You may feel that 6 billion of us are too many, and that may very well be. I personally don't know how to make that value decision. Which particular person does one select as being one of the excess ones? ", 'However, the fact is that there are 6 billion of us, and it looks like we are headed for 10 to 12 billion in the next 50 years, Without not only the technology we have, but significantly better and more environmentally friendly technology, the world is going to get ugly as we approach these numbers, ', "On the other hand, with the right technologies we can not only support those numbers, we can do it while we close the gap between the haves and have-nots. We can make it a better place for everyone. It takes technology and the energy to drive it. Choosing technology is what we have to do to secure the evolutionary selection of us as a successful species, Remember, some pages back in discussing the unlikely evolutionary path to us, I said we are not the chosen, unless. Unless we choose us. This is what I meant. We are totally unique in all of evolutionary history. We humans have the unique ability and opportunity to choose either our evolutionary success or failure. A choice of technology gives us a chance. A choice rejecting technology dooms us as a species and gives the cockroaches the chance in our place. Nature doesn't care what survives, algae seas, dinosaurs, humans, cockroaches, or whatever is successful. If we care, we have to choose correctly. ", 'As an aside, let me address a point of philosophy here. If any of this offends your personal theology, I offer this for your consideration. Genesis tells us God gave all the Earth to humanity and charged us with the stewardship thereof. So it is ours to use as well as we can. That insightful social philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli put it this way in 1501:', '"What remains to be done must be done by you; since in order not to deprive us of our free will and such share of glory as belongs to us, God will not do everything Himself."', 'O.K., you are saying, "I give." You have beaten the socks off me. Technology is good; technology is the identifying human trait and our only hope. But what is this stuff about choosing technology or not? Technology just happens doesn\'t it? I mean, technology always advances, it always has, so why the big deal?']

[(0, 12)]

ndtceda

Kansas-Harris-Wilkus-Aff-7%20-%20Minnesota-Round6.docx

Kansas

HaWi

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kansas/HaWi/Kansas-Harris-Wilkus-Aff-7%2520-%2520Minnesota-Round6.docx

f4ad487b30b3f622c6b2867bdae9c999a3c043cab793603c96af51b3df5763e9

Animal liberation strategies fail – effecting individual consumer decisions has zero effect on the broader picture, but it does preclude the class-centric approach required for effective revolution – and capitalism is the root cause of anthro

Fruska 14 [Marina, “I am not ‘glad’ you are vegan,” Species and Class, August 22, 2014, http://speciesandclass.com/2014/08/22/i-am-not-glad-you-are-vegan/]

Non-participation distancing oneself from the ‘nasty stuff’ Why is it sufficient not to participate Opting out of the system does nothing to undermine the syste with the increase in veganism there has been an increase in consolidation of farms Cap is designed to favour the rich . Factory farms are not the most efficient way to feed the world but are the most efficient way for the rich to get richer we are not doing anything to undermine the dominance of factory farms vegans are consumers who believe they can influence the market This naive belief shows that they don’t understand what kind of monster they are up against illusion stems from the decades long identification of capitalism with freedom and democracy Capitalism thrives on competition If Capitalism will find a way to exploit suffering and death for all living beings We will never catch up with it fighting individual industries Once there is a humane society based on co-operation and welfare we will be in a strong position to make good and progressive decisions

Non-participation is a selfish wallowing in one’s own perceived moral purity and a refusal to take responsibility for the world that one inevitably belongs to also achievable through mere act of distancing oneself from the ‘nasty stuff’ . what is the role of morality in such a world? To close one’s eyes, to look away, or to confront it, to fight it? If we witness an act of gross unfairness or violence would we walk away with a clear conscience because it is not us who is beating the child, or would we feel that something has to be done, even if it just calling the police Why is it sufficient simply not to participate Opting out of the system does nothing to undermine the syste m One can even argue that it might strengthen it because there is nothing left within the system itself to confront it. Veganism has increased dramatically . But with the increase in veganism , at the same time there has been an increase in consolidation of farms into bigger in size and and fewer in numbers . Cap italism is designed to favour the big, the powerful, the rich – for the sake of wealth and power . Factory farms are not the most efficient way to feed the world but are the most efficient way for the rich to get richer The system functions to benefit big business and big-ag is one of the biggest businesses around If some of us are buying grass-fed meat, all we are doing is supporting the small-scale farmer, and ensuring that they will be there in the future. But we are not doing anything to undermine the dominance of factory farms . Consumers buy what is there, because it’s there. This is for many different reasons: ignorance of what cheap meat really means in terms of production, lack of time to research, lack of money to buy anything else consumers are passive users of whatever is presented to them. Capitalist companies are extremely skilled in creating demand for their products, all the time ‘blaming’ the consumers consumers are for the most part ignorant of the fact that they are being used. vegans are consumers who believe , mistakenly, that they can influence the market by their consumer ‘choices’. This naive belief shows that they don’t understand what kind of monster they are up against . This illusion stems from the decades long identification of capitalism with freedom and democracy So much was this idea ingrained in the minds of proud citizens of the free world, we have somehow sleepwalked into this tyranny, given the decades long ‘freedom’ brainwashing Capitalism thrives on competition as opposed to co-operation, individualism as opposed to common interests, alienation as opposed to community. If we have only ever known to look after our own personal interests, and not the interests of the wider community , then it is very hard to imagine that any solution to the problems of the society can come from anything else but the same personal choices way we have a paradox that the problems that the capitalist society inevitably produces: selfishness, fierce individualism, greed, consumerism Veganism will never be able to decisively fight off cruelty to animals trying to tackle the consequences of capitalism head on, instead of the cause Capitalism will find a way to exploit , to cheat, to create suffering and death for all living beings . We will never catch up with it fighting individual industries on their own. Capitalism will always manage to run away. We have to tackle capitalism itself. Are lifestyle changes really the only changes we can strive for? Have they never, ever heard of… revolutions ? We can not stop exploitation and cruelty unless we stop capitalism. Not just exploitation of animals, or just humans, or just nature Once there is a humane society based on co-operation and welfare , we will be in a strong position to make good and progressive decisions regarding animals . not before that

['Non-participation, when practised on its own and for its own sake, is in fact a selfish wallowing in one’s own perceived moral purity and a refusal to take responsibility for the world that one inevitably belongs to. It is an expression of moral absolutism which believes, mistakenly, that ‘clear conscience’ is not just all-desirable, but also achievable through mere act of distancing oneself from the ‘nasty stuff’. If we accept that nasty things happen in the world, and that one inevitably lives in the same world, what is the role of morality in such a world? To close one’s eyes, to look away, or to confront it, to fight it? If we witness an act of gross unfairness or violence, say, a group of adults beating up a child, would we walk away with a clear conscience because it is not us who is beating the child, or would we feel that something has to be done, even if it just calling the police? The point is, do we, can we, just walk away with clear conscience? Say it’s nothing to do with me, I’m glad it’s not me beating the child. If no, why is factory farming different? We know it happens. Why is it sufficient simply not to participate? Or by being ‘glad’ they might be thinking they are actually actively doing some good – contributing to the reduction of animal suffering. They are not. Opting out of the system does nothing to undermine the system. One can even argue that it might strengthen it because there is nothing left within the system itself to confront it. Veganism has increased dramatically in the last few decades, especially in the West, and especially as the result of the horrors of factory farming. But with the increase in veganism, at the same time there has been an increase in consolidation of farms into bigger in size and and fewer in numbers. Thousands of small farms are lost every year due to the intensification. Of course this is not the fault of vegans, but neither has their conversion to veganism helped the situation in any way. I am not for a moment suggesting that vegans should start eating grass fed, organic, high-welfare meat, in order to confront the system (although I have come across a few who have done just that). That in itself won’t work either because it is lead by the same myth that individual, consumer-lead actions have any meaningful effect on the market. To believe that is to naively believe that capitalism is neutral between different interests. Capitalism is far from neutral but likes to present itself as such. Capitalism is designed to favour the big, the powerful, the rich – for the sake of wealth and power. Factory farms are not the most efficient way to feed the world (on the contrary!), but are the most efficient way for the rich to get richer. The system functions to benefit big business and big-ag is one of the biggest businesses around, on a par with big oil. Consumers have very little influence on this. If some of us are buying grass-fed meat, all we are doing is supporting the small-scale farmer, and ensuring that they will be there in the future. But we are not doing anything to undermine the dominance of factory farms. Consumers for the most part buy what is there, because it’s there. This is for many different reasons: ignorance of what cheap meat really means in terms of production, lack of time to research, lack of money to buy anything else, lack of interest, habit. It will always be like this because consumers are not fully informed, free and empowered drivers of the market; instead they are passive users of whatever is presented to them. Capitalist companies are extremely skilled in creating demand for their products, all the time ‘blaming’ the consumers – saying that consumers ‘demand’ it. But it is completely other way round. Consumers are constantly being manipulated, both in responding to the created demand, and in believing that it was actually them who demanded the same. In other words, consumers are for the most part ignorant of the fact that they are being used. ‘Glad’ vegans are consumers who believe, mistakenly, that they can influence the market by their consumer ‘choices’. They mistakenly believe that, as consumers, they have this power. This naive belief shows that they don’t understand what kind of monster they are up against. This illusion stems from the decades long identification of capitalism with freedom and democracy. The Western world, as opposed to ‘communist tyranny’ of the last century, was the beacon of democracy and free human spirit. So much was this idea ingrained in the minds of proud citizens of the free world, that they haven’t noticed their free world slipping into an even more insidious tyranny – more insidious exactly for the reason that it is less obvious. How come in our free world we are suddenly not allowed to know what is in our food (GM labelling in the US)? How come we are suddenly not allowed to report on animal cruelty in factory farms (ag-gag laws)? How come there are extremely secretive (‘free’-) trade negotiations among corporations and capitalist governments that will determine what we will all eat, and not just that ordinary citizens are not allowed to participate, but wouldn’t have even known about the negotiations except for the whistle blowers? How come our democratically elected US and UK governments are paying our tax money to corporations like Monsanto to impose the type of farming – intensive, chemically laden GMOs – in Africa (G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition)? And… how come our free societies are getting increasingly militarised? Do vegans really think they can beat this enemy by, er, not visiting butcher shops? As much as it is not surprising that we have somehow sleepwalked into this tyranny, given the decades long ‘freedom’ brainwashing (especially in the last two decades after the fall of the Berlin wall, when capitalism supposedly ‘won’), it is also understandable that the capitalist society breeds a particular type of mentality. Capitalism thrives on competition as opposed to co-operation, individualism as opposed to common interests, alienation as opposed to community. If we have only ever known to look after our own personal interests, and not the interests of the wider community, then it is very hard to imagine that any solution to the problems of the society can come from anything else but the same personal choices. In that way we have a paradox that the problems that the capitalist society inevitably produces: selfishness, fierce individualism, greed, consumerism, are tried to be solved with the same mentality that got us to the problem in the first place: personal instead of community action, more consumerist ‘choices’ instead of doing away with consumerism altogether. Veganism, in itself, will never be able to decisively fight off cruelty to animals. It is because it’s trying to tackle the consequences of capitalism head on, instead of the cause. In fact, at least in the West, veganism is for the most part itself a consequence of the capitalist model of agriculture – intensive, big scale farming, where profit completely overrides animal welfare. Seeing horrific pictures of animal suffering in factory farms produces disgust about eating meat. This is completely understandable, but unfortunately it is a quite superficial measure. Because veganism (itself a consequence) is only tackling the consequence of capitalism, it will always be insufficient. Vegans often say (apart from being ‘glad’) that if everybody was to become vegan, the meat industry would die off. Yes, in a very literal sense, it would. But this is never going to happen so it’s a completely hypothetical proposition and as such useless. Do we want to put the fate of factory farmed animals into such a useless proposition? But let’s say for the sake of argument everybody by some miracle did become vegan. We might have suffocated the meat and dairy industry (for a moment!), possibly testing on animals too, but have we got rid of capitalism? Have we got rid of the profit motive that rests on exploitation of humans, animals, nature? What about loss of habitat for the wild animals due to deforestation, intensive agriculture, polar ice melting, oceans polluting… all these things that capitalism is responsible for… where does it stop? Where is the beginning and end of cruelty? Capitalism will find a way, like it always does, to exploit, to cheat, to create suffering and death for all living beings. We will never catch up with it fighting individual industries on their own. Capitalism will always manage to run away. We have to tackle capitalism itself. Vegans shouldn’t just be glad, but should get political. They need to understand that we are not just talking about some nasty meat and dairy industry, as if they had fallen from the sky and the rest of the world was wonderful, but that these industries are the product of the bloodsucking system that thrives on exploitation, suffering, death of all living beings, and that animals are just a part of it, albeit a particularly hard hit part. By not understanding this, vegans are in a way just as ignorant as those consumers who you see in shops buying cheap meat. Are lifestyle changes really the only changes we can strive for? Have they never, ever heard of… revolutions? The irony is that some of those consumers buying cheap meat might actually be socialists. There is a lot to criticise at that end of spectrum in regard of animal rights. This is maybe a topic for another time. My point here is that socialism would have to come first, even though not all socialists at present are also animal rights proponents. We can not stop exploitation and cruelty unless we stop capitalism. Not just exploitation of animals, or just humans, or just nature (many environmentalists make the same mistake as vegans), but exploitation as such. Once there is a humane society based on co-operation and welfare, we will be in a strong position to make good and progressive decisions regarding animals. Sadly, heartbreakingly, not before that. ']

[(0, 9)]

ndtceda

MichiganState-ScZi-Neg-Owen-L-Coon-Memorial-Tournament-at-Northwestern-Round-6.docx

MichiganState

ScZi

4a54422ae936fdfadb6bfeb438a55e90322d8b9b99b884a85430466ae3beefe5

Exporting US antitrust norms encourages regulatory internalization.

Manne 13 – (Geoffrey Manne & Seth Weinberger *Lecturer in Law, Lewis & Clark Law School; Executive Director, International Center for Law & Economics **Associate Professor, Department of Politics and Government, University of Puget Sound; last revised 7-18-2013, Antitrust Bulletin, Vol. 57, No. 3, "International Signals: The Political Dimension of International Competition Law Harmonization," doa: 11-6-2021) doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1448223

conforming antitrust to U S standards involves transparency , indiscriminate application incorporation of economic principles creation of fair and independent judiciaries highly technical agencies , and a professional community of lawyers These spill over into other areas of society and alter actors’ behaviors in ways that result in the long-term internalization of liberal norms more than any other area of law , antitrust principles contain the logic of significant constraints on conduct in every facet of governance

conforming antitrust laws to the U nited S tates’ standards involves adopting principles of transparency , indiscriminate application of the law, the incorporation of economic principles into the legal code, the creation of fair and independent judiciaries , the creation of highly technical and independent enforcement agencies , and the emergence of a n epistemic professional community of lawyers to interpret the changes. These principles spill over into other areas of law and society and ultimately alter actors’ incentives and behaviors in ways that can result in the long-term internalization of these liberal norms . more than perhaps any other area of commercial law , antitrust principles contain within them the logic of significant constraints , not only on private, but also on government, conduct in every other facet of regulation and governance

U S transparency indiscriminate application incorporation of economic principles fair independent judiciaries highly technical independent enforcement agencies a community of lawyers spill over other areas law society long-term internalization of these liberal norms more than perhaps any other area of commercial law antitrust principles

['', 'In addition, conforming antitrust laws to the United States’ standards, for example, involves adopting principles of transparency, indiscriminate application of the law, the incorporation of economic principles into the legal code, the creation of fair and independent judiciaries, the creation of highly technical and independent enforcement agencies, and the emergence of an epistemic professional community of lawyers to interpret the changes. The adoption of all of these steps is the mechanism by which the lock-in phenomenon mentioned earlier can occur. These principles spill over into other areas of law and society and ultimately alter actors’ incentives and behaviors in ways that can result in the long-term internalization of these liberal norms. In particular, more than perhaps any other area of commercial law, antitrust principles contain within them the logic of significant constraints, not only on private, but also on government, conduct in every other facet of regulation and governance.', '']

[(0, 8)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-Koperski-Munson-Aff-NJDDT-Round1.docx

Minnesota

KoMu

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Minnesota/KoMu/Minnesota-Koperski-Munson-Aff-NJDDT-Round1.docx

fb3699033e38cb8f3dbd0d15ba8ce59ca0178002811de4b252663e3c5dec2c44

Critiques of humanism are attacking an empty signifier---the idea that there are humans that need protection is emancipatory and necessary for liberatory struggles.

Kieran Durkin 21. Marie Skłodowska-Curie Global Fellow at University of York, and former Visiting Scholar at University of California Santa Barbara. “Adventures in the anti-humanist dialectic: Towards the reappropriation of humanism.” European Journal of Social Theory 1–20.

What is readily apparent in the critical discourse the lack of any analysis of humanism Humanism tends to function as merely an empty signifier a caricature abstracted from context and stripped of nuance In defining humanism as themes Foucault ignores the emancipatory role humanism played in liberatory struggles in history he offers nothing in the way of feminist or anti-colonial traditions of humanism Humanism is simply written off humanism can be critical The Marxist humanist thinkers such as Fanon Césaire combines concern for liberation with relationship to human what is central is a stress on humanism in realising a different future and the stress on human agency as the basis humanism in question is grounded in the real lived life of individuals and groups that fought against fascism colonialism, patriarchy and capitalism

What is readily apparent in the critical discourse is the routine reduction of humanism to Cartesianism plain and simple what is most important here is the lack of any kind detailed analysis of instances of humanism itself Humanism tends to function as merely an empty signifier a caricature abstracted from context and stripped of nuance the idealism that marks the substantive analyses characteristic within the paradigm arranged around the anti-humanist thematic is magnified when it comes to the issue of humanism. reductive reading of humanism exemplifies the ideological nature of the critical discourse on humanism In defining humanism not as a practice but merely as a set of themes concerned with justifying anterior anthropological concerns, Foucault ignores the practically and ideologically emancipatory role that humanism has played in liberatory struggles at numerous points in history Foucault does refer to the tradition of Marxist humanism, for instance, but he offers nothing in the way of a serious analysis of that tradition, not to mention the feminist or anti-colonial traditions of humanism Humanism is simply written off humanism can be a form of critical practice The Marxist humanist tradition and thinkers such as Raya Dunayevksaya, Erich Fromm, Frantz Fanon , Aimé Césaire combines concern for liberation with critical relationship to the historical constitution of real live human beings what is central is a stress on humanism in its appeal to realising a different future and the stress on human agency as the basis upon which that different future might be realised humanism in question is grounded in the real lived life of individuals and groups that fought against fascism colonialism, patriarchy and capitalism

what is most important here is the lack of any kind detailed analysis of instances of humanism itself as merely an empty signifier context nuance emancipatory role that humanism has played in liberatory struggles at numerous points in history feminist anti-colonial humanism Humanism is simply written off humanism can be a form of critical practice The Marxist humanist tradition Frantz Fanon , Aimé Césaire liberation what is central humanism human agency fascism colonialism, patriarchy and capitalism

['The second narrative thread in the foregoing discussion concerns the intimately connected issue of the impoverished understanding of humanism itself that predominates in the anti-humanist tradition. What is readily apparent in the critical discourse under discussion here is the routine reduction of humanism to Cartesianism plain and simple: that is, to a naive philosophy of the subject and to an inescapably ethnocentric and restrictive philosophical anthropology that tends to go with it. As already noted, this reduction takes place despite the reappearance, in denuded and mystified form, of many of the humanist themes associated with these positions. But what is most important here is the lack of any kind detailed analysis of instances of humanism itself. Humanism tends to function in these accounts as merely an empty signifier – a caricature abstracted from historical context and stripped of all diversity and nuance. In this sense, we can say that the idealism that marks the substantive analyses characteristic within the paradigm arranged around the anti-humanist thematic is magnified when it comes to the issue of humanism.', 'Foucault constitutes a case in point. Despite what is a more extended textual engagement in works such as The Order of Things, Foucault’s highly reductive reading of humanism in What is Enlightenment? – as separated from and opposed to what he takes to be the Enlightenment ethos of ‘critique’ – exemplifies the ideological nature of the critical discourse on humanism. In defining humanism not as a practice (in his earlier writings it certainly was, albeit a repressive practice concerned with the extension of ‘disciplinary mechanisms’) but merely as a set of themes concerned with justifying anterior anthropological concerns, Foucault ignores the practically and ideologically emancipatory role that humanism has played in liberatory struggles at numerous points in history. Certainly, Foucault does refer to the tradition of Marxist humanism, for instance, but he offers nothing in the way of a serious analysis of that tradition, not to mention the feminist or anti-colonial traditions of humanism. Humanism is simply written off as something that is incapable of the kind of self-reflexive form of criticality that Foucault valorises.', 'From an even cursory look at these traditions, however, it is clear that humanism can also be a form of critical practice. Had Foucault paid greater heed to Merleau-Ponty, for instance, he would have heard humanism defined as precisely the interrogative ethos that he claims for his own position: one concerned with ‘what is problematic in our own existence and in that of the world, to such a point that we shall never be cured of searching for a solution’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1963, p. 44). The Marxist humanist tradition in general – and thinkers such as Raya Dunayevksaya, Erich Fromm, Frantz Fanon, Aimé Césaire– combines a concern for liberation (not merely ‘resistance’) with a similarly reflexive, critical relationship to the historical constitution of real live human beings. There are different valences of criticality here and varying levels of engagement with philosophical anthropology and other aspects associated with classical humanism; but what is central to all is (a) a stress on the critical role that humanism can offer in its appeal to realising a different future and (b) the stress on human agency as the basis upon which that different future might be realised. In each instance, the politics that issues from the constitutive humanism in question is grounded in the real lived life of individuals and groups, in practical movements of various stripes that fought against, for instance, fascism, Stalinism, colonialism, patriarchy and of course capitalism.']

[(7, 16)]

ndtceda

Emory-DoSa-Neg-Georgetown-Round-5.docx

Emory

DoSa

563c0e0e77c0fb01c196439fe604bb51193b5120ecf3872b61fcf63525e7b4ba

Research counters inevitable outbreaks---those are bad.

McDole 21, *Jaci McDole, JD, senior policy analyst covering IP and innovation policy at the ITIF. **Stephen Ezell is vice president, global innovation policy, at the ITIF. (4-29-2021, "Ten Ways IP Has Enabled Innovations That Have Helped Sustain the World Through the Pandemic", ITIF, )

innovators worked tirelessly to develop solutions to COVID From PPE to treatments and vaccines IP played an indispensable role Future pandemics and other challenges for which we will need to rely on innovations to overcome are certain to arise .

As society ground to a halt in 2020, innovators worked tirelessly to develop solutions to COVID pandemic-related challenges From PPE to treatments and vaccines IP played an indispensable role in enabling research, development, and commercialization of innovations IP enables start-ups to gain access to much-needed capital. IP gives innovators the confidence to invest in R&D it is difficult to innovate without the protection of ideas. Future pandemics and other challenges for which we will need to rely on innovations to overcome are near certain to arise .

worked tirelessly Future pandemics rely on innovations to overcome certain to arise

['', 'Innovation can—and does—happen anywhere and at any time. As society ground to a halt in 2020, innovators around the world worked tirelessly to develop treatments, vaccines, and solutions to COVID-19 pandemic-related challenges. From personal protective equipment (PPE) to treatments and vaccines to autonomous delivery robots to remote and social distancing solutions for the workplace, intellectual property (IP) played an indispensable role in enabling research, development, and commercialization of many of the innovations meeting the challenges of the pandemic. IP enables start-ups to gain access to much-needed capital. IP gives innovators the confidence to invest in research and development (R&D) and provides incentives for commercialization. Indeed, it is difficult to innovate without the protection of ideas.', 'Despite this, some—particularly anti-business IP opponents—have blamed IP rights for a host of problems, including limited access to therapeutics, vaccines, and biotechnology. They offer seemingly simple solutions—weaken or eliminate IP rights—and innovation will flow like manna from heaven. Eliminating IP rights might accelerate the diffusion of some pre-existing innovations, but it would absolutely limit future innovations. Innovators, a bit like Charlie Brown kicking the football held by Lucy, would be wary of trusting governments who might say, “Well, this time we won’t take away your IP rights, so go ahead and invest large amounts of time and money.” Given the nature of COVID-19, nations around the world cannot afford to take this risk. Future pandemics and other challenges for which we will need to rely on IP-protected innovations to overcome are near certain to arise.', '', '', 'Patent law CP;']

[(0, 9)]

ndtceda

Kansas-Ottinger-Rahaman-Neg-Texas%20Swing%20Part%202-Semis.docx

Kansas

OtRa

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kansas/OtRa/Kansas-Ottinger-Rahaman-Neg-Texas%2520Swing%2520Part%25202-Semis.docx

7d2ebb382d3a6dfb6ecfc119213cbd81ddcf3bc8aef2f8c9b66040f8751c7996

3. Non-black folk should denounce racist policies --- the alternative absolves white folks of responsibility for violence.

Jesse A. MYERSON 18, an Indiana-based community organizer with Hoosier Action [“White Anti-Racism Must Be Based in Solidarity, Not Altruism,” The Nation, February 5, 2018, https://www.thenation.com/article/white-anti-racism-must-be-based-in-solidarity-not-altruism/]

White people are encouraged to defer white-altruism says we must decenter ourselves that does not constitute a strategy interruptions and deference are a woefully inadequate response to systemic racism a recipe for disaster Not only does it treat racism as personal flaw rather than system of power; it is vulnerable to white misconceptions Without anchored to a goal of redistributing power, altruism is carried along by racist capitalism they entrenched white dominance Altruism cannot be basis for white anti-racist action There’s only one that can: solidarity fighting for oneself alongside another Only when white people see our liberation bound up in others can we achieve solidarity and have white anti-racism that does not produce the colonial outcomes generated by altruism To build solidarity, we must demand universal rights

The dominant liberal conception of white anti-racism emphasizes altruism . In this mode, white people must set aside our own self-interest in order to extend kindness to those less fortunate White people are encouraged to defer , shrink, and assist. It is not our fight, the white-altruism mode says , so we must strive to decenter ourselves and support black people’s “advancement” as peripheral allies We must reliably articulate non-racist positions using non-racist terminology that alone does not constitute a strategy these interruptions and this deference are a woefully inadequate response to systemic racism . At worst, white altruism is a recipe for disaster . Not only does it treat racism as personal flaw rather than a system of power; it insists that white people have an obligation to help black communities “advance,” a construction that is vulnerable to white people’s misconceptions of what constitutes “advancement.” Without being anchored to a goal of redistributing power, altruism is often carried along by the prevailing currents of racist capitalism At the end of the Civil War, instead of furnishing formerly enslaved black people with the 40 acres Sherman promised, well-meaning moderate Republican Reconstructionists championed the Freedman’s Savings Bank “to instill into the minds of the untutored Africans lessons of sobriety, wisdom, and economy,” When the Panic of 1873 threatened the bank’s viability, the trustees, desperate to reinforce an image of the bank as a trustworthy institution, appointed Frederick Douglass, an abolitionist and former slave, as bank president Douglass discovered the enterprise to be “full of dead men’s bones, rottenness, and corruption.” The bank folded, leaving over 60,000 depositors without access to millions in strenuously earned deposits, and obliterating more than half of accumulated black wealth today manifestations of white altruism undermine the well-being of the very “shithole” denizens whose “advancement” it seeks. Microfinance, or inviting poor people into small amounts of debt, has been held up by its most powerful, enthusiastic advocates as a panacea for the ills that beset impoverished countries Far from raising living standards, microfinance has calcified the hierarchy that produces such poverty—and enriches Europe and North America white people acting as allies in other people’s “progress” have not just failed to address racist power relations; they have entrenched white dominance . Altruism cannot be the basis for white anti-racist action . There’s only one thing that can: solidarity Solidarity is about unity, not around like-mindedness or affinity but around common interests. Neither having the same opinions nor even mutual fondness is required for one to enter into a solidarity relationship with another. All they need is the acknowledgement that, to achieve liberation, “I need you and you need me.” Solidarity is about fighting for oneself alongside another person, for one’s family alongside another family The thing is, when two people fight for themselves alongside one another, when they perceive themselves to be teammates, they begin to warm to each other Only when white people come to see that our own liberation is bound up in the liberation of others can we achieve solidarity and have a basis for white anti-racism that does not produce the colonial outcomes generated by altruism Politicians gin up fear of a racist mythological problem, and propose a solution that harms poor and working-class people of all colors—while consolidating wealth and power for the white rich In the late 1970s and ’80 s , the racist mythological problem was “welfare queens” To solve this problem, the government cut safety-net payments, the largest share of whose beneficiaries had been white in the 1990s, the racist mythological problem was “ superpredators ,” To solve “ superpredators ,” the government enacted harsh policing and sentencing measures, which served to expand the carceral system in which black and brown people were overrepresented, but a majority of whose inmates were white Lately, the racist mythological problem has been “voter fraud.” Trump campaigned outright on the fear of “illegal immigrants voting all over the country,” To solve the “voter-fraud” problem, the government has enacted a host of suppression measures from requiring documentary proof of citizenship to an Interstate Crosscheck system, which disproportionately disenfranchises voters of color and rural communities In each of these cases, the millions of lower-class white people whose lives are materially damaged have a firm basis for teaming up with the other nonwhite members of their class in opposition to the racist politics that fuel the policies hurting them The greater challenge is to bring affluent white people into solidarity relationships with working-class and poor people of color even those who sit atop the racist hierarchy are pressured and bullied into the constant battle to maintain their position. In forcing them to jealously guard their resources and power against those with less our hierarchical system makes them develop fearful and contemptuous attitudes that worsen their lives. It alienates affluent white people depriving them of cooperation The wealthy are terrified of falling Losing ground in America is such a scary prospect that it blinds the affluent to the goal they might achieve if they adopted solidarity: liberation from that fear. If they there weren’t so far to fall, they wouldn’t be saddled with paranoia at every turn Solidarity requires that we rethink “privilege.” white anti-racism demands intense examinations of and attempts to correct for privilege. To build solidarity, we must shift away from this practice and toward a demand for universal rights . As long as anti-racist white people remain fixated on privilege at the expense of all else , we remain divided from black people and relegated to the role of, at best, helpful allies. If we can shift to a universal-rights framework, we recast ourselves as all on the same team I am said to be “privileged,” because my housing has always been dependable, I have never been deprived of nutritious food, I have been able to access treatment when I have been sick my periods of unemployment have been brief Those are human rights, and calling them “privileges” undermines the fight to get them universally respected If the lives of other people are less free and less dignified than mine, if they are denied the say I’m afforded in the systems that affect them, that is not a matter of their lacking my degree of privilege but of their rights being violated The baseline matters . Describing human rights as “privileges” uses destitution as the baseline. When people work from that baseline and treat every step above it as another “privilege,” we are affirming the right-wing idea that we naturally have nothing, that we have to ruthlessly compete just to get by. But when we talk of “universal rights,” the baseline shoots way up to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and freedom from want and fear. That is the life we all deserve; that is the life we are owed In the “privilege” framework, racist inequality induces white people to feel guilty, which produces inaction . In the “ universal-rights ” framework, it induces us to feel fury, which inspires action it becomes, “let’s get together and collect our due.” Fostering solidarity will require diverse groups organized around guaranteed rights to quality health care

emphasizes altruism recipe for disaster prevailing currents of racist capitalism entrenched white dominance solidarity colonial outcomes generated by altruism rethink “privilege.” demand for universal rights fixated on privilege at the expense of all else universally respected The baseline matters the life we are owed produces inaction inspires action quality health care

['', 'The dominant liberal conception of white anti-racism emphasizes altruism. In this mode, white people must set aside our own self-interest in order to extend kindness to those less fortunate. Humanitarian assistance is rewarded, and those who practice it are hailed for their self-sacrifice and generosity.', 'White people are encouraged to defer, shrink, and assist. It is not our fight, the white-altruism mode says, so we must strive to decenter ourselves and support black people’s “advancement” as peripheral allies, doing what kindnesses we can to compensate them for the privileges we enjoy. We must reliably articulate non-racist positions using suitably non-racist terminology, correct white people who fail to do these, and under no circumstances use racist language out in the open.', 'Not that people shouldn’t interrupt racist personal acts or respect the expertise of people of color regarding how racism plays out in their lives and communities, but that alone does not constitute a strategy. At best, these interruptions and this deference are a woefully inadequate response to systemic racism. At worst, white altruism is a recipe for disaster. Not only does it treat racism as personal flaw rather than a system of power; it also insists that white people have an obligation to help black communities “advance,” a construction that is vulnerable to white people’s misconceptions of what constitutes “advancement.” Without being anchored to a goal of redistributing power, altruism is often carried along by the prevailing currents of racist capitalism.', 'At the end of the Civil War, instead of furnishing formerly enslaved black people with the 40 acres Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman had promised, well-meaning moderate Republican Reconstructionists championed the Freedman’s Savings Bank “to instill into the minds of the untutored Africans lessons of sobriety, wisdom, and economy,” which Congress considered crucial to “the economic and industrial development of a people.” According to bank’s founder, Congregational minister John Alvord, black people didn’t want free land: “We hear them saying, ‘We will work and save and buy for ourselves.’”', 'Over a decade, the bank’s board, made up of highly regarded philanthropists, transformed the bank into an investment outfit conducting risky speculation, bribery, and fraud. When the Panic of 1873 threatened the bank’s viability, the trustees, desperate to reinforce an image of the bank as a trustworthy institution, appointed Frederick Douglass, an abolitionist and former slave, as bank president. In this capacity, Douglass discovered the enterprise to be “full of dead men’s bones, rottenness, and corruption.” The bank folded, leaving over 60,000 depositors without access to millions in strenuously earned deposits, and obliterating more than half of accumulated black wealth.', 'White altruism fared no better out West than down South. The policy of “allotment,” which broke up tribal lands into individually owned plots, came from white altruists. The architect of the 1887 Dawes Act, which made allotment official federal policy, was Alice Fletcher, an upper-class New York City suffragist who, out of anthropological curiosity, went west to live with and studied the Omaha Indians, ultimately adopting one as her son. She and other reformers were sure that tribal landholding was unproductive, inefficient, and destructive to the individual work ethic, that it thus prevented Indians from making healthy economic advances. In practice, allotment shrunk Indian-held lands from about 150 million acres to 48 million by the time of the Dawes Act’s 1934 repeal, leaving two-thirds of Indians either completely landless or without enough land to subsist.', 'Later, in the early 1940s, altruism struck again when the Rockefeller Foundation made an effort to alleviate the “tragedy of hunger” in the “backward” country of Mexico, touching off the much celebrated “Green Revolution.” Rockefeller Foundation scientists and policy experts implemented a system designed to raise Mexicans’ daily calorie intake by improving agricultural efficiency through “higher yielding and higher quality crop varieties” and disease control. The white people who designed and implemented the Green Revolution won awards. But for the farmers of Mexico, the program dramatically narrowed the genetic base of crops, destroyed indigenous agricultural practices, supplanted small and communal farming with commercial agribusiness, and displaced millions of peasants into urban slums or across the border.', 'Still today, manifestations of white altruism undermine the well-being of the very “shithole” denizens whose “advancement” it seeks. Microfinance, or inviting poor people into small amounts of debt, has been held up by its most powerful, enthusiastic advocates as a panacea for the ills that beset impoverished countries. In 2005 the United Nations even gave microcredit its own international year. Honors notwithstanding, microloans tend to worsen livelihoods overall, notoriously driving hundreds of Indian women to suicide. Far from raising living standards, microfinance has calcified the hierarchy that produces such poverty—and enriches Europe and North America.', 'Time and again, white people acting as allies in other people’s “progress” have not just failed to address racist power relations; they have entrenched white dominance. Altruism cannot be the basis for white anti-racist action. There’s only one thing that can: solidarity.', 'Solidarity is about unity, not around like-mindedness or affinity but around common interests. Neither having the same opinions nor even mutual fondness is required for one to enter into a solidarity relationship with another. All they need is the acknowledgement that, to achieve liberation, “I need you and you need me.” Solidarity is about fighting for oneself alongside another person, for one’s family alongside another family.', 'The thing is, when two people fight for themselves alongside one another, when they perceive themselves to be teammates, they begin to warm to each other. In 1939, a Chicago stockyard worker, Jim Cole, told a reporter from the Federal Writers’ Project, “I don’t care if the union don’t do another lick of work raisin’ our pay, or settling grievances about anything. I’ll always believe they done the greatest thing in the world gettin’ everybody who works in the yards together, and breakin’ up the hate and bad feelings that used to be held against the Negro.”', 'Only when white people come to see that our own liberation is bound up in the liberation of others can we achieve solidarity and have a basis for white anti-racism that does not produce the colonial outcomes generated by altruism.', 'White people in and adjacent to poverty have solid grounds for this type of solidarity; they are directly victimized by a politics that relies on racist rhetorical appeals. The cycle works the same way time and again: Politicians gin up fear of a racist mythological problem, and propose a solution that harms poor and working-class people of all colors—while consolidating wealth and power for the (almost entirely) white rich.', 'In the late 1970s and ’80s , the racist mythological problem was “welfare queens” living decadently off government fraud, illegitimately claiming white people’s “taxpayer money.” To solve this problem, the government cut safety-net payments, the largest share of whose beneficiaries had been white. The entire, diverse working class, disproportionately people of color, was harmed, and the white rich claimed tax cuts on behalf of aggrieved “taxpayers.”', 'Then in the 1990s, the racist mythological problem was “superpredators,” committing violence with “no conscience, no empathy”—the sort of people who, if affluent white Americans were ever to be safe, needed simply to be brought “to heel.” To solve “superpredators,” the government enacted harsh policing and sentencing measures, which served to expand the carceral system in which black and brown people were overrepresented, but a majority of whose inmates were white. The whole time windfall profits streamed into the accounts of the mostly white capitalists driving the prison-industrial complex.', 'Lately, the racist mythological problem has been “voter fraud.” Trump, in his characteristic way, has eschewed the normal dog whistles and campaigned outright on the fear of “illegal immigrants voting all over the country,” encouraging his 2016 supporters to “go down to certain areas” and make sure that “other people don’t come in and vote five times.” To solve the “voter-fraud” problem, the government has enacted a host of suppression measures from requiring documentary proof of citizenship to an Interstate Crosscheck system, which disproportionately disenfranchises voters of color and rural communities.', 'In each of these cases, the millions of lower-class white people whose lives are materially damaged have a firm basis for teaming up with the other nonwhite members of their class in opposition to the racist politics that fuel the policies hurting them. Poor and working-class white people are suffering under white supremacy, and have good reason to demand that they too be freed from it.', 'The even greater challenge is to bring affluent white people into solidarity relationships with working-class and poor people of color. The systems of property, policing, and uneven distribution of political influence favor them. But even those who sit atop the racist hierarchy are pressured and bullied into the constant battle to maintain their position. In forcing them to jealously guard their resources and power against those with less—black people, immigrants, indigenous Americans, Muslims, and “white trash”—our hierarchical system makes them develop fearful and contemptuous attitudes that worsen their lives. It alienates affluent white people from their fellow Americans and humans, depriving them of fellowship and cooperation.', 'The wealthy are terrified of falling a few strata down the socioeconomic ladder, and who can blame them? The less money you have, the poorer your health and education outcomes, the less decent your housing, the less healthful your food, the likelier you are to be abused on the job or by the police, and the less confident you can be that your children will have it any better. Losing ground in America is such a scary prospect that it blinds the affluent to the goal they might achieve if they adopted solidarity: liberation from that fear. If they there weren’t so far to fall, they wouldn’t be saddled with paranoia at every turn.', 'Solidarity requires that we rethink “privilege.” At present, white anti-racism demands intense examinations of and attempts to correct for privilege. To build solidarity, we must shift away from this practice and toward a demand for universal rights. As long as anti-racist white people remain fixated on privilege at the expense of all else, we remain divided from black people and relegated to the role of, at best, helpful allies. If we can shift to a universal-rights framework, we recast ourselves as all on the same team.', 'To perform this shift, it’s important to differentiate what political scientist and blogger David Kaib calls the “two faces of privilege.” On the one hand, “privilege” refers to things nobody ought to have, such as the power to dominate discussions, the feeling of entitlement to the body of another person, and the unthinking assumption that comes with social hegemony: that your experiences are the default. We should indeed pay attention to such dynamics, remaining vigilant about white people’s systematic conditioning to behave in ways that exasperate teammates or cause them pain or fear.', 'On the other hand, it refers to things everybody ought to have. This is where the “privilege” framework can be harmful. For example, I am said to be “privileged,” because my housing has always been dependable, I have never been deprived of nutritious food, I have been able to access treatment and surgery when I have been sick or injured, I have not only received a quality education but had some say in its direction, my periods of unemployment have been brief, and I have enjoyed the free time and freedom of movement and communication necessary to pursue art, inquiry, social life, and other sorts of joy and fulfillment.', 'Those are human rights, and calling them “privileges” undermines the fight to get them universally respected. Freedom, dignity, and democracy are due to everyone. If the lives of other people are less free and less dignified than mine, if they are denied the say I’m afforded in the systems that affect them, that is not a matter of their lacking my degree of privilege but of their rights being violated.', 'The baseline matters. Describing human rights as “privileges” uses destitution as the baseline. When people work from that baseline and treat every step above it as another “privilege,” we are affirming the right-wing idea that we naturally have nothing, that we have to ruthlessly compete just to get by. But when we talk of “universal rights,” the baseline shoots way up to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and freedom from want and fear. That is the life we all deserve; that is the life we are owed.', 'In the “privilege” framework, racist inequality induces white people to feel guilty, which produces inaction. In the “universal-rights” framework, it induces us to feel fury, which inspires action. No longer is it, “I feel bad for even thinking it, but thank goodness I don’t have it as bad as those who are worse off.” Instead, it becomes, “let’s get together and collect our due.”', 'Fostering solidarity will require diverse groups (labor unions, community organizations, and political parties) organized around guaranteed rights to good jobs, decent housing, quality health care, educational opportunities, nutritious food, and so forth. People’s membership in these organizations must not be superficial, as grass-roots engagement tends to be with, say, the Democratic Party. For the solidarity to be real, disparate people have to take courageous collective action.']

[(9, 19)]

ndtceda

Emory-LiRa-Aff-Texas-Round-2.docx

Emory

LiRa

e115907e54757d14692396fc03898b4490dec2f40722b95acb2a6e88f4382432

The plan is uncharacteristic for a conservative court system—guarantees it’s perceived as an ideological shift away from leniency for big business.

Crane 21—(Professor of Law, University of Michigan). Daniel A. Crane. 2021. “Antitrust Antitextualism”. 96 Notre Dame Law Rev. 1205. . Accessed 9/12/21.

it would take abundant motivation from pure principle for the average Federalist Society judge to restore the original meaning of section 1’s absolutist prohibition Progressive judges looking for leverage to unwind perceived laxity face Pandora’s Box . To insist would risk considerable backlash after the long reign of moderating common law and the system’s reliance on courts to correct Congress’s overstatements .

it would take abundant motivation from pure principle for the average Federalist Society judge to restore the original meaning of the Clayton much less mount a cataclysmic return to section 1’s absolutist prohibition on agreements restraining trade. Progressive judges looking for leverage to unwind the perceived laxity might invoke statutory text or original meaning as a foil, but they too face Pandora’s Box . To insist on taking at face value Congress’s words would risk considerable backlash after the long reign of moderating common law and the system’s reliance on the courts to correct Congress’s textual overstatements . it should count in favor of the system’s normative legitimacy that it has worked for 130 years without anyone complaining too much

abundant motivation from pure principle average Federalist Society judge original meaning Clayton cataclysmic return section 1’s absolutist prohibition leverage perceived laxity statutory text original meaning Pandora’s Box taking at face value Congress’s words considerable backlash long reign of moderating common law correct Congress’s textual overstatements normative legitimacy 130 years

['', 'Finally, if the system lacks democratic legitimacy, there is the question of how to begin unwinding it—and whether anyone has the incentive to try. Most committed textualists are also committed economic conservatives;264 it would take abundant motivation from pure principle for the average Federalist Society judge to restore the original meaning of the Robinson-Patman Act or the Clayton Act’s incipiency presumption, much less mount a cataclysmic return to section 1’s absolutist prohibition on agreements restraining trade. Progressive judges, perhaps looking for leverage to unwind the perceived laxity of Chicago School antitrust, might invoke statutory text or original meaning as a foil, but they too face Pandora’s Box. To insist on taking at face value Congress’s words and ostensible purposes—words and purposes to which Congress itself might not have been fully committed—would risk considerable backlash after the long reign of moderating common law and the system’s reliance on the courts to correct Congress’s textual overstatements. So maybe it should count in favor of the system’s normative legitimacy that it has worked for 130 years without anyone complaining too much.', '', '', '']

[(0, 8)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-PhoenixFlood-Rao-Neg-2%20-%20UMW-Finals.docx

Minnesota

PhRa

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Minnesota/PhRa/Minnesota-PhoenixFlood-Rao-Neg-2%2520-%2520UMW-Finals.docx

efe0c0039ae3951619a9f5a341b2ea5120ca81e590302109ba1af07f5738b540

It's complete preemption---zeroes the CP.

Elizabeth Y. McCuskey 17. Professor of Health Law, Toledo College of Law. “Agency Imprimatur & Health Reform Preemption.” Ohio State Law Journal 89(1). Retrieved from SSRN.

The ACA wrote new federal law Congress did express preemption Congressional intent stands as the ultimate “touchstone” for preemption doctrine The most forceful is “complete preemption,” when “a statute's preemptive force [is] so extraordinary and all-encompassing that it precludes any state claim on the subject Health law has ERISA

The ACA wrote an awful lot of new federal law , particularly concentrated in areas with significant pre-existing state law, like insurance the ACA “contains many contact points between federal and state law.” Congress did express its wishes for preemption in the ACA, both specifically and generally Congressional intent stands as the ultimate “touchstone” for preemption doctrine and Congress may express or merely imply its intent The most forceful form of preemption is “complete preemption,” which applies when “a federal statute's preemptive force [is] so extraordinary and all-encompassing that it converts an ordinary state-common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded-complaint rule” and precludes any state claim on the subject Health law has one of the only three recognized complete preemptions: ERISA preemption which completely preempts remedies for coverage denials under employer-sponsored health insurance benefits

new federal law Congressional intent ultimate “touchstone” “complete preemption,” precludes any state claim on the subject ERISA preemption

["2. Preemptive Intent The ACA wrote an awful lot of new federal law, particularly concentrated in areas with significant pre-existing state law, like insurance. The ACA preserved the existing structures of health care access and took great pains to enlist states in a cooperative federalism reform relationship.121 Yet, the ACA “contains many contact points between federal and state law.”122 And Congress did, in many respects, express its wishes for preemption in the ACA, both specifically and generally. Congressional intent stands as the ultimate “touchstone” for preemption doctrine,123 and Congress may express or merely imply its intent.124 Congress has conveyed its intent with varying degrees of force and clarity, and may also delegate its preemptive lawmaking authority to agencies.125 When drafting the ACA, Congress had a buffet of preemption options from which to draw, as health law topics are peppered with preemption in nearly all of its species: complete, field, conflict, and obstacle preemption.126 The most forceful form of preemption is “complete preemption,” which applies when “a federal statute's preemptive force [is] so extraordinary and all-encompassing that it converts an ordinary state-common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded-complaint rule”127 and precludes any state claim on the subject.128 Health law has one of the only three recognized complete preemptions: ERISA preemption, which completely preempts remedies for coverage denials under employer-sponsored health insurance benefits.129"]

[(13, 24)]

ndtceda

Emory-BePa-Aff-2---Kentucky-Round-2.docx

Emory

BePa

d8784a180fcae2359f7639da292ed8b61ee8b40923ddfe6353ca914491aa4b3d

Manchin’s not negotiating on climate

Emma Dumain 2/1, Congress Reporter at E&E News, “Senate Dems not feeling House pressure on climate package,” E&E News, 2/1/2022, https://www.eenews.net/articles/senate-dems-not-feeling-house-pressure-on-climate-package/

Senate Environment portion of the stalled climate bill leaders lack of answers about legislative purgatory paint a grim picture action hinges on willingness from Manchin he gave no indication that negotiations had resumed or were on the brink

Senate Environment Chair Carper says he’ll be talking about his panel’s portion of the stalled climate social spending bill both lawmakers were noncommittal about whether they can meet progressives’ challenge to advance the centerpiece of Biden’s agenda in time for his S o t U So were several other Senate Dem s who held leaders hip roles or key negotiating positions surrounding drafting of reconciliation Their lack of answers about next steps for reviving reconciliation from legislative purgatory — and lack of clarity on any timeline —- paint a grim picture Wyden told reporters I talk about it morning, noon and night action hinges on a willingness from moderate Manchin to come to the table he gave no indication that negotiations had resumed or were on the brink of continuing “There’s not been any meetings

Environment Carper S o t U Senate Dem s leaders negotiating lack of answers legislative purgatory any timeline grim picture talk about it morning, noon and night hinges moderate Manchin come to the table no indication negotiations resumed brink of continuing any meetings

['Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Tom Carper (D-Del.) says he’ll be talking with people today about his panel’s portion of the stalled, $1.7 trillion climate and social spending bill. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, claims he talks about the “Build Back Better Act” “every day.”', 'Yet both lawmakers were noncommittal about whether they can or will meet House progressives’ challenge to advance the centerpiece of President Biden’s domestic agenda in time for his State of the Union address on March 1.', 'So too were several other Senate Democrats who held leadership roles or key negotiating positions surrounding the drafting of the reconciliation package.', 'Their lack of answers about any next steps for reviving the reconciliation package from legislative purgatory — and lack of clarity on any general timeline —- paint a grim picture of its fate.', '“We’ll vote … when we have the votes,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who, when asked if a March 1 timeline was feasible, prefaced his response with an exaggerated shrug.', '“It might be sooner than March 1, it might be after March 1,” Schatz said. “I don’t know when it’s going to be. But I think if there’s one thing we learned from last year, it’s that artificial deadlines make us look silly.”', 'Yesterday, a little under a week since Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) demanded that the Senate negotiate a scaled-back spending bill and pass it within the month, a group of House Democrats from “the front lines of the climate crisis” held a virtual press briefing calling on the Senate not to give up on the effort.', 'The bill that passed the House in November would, among other things, invest roughly $550 billion in combating the climate crisis.', '“There is broad consensus among Democrats on these climate priorities,” said New Democrat Coalition Chair Suzan DelBene, a moderate from Washington, during the press briefing, “and we’ll do everything in our power to ensure the ‘Build Back Better Act’ prioritizes climate and is signed into law.”', 'Also yesterday, several vulnerable 2022 House Democratic incumbents sent Biden a letter asking for his leadership in spurring the Senate to act, citing recent natural disasters.', '“In the two months since the House passed the Build Back Better Act, mid-December tornadoes killed at least 78 people in Kentucky and late December wildfires destroyed 1,000 homes in Colorado,” the members wrote. “The time for you to work with the Senate to finalize and pass the strongest and most comprehensive version of the Build Back Better Act that can get 50 Senate votes is right now.”', 'They added, “We must seize this moment for all Americans and enact these vitally important climate investments into law in the coming weeks.”', 'Talk, but no action — yet', 'Wyden told reporters he was just as eager to plow ahead.', '“I talk about it morning, noon and night,” he said. “I talk about it every single day, publicly and privately. Go look at my Twitter feed.”', 'Carper told E&E News last night he expected to “start engaging” with colleagues starting today, to “see if there’s any interest” in finding areas of common ground.', 'Senate Budget Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) didn’t have a comment on meeting a March 1 timetable, nor did he have an answer for whether Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) would stand by his promise to hold a standalone vote on the House-passed bill in the coming days.', '“What I can tell you is we’ve been talking about it for six months,” Sanders said. “I think the American people want action, and I hope we can provide that action.”', 'Ultimately, action still largely hinges on a willingness from moderate Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to come to the table. The pivotal swing vote in a 50-50 Senate, Manchin pumped the breaks on the reconciliation bill in December, citing continued concerns about the price tag and specific policy provisions largely unrelated to the climate portion.', 'Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill yesterday, he gave no indication that serious negotiations had resumed or were on the brink of continuing.', '“There’s not been any formal … sit-down meetings or things of that sort,” Manchin said.', '', '**If they only extend a definition of “prohibit.”', '']

[(5, 15)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-Deo-Fridman-Aff-ADA-Round3.docx

Northwestern

DeFr

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Northwestern/DeFr/Northwestern-Deo-Fridman-Aff-ADA-Round3.docx

9337d0b17439508b92fd72e7e6a06e35a40bc625a54e0e4837acca02ae8994de

Follow-on dialogue solves any misperceptions, but an NFU is key.

Binnendijk 23 - (Hans Binnendijk **David Gompert *distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, adjunct political scientist at the RAND Corporation, served twice on the National Security Council staff as senior director for defense policy and arms control and earlier as an officer for Southern European Affairs, received his MALD and his PhD in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University **Distinguished Visiting Professor at the U. S. Naval Academy, Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation, Former Principal Deputy Director, U.S. National Intelligence; February–March 2023, Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, "Towards Nuclear Stewardship with China," doa: 7-17-2023) url: https://www.iiss.org/en/online-analysis/survival-online/2023/02/towards-nuclear-stewardship-with-china/

existing conventional tech could propel hostilities capabilities are increasingly vulnerable deep’ tech could contribute to instability could interpret attacks as a prelude While cred of NFU could plummet under such circumstances, accompanying c b m lessen the dangers . strategic dialogue’ dialogue initiated by bilateral NFU Such talks engender improved understanding of instability, and thus reinforce the need to decouple nuc s from such risks . measures include crisis-management hotlines and a clearer and converging understanding of why each power has the forces it does pre-launch warnings and shared warning transparency to alert to mod and provide explanations and on-site inspections helpful

Should instability over sovereignty claims cause a crisis, existing conventional military tech nology could propel the parties from confrontation towards hostilities . With the advent of advanced information systems, a ‘ targeting revolution’ has given both sides the ability to locate and track the other’s forces with precision at great and growing distances , and to deliver precision weapons , mainly missiles, at those distances. the conventional-strike capabilities of each side are increasingly vulnerable to the strike capabilities of the other. China and the United States are racing to master a new generation of ‘ deep’ tech nologies AI quantum computing and complex autonomous systems . Used to enhance military systems, these could contribute to crisis instability . AI gives machines the power to make choices based on abundant data, which raises the possibility of decisions that are more hostile and less inhibited than those under the control of human beings . Quantum computing will accelerate the processing of data and present leaders with far more information at faster speeds than is the case now; indeed, the goal is to accelerate decision-making . In addition, commanders might be more inclined to use uncrewed platforms but in ways that can start a war that kills human beings . neither side will hesitate to develop and use these technologies. the Chinese could interpret American conventional attacks as a prelude to an attempt to disarm China’s nuclear capability . Such a perception, even if mistaken, could be amplified if US kinetic or cyber targets included leadership nodes or nuclear command-and-control networks. . With its relatively immature early-warning ISR system, China might misread US intentions and launch nuclear weapons on warning lest they be destroyed. It cannot be excluded that the United States will mistake Chinese preparations to launch non-nuclear weapons as preparations for nuclear ones, and so strike first . While the cred ibility of reciprocal NFU pledges could plummet under such circumstances, accompanying c onfidence- b uilding m easures could lessen the dangers of mistakes and excessive suspicion . The NPR placed no emphasis on entering a ‘ strategic dialogue’ with China Such a dialogue might be initiated by an offer to China to enter into a bilateral NFU agreement Such talks should engender improved understanding of the dynamics of crisis and escalation instability, and thus reinforce the need to decouple nuc lear weapon s from such risks . Confidence-building measures should include crisis-management protocols , effective and tested hotlines for incident management, and talks aimed at gaining a clearer and ultimately converging understanding of why each power has the nuclear forces it does pre-launch warnings and shared early- warning agreements similar to those being negotiated with the Russians at the end of the Clinton administration; transparency measures to alert each side to future nuclear- mod ernisation efforts and to provide explanations for them; and mutual on-site inspections where helpful

conventional military tech nology hostilities targeting revolution’ locate track growing distances deliver precision weapons conventional-strike capabilities increasingly vulnerable AI quantum computing complex autonomous systems contribute to crisis instability more hostile less inhibited control of human beings Quantum computing faster speeds accelerate decision-making uncrewed platforms start a war kills human beings neither side will hesitate conventional attacks prelude disarm China’s nuclear capability amplified leadership nodes immature misread US intentions mistake preparations strike first accompanying c onfidence- b uilding m easures lessen the dangers mistakes excessive suspicion no emphasis bilateral NFU agreement improved understanding dynamics decouple nuc lear weapon s from such risks crisis-management protocols effective tested hotlines clearer converging understanding pre-launch warnings shared early- warning agreements transparency measures provide explanations helpful

['', 'Crisis instability. Should instability over sovereignty claims cause a crisis, existing conventional military technology could propel the parties from confrontation towards hostilities. With the advent of advanced information systems, a ‘targeting revolution’ has given both sides the ability to locate and track the other’s forces with precision at great and growing distances, and to deliver precision weapons, mainly missiles, at those distances. Consequently, the conventional-strike capabilities of each side are increasingly vulnerable to the strike capabilities of the other. This rewards the side that strikes first and penalises restraint. In a crisis, the logic of how to avoid a war could be displaced by the logic of how to avoid losing a war. These dynamics are somewhat akin to the Schlieffen Plan in 1914, which seemed to reward rapid German action and penalise delay.', 'China and the United States are racing to master a new generation of ‘deep’ technologies, among them artificial intelligence (AI), quantum computing and complex autonomous systems. Used to enhance military systems, these could contribute to crisis instability. AI gives machines the power to make choices based on abundant data, which raises the possibility of decisions that are more hostile and less inhibited than those under the control of human beings. Quantum computing will accelerate the processing of data and present leaders with far more information at faster speeds than is the case now; indeed, the goal is to accelerate decision-making. In addition, commanders might be more inclined to use uncrewed platforms (with little danger of loss of life) rather than crewed ones, but in ways that can start a war that kills human beings. Notwithstanding such hazards, neither side will hesitate to develop and use these technologies.', 'Escalation instability. Should a war with China begin, it could escalate rapidly. The advantage of using rather than withholding strike systems would be increasingly pronounced after hostilities begin. Hesitation could lead to defeat. Sino-American armed conflict could become very destructive very quickly, and difficult to control or end. For instance, China would likely attack American targets, such as aircraft carriers and air bases, from mainland sites. The United States could not allow a Chinese sanctuary from which to attack US forces, and so would conduct strikes on China proper. ‘Kill the kill chain’ is a term of art in US warfare.', 'This is where the likelihood of using nuclear weapons could rise sharply. Although China has not adopted the Russian doctrine that attacks on the homeland would merit a nuclear response, the Chinese could interpret American conventional attacks as a prelude to an attempt to disarm China’s nuclear capability. Such a perception, even if mistaken, could be amplified if US kinetic or cyber targets included leadership nodes or nuclear command-and-control networks. Or, the United States might target Chinese missile-launch infrastructure, given the lethality and reach of Chinese conventional missiles. With its relatively immature early-warning ISR system, China might misread US intentions and launch nuclear weapons on warning lest they be destroyed. It cannot be excluded that the United States will mistake Chinese preparations to launch non-nuclear weapons as preparations for nuclear ones, and so strike first.', 'In cases like these, when conventional war reaches the outskirts of nuclear war, the danger of the latter can rise steeply. This is why NFU is important but not sufficient. While the credibility of reciprocal NFU pledges could plummet under such circumstances, accompanying confidence-building measures could lessen the dangers of mistakes and excessive suspicion.', 'Chinese nuclear posture', 'The Chinese have long embraced the standard of ‘minimal deterrence’ in sizing their nuclear arsenal. In essence, this standard requires China to maintain whatever forces it must – no more, no less – to pose a credible threat of devastating retaliation. This implies that strategic delivery systems be sufficiently destructive, survivable and capable of penetrating defences to assure a robust second strike.', 'The Chinese are increasing the aggregate number, diversity and survivability of their arsenal. They are moving to less vulnerable mobile and solid-fuel delivery systems. China currently has some 100 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and 48 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (each with a single warhead), which together constitute the core of its strategic deterrent capability vis-à-vis the United States, as well as Russia. It is developing new mobile and more accurate DF-31B and DF-41 solid-fuel missiles capable of carrying multiple warheads and of striking US territory. Within the region, China has deployed some 150 intermediate-range nuclear missiles, and is developing both a new DF-17 medium-range missile and CJ-100 cruise missiles. That is a total of some 350–400 Chinese nuclear warheads now deployed. The United States does not normally deploy non-strategic nuclear weapons in the region.', 'The Pentagon’s 2022 ‘China Military Power Report’ estimates that China could deploy a total of 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030 and 1,500 by 2035. The report notes that work continues on three new, large Chinese ICBM fields, and that last year, China fielded its first long-range nuclear-capable bomber.', 'China’s current nuclear force is consistent with its declared policy of minimal deterrence and NFU. Even the modest force of 100–150 deliverable intercontinental warheads is more than adequate to deter an American first nuclear strike, whether the US admits that or not. At the same time, the current Chinese force posture does not create a first-strike threat against the United States, which should be seen as stabilising by both sides.', 'Why then is China growing its nuclear force structure beyond what it has for years considered to be optimal? There are several possible explanations:', 'China feels that higher warhead levels are needed to sustain minimal deterrence because of growing US prompt-global-strike capabilities, potential anti-ballistic-missile capabilities and cyber-strike technologies that could disrupt command and control;', 'China does not want to adopt a dangerous launch-on-warning policy, so it requires a larger retaliatory force to ride out any first strike;', 'China wants to break out of its minimal deterrent posture and achieve greater parity with the United States to demonstrate that it is a true superpower;', 'China wants a large enough nuclear force so that it can pursue its sovereign ambitions in Taiwan and in the South and East China seas without American interference; and/or', 'China wants enough nuclear weapons to deter what it sees as an erratic Russia.', 'Gaining greater insight into China’s rationale for a larger nuclear force should be a principal goal of the strategic-stability dialogue recommended here. If the reasons relate to maintaining minimal deterrence or avoiding a launch-on-warning posture, then confidence-building measures could be designed to alleviate Chinese concerns. If the motive appears to be creating opportunities for conventional operations against Taiwan, additional US conventional-deterrent measures may be needed. If the motive is more diplomatic, such as gaining a higher degree of parity with the US to demonstrate superpower status, then alternative political approaches might be designed.', 'America’s nuclear posture', 'The US National Defense Strategy declares that the most comprehensive and serious challenge to US national security is China’s coercive and increasingly aggressive behaviour. This is mainly because of Chinese enhancements in targeting and conventional strike within the vital Pacific region. Though expanding, China’s small nuclear-missile force does not now feature in the configuration of US nuclear forces. Rather, the size and qualities of the United States’ nuclear posture are currently geared almost entirely to Russian nuclear forces, as shaped and constrained by arms-control agreements.', 'The US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), released in October 2022 together with the National Defense Strategy, notes that although the fundamental role of US nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack, they may also deter all forms of strategic attack, assure allies and partners, and allow the US to achieve its objectives if deterrence fails.', 'This declaratory policy extends to nuclear use in response to ‘high consequence’ attacks of a strategic though non-nuclear nature, which could include biological-weapons attacks or debilitating cyber attacks. Though the NPR’s bar for nuclear use remains very high, it stops short of the ‘sole use’ doctrine advocated by Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign and of an NFU declaration. American ‘negative security assurances’ continue to commit to countries that have signed and abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that the US will not use nuclear weapons against them.', 'The NPR emphasises the need for the United States to provide credible nuclear deterrence against attacks on itself and its treaty allies. Admiral Charles Richard, while serving as the commander of US Strategic Command in 2022, noted that his team was ‘furiously’ rewriting a new nuclear-deterrence theory to account for the need to deter both Russia and China simultaneously. That assessment needs to recognise that each country presents a different nuclear threat, and that different strategies are required.', 'Plans to upgrade America’s nuclear force are substantial. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the US will spend $634bn during the next ten years for the sustainment and modernisation of its nuclear arsenal. The United States has already refurbished many of its nuclear-delivery systems. Upgrades include a new Ground Based Strategic Deterrent to replace Minuteman III; new Columbia-class ballistic-missile submarines to replace the Ohio-class submarines; the B-21 Raider bomber to replace the B-2; and new Long-Range Standoff Weapons. These formidable upgrades are more than adequate to offset new Russian strategic-missile developments and growth in China’s inventory. At the same time, they should not pose an additional nuclear threat to China.', 'With such formidable nuclear forces and superiority in conventional forces, it is fair to question whether the United States’ nuclear capabilities are needed as insurance against conventional military defeat, as opposed to deterring nuclear attack by confronting nuclear-armed adversaries with the certainty of devastating retaliation.', 'Developing nuclear stewardship with China', 'The NPR placed no emphasis on entering a ‘strategic dialogue’ with China, which we consider essential to enhancing nuclear stability in the vital and precarious Pacific region. Such a dialogue might be initiated by an offer to China to enter into a bilateral NFU agreement with three conditions. Firstly, the Chinese would acknowledge that such an agreement would cover US allies; logically, this should not give China cause to object, because it already pledges NFU globally. Secondly, the Chinese would agree to enter into a process to foster transparency and to build confidence in support of an NFU agreement, and nuclear stability more generally. Thirdly, China would agree to work with the United States to strengthen nuclear stewardship globally, which might include constraining Russian and North Korean nuclear belligerence – actions which are in China’s interest.', 'Compatible with a bilateral NFU pledge would be a mutual understanding that both sides are already highly vulnerable to the nuclear weapons of the other side. Thus far, the United States has resisted such an understanding. This would be an important element of any dialogue and could serve to limit China’s desire for a massive build-up.', 'Such talks should engender improved understanding of the dynamics of crisis and escalation instability, and thus reinforce the need to decouple nuclear weapons from such risks. Confidence-building measures should include crisis-management protocols, effective and tested hotlines for incident management, and talks aimed at gaining a clearer and ultimately converging understanding of why each power has the nuclear forces it does. In due course, other nuclear confidence-building measures worth considering could include agreement not to interfere with each other’s early-warning and nuclear command-and-control mechanisms, both of which could be highly destabilising; pre-launch warnings and shared early-warning agreements similar to those being negotiated with the Russians at the end of the Clinton administration; transparency measures to alert each side to future nuclear-modernisation efforts and to provide explanations for them; and mutual on-site inspections where helpful.', '', '', '']

[(0, 10), (11, 13)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-PhJo-Aff-5---Long-Beach-Round-1.docx

Minnesota

PhJo

fb0613df6fff79c0b802079db66f701487ca63d8fc6b0c3c8839bceec1645808

Dip cap low---understaffed and undertrained.

Meridian 23. “Blueprints for a Modernized U.S. Diplomatic Service with Senators Cardin and Hagerty” 05-2023. https://www.meridian.org/project/blueprints-for-a-modernized-u-s-diplomatic-service-with-senators-cardin-and-hagerty/

D o S needs to be reinvigorated confirmation process takes too long ; AI new tech present novel challenges for diplomats Diplomats currently missing many skills include risk management operational experience language leadership more State is Understaffed and undertrained, diplomatic teams need more support

the U.S. D epartment o f S tate needs to be reinvigorated . The Ambassador confirmation process takes too long ; AI and new tech nologies present novel challenges for diplomats ; and risks around the world are leading U.S. embassies to fence themselves in. the agency will be able to reassert itself as the leading foreign policy entity in the Interagency Policy Council. Many voices have joined the foreign policy discussion, drowning out the U.S. Department of State’s own . Diplomats are currently missing many of the skills needed to effectively do their jobs abroad. These include risk management skills, operational experience , language training, leadership skills, and more . Training should be an integral part of career development at every level of the department. many diplomats he worked with while in Tokyo who had no business education or background, skills that he found to be essential to the success of diplomatic teams. the U.S. Department of State is understaffed , a problem which becomes much worse Understaffed and undertrained, diplomatic teams abroad need more support if they are to be effective in their roles. Diplomats must also take responsibility for risk management as diplomacy does not function in a world without risk.

takes too long novel challenges reassert itself drowning out the U.S. Department of State’s own currently missing many of the skills diplomatic teams abroad need more support

['“The snake that does not shed its skin, dies.” – Japanese proverb. Staying relevant means keeping up with the times. As Secretary Blinken has pointed out, the U.S. Department of State needs to be reinvigorated. The Ambassador confirmation process takes too long; AI and new technologies present novel challenges and opportunities for diplomats; and risks around the world are leading U.S. embassies to fence themselves in. By improving how the U.S. Department of State functions, including its career development, training and how it communicates its mission to the American people, the agency will be able to reassert itself as the leading foreign policy entity in the Interagency Policy Council. Many voices have joined the foreign policy discussion, drowning out the U.S. Department of State’s own. It is time to reinvent the Department, and for it to rediscover its voice.', 'The Strength of the U.S. Department of State is its People. Training is paramount to the modernization of the Department. Diplomats are currently missing many of the skills needed to effectively do their jobs abroad. These include risk management skills, operational experience, language training, leadership skills, and more. Training should be an integral part of career development at every level of the department. Senator Hagerty, a lifelong businessman who served as U.S. Ambassador to Japan, pointed out how many diplomats he worked with while in Tokyo who had no business education or background, skills that he found to be essential to the success of diplomatic teams. To be effective, the Department will need personnel with a variety of educational backgrounds, such as in business, computer science, and science. ', 'Reserve Diplomatic Corps. It is no mystery that the U.S. Department of State is understaffed, a problem which becomes much worse when the Department must leave positions vacant to surge for a crisis. Securing enough of a workforce to avoid the constant moving around of personnel is key to professional development, adequate training and ensuring America’s interests abroad are ensured. Building a Reserve Corps of around 1,000 people, hired gradually in the next few years could provide the much-needed support to U.S. diplomats abroad.', 'Mission and Mandate. Chiefs of Mission often find themselves without enough authority to get their jobs done. Understaffed and undertrained, diplomatic teams abroad need more support if they are to be effective in their roles. Diplomats must also take responsibility for risk management as diplomacy does not function in a world without risk. As Ambassador Grossman pointed out “Americans expect and deserve the highest functioning diplomatic service in the world. That is key to America’s interests.” The Blueprints provides the path forward for the Department, as well as the legislative language needed to pass in Congress to make it a reality. As the report points out “America’s diplomats must not only be preeminent experts on the world outside our borders, ready to represent our nation by understanding the politics, economics, security, culture, and languages of each country on every continent, but also strategic thinkers and leaders making essential contributions to the policy making process at home.”', '']

[(0, 11)]

ndtceda

Emory-RuSh-Aff-3---Navy-Round-1.docx

Emory

RuSh

483a2d13bbdd8bd013f7f2e487c62b39b666574c9b4515c00bf63213f235e810

Cap solves war---liberal order good and won’t collapse

Michael Mousseau 19, PhD, studies international politics with a particular focus on the link between economic conditions, institutions, and conflict, 7/29/19, “The End of War: How a Robust Marketplace and Liberal Hegemony Are Leading to Perpetual World Peace,” https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/isec_a_00352?mobileUi=0

contractualism is overtaking status-personalism launching an era of peace This conclusion is reached without teleological assumptions contractualist hegemony prohibits wars for debt collection or territory Reports of the Demise of the Order Are Exaggerated electorates in most states have not experienced populist sentiment the strength of institutions exceeds any one person including the president the Trump phenomenon has not extended to the people populist mini-wave are trifling episodes in a larger frame status states want expansion contractualist states want stability based on self-determination war is becoming obsolete Leaders assess threats based on behavior the world is in the endgame of permanent peace

the world is on the cusp of tremendous change contractualism is overtaking status-personalism launching an era of peace and prosperity This conclusion is reached without teleological assumptions contractualist hegemony prohibits states from starting wars for booty debt collection or territory Reports of the Demise of the Liberal Order Are Greatly Exaggerated the liberal global order is on the rise yet liberal values around the world seem to be in retreat In recent years, two contractualist states with populist governments Hungary and Poland have begun to embrace anti-immigrant and anti-globalization positions In the United States Trump appears to favor status values such as power, rank, and loyalty over contractualist values such as equity and respect for the rule of law First, Hungary and Poland are newly contractualist states The sociological nature of economic norms theory means that contractualist values should be more firmly rooted in older contractualist societies than in newer ones. This is corroborated with the natural experiment of Germany: in 1962 West Germany embraced contractualism (see table 1), but it was only after 1991 that East Germany could have become contractualist, when massive investments from the Federal Republic caused incomes in the marketplace to become higher than incomes obtainable from status relationships Today, Germany's populist movement is concentrated in the eastern part of the country and is largely nonexistent in the western part electorates in most of the thirty-five contractualist states listed in table 1 in 2010 have not experienced substantial increases in populist sentiment . Britons voted to leave the European Union, but largely because they believed they were being treated unfairly in it. The rejection of unfair terms of trade, whether perceived correctly or not, is consistent with contractualist values. the strength of institutions exceeds that of any one person including the president of the United States Liberal values and institutions are rooted in contractualist economic norms and will not disappear simply because some leaders choose not to abide by them. For instance, although Trump may want the United States to withdraw from the North Atlantic alliance, this is not a view shared by Congress and the American people. Even members of Trump's administration have often restrained him in ways consistent with contractualist values and institutions.84 the Trump phenomenon has not extended to the American people Although a collapse of the U.S. economy and transition to an axial or a status economy is always possible, the feedback loop of popular insistence on economic growth and a highly inclusive marketplace makes this unlikely The present populist mini-wave and pathologies in U.S. democracy are mere trifling episodes in a larger historical frame . global alignments are rooted in factors internal to states status states want expansion and disorder wherever they lack control contractualist states want stability and order based on the principle of self-determination for all states States with contractualist and export-oriented economies tend to agree on issues voted on in the United Nations General Assembly, regardless of their power status or capability, because they have common interests in a global order based on self-determination. the theory can explain the decline of war probability of war among market democracies is practically zero war is becoming obsolete and not for reasons supposed in most international relations theorizing Leaders of contractualist states assess threats based not on their images of other states' regime types, economic types, or their capabilities, but on their behavior . Since the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945, an alliance of contractualist states has sought to impose a global order based on the principle of self-determination—a principle that applies to all states, large and small the world is in the endgame of a five-century-long trajectory toward permanent peace and prosperity.

on the cusp tremendous change contractualism status-personalism era of peace without teleological assumptions contractualist hegemony booty debt collection territory Reports of the Demise of the Liberal Order Are Greatly Exaggerated on the rise firmly rooted contractualist societies largely nonexistent most strength of institutions has not trifling episodes status states want expansion and disorder wherever they lack control contractualist states self-determination explain the decline of war probability of war among market democracies is practically zero war is becoming obsolete contractualist states in the endgame permanent peace

['If my argument is correct, the world is on the cusp of tremendous change: across the globe, contractualism is overtaking status-personalism and, in so doing, launching an era of peace and prosperity. This conclusion is reached without any monotonic or teleological assumptions: anything that collapses the contractualist economies for a generation or two would stop or reverse this trend.81 All else being equal, the contractualist hegemony has made the odds of unit-level change from a status to a contractualist economy more likely than the reverse. At the start of the twentieth century, only the United States had a contractualist economy; by the end, at least thirty-five states were contractualist.82 The Westphalian system has never been as conducive to transitions to contractualist economies as it has been under the contractualist hegemony, which prohibits states from starting wars for booty, debt collection, or territory. Nor has the world ever had such widespread access to capital, mobility, and equity in trade as it has had since the contractualist hegemony made it so with the signing of the Atlantic Charter and the implementation of the Bretton Woods agreements. The number of transitions also predictably increased after the Cold War, when the contractualist hegemony emerged as largely unchallenged. In this way, system change toward contractualist hegemony within the anarchic order, rooted in unit-level change, ultimately promotes more unit-level change toward a contractualist world.', 'Reports of the Demise of the Liberal Order Are Greatly Exaggerated', "I have argued that the liberal global order is on the rise; yet, liberal values around the world seem to be in retreat. In recent years, two contractualist states with populist governments—Hungary and Poland—have begun to embrace anti-immigrant and anti-globalization positions. In the United States, President Donald Trump appears to favor status values such as power, rank, and loyalty over contractualist values such as equity and respect for the rule of law. In foreign policy, Trump does not seem to share contractualists' opposition to Russia's efforts to sow chaos, and he sees trade in terms of winners and losers.", "Reports of the demise of the liberal order, however, are greatly exaggerated. First, Hungary and Poland are newly contractualist states. The sociological nature of economic norms theory means that contractualist values should be more firmly rooted in older contractualist societies than in newer ones. This is corroborated with the natural experiment of Germany: in 1962 West Germany embraced contractualism (see table 1), but it was only after 1991 that East Germany could have become contractualist, when massive investments from the Federal Republic caused incomes in the marketplace to become higher than incomes obtainable from status relationships. Today, Germany's populist movement is concentrated in the eastern part of the country and is largely nonexistent in the western part,83 which corroborates the expectation that some newly contractualist societies retain some of their status values even after a generation of robust opportunity in the marketplace. Deeper changes in values may not occur until generational cohorts initially socialized into status or axial economies have passed on.", "Second, the electorates in most of the thirty-five contractualist states listed in table 1 in 2010 have not experienced substantial increases in populist sentiment. Italy's Five Star movement is often called populist but largely because of its anti-immigrant stance. Although an embrace of immigrants would seem consistent with contractualist values, opposition to large numbers of immigrants is arguably a rational response to what is essentially a huge external shock that has intensified in recent years. Britons voted to leave the European Union, but largely because they believed they were being treated unfairly in it. The rejection of unfair terms of trade, whether perceived correctly or not, is consistent with contractualist values.", "Third, the strength of institutions far exceeds that of any one person, including the president of the United States. Liberal values and institutions are rooted in contractualist economic norms and will not disappear simply because some leaders choose not to abide by them. For instance, although Trump may want the United States to withdraw from the North Atlantic alliance, this is not a view shared by Congress and the American people. Even members of Trump's administration have often restrained him in ways consistent with contractualist values and institutions.84", "In economic norms theory, the only way the United States' contractualist values could shift to status or axial values would be through radical economic change. As mentioned above, economics is ultimately at the mercy of politics, as an influential coalition of rent-seekers could potentially collapse a contractualist economy by failing to sustain the highly inclusive marketplace or uphold the state's credibility in enforcing of contracts. In recent years, the U.S. economy has begun tilting toward rent-seekers, given the growing role of private money in electoral campaigns and the increasing sophistication of rent-seekers in masking their activities though the manipulation of public opinion, including through their concentrated ownership of media outlets. Such rentierism could precipitate a change in U.S. values if it results in a retraction of the market substantial enough that newer generations began to obtain higher wages in newfound status networks than in the marketplace.", "In this way, the Trump phenomenon may reflect a pathology in U.S. governing institutions; but at least so far, it arguably has not extended to the American people. Most of Trump's supporters seem to be drawn to him not for his expressions of status values, but for his pledges to fight a “rigged” system and create well-paying jobs. Whether or not Trump means what he says, many of his supporters saw a vote for him as an act of protest against the increasing corruption occurring in the United States, a clear contractualist expression.85 Although a collapse of the U.S. economy and transition to an axial or a status economy is always possible, the feedback loop of popular insistence on economic growth and a highly inclusive marketplace makes this unlikely. Aside from an external shock (such as nuclear war or climate devastation), such a transition could happen only if the rentiers somehow manage to remain in power long enough to institutionalize a permanently underemployed underclass.", 'Fourth, even if the U.S. economy were to collapse and the United States became an axial or a status power, the combined economic might of all the other contractualist countries in the world is nearly twice that of the United States. The soft power of the United States in world politics lies not in its power to persuade, but in it being the largest of the contractualist states, and in its willingness to provide the public good of global security since the collapse of the pound sterling in late 1946. If the United States withdrew from its leadership role, the remaining contractualist powers would fill the vacuum. None of them has an economy relatively large enough to enable it to act as a natural leader and principal provider of global security, but it is the temperament of these states that they can easily form an international organization to coordinate and act on their shared security interests, even if some may choose to free ride.', 'Fifth, current events need to be viewed within a larger context. Fernand Braudel pinpoints the rise of the modern world economy as starting around the year 1450 in northwestern Europe.86 The first contractualist economy emerged more than two centuries ago. Since then, contractualist states have confronted numerous shocks and threats to their systems, including the American Civil War, the Great Depression, two world wars, and the Cold War. The present populist mini-wave and pathologies in U.S. democracy are mere trifling episodes in a larger historical frame.', 'Conclusion', "This article has introduced a new liberal theory of global politics and argues that global alignments are rooted in factors internal to states: status states want expansion and disorder wherever they lack control; contractualist states want universal stability and order based on the principle of self-determination for all states. As such, global patterns of war, peace, and cooperation can be explained without recourse to such external factors as trade interdependence, international institutions, interstate images, or intersubjective structure; economic norms theory can explain these patterns from states' internal conditions alone. If this argument is correct, then the relative power of states does determine the perception of threat, as realists have long maintained, but with an essential qualifi- cation: only among status states. In this way, internal conditions can explain why 2,400 years ago Sparta feared the rising power of Athens, and why today the distribution of power seems to be playing an ever reduced role in global politics.", 'My analyses of most states from 1946 to 2010 corroborate the prediction of a liberal global hierarchy managed by a natural alliance of states with contractualist economies. States with contractualist and export-oriented economies tend to agree on issues voted on in the United Nations General Assembly, regardless of their power status or capability, because they have common interests in a global order based on self-determination. Among states with status and insular economies, in contrast, major powers and those with greater capability are more likely to balance the contractualist hegemony, which they fear. Meanwhile, minor powers and those with less capability are more likely to bandwagon with it, which they fear less than they do the status major powers.', "Additionally, the theory provides an explanation for a large number of observed facts in international politics. It can explain the decline of war. It can explain the United States' enduring soft power, and why its leadership continues utterly unchallenged by other market powers, despite its relative economic decline since the mid-twentieth century. It offers an account for why developing states with weak institutions tend to bandwagon with the Western powers;87 and why land powers tend to provoke counterbalancing coalitions, and sea powers, which tend to be trading powers, do not.88 It can account for the democratic peace; why democracies tend to win theirwars; and why the probability of war among market democracies is practically zero. It can explain how states become prosperous; how democracy consolidates; the tenacity of corruption in developing countries; why Western powers reproach their clients for their corruption;89 and why states fail. It can explain global terrorism and anti-Americanism.90", "If the theory is right, war is becoming obsolete, and not for reasons supposed in most international relations theorizing. There is no security dilemma in international politics, as realists contend there is: relative power reliably matters only to leaders of status states, which always consider all other states enemies. Yet, the trajectory of peace is not at all caused by democracy, trade, or international institutions, as liberals maintain. As argued here, democracy, trade, and institutions are epiphenomenal. Contractualist economies are not the only explanation for these factors, but they are a cause of democratic consolidation, foreign policy preferences for equitable trade, and international organization. Leaders of contractualist states assess threats based not on their images of other states' regime types, economic types, or their capabilities, but on their behavior.", 'What economic norms theory cannot explain is the triggering environmental and political origins of economic change. Although the theory predicts systemic effects (contractualist hegemony) on unit-level change (national transitions toward contractualist economies), it cannot predict when and where leaders of status and axial states might seek to support the market; when and where contractualist economies will emerge; or when and where systemic effects will result in changes in the units. The theory treats economic change largely exogenously.91', "Thus, the theory cannot predict what China will do in the future, because it is impossible to know whether it will become a contractualist power. The theory can predict, however, that conflict with China is not inevitable, and that it can be avoided if the contractualist powers do not confuse China's mercantilist pursuits with incipient revisionism, and if they grasp that China's leadership increasingly has interests in the global market order. If China transitions to a contractualist economy—and such a prospect is likely if current trends continue—the proportion of people in the contractualist mind-set worldwide will more than double, from 16 percent to 35 percent. This would greatly increase the speed of the trajectory toward peace, as long as the planet can ecologically sustain the contractualist economies' high levels of productivity.", "Russia, in contrast, is the natural enemy of the contractualist hegemony: its status economy encourages the sowing of chaos anywhere Russia lacks control, putting it in direct opposition to the contractualists' interest in order. Russia has a substantial nuclear arsenal, but this does not diminish the overwhelming might of the contractualist hegemony, because nuclear weapons can be used rationally only to deter attacks. Contractualist states do not attack states to make them contractualist, so Russia's deterrent capability has no effect on the power of this hegemony and the trajectory of peace.", 'Since the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945, an alliance of contractualist states has sought to impose a global order based on the principle of self-determination—a principle that applies to all states, large and small. This global order is increasing the odds of states transitioning from status to contractualist economies and reducing the odds of reverse transitions. In this way, economic norms theory supports the proposition that the world may be nearing half a millennium of change that began with the rise of axial markets in northwestern Europe around 1450. If the theory is correct, the beginning of the end of this change may have been the emergence of the contractualist hegemony in the mid-twentieth century. This article has argued that no status power could ever overtake the combined might of this hegemony. Thus, barring some dark force that brings about a collapse of the global economy, the world is now in the endgame of a five-century-long trajectory toward permanent peace and prosperity.', '']

[(8, 19)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-KiYe-Aff-Indiana-Round-3.docx

Northwestern

KiYe

e4bad95d9b8a60903bfcfa0267e7e7d21e867252a84b22a3b7d55a2927062d07

No Iran war with the US or Israel

Dr. Conn Hallinan 19, Columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus, PhD in Anthropology from the University of California, Berkeley, “Could Trump Really Launch a War With Iran?”, 2/1/2019, https://fpif.org/could-trump-really-launch-a-war-with-iran/]

as belligerent as Bolton and Israel are would they initiate war war would be unpopular in the U S only 23 percent support 2020 control of the Senate and White House will be in play While wars tend to rally people polls suggest war with Iran is not likely to do that it’s not certain Israel would join Israeli public is hardly enthusiastic a long-distance air war would get complicated Iraq and Lebanon would block airspace as would Turkey you can’t win with cruise missiles

Would the U.S. or Israel Attack? as belligerent as Bolton and Israel are would they initiate war war would be unpopular in the U nited S tates only 23 percent would support a war 2020 control of the Senate and the White House will be in play While wars tend to rally people to the flag polls suggest a war with Iran is not likely to do that it’s not even certain that Israel would join Israeli public is hardly enthusiastic about a war with Iran a long-distance air war would get complicated Iraq and Lebanon would block Israel from using their airspace as would Turkey you can’t win a war with cruise missiles

as belligerent Bolton Israel unpopular U S only 23 percent support war control Senate White House in play polls war with Iran not likely do that not certain would join Israeli public hardly enthusiastic long-distance air war complicated Iraq Lebanon block Israel Turkey can’t win a war cruise missiles

['Would the U.S. or Israel Actually Attack?', 'Of course, if the United States and/or Israel join in, Iran will be hard pressed. But as belligerent as Bolton and the Israeli government are toward Iran, would they initiate or join a war?', 'Such a war would be unpopular in the United States. Some 63 percent of Americans oppose withdrawing from the nuclear agreement and, by a margin of more than 2 to 1, oppose a war with Iran. While 53 percent oppose such a war — 37 percent strongly so — only 23 percent would support a war with Iran. And, of those, only 9 percent strongly support such a war.', 'The year 2020 is also the next round of U.S. elections, where control of the Senate and the White House will be in play. While wars tend to rally people to the flag, the polls suggest a war with Iran is not likely to do that. The U.S. would be virtually alone internationally, and Saudi Arabia is hardly on the list of most Americans’ favorite allies.', 'And it’s not even certain that Israel would join in, although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls Iran an “existential threat.” Polls show that the Israeli public is hardly enthusiastic about a war with Iran, particularly if the U.S. isn’t involved.', 'The Israeli military is more than willing to take on Iranian forces in Syria, but a long-distance air war would get complicated. Iraq and Lebanon would try to block Israel from using their airspace to attack Iran, as would Turkey. The first two countries might not be able to do much to stop the Israelis, but flying over a hostile country is always tricky, particularly if you have to do it for an extended period of time. And anyone who thinks the Iranians are going to toss in the towel is delusional.', 'Of course Israel has other ways to strike Iran, including cruise missiles deployed on submarines and surface craft. But you can’t win a war with cruise missiles; you just blow a lot of things up.', '']

[(9, 20)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-Deo-Fridman-Neg-ADA-Round4.docx

Northwestern

DeFr

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Northwestern/DeFr/Northwestern-Deo-Fridman-Neg-ADA-Round4.docx

445804f6db2f48c41f4ad1bfabbc570e69e8a1b5144b988b043ee82117cdb28b

Unilateral NFU is pocketed by Russia, ruining U.S. credibility on arms control. The CP solves.

Matthew Costlow 21, PhD candidate at George Mason University and a senior analyst at the National Institute for Public Policy. He was formerly a special assistant in the Office of Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, US Department of Defense, “An Overlooked Aid to Arms Control: US Nuclear Modernization”, Fall 2021, pp. 34-47, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48618295

there is little ev the U S minimized nonstrategic nuclear arsenal Russia is now projected to substantially grow no indication Russia was influenced in any way by US decision to unilaterally reduce unilateral reductions especially puzzling no ev unilateral reductions produce reciprocity function of arms control negotiations is equitable and mutual reductions To substitute unilateral reductions does not seem realistic unilateral reductions appear self-defeating reduce chances for agreements eliminating US leverage Russia China would pocket the concession

Advocates for US unilateral nuclear reductions posit that this could lead to arms control benefits US willingness to reduce could lead China to take a less passive approach the history of nuclear arms control and the complete lack of nuclear arms control with China undermine this claim If it is true Russia and China will respond positively one would expect to see such dynamics in the past However there is little such ev idence examples demonstrate this the U nited S tates minimized nonstrategic nuclear arsenal Russia did not go nearly as far as the U S Instead it is now well into a modernization program and projected to substantially grow There is no indication that Russia ’s modernization program was influenced in any way by the US decision to unilaterally reduce forces in 2010 China has refused to engage in a meaningful nuclear arms control dialogue unilateral reductions is especially puzzling when there is no good example of success the approach of leveraging a capable credible US nuclear arsenal has proven successful . there is no ev i dence from history that unilateral reductions will produce reciprocity important function of arms control negotiations is to achieve equitable and mutual reductions without undue risk To substitute unilateral reductions for negotiations does not seem prudent or realistic unilateral US nuclear reductions appear self-defeating they would reduce chances for future arms control agreements by eliminating US leverage . Russia and China would likely pocket the concession and hold out the US arsenal would then have no credible counters comparable to the Russian or Chinese arsenal making opportunities for agreements more difficult

unilateral benefits reduce passive approach history complete lack undermine positively However little ev nonstrategic Instead modernization program substantially grow no indication in any way unilaterally reduce especially puzzling success capable credible successful history unilateral reductions reciprocity arms control negotiations equitable mutual reductions unilateral reductions self-defeating eliminating pocket the concession credible counters difficult

['Advocates for US unilateral nuclear reductions commonly posit that this avenue could lead to arms control benefits without the expensive bill for US nuclear modernization or at least only a partial bill. For instance, Kingston Reif and Alicia Sanders-Zakre propose that “a [US] decision to reduce to 1,000 deployed strategic warheads would put the United States in a stronger position to pressure Russia to rethink some of its expensive nuclear recapitalization projects and reduce its deployed strategic nuclear warheads. Perhaps more intriguingly, a US willingness to reduce its arsenal could lead China to take a less passive approach to nuclear disarmament and more openly discuss the size, composition, and operations of its nuclear forces.”18 Or as a Deep Cuts Commission report recently stated, “Even if Russia is reluctant to join the United States in building down, a US reduction would put Russia on the defensive and force Moscow to explain to a critical international community why it needs to maintain a larger deployed nuclear arsenal than the United States.”19 Although anything is possible, the history of nuclear arms control with the Soviet Union and Russia and the complete lack of nuclear arms control with China undermine this claim.', 'If it is true that Russia and China will respond positively to reductions in either the size or capability of the US nuclear arsenal, then one would expect to see such action-reaction dynamics in the past. However, there is little such evidence. A few examples demonstrate this. Post–Cold War, the United States minimized its nonstrategic nuclear arsenal, and while Russia reduced its nonstrategic nuclear arsenal, it did not go nearly as far as the United States. Instead, it is now well into a modernization program and projected to substantially grow its nonstrategic nuclear arsenal.20 There is also no indication that Russia’s modernization program was influenced in any positive way by the US decision to unilaterally reduce its forces by retiring the nuclear-armed Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM-N) in 2010. While the United States has steadily reduced the number of its nuclear weapons, China has thus far refused to engage in a meaningful nuclear arms control dialogue. If US nuclear reductions could spur additional arms control benefits, one would expect to see much greater arms control cooperation today.', 'Analysts must ask the question then, Why has it become standard practice in the arms control community to recommend that the United States engage in unilateral reductions for the sake of a better arms control environment? This question is especially puzzling when there is no good example of success in adopting that strategy. On the other hand, the approach of leveraging a capable, credible US nuclear arsenal has proven successful. As former secretary of defense Harold Brown observed, “Appropriate restraint in our programs and actions is still warranted. But there is no evidence from history that unilateral reductions in our posture will produce Soviet reciprocity. An important function of our various arms control negotiations is precisely to achieve equitable and verifiable mutual reductions without undue risk. To substitute unilateral reductions for these negotiations does not seem to be either prudent or realistic.”21 Calls for unilateral US nuclear reductions thus appear self-defeating because, if implemented, they would reduce chances for future arms control agreements by limiting or eliminating necessary US leverage.', 'If the United States were to, for example, eliminate its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force, past experience indicates that it would then have no leverage over Russia and China to do the same. They would likely pocket the concession and hold out for more since withholding from an agreement netted them that much. Even worse, the US arsenal would then have no credible counters or offsets comparable to the Russian or Chinese nuclear arsenal in type, making further opportunities for nuclear arms control agreements more difficult.', '']

[(8, 18)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-AdMc-Neg-JW-Patterson-Round-2.docx

Kentucky

AdMc

c277675d66b6bda6d336aa5a07fd2fe70dcb0ca1617b6eae80126ee9b6adbccc

Acquisition should be viewed in scales—there’s multiple levels to development that we haven’t committed to.

Lee 22 (*Carrie A. Lee: Associate professor, U.S. Army War College; Chair of the Department of National Security and Strategy and co-director of the USAWC Center on Civil-Military Relations, U.S. Army War College; Ph.D., Political Science, Stanford University, Fall 2022, "Technology Acquisition and Arms Control: Thinking Through the Hypersonic Weapons Debate," Texas National Security Review, https://tnsr.org/2022/09/technology-acquisition-and-arms-control-thinking-through-the-hypersonic-weapons-debate/)

While the U S has devoted funding and attention to hypersonic tech there is a robust debate about how aggressively the military should pursue widespread use . New tech are expensive and require modernization and retrofitting that can be costly possessing tech know-how is different from acquiring and integrating capability , as is the case with nuclear states.

Acquiring Technology: Theoretical Considerations and Applications to Hypersonic Weapons Each new advancement in weapons technology fills a need or offers new capabilities that previous weapons systems did not offer Nuclear weapons offered destructive potential a rtificial i ntelligence promises to accelerate speed of war Each of these technologies offers substantial improvements While the U nited S tates has devoted funding and attention to development of hypersonic tech nology, there is a robust debate about how aggressively the military should pursue acquiring such weapons for widespread use . New tech nologies are expensive and require modernization efforts and retrofitting initiatives that can be costly in financial and human capital . possessing tech nical know-how is different from actually acquiring and integrating new capability , as is the case with nuclear weapons states.

Theoretical Considerations Applications did not offer Nuclear weapons a i U S funding and attention tech robust debate how aggressively pursue acquiring weapons for widespread use tech expensive modernization efforts retrofitting initiatives financial human capital tech know-how actually acquiring and integrating capability

['', 'Acquiring Technology: Theoretical Considerations and Applications to Hypersonic Weapons', 'Each new advancement in weapons technology, in theory, fills a new need or offers new capabilities that previous weapons systems did not offer or allow. Nuclear weapons offered the destructive potential of thousands of bombs in a single warhead, precision-guided munitions allowed for the ability to hit a single facility with a single warhead with confidence, and artificial intelligence promises to accelerate the speed of war while minimizing the cost in human lives. Each of these technologies offers substantial improvements upon previous systems and methods, providing leaders and decision-makers greater flexibility and more capabilities than before.', 'While the United States has devoted significant amounts of funding and attention to the development of hypersonic technology, there is still a robust debate about how aggressively the military should pursue acquiring such weapons for widespread use.14 New technologies are expensive and require modernization efforts and retrofitting initiatives that can be costly in terms of both financial and human capital. Similarly, possessing the technical know-how is different from actually acquiring and integrating the new capability, as is the case with many nuclear weapons states. Decisions about new technological acquisitions, therefore, should take into account two factors: warfighting costs and benefits and strategic effects.']

[(0, 6)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-BeWe-Neg-3--CEDA-Doubles.docx

Minnesota

BeWe

3c6f4881584ccf7b460e0df0dfa3537c0ef7bb79679fb1c1aef68df8883bf2a5

3. Zootonic disease, climate change, and ecological devastation.

Marques 20 – associate professor at the Department of History, University of Campinas (Unicamp), Brazil (Luis, Pandemics, Existential and non-Existential Risks to Humanity, Ambiente & Sociedade São Paulo. Vol. 23, 2020)//gcd

no longer be plausible to expect new growth truncated by climatic, ecological, and health chaos generated by climate biod and pollution wildlife habitat-destroying food system foments zoonoses decade marked by other pandemics supposes redefining economic activity post-pandemic globalized capitalism impeded by imbalances in Earth structural stagnation with forced degrowth begun Brexit extreme rightwing governments with fascist characteristics we approaching threshold beyond planet’s ecosystemic services We are in a period of collapse growth in a finite plane t, pressures stop the growth water scarcity, epidemics warfare extreme globalization made business vulnerable to disruption six years been the hottest food system drove loss of 3 tree cover industrial fishing system sacrificing oceans’ future acidification creating dead zones ruptures trophic chains industrial pollution

once the pandemic has passed, it will no longer be plausible to expect a new cycle of economic growth . Some will certainly occur will be conjunctural truncated by climatic, ecological, and health chaos generated by climate biod and pollution . Given that our wildlife habitat-destroying , globalized food system foments zoonoses , it is very possible that the coming decade will be marked by other pandemics in a world hereafter ever more hostile, as it will be hotter, more economically dysfunctional, more unequal, more biologically impoverished Survival supposes redefining economic activity We must insist upon these crises’ economic dimension: post-pandemic globalized capitalism will no longer grow impeded by imbalances in Earth structural stagnation with forced economic degrowth begun 8 was its prelude many symptoms Brexit extreme rightwing governments with clearly fascist characteristics trade war growing risk of a war the perception that we were approaching a threshold beyond which the planet’s so-called “ ecosystemic services ” will become “ecosystemic disservices toward a global socioeconomic system that has turned against itself as a result of its suicidal relationship with the environment . I : We are in a period of collapse now, which will intensify . (…) growth in a finite plane t, pressures stop the growth water scarcity, epidemics warfare . First, it is operating in a world in which extreme globalization of the economy has made its industrial, agricultural and livestock business , and service chains much more interdependent and, therefore, much more vulnerable to disruption And, third, the current epidemic is occurring at a moment in which the growing malfunctioning of the global machine alluded forces societies to expend energy to minimally remain functiona l in systemic crises. number battling hunger been on the rise six years been the hottest food system drove loss of 3 tree cover industrial fishing system sacrificing oceans’ future decline in biodiversity lead to the extinction of million species acidification creating marine dead zones ruptures trophic chains industrial pollution geopolitical tensions are intensification water and energy resources nuclear arms race democracy threatened b fascism physical violence

will be conjunctural climatic, ecological, and health chaos generated by biod and pollution system foments zoonoses marked by other pandemics biologically impoverished redefining economic activity globalized capitalism impeded structural forced economic degrowth extreme rightwing trade war growing risk of a war environment growth in a finite plane growth water scarcity, vulnerable to disruption to minimally remain functiona systemic crises. battling hunger been the hottest loss of 3 tree cover sacrificing oceans’ future million species marine dead zones trophic chains water and energy resources nuclear arms race fascism physical violence

['This article develops the conclusions of a previous one, published in the Jornal de Unicamp on May 5 of this year (MARQUES, 2020), as well as in the journal Cosmos e Contexto (also with a translation into English1 ). We should, therefore, recap its final paragraph before continuing on to the heart of what will follow: once the pandemic has passed, it will no longer be plausible to expect a new cycle of economic growth. Some will certainly occur, but it will be conjunctural and soon be truncated by the climatic, ecological, and health chaos generated by the three systemic crises befalling contemporary societies with ever greater force: the climate emergency, decline in biodiversity, and industrial pollution. The varied developmentalist agendas typical of twentieth century ideological clashes are no longer current, even though, zombie-like, they have persisted into the twenty-first century. We can and should applaud the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, but it is increasingly clear that none of them will be achieved by 2030. Given that our wildlife habitat-destroying, globalized food system foments zoonoses, it is very possible that the coming decade will be marked by other pandemics. It certainly will be marked by a deepening of all the socioenvironmental crises that were already afflicting us before the current health crisis. The unavoidable reality is that the global post-pandemic political agenda will be defensive, adaptive, and will gravitate around the survival of societies, in a world hereafter ever more hostile, as it will be hotter, more economically dysfunctional, more unequal, more biologically impoverished, much more polluted, and, for all these reasons, sicker, even in the improbable absence of other pandemics. In this context, survival is not a minimal program. Survival today requires us to struggle for something more ambitious than the twentieth century’s social democratic or revolutionary programs. It supposes redefining the very meaning and purpose of economic activity, which, in the final instance, is to say redefining our position as a society and as a species within the realm of the biosphere. We must insist upon these crises’ economic dimension: post-pandemic globalized capitalism will no longer grow – except briefly, locally, and always at lower rates –, impeded as it is by those growing imbalances in the Earth system caused precisely by that growth. An era of structural stagnation with crises of forced economic degrowth has begun. The 2007-2008 global financial crisis was its prelude and, since then, globalization’s brutal mechanism has begun to jam. There are many symptoms of this: the final dissociation between financial markets and the real economy; the spread of poverty even in industrialized countries; the Greek and Brexit crises; the ascension of extreme rightwing movements and governments with clearly fascist characteristics throughout the world, spreading from India to the USA, Europe, and, obviously, Brazil; the Sino-American trade war, with the growing risk of a war that is not just economic. Taking stock of the global economic recovery a decade after the 2008 financial crisis, an IMF working paper (CHEN; MRKAIC; NABAR, 2019, p. 2) rightfully recognized that: Output losses after the crisis appear to be persistent, irrespective of whether a country suffered a banking crisis in 2007–08. Sluggish investment was a key channel through which these losses registered, accompanied by long-lasting capital and total factor productivity shortfalls relative to precrisis trends. 1. An era of ecosystemic disservices That deceleration of the global economy is not only, nor above all, the result of internal dysfunctions of capitalism’s modus operandi. Since the end of the twentieth century, and even more clearly through the second decade of this one, the perception that we were approaching a threshold beyond which the planet’s so-called “ecosystemic services” will become “ecosystemic disservices” has forcefully emerged. The current pandemic is one of those disservices. That perception has shown itself, for example, in the 2013 manifesto, “Scientific Consensus on Maintaining Humanity’s Life Support Systems in the 21st Century,” proposed by Anthony Barnosky et al.2 (2012), and signed by more than 1,300 scientiwsts, researchers, members of NGOs, students, and the general public, in more than 60 countries: Earth is rapidly approaching a tipping point. Human impacts are causing alarming levels of harm to our planet. As scientists who study the interaction of people with the rest of the biosphere using a wide range of approaches, we agree that the evidence that humans are damaging their ecological life-support systems is overwhelming. The two manifestos promoted by William Ripple and colleagues in 2017 and 2019, with more than fifteen thousand signatures, as well as the “SOS of 700 Scientists,” published in 2018 by the newspaper Libération, point toward a global socioeconomic system that has turned against itself as a result of its suicidal relationship with the environment. In an interview given in 2017 to the NGO We Love Earth, Dennis Meadows insisted on the fact that various socioenvironmental imbalances caused by economic growth were guiding globalized capitalism to a process of collapse: We are in a period of collapse now, which will intensify. (…) When you have a physical growth in a finite planet, pressures are going to mount to stop the growth. And climate change is one of these pressures. (…) If we solved climate change, if we could somehow push a magic button and eliminate greenhouse gases, then, by continuing with our growth, we would just have to see bigger pressures in other sectors: water scarcity, or epidemics, or warfare... At this moment, the most evident pressure is the pandemic, but it is not, in itself, the most threatening. Far more lethal pandemics have occurred in the past. The so-called Spanish Flu from 1918-1919, left nearly fifty million dead; the 1957-1958 influenza A virus subtype H2N2, commonly referred to as the Asian flu pandemic, caused an estimated two million to four million deaths worldwide in a world with approximately one third of today’s population (CLARK, 2008); the 1968 flu pandemic, the Influenza A virus subtype H3N2, also known as Hong-Kong flu, killed an estimated one million people all over the world; and the HIV/AIDS has claimed the lives of more than 32 million people since 1981. However, none of these worldwide health crises profoundly affected societies’ resilience. There are three reasons why the current pandemic has struck the world more brutally and more enduringly than those previous ones. First, it is operating in a world in which extreme globalization of the economy, begun in the 1980s, has made its industrial, agricultural and livestock business, and service chains much more interdependent and, therefore, much more vulnerable to disruption. Second, the near real time global bombardment of information (and misinformation) via the internet about its impact and about the number of lives being cut short is a factor of emotional stress that is not irrelevant. Very few of today’s seniors still remember either the 1957-1958 or the 1968 pandemics. But the trauma of the pandemic begun in 2020 will probably be forever imprinted on the memory of those who survive it. And, third, the current epidemic is occurring at a moment in which the growing malfunctioning of the global machine alluded to above forces societies to expend much more of their energy just to minimally remain functional in a now extremely grave framework of socioenvironmental, political, and psychological systemic crises. 2. The concurrence of nine combined regressions These crises demand undelayable, globally orchestrated political reactions of our societies that are, at the same time, being divided into two evermore hardened and incommunicative groups. On one hand, the state-corporative establishment, determined to maintain the machinery of business as usual at all costs, is advancing its pawns on the international chessboard to guarantee that nothing changes in post-pandemic energy and food systems. On the other, the perception of scientists and growing sectors of society that we have reached a limit beyond which we can no longer advance, given that the harmful effects of globalized capitalism increasingly supersede their benefits. Observation of the concurrence of combined regressions in human security contribute to that perception: (1) after decades of progress in the struggle against food insecurity, the number of people battling acute hunger and suffering from malnutrition has been on the rise over the last four years (FAO, 2019, p. 6). According to the fourth annual Global Report on Food Crises (GRFC, 2020), around 183 million people in 47 countries were classified as being in Stressed (IPC/CH Phase 2) conditions, at risk of slipping into Crisis or worse (IPC/CH Phase 3 or above) if confronted by an additional shock or stressor. The current pandemic is precisely this additional shock; (2) the six most recent years (2014-2019) and the current one have been the hottest of the last twelve millennia; (3) the globalized food system drove the loss of 3.61 million km2 of tree cover between 2001 and 2018, according to Global Forest Watch; (4) the heavily subsidized industrial fishing system is now sacrificing the oceans’ future (PAULY, 2019); (5) the catastrophic decline in biodiversity is annihilating vertebrate populations (Living PIanet Index, 2018) and may lead to the extinction of one million species over the next few decades (IPBES, 2019); (6) acidification and eutrophication of the oceans and of various bodies of fresh water is creating marine dead zones and threatening ruptures of trophic chains in the aquatic environment; (7) industrial pollution poisons, sickens, and kills tens of millions of people worldwide each year (WHO Report on Cancer, 2020, for instance); (8) growing geopolitical tensions are seen, with the intensification of endemic conflicts focused on water and energy resources and the anguishing resumption of the nuclear arms race. The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) estimates that the nine nuclear armed countries spent US$ 72.9 billion (US$ 35.4 billion was spent by the U.S. alone) on their 13,000+ nuclear weapons in 2019, an increase of US$ 7.1 billion compared to 2018 (ICAN, 2019); (9) democracy and tolerance are increasingly threatened by waves of more or less orchestrated fake and hate news, by flareups of fascism, irrationality, and physical and psychic violence.']

[(0, 10)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-Shankar-Vergho-Neg-6%20-%20NDT-Round7.docx

Dartmouth

ShVe

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Dartmouth/ShVe/Dartmouth-Shankar-Vergho-Neg-6%2520-%2520NDT-Round7.docx

a4db70b0c7a8bed984ba53a21e6c731a1ded3bd75a223226fce25ea9b1ddcc82

2 – Global antitrust remedies promoting fair competition are key to free trade.

Peinert ’20 [Erik; Department of Political Science @ Brown University; “Cartels, competition, and coalitions: the domestic drivers of international orders,” Review of International Political Economy, p. 1-25; AS]

scholarship in trade assume liberalization increases competition focus on the binary between protectionism and liberalization concentrated firms reap the benefits of trade markets vary beyond protectionism what are interests relative to concentration? monopoly power and entry barriers define trade by deciding what economic power are permitted antitrust play a role in shaping differences markets are complex , and comprise relationships which distort consequences predicted by neoclassical trade market power should not be reduced to efficiency -trade grew out of antitrust preferences for trade emerged motivated by competition as a goal in itself trade remain inexplicable if competition are ignored push for other s to adopt antitrust and extraterritorial application of This account highlights the link between trade and antitrust

Most scholarship in IPE of trade continues to assume a harmonious relationship whereby trade liberalization directly increases domestic competition IPE tends to focus on the binary between protectionism and liberalization in the current historical moment increasingly concentrated set of economic actors and firms appear to be reap ing the benefits of trade liberalization variation defining these differences is absent from theoretical models In practice markets vary in substance and interactions beyond presence or lack of protectionism Whereas trade openness may benefits one what are its interests relative to international cartels Or economic concentration? Or i p r monopoly power and entry barriers define consequences of trade and markets by deciding what forms of economic power are permitted antitrust play a central role in shaping these differences markets are complex , and comprise a network of relationships which distort consequences that would be predicted by neoclassical trade These distortions are the result of differences in market power between firms that should not be reduced to efficiency The state has a public interest concern to intervene to promote competitive forces This argument is supported with evidence showing free -trade grew out of debates among state actors over antitrust This is central of trade liberalization American preferences for free trade emerged motivated by preferences to encourage competition as a goal in itself trade policies remain inexplicable if competition and market power are ignored push for other countrie s to adopt antitrust laws promotion of anti-cartel clauses in trade agreements and extraterritorial application of American antitrust laws This account highlights the link between trade and antitrust policies and the importance understanding role of competition and market power

Most scholarship IPE assume directly increases binary protectionism liberalization concentrated reap ing trade liberalization absent markets presence lack protectionism international cartels economic concentration? i p r monopoly power entry barriers trade markets economic power antitrust central role markets complex network of relationships consequences neoclassical trade market power efficiency intervene competitive forces evidence free -trade state actors antitrust central trade liberalization free trade encourage competition in itself trade policies competition market power other countrie s adopt antitrust laws trade agreements extraterritorial application American antitrust laws trade antitrust policies competition market power

['Most scholarship in the international political economy (IPE) of trade continues to assume a harmonious relationship whereby trade liberalization directly increases domestic competition. Specifically, IPE tends to focus primarily on (a) the binary between protectionism and liberalization and (b) the influence of private lobbying. A comparative advantage over foreign industries, or simply a productivity advantage over other firms, creates asymmetrical interests in favor of trade liberalization, and those more productive firms will lobby for liberalization against those likely to be harmed by it.1', 'While these simplifications are powerful analytical tools, in the current historical moment, an increasingly concentrated set of economic actors and firms appear to be reaping most of the benefits of trade liberalization (Baccini et al., 2017) and economic growth more generally (Autor et al., 2020; De Loecker et al., 2020). Much of the variation defining these differences in economic or political power—competition, concentration, regulation, collusion, bargaining power, etc.—is absent from the theoretical models that dominate international political economy. In practice, markets vary in their substance and interactions along many dimensions beyond the presence or lack of protectionism. Whereas trade openness may provide clear benefits to one industry, ceteris paribus, what are its interests relative to international cartels? Or economic concentration? Or intellectual property rights? Economic coordination, monopoly power, bargaining position, cartels, and entry barriers define many of the distributive consequences of both trade and markets in general.', 'This article argues that by deciding who is allowed to coordinate, what forms of economic power are permitted, and how the process of setting prices and determining incomes ought to occur, state regulatory policies like antitrust play a central role in shaping these differences. Actual markets are complex, and comprise a network of relationships between competitors, suppliers, and customers which often distort the expected distributional consequences and benefits that would be predicted by neoclassical trade theories. These distortions are often the result of differences in market power between firms and industries—whether by concentration or legal device—that should not be reduced to apolitical differences in productivity, efficiency, or factor mobility. The state is often endowed with analytical capabilities that private actors are not and has a public interest concern to intervene in these relationships to promote, limit, or reorient competitive forces.', 'This argument is supported with new archival evidence showing how many of the American free-trade policies after World War II grew out of earlier debates among state actors over domestic industrial organization and antitrust during the 1930s. This episode is one of the most central cases of trade liberalization in world history, resulting in the creation and continuous expansion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Contrary to accounts that portray the domestic antimonopoly policies of the late New Deal as having failed (Brinkley, 1995; Hawley, 1966) or that post-war trade policy under the GATT was determined by conflict between private protectionist and free-trade interests (Bailey et al., 1997; Chorev, 2007; Goldstein, 1989; Haggard, 1988; Hiscox, 1999; Peters, 2014), this article highlights the degree to which American preferences for free trade emerged in conjunction with, and motivated by, preferences to encourage competition as a goal in itself. Many aspects of the United States’ post-war trade policies remain inexplicable if competition and market power considerations are ignored: a push for other countries to adopt antitrust laws, the promotion of anti-cartel clauses in trade agreements and on Marshall Plan funds, and the extraterritorial application of American antitrust laws. This account, along with more recent historiography (Freyer, 2006; Wells, 2002),2 highlights the link between trade and antitrust policies, and the importance of understanding the more general role of competition and market power in international political economy.']

[(0, 11)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-Bald-ChangDeutsch-Aff-nu-Round1.docx

Dartmouth

BaCh

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Dartmouth/BaCh/Dartmouth-Bald-ChangDeutsch-Aff-nu-Round1.docx

43c051e4a75e78a99531dccfc2a7f05284b5180f6b07ff5bf5ce54e71063d0f5

Best scientific models concluded even worst-case scenarios do not produce anything close to a nuclear winter.

Jon Reisner et al 18, scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, with Gennaro D'Angelo, Eunmo Koo, Wesley Even, Matthew Hecht, Elizabeth Hunke, Darin Comeau, Randall Bos, James Cooley, February 13, 2018, “Climate Impact of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange: An Improved Assessment Based On Detailed Source Calculations,” JGR Atmospheres Volume 123, Issue 5, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027331

Our simulations followed by a simulation of the fireball and cloud rise some of the particles are lofted into the stratosphere our comprehensive urban fire simulations indicate that the bulk of the carbon mass remains in the troposphere where it is quickly removed longer-term impacts are unlikely , regional in scope, and limited in scale. None of the simulations produced a nuclear winter effect .

Our series of simulations started with a nuclear weapon explosion followed by a simulation of the fireball and cloud rise The key improvement in this study is our simulation of fire spread and soot transport in the environment that results from fires initiated by the fireball. some of the particles are lofted into the stratosphere . However, our comprehensive urban fire simulations indicate that the bulk of the carbon mass remains in the troposphere , where it is quickly removed from the atmosphere. I . In contrast, if we use a realistic vertical profile for the BC aerosols as input to the climate model, the long-term global impacts on climate are much less severe than predicted by previous studies. This was true even with conservative, worst case assumption s regarding BC production. longer-term impacts are unlikely , regional in scope, and limited in scale. None of the simulations produced a nuclear winter effect . This work was done under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy The CESM project is supported by the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research of the U.S. Department of Energy.

fireball cloud rise key improvement results from fires comprehensive urban fire simulations quickly removed realistic vertical profile are much less severe conservative, worst case assumption unlikely regional limited None nuclear winter effect National Nuclear Security Administration Department of Energy

['There have recently been new simulations of a limited nuclear exchange in the India-Pakistan region using modern climate models (e.g., Mills et al., 2014; Stenke et al., 2013) that suggest devastating impacts on climate over a decadal time scale, although somewhat less extreme consequences have also been suggested (Pausata et al., 2016). Our team has taken a careful look at some of the assumptions that were used in those studies, using an end-to-end modeling sequence. Our series of simulations started with a nuclear weapon explosion followed by a simulation of the fireball and cloud rise. The key improvement in this study is our simulation of fire spread and soot transport in the environment that results from fires initiated by the fireball.', 'Due to the heat of the fire and of the BC particles that are produced, some of the particles are lofted into the stratosphere. However, our comprehensive urban fire simulations indicate that the bulk of the carbon mass remains in the troposphere, where it is quickly removed from the atmosphere. In most previous work, for example, that of Stenke et al. (2013) and Mills et al. (2014), all of the soot produced by the urban fires is directly injected near the top of the troposphere, and therefore much of it rises into the stratosphere, where it shades and cools the Earth. In contrast, if we use a realistic vertical profile for the BC aerosols as input to the climate model, the long-term global impacts on climate are much less severe than predicted by previous studies. This was true even with conservative, worst case assumptions regarding BC production.', 'To assess the significance of differences between a limited nuclear exchange scenario and the control climate, we created an ensemble of forced (BC-loaded) simulations using a range of realistic vertical emission profiles, all consistent with our detailed fire simulation. A similar ensemble generated using small atmospheric temperature perturbations allows a robust statistical comparison of our simulated results with and without the carbon forcing. This analysis demonstrates that while modest, statistically significant differences occur during the first few years, longer-term impacts are unlikely, regional in scope, and limited in scale. None of the simulations produced a nuclear winter effect.', 'We also completed a thorough nuclear weapon simulation, determining that it was not necessary for this study and that the impact on climate of the fireball and cloud rise is negligible. There are other, worse effects than those on climate, however, such as nuclear fallout in the region. Such consequences will be the focus of our future work using both xRage and HIGRAD-FIRETEC. Likewise, we will conduct a more comprehensive investigation of regional effects, such as potential consequences for the Asian monsoon during the first few years after the nuclear exchange in follow-on work. Additionally, although this study examines a possible exchange between India and Pakistan via the injection of soot over this region, our modeling system could be used to examine potential impacts of other regional exchange scenarios.', 'Acknowledgments', "This work was done under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy at Los Alamos National Laboratory under contract DE-AC52-06NA25396. The CESM project is supported by the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research of the U.S. Department of Energy. Computing resources were provided by the High-Performance Computing Division and Institutional Computing at LANL as well as by the U.S. Department of Defense. Special thanks go to members of a LANL computing committee that enabled a special queue for calculation of the CESM ensemble members. Data for the figures produced by CESM as well as the CESM code and input decks can be moved to the Earth System Grid and accessed via that platform (https://www.earthsystemgrid.org/); xRage and HIGRAD-FIRETEC are export controlled models, and input decks and data can be requested via LANL's Richard P. Feynman Center for Innovation (feynmancenter@lanl.gov)."]

[(4, 20)]

ndtceda

KansasState-RoTu-Neg-1---Owen-L-Coon-Memorial-Debates-Round-1.docx

KansasState

RoTu

7744de0fa76b89b9c689474d82615032e7466a9b5eab802c737897eb54c8a913

Miscalc is a myth.

John Mueller 21. Woody Hayes Senior Research Scientist at the Mershon Center for International Security Studies, Professor of political science at The Ohio State University. “Korea, Massive Extrapolation, Deterrence, and the Crisis Circus.” 2021. The Stupidity of War: American Foreign Policy and the Case for Complacency, Chapter 1.

concerns might somehow get into war by accident historical record suggests wars not begin that way extensive survey since 1400 impossible to identify single case in which war started accidentally “ accidental ” or “ unintentional ” wars difficult Despite popular myths c and c procedures vigilance training leadership nuclear deterrence Even if accident takes place not follow escalation response likely essentially impute to both sides limitless concern with face Cuba U-2 shot down another accidentally flew over the Soviet Union events evaluated and ignored

concerns contestants might somehow get into war by accident historical record suggests wars simply do not begin that way extensive survey of wars since 1400 impossible to identify a single case in which war started accidentally “ accidental ” or “ unintentional ” wars difficult to find war which fits this description Despite popular myths large military units do not fight by accident solid c ommand and c ontrol arrangements sound procedures constant vigilance efficient training leadership ensured nuclear weapons play deterrence role Even if accident takes place during crisis not follow escalation or hasty response inevitable or even very likely escalation scenarios essentially impute to both sides well-nigh limitless concern with saving face None evidence during Cuba n missile crisis when there were accidents galore American U-2 spy plane shot down another accidentally went off course and flew threateningly over the Soviet Union events duly evaluated and ignored Americans specifically decided if U-2 shot down over Cuba they would retaliate When event came to pass policy simply not carried out

might somehow get historical record simply do not extensive survey of wars impossible single case “ accidental ” “ unintentional ” popular myths c c deterrence role hasty response very likely essentially impute well-nigh limitless concern Cuba n missile crisis accidentally went off course flew threateningly duly evaluated simply not carried out

['There were also concerns at the time that the two contestants might somehow get into a war by accident. However, the historical record suggests that wars simply do not begin that way. In his extensive survey of wars that have occurred since 1400, Luard concludes, “It is impossible to identify a single case in which it can be said that a war started accidentally; in which it was not, at the time the war broke out, the deliberate intention of at least one party that war should take place.” Geoffrey Blainey, after similar study, very much agrees: although many have discussed “accidental” or “unintentional” wars, “it is difficult,” he concludes, “to find a war which on investigation fits this description.” Or, as Henry Kissinger has put it dryly, “Despite popular myths, large military units do not fight by accident.” And, after investigating 40 crises with some sort of nuclear connection, analyst Bruno Tertrais concludes, “solid command and control arrangements, sound procedures, constant vigilance, efficient training, and cool-headedness of leadership have ensured – and can continue to ensure – that nuclear weapons will continue to play only a deterrence role.” And then adds: “‘Luck’ has very little to do with it.” 70', 'Even if an accident takes place during a crisis, it does not follow that escalation or hasty response is inevitable, or even very likely. As Brodie points out, escalation scenarios essentially impute to both sides “a well-nigh limitless concern with saving face” and/or “a great deal of ground-in automaticity of response and counterresponse.” 71 None of this was in evidence during the Cuban missile crisis when there were accidents galore. An American U-2 spy plane was shot down over Cuba, probably without authorization, and another accidentally went off course and flew threateningly over the Soviet Union. These events were duly evaluated and then ignored. Actually, the Americans had specifically decided that if a U-2 plane were shot down over Cuba, they would retaliate by destroying the antiaircraft site responsible.72 When the event came to pass, however, the policy was simply not carried out.73']

[(5, 15)]

ndtceda

Emory-GaHe-Neg-Owen-L-Coon-Memorial-Debates-Doubles.docx

Emory

GaHe

4e5b5b6bfbaf4918b698ff2b08c47a7e32d327026b90ee1149ed7bf2753e8586

Strong, full-range nuclear commitments now and Japan opposes unilateral action.

DoD 6-3. Department of Defense. “United States-Japan-Republic of Korea Trilateral Ministerial Meeting (TMM) Joint Press Statement.” U.S. Department of Defense. 06-03-2023. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3415860/united-states-japan-republic-of-korea-trilateral-ministerial-meeting-tmm-joint/

Trilateral Ministerial Meeting the three leaders discussed the growing nuclear threats they concurred on the need to c b m s and committed to strengthening coop the Ministers stressed the rule of law and expressed strong opposition to any unilateral actions that alter the status quo The U S reaffirmed its steadfast commitments to Japan backed by the full range of capabilities, including nuclear

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, Japanese Minister of Defense Hamada Yasukazu, and Republic of Korea (ROK) Minister of National Defense Lee Jong-Sup convened a Trilateral Ministerial Meeting in Singapore, June 3, 2023 the meeting, the three leaders discussed the growing nuclear and missile threats The Secretary and the two Ministers discussed the ongoing progress being made through technical working-level consultations and noted that this is a major step for deterrence , peace and stability they concurred on the need to contribute to defense-related c onfidence b uilding m easure s among the countries in the region and committed to strengthening coop eration to institutionalize such efforts. The Secretary and the two Ministers stressed the importance of the rule of law and expressed strong opposition to any unilateral actions that seek to alter the status quo by force or coercion and increase tensions in the region The U nited S tates reaffirmed its steadfast alliance commitments to Japan backed by the full range of U.S. capabilities, including nuclear The Secretary and the two Ministers committed to work closely together for peace and stability in the region and around the world.

growing nuclear missile threats major step deterrence peace stability c onfidence b uilding m easure s strengthening coop eration institutionalize rule of law strong opposition unilateral actions alter the status quo force increase tensions steadfast alliance commitments including nuclear

['U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, Japanese Minister of Defense Hamada Yasukazu, and Republic of Korea (ROK) Minister of National Defense Lee Jong-Sup convened a Trilateral Ministerial Meeting in Singapore, June 3, 2023. During the meeting, the three leaders discussed the growing nuclear and missile threats from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) as well as efforts to enhance trilateral security exercises and address common security challenges in the Indo-Pacific region.\xa0\n\xa0\nThe Secretary and the two Ministers pledged that the United States, Japan, and the ROK will cooperate closely toward their shared commitment to achieve the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs). They shared their deep concerns about, and condemnation of, the DPRK’s weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs, which pose a grave threat to international peace and stability, and they committed to address these concerns through concerted trilateral cooperation. In particular, the Secretary and the two Ministers condemned DPRK’s recent claimed space launch using ballistic missile technology as it constitutes a serious violation of relevant UNSCRs.\xa0 They also renewed their determination to respond firmly to the DPRK threat through increased trilateral cooperation as well as cooperation with the international community.\xa0 Additionally, they called for full implementation by the international community of relevant UNSCRs. They underscored the importance of sustained international efforts to deter, disrupt, and ultimately eliminate the DPRK’s illicit ship-to-ship transfers. They urged the DPRK to immediately cease its irresponsible actions that create tension on the Korean peninsula and in the region, and to abide by its obligations under all relevant UNSCRs.\xa0\n\xa0\nIn line with the commitments made by U.S. President Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Kishida, and ROK President Yoon at the Phnom Penh Summit on November 13, 2022, the Secretary and the two Ministers recognized trilateral efforts to activate a data sharing mechanism to exchange real-time missile warning data before the end of the year in order to improve each country’s ability to detect and assess missiles launched by DPRK.\xa0\xa0', "The Secretary and the two Ministers discussed the ongoing progress being made through technical working-level consultations and noted that this is a major step for deterrence, peace and stability. They also pledged to make further progress toward operationalizing the trilateral mechanism initially over the next few months.\xa0\n\xa0\nThe Secretary and the two Ministers further affirmed the three sides will utilize the 2014 U.S.-Japan-ROK Trilateral Information Sharing Arrangement to facilitate coordination and cooperation among all three sides. They also welcomed the recent normalization of the bilateral General Security of Military Information Agreement between Japan and the ROK. In addition, they concurred on the need to contribute to defense-related confidence building measures among the countries in the region and committed to strengthening cooperation to institutionalize such efforts.\n\xa0\nThe Secretary and the two Ministers discussed other regional security issues as well as DPRK threats and all reiterated the importance of deepening trilateral cooperation on key issues to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific, including information sharing, high-level policy consultations, and trilateral exercises. They further discussed steps to follow up on these issues.\n\xa0\nAdditionally, the Secretary and the two Ministers affirmed their commitment to swiftly conduct maritime interdiction exercises and anti-piracy exercises, and they pledged to further identify other areas, including disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, where the three countries intend to expand trilateral cooperation. They committed to regularizing defensive exercises that contribute to strengthening trilateral responses to the DPRK's nuclear and missile threats and deterring against those threats, including anti-submarine exercises and missile defense exercises.", 'The Secretary and the two Ministers stressed the importance of the rule of law and expressed strong opposition to any unilateral actions that seek to alter the status quo by force or coercion and increase tensions in the region. They reaffirmed their commitment to stand with Ukraine against Russia’s unprovoked and brutal war of aggression and to recognize that Russia’s actions are a serious violation of territorial integrity and sovereignty which undermines the fabric of the entire international order. They emphasized the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. They shared concerns on activities that are inconsistent with international law, in particular the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and stressed the importance of fully respecting international law, including freedom of navigation and overflight and other lawful uses of the sea.\n\xa0\nThe United States reaffirmed its steadfast alliance commitments to Japan and the ROK backed by the full range of U.S. capabilities, including nuclear. Japan and the ROK highlighted the importance of their bilateral ties and trilateral cooperation to protect and advance their shared security goals. The Secretary and the two Ministers committed to work closely together for peace and stability in the region and around the world.', '', '']

[(0, 7)]

ndtceda

Emory-FeWa-Neg-Owen-L-Coon-Memorial-Debates-Round-5.docx

Emory

FeWa

8255e492788b8e9752ba7c155d9f5dbb63277c32ddd2df7f923fada46b6b2bdf

2. No uniqueness for decoupling – peer review consensus of 835 studies say success cherrypicks data.

Ehrenreich ‘21 [Ben Ehrenreich. Journalist, author of Desert Notebooks: A Roadmap for the End of Time. “We’re Hurtling Toward Global Suicide.” The New Republic. 3-18-21. //shree]

despite 25 years of fruitless negotiations Even with Covid which slowed fossil fuel production an unprecedented percent governments dumped stimulus into high-carbon than renewable energy faith persists neoliberal dogma encourage innovation Examples of decoupling involve shifts in location But atmosphere is not divided by boundaries 835 peer-reviewed articles found massive speedy reductions necessary to halt warming cannot be achieved through decoupling Biden reassured We’re not rid of fossil fuels there is no land to accommodate net zero carbon-sinking

A strange faith lies at the core of mainstream advocacy a unexamined belief that the very system that got us into this mess is the one that will get us out of it For a community committed to scientific empiricism, this is an extraordinary conviction despite 25 years of fruitless climate negotiations emissions rise Even with Covid -19 pandemic which slowed the economy so much that growth in fossil fuel production dropped an unprecedented 7 percent governments dumped stimulus spending into high-carbon industries than into renewable energy The faith persists The market will provide renewables are finally cheap enough that the transition is now inevitable. So the credo goes neoliberal dogma encourage innovation and feed the markets The market’s grip on the political imagination blinds us to alternatives Even the Green New Deal does not diverge green transition does not alter inequities the crucial concept is “ decoupling .” Economic growth can be safely divorced from the ecological damage that it has heretofore almost universally wreaked Examples of successful decoupling involve shifts in location rather than production But Earth’s atmosphere is not divided by national boundaries absolute decoupling turns out to be a fantasy One recent analysis of 835 peer-reviewed articles on the subject found that the kind of massive and speedy reductions in emissions that would be necessary to halt global warming “ cannot be achieved through observed decoupling rates.” The mechanism on which mainstream climate policy is betting the future of the species, and on which the possibility of green growth rests, appears to be a fiction. Biden reassured a nervous oil industry We’re not getting rid of fossil fuels for a long time there is no t enough available land to accommodate net zero carbon-sinking To save this planet, it appears we’ll need another one. This is what currently counts as pragmatism

25 Covid -19 pandemic production unprecedented high-carbon renewable innovation decoupling successful decoupling location 835 peer-reviewed articles decoupling Biden net zero

['A strange sort of faith lies at the core of mainstream climate advocacy—a largely unexamined belief that the very system that got us into this mess is the one that will get us out of it. For a community putatively committed to scientific empiricism, this is an extraordinary conviction. Despite reams of increasingly apocalyptic research, and despite 25 years of largely fruitless international climate negotiations, carbon emissions have continued to rise, and temperatures along with them. We are at nearly 1.2 degrees Celsius of warming already—more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit over preindustrial averages—and three-tenths of a degree away from blowing the Paris accord’s aspiration to limit warming to a still-calamitous 1.5 degrees Celsius. Scientists now expect us to hit that threshold in about 10 years, and large swaths of the Arctic have been in actual flames for two summers running, but most governments with the option to do so are still feeding the beast that got us here.', 'Even with the grim opportunity presented by the Covid-19 pandemic, which slowed the economy so much that growth in fossil fuel production dropped an almost unprecedented 7 percent last year, governments—ours very much included—have so far dumped much more stimulus spending into high-carbon industries than into renewable energy. It’s as if our economic system, and the politics it breeds, will not allow us to diverge from the straight path to self-obliteration.', 'The faith nonetheless persists: The market will provide. It has not done so yet, but renewables are perhaps finally cheap enough—cheaper at last than conventional energy sources—that the transition is now inevitable. So the credo goes. The change that is coming will be largely technological: a bold new era of “green growth.” Modern societies erected on dirty coal and oil can be jacked up and shifted to cleaner forms of energy like an old house in need of a new foundation. Government may have a larger role in this transition than neoliberal dogma has recently allowed, but its primary task will still be to encourage innovation and feed the markets by shepherding the resulting growth.', 'It is no coincidence that some version of this faith, so all-pervasive now that it does not register as a piety, has been reshaping the planet for almost precisely as long as fossil energy—first coal, then oil—has been altering the atmosphere. Capitalism is guided by a carbon creed, an ecstatic vision of a market that chugs along eternally, needing only new inputs—the earth itself, commodified as minerals, or water, housing, health care, or almost any living thing—to spew out wealth that can be shoveled back into the machine, converting more and more of the biosphere into zeros in a digital account: more fleshless, magical money that can be invested once again. If appetites are bottomless, and apparently they are, shouldn’t growth be endless too?', 'The market’s grip on the political imagination so effectively blinds us to alternatives that we are unable fully to grasp that this is the basic script that the new administration is following. Even the Green New Deal does not substantively diverge from it. The climate crisis, an existential threat to planetary life, must be sold to Wall Street and the public at large as a growth opportunity. On January 31, John Kerry, acting as Biden’s new climate envoy, enthused to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria about “literally millions of jobs” that would soon be created, about all the “new products coming online,” and about oil companies’ newfound passion for “carbon capture and storage and so forth.” The private sector, he said, “has already made the decision that there is money to be made here, that’s capitalism, and they are investing in that future.” If that makes you nervous, it shouldn’t, Kerry insisted. The changes ahead would be like the analog-to-digital shift of the 1990s, only better: “the important point, Fareed, for people to really focus on is it’s a very exciting economic transition.”', 'If Kerry struck a cheerier tone than that of the doomsaying consensus in the scientific community, it wasn’t just a question of polishing a turd. “Green growth” is mainstream climate discourse. A “green transition” that does not significantly alter existing economic structures—or their vast inequities—is still, for most climate advocates, the only imaginable way forward. Kerry was speaking a made-for-TV version of the sole language available to him—one that in its most basic assumptions excludes the possibility of fundamental social transformation, and of any heresy that casts doubt on the Great God Growth. The one thing all those thousands of scientists agree on is our only hope—that the economic structures that mediate our relation to the planet must be profoundly altered—is the one thing that Kerry and Biden are quite careful not to consider at all.', 'In climate policy jargon, the crucial concept is “decoupling.” The notion lies deep in the hidden heart of the “sustainable development goals” held dear by international bodies such as the United Nations and the World Bank: Economic growth can be safely divorced from the ecological damage that it has heretofore almost universally wreaked. If the train of capital appears to be hurtling us toward the abyss, we can cut the engine loose and cruise someplace more comfortable: same train, same speed, different destination. Like millions of clean-tech jobs and a crisis-induced transition magically unlocking unimaginable wealth, it is an attractive and reassuring idea. The only problem is that there is next to no evidence that anything analogous has ever occurred, or that it is likely to occur in the future.', 'Examples of successful decoupling tend to involve shifts in the location rather than the nature of industrial production: Rich countries green their economies by offshoring the manufacture of the goods they consume to China and countries in the global south, which they can then chastise for their lax emissions standards. But Earth’s atmosphere is not divided by national boundaries. Greenhouse gases cause the same degree of global warming no matter where they are produced, and to the extent that this kind of decoupling is a meaningful measure of anything, it is only of the colonial relations that still set the terms for the shell game of global capital.', 'What policy wonks call “absolute decoupling”—the only kind that would do the climate any good—turns out to be a fantasy akin to a perpetual motion machine, a chimera of growth unhindered by material constraints. One recent analysis of 835 peer-reviewed articles on the subject found that the kind of massive and speedy reductions in emissions that would be necessary to halt global warming “cannot be achieved through observed decoupling rates.” The mechanism on which mainstream climate policy is betting the future of the species, and on which the possibility of green growth rests, appears to be a fiction.', 'This fiction is nonetheless fundamental to the very math used by international climate institutions. In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s benchmark Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5oC—which announced in no uncertain terms that global emissions must be decreased by nearly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to avoid cataclysm at an almost unthinkable scale—set out a number of possible scenarios for policymakers to consider. It relied on algorithmic models linking greenhouse gas emissions and their climate impacts to various socioeconomic “pathways.” Whatever other variables they accounted for, though, all of the scenarios envisioned by the IPCC assumed the continuation of economic growth comparable to the past half-century’s. Even as they acknowledged levels of atmospheric carbon unseen in the last three million years, they were unable to conceive of an economy that does not perpetually expand. Fredric Jameson’s oft-cited dictum that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism was baked into the actual modeling.', 'At the same time, all but one of the \xadIPCC’s scenarios that envision us successfully limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius rely on the use of technology to remove carbon from the atmosphere after the fact. (The one exception involves converting an area more than half the size of the United States to forest. None of the scenarios imagines that we can reach the 1.5 degrees Celsius target by cutting emissions alone.) But the technology in question is at this point largely speculative. “No proposed technology is close to deployment at scale,” the report’s authors concede, and “there is substantial uncertainty” about possible “adverse effects” on the environment. The international body, in other words, is more willing to gamble on potentially destructive technologies that do not currently exist than to even run the math on a more substantive economic transformation.', 'A version of this same wager animates the Biden climate plan, which, as Canada, the European Union, the U.K., and South Korea all have, commits to “net-zero emissions no later than 2050.” (China plans to reach the same goal by 2060.) This sounds like great news, and is without doubt worlds better than the status quo ante of no ambitions at all. But “net zero” is a slippery notion. It does not mean zero at all. To avoid exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, emissions need to fall 7.6 percent every year for the next 10 years. Even with the pandemic-induced slowdown, global emissions shrank only 6.4 percent in 2020. Since, as Biden reassured a nervous oil industry during the campaign, “We’re not getting rid of fossil fuels for a long time,” net-zero calculations assume some degree of “overshoot”—i.e., they stipulate that we’re not going to be able to cut emissions fast enough, and that we’ll therefore have to rely on those same untested carbon removal technologies to eventually bring us to zero.', 'But a planet is not a balance sheet. The climate has tipping points—the collapse of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and the Himalayan glaciers, the deterioration of Atlantic Ocean currents, the melting of the permafrost, the transition of the Amazon from rain forest to savannah. We are perilously close to hitting some of them already: In February, 31 people were killed and 165 went missing when a chunk of a Himalayan glacier broke off, releasing an explosive burst of meltwater and debris. In the most nightmarish scenario, which could be tripped with less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming, those tipping points could begin to trigger one another and cascade, locking us in, as one widely cited study put it, to “conditions that would be inhospitable to current human societies and to many other contemporary species.” Without major emissions cuts, we may reach 2 degrees Celsius of warming before 2050.', 'That’s a heavy risk to bet against, but there it is, pulsing away inside the net-zero promises that not only politicians but corporate boards have been proudly rolling out. Over the last two years, more and more corporations in fossil fuel–intensive industries—BP, Shell, Maersk, GM, Ford, Volkswagen, at least a dozen major airlines—have made similar pledges. Shell’s plan alone would require tree planting over an area nearly the size of Brazil. By the estimate of the NGO ActionAid, “there is simply not enough available land on the planet to accommodate all of the combined corporate and government ‘net zero’ plans” for offsets and carbon-sinking tree plantations. To save this planet, it appears we’ll need another one. This is what currently counts as pragmatism.', '']

[(0, 14)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-ShVe-Neg-5---Georgetown-Round-6.docx

Dartmouth

ShVe

0c30871f6f0cd6393d63a5a0207f87ffbc262f8da12244f29dc55f69827cbf81

Perm do the CP AND it doesn’t solve---needs to be part of antitrust law.

Keith A. Pisarcik 12, J.D. Candidate Spring 2012, Duquesne University School of Law, “Comment: Antitrust And Bank Regulation: Was The Clayton Act On Hold During A Time Of Crisis?,” 14 Duq. Bus. L.J. 47, Winter 2012, lexis.

amend the antitrust laws to account for a "too big to fail" scenario it would prevent the mergers in the first place the economy be protected , consumers and the marketplace will as well. By too big to fail" analysis Section 121 has been touted as a "new form of antitrust gives regulators responsibility to limit scope of big banks , and, if break them up Section 121 will not prevent future crises would not identify problems until after "trouble erupts ." it will be too late the federal government needs to enforce strict adherence to antitrust laws

What Can Antitrust Do Now? to How can antitrust laws, if at all, help aid in deterring big banks from reaching a point where they are " too big to fail?" The first theory that has been suggested is to amend the antitrust laws to account for the risk of a "too big to fail" scenario One would assume that antitrust law is directly tied to limiting the size of an organization. modern antitrust is really not about the size of an institution; rather, it is based on competition and market share. By establishing at the outset that a particular proposed merger or acquisition would make an institution "too big to fail," it would prevent the mergers from being approved in the first place . size caps could alter the way in which antitrust laws can be applied to the banking industry. Such a theory makes sense in light of the social, political, and legislative history of the antitrust laws . By limiting the size and power a [ *64] single institution carries, not only will the economy be protected , but consumers and the marketplace will as well. By limiting the size and power through a " too big to fail" analysis not only will the risk of a failing mega-bank be quashed, but, so will any potential anticompetitive behavior. If these large bank mergers continue to happen, there is severe risk that the result will " substantially lessen competition Another important step towards adding a solution to the problem has already been implemented in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Section 121 Section 121 has been touted as a "new form of antitrust 140 This new amendment gives regulators the responsibility to limit the scope of big banks , and, if necessary, break them up when they pose a grave risk to financial stability 141 By empowering regulators with the ability to break up big banks when necessary, the hope is that no bank will ever become "too big to fail" again. However Section 121 will not be the key to complete prevent ion of future crises the amendment would not really aid in identify ing problems in a particular institution until after "trouble erupts ." by the time serious concerns about an institution surface, it will be too late for the Council to do anything drastic enough to alter the effect it may have on the industry One last suggestion has been that the federal government needs to enforce strict adherence to the antitrust laws With strict antitrust enforcement, the regulators have an opportunity to prevent the large banks from continuing on a growth trend. By limiting the movement they can make in the market, not only is there an emphasis on controlling the size of the organizations, but there is also an emphasis on controlling anticompetitive behavior . With strict antitrust enforcement, there can be a closer watch on the market share of large banks. Further, regulators can ensure that with the new gain in market share, the newly formed , bigger banks are limited in their anticompetitive behavior.

What Can Antitrust Do Now? deterring big banks too big to fail?" amend the antitrust laws account risk of a "too big to fail" scenario directly tied limiting the size prevent the mergers from being approved in the first place . limiting the size and power economy be protected consumers and the marketplace will as well. By limiting the size and power through a " too big to fail" analysis anticompetitive behavior. substantially lessen competition Section 121 has been touted as a "new form of antitrust limit the scope of big banks break them up pose a grave risk to financial stability However Section 121 will not be the key to complete prevent ion of future crises until after "trouble erupts too late do anything drastic enough enforce strict adherence to the antitrust laws controlling anticompetitive behavior

['B. What Can Antitrust Do Now?', 'After looking at the antitrust laws and the issues related to the financial collapse of 2008, we must begin looking towards the future. How can antitrust laws, if at all, help aid in deterring big banks from reaching a point where they are "too big to fail?"', 'The first theory that has been suggested is to amend the antitrust laws to account for the risk of a "too big to fail" scenario. 121 One would assume that antitrust law is directly tied to limiting the size of [*63] an organization. However, modern antitrust is really not about the size of an institution; rather, it is based on competition and market share. 122 It has been suggested that by enforcing some variation of a "size cap" on the nation\'s biggest banks through antitrust laws, this could limit the impact and "systemic risk" one large bank could have on the entire economy. 123 A size cap would not only limit the risk that a bank is simply too large, and most likely "too big to fail," but it would also add another step in the bank merger review process.', 'By establishing at the outset that a particular proposed merger or acquisition would make an institution "too big to fail," it would prevent the mergers from being approved in the first place. 124 Albert Foer, the President of the American Antitrust Institute has even proposed amending the Clayton Act to permit federal regulators to include such an analysis into their merger review process. 125 According to Foer, the antitrust laws had not been empowered to "stop mergers on the basis of either the absolute size of the resulting institution or a calculation of the systemic consequences of their eventual failure." 126', 'Size caps on banks were imposed by the banking reforms of the 1930\'s in response to the Great Depression. 127 There were efforts to maintain such restrictions in the Riegle-Neal Act of 1994 128 , but, according to Simon Johnson, these limitations fell by the wayside during the "wholesale deregulation" of the past 15 years. 129 Considering the events of the past few years, size caps could alter the way in which antitrust laws can be applied to the banking industry.', 'Such a theory makes sense in light of the social, political, and legislative history of the antitrust laws. By limiting the size and power a [*64] single institution carries, not only will the economy be protected, but consumers and the marketplace will as well. By limiting the size and power through a "too big to fail" analysis, not only will the risk of a failing mega-bank be quashed, but, so will any potential anticompetitive behavior. 130 If these large bank mergers continue to happen, there is severe risk that the result will "substantially lessen competition." 131', 'Another important step towards adding a solution to the problem has already been implemented in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 132 (hereinafter referred to as "Dodd-Frank"). Section 121 of Dodd-Frank (or what has been referred to as the Kanjorski Amendment) (hereinafter referred to as "Section 121") looks to give a regulating body the power to limit the size of banking institutions. 133', 'Section 121 outlines specific steps the Board of Governors of the Fed may take when a bank holding company with $ 50,000,000,000 or more of consolidated assets, or, a nonbank financial company, poses a "grave threat to the financial stability of the United States." 134 Section 121 creates a Financial Stability Oversight Council that will have authority over the Board of Governors in implementing the sanctions outlined in Section 121. When a specific institution poses a threat to the financial stability of the country, the Board of Governors may take four steps to limit its power. 135', 'First, the Board of Governors may limit the ability of the company to merge, acquire, consolidate, or otherwise become affiliated with another company. Second, they can restrict the ability of the company to offer financial products or products. 136 Third, they can require a company to terminate one or more of its activities. 137 Fourth, they may impose conditions on the manner in which the company conducts one or more of its activities. 138 Finally, the most drastic step can be [*65] taken: if the Board of Governors determines the actions taken in the first four steps are inadequate to mitigate the threat to the financial stability of the country, it may require the company "to sell or otherwise transfer assets or off-balance-sheet items to unaffiliated entities." 139', 'Section 121 has been touted as a "new form of antitrust." 140 This new amendment gives regulators the responsibility to limit the scope of big banks, and, if necessary, break them up when they pose a grave risk to financial stability. 141 By empowering regulators with the ability to break up big banks when necessary, the hope is that no bank will ever become "too big to fail" again.', "Although not rooted in antitrust law, Section 121 attempts to address concerns similar to those that existed at the time of the Clayton Act's enactment. By limiting the actions of the megabanks, and with the ability to break them up, the amendment addresses the newest antitrust concern - the size of an institution. These giant banks are so heavily rooted in the financial system that the collapse of one, as evidenced by the collapse of 2008, sends shockwaves throughout the entire industry. Section 121 attempts to address the systemic risk that poses a constant threat to the industry.", 'However, it has been argued that Section 121 will not be the key to complete prevention of future crises. Arguments have been made that the amendment would not really aid in identifying problems in a particular institution until after "trouble erupts." 142 It has been argued that by the time serious concerns about an institution surface, it will be too late for the Council to do anything drastic enough to alter the effect it may have on the industry. 143 But, there are still those who believe the amendment will do precisely what it is intended to do.', 'One last suggestion has been that the federal government needs to enforce strict adherence to the antitrust laws. 144 Since many mergers have been approved and expedited, it has been argued that there should be a fallout period for any mergers or acquisitions in the finan [*66] cial industry. 145 The hope is to adhere to strict antitrust compliance as the large banks divest assets in the post-merger/post-crisis time period. It would allow the large banks to decrease in size, and would prohibit mergers and acquisitions for s significant period of time.', 'With strict antitrust enforcement, the regulators have an opportunity to prevent the large banks from continuing on a growth trend. By limiting the movement they can make in the market, not only is there an emphasis on controlling the size of the organizations, but there is also an emphasis on controlling anticompetitive behavior. The market shares have all changed in light of large banks that did not survive the crisis. With strict antitrust enforcement, there can be a closer watch on the market share of large banks. Further, regulators can ensure that with the new gain in market share, the newly formed, bigger banks are limited in their anticompetitive behavior.']

[(9, 20)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-Deo-Fridman-Aff-Harvard-Finals.docx

Northwestern

DeFr

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Northwestern/DeFr/Northwestern-Deo-Fridman-Aff-Harvard-Finals.docx

d801d7db0feb6364f72174b18b4af68699d627353b7efae11cd41b30638c58ad

In ‘expand the scope,’ ‘expand’ means to increase and ‘the scope’ defines permissible behavior.

Collins ’21 [Collins English Dictionary; copyright updated 2021; Collins Cobuild, “Expand the Scope,” https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/expand-the-scope]

If something expands it becomes larger If there is scope for activity , people have opportunity to behave or do that

expand the scope Definition of 'expand' If something expands or is expanded, it becomes larger Definition of 'scope' If there is scope for a particular kind of behaviour or activity , people have the opportunity to behave in this way or do that activity

expand the scope Definition larger Definition a particular kind of behaviour or activity behave in this way do that activity

['expand the scope', 'These examples have been automatically selected and may contain sensitive content that does not reflect the opinions or policies of Collins, or its parent company HarperCollins.', 'I wanted to work internationally and expand the scope of my possibilities.', 'Times, Sunday Times', 'Labour has called for the government to expand the scope of the test to include consideration of the impact of any merger on research and development and science.', 'Times, Sunday Times', 'Most opponents are small-government conservatives who are outraged at any attempt to expand the scope of government, particularly when it involves their personal healthcare decisions.', 'Times, Sunday Times', 'The move was cited by the developer to be to expand the scope of indie videogames, and not as a market strategy.', 'Retrieved from Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. Source URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterfall: InSanity', 'Such results expand the scope of asymmetric hydroboration to more sterically demanding alkenes.', 'Retrieved from Wikipedia CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. Source URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal-catalysed hydroboration', "Definition of\u2004'expand'", 'expand', '(ɪkspænd)', "Explore 'expand' in the dictionary", 'VERB', 'If something expands or is expanded, it becomes larger. [...]', 'See full entry', 'COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers', "Definition of\u2004'scope'", 'scope', '(skoʊp)', "Explore 'scope' in the dictionary", 'UNCOUNTABLE NOUN [NOUN to-infinitive]', 'If there is scope for a particular kind of behaviour or activity, people have the opportunity to behave in this way or do that activity. [...]', '']

[(0, 7), (8, 11)]

ndtceda

Michigan-Mikelson-Flashner-Aff-Northwestern-Round1.docx

Michigan

MiFl

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Michigan/MiFl/Michigan-Mikelson-Flashner-Aff-Northwestern-Round1.docx

73eec8cc0795a9b4cd4805ce7549614d50efa892c86273d65fc63174c5625fe7

Solves meltdowns and produces 300 times less waste

Cooper et al 2011 (Nicolas Cooper, Institute for Sustainable Systems and School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Daisuke Minakata, , Institute for Sustainable Systems and School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Miroslav Begovic, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, and John Crittenden, 7-6-2011 “Should We Consider Using Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors for Power Generation?”

LFTRs show very low chance of meltdown like Chernobyl Fukushima In an earthquake fissile material to flow into a containment chamber Electricity and active controls are not required LFTRs operate near atmospheric pressure fissile products are chemically bonded to the salt capturing the radiation and preventing spread Thorium is four times more abundant eliminating enrichment almost always found while mining r e m s the U.S. proven thorium reserves are enough to last for hundreds significantly fewer radioactive materials remain The volume of waste products is 300 times less 83% spent within 10 year therefore eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain style containment

LFTRs show strong potential for significantly improving safety. there is very low chance of a catastrophic, explosive meltdown like Chernobyl , Fukushima or Three-mile Island In the event of an earthquake a drain plug would melt, allowing the fissile material to flow into a containment chamber where the system could be air-cooled Electricity and active controls are not required for this process LFTRs operate near atmospheric pressure with little possibility of a containment breech or explosion. The liquid fuel allows for online removal of gaseous fission products thereby these decay products would not be spread in a disaster. fissile products are chemically bonded to the fluoride- salt , capturing the radiation and preventing the spread of radioactive material to the environment. The entire life-cycle for a thorium reactor shows benefits compared to conventional nuclear and coal Thorium is four times more abundant and naturally occurs in only one isotope eliminating all enrichment activities processing Thorium is a hitchhiker element and almost always found while mining r are e arth m eta s Conventional nuclear reactors need 10 times more initial material and continuous feeding of enriched uranium. the U.S. proven thorium reserves are approximately 440,000 tons, enough to last for hundreds of years at full-scale LFTR implementation LFTRs use only one ton of thorium per year and it is the only fuel added during continuous operation construction is reduced because large cooling towers and containment structures that handle high pressures are not needed At the end-use phase, significantly fewer radioactive materials remain The volume of waste products from a LFTR is approximately 300 times less than that of a uranium reactor. The fissile waste is 83% spent within 10 year s LFTRs therefore eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain style containment facility The reactor cannot be used to create plutonium LFTR can mean a 1000+ year solution or a quality low-carbon bridge to truly sustainable energy sources solving a huge portion of mankind’s negative environmental impact.

['’SAFETY ISSUES Solving the real and perceived dangers of nuclear power is critical to future investment. LFTRs show strong potential for significantly improving safety. The greatest advantage of LFTRs is that there is very low chance of a catastrophic, explosive meltdown like Chernobyl, or a partial meltdown like Japan’s Fukushima-Daiichi or Three-mile Island in Pennsylvania. In the event of an earthquake or other disruptive event, a simple freeze drain plug would melt, allowing the fissile material to flow into a containment chamber where the system could be air-cooled. Electricity and active controls are not required for this process.4 LFTRs operate near atmospheric pressure with little possibility of a containment breech or explosion. By using air cooling, not pressurized water, hydrogen gas, which caused the explosions at the Fukushima-Daiichi site, cannot be produced. The liquid fuel allows for online removal of gaseous fission products, such as Xenon, for processing, thereby these decay products would not be spread in a disaster.5 Further, fissile products are chemically bonded to the fluoride-salt, including iodine, cesium, and strontium, capturing the radiation and preventing the spread of radioactive material to the environment.3 There are still risks involved in any nuclear process and extensive safety analysis will be needed. ’ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The entire life-cycle for a thorium reactor shows benefits compared to conventional nuclear and coal, the nation’s largest base-load energy suppliers. Thorium is four times more abundant than uranium and naturally occurs in only one isotope, 232Th, eliminating all enrichment activities inherent in uranium mining and processing. Thorium is a hitchhiker element and almost always found while mining rare earth metals. Rare earth mining operations are beginning again in California at Mountain Pass and possibly in Missouri at Pea Ridge. There is a start-up load of approximately 1.5 tons of fissile material, such as 235U, 238U, or 239Pu, after which the reactor thermally breeds 233U to maintain fission. Conventional nuclear reactors need 510 times more initial material to start and continuous feeding of enriched uranium.1 Perpetually needing to transport enriched uranium presents proliferation risks. Thorium by itself does not pose proliferation risks and presents a much smaller radiation risk. According to the U.S. Geological Survey in 2009, the U.S. proven thorium reserves are approximately 440,000 tons, enough to last for hundreds of years at full-scale LFTR implementation. And it is estimated that the worldwide proven reserves are 1.3 million tons, excluding China. LFTRs use only one ton of thorium per year for a 1000 MW plant and it is the only fuel added during continuous operation.1 The quantity of construction materials is reduced because large cooling towers and containment structures that handle high pressures are not needed.4 LFTRs operate at high temperatures allowing use of higher-efficiency Brayton nitrogen generators rather than steam generators, raising thermal efficiency from ∼35% to ∼50%. At the end-use phase, significantly fewer radioactive materials remain. LFTRs produce one ton of spent radioactive fuel per GW year. The volume of waste products from a LFTR is approximately 300 times less than that of a uranium reactor. The fissile waste is 83% spent within 10 years and below background levels in approximately 300 years.1 Conventional nuclear reactors take thousands of years to decay. LFTRs therefore eliminate the need for a multibillion dollar Yucca Mountain style containment facility. ’PROLIFERATION ISSUES LFTRs have extraordinary proliferation resistance because thorium cannot be made directly into a weapon.5 The reactor cannot be used to create substantial, pure quantities of plutonium or 238U, which are needed to make bombs. 2 ’SUMMARY A LFTR program could be achieved through a relatively modest investment of roughly 1 billion dollars over 510 years to fund research to fill minor technical gaps, then construction of a reactor prototype, and finally a full-scale reactor.2 Many of the engineering and technological problems of the ORNL program have already been solved through non-nuclear research, including liquid fluorides, resistant metal cladding, and high-temperature turbines. LFTR can mean a 1000+ year solution or a quality low-carbon bridge to truly sustainable energy sources solving a huge portion of mankind’s negative environmental impact.']

[(0, 6), (13, 17)]

ndtceda

Kansas-Ottinger-Rahaman-Aff-Texas%20Swing%20Part%201-Quarters.docx

Kansas

OtRa

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kansas/OtRa/Kansas-Ottinger-Rahaman-Aff-Texas%2520Swing%2520Part%25201-Quarters.docx

a0612a930e9e3e62642ed328b2bb41dd60413bbf0eb2c5c810ce37096c386392

The existence of the arsenal is sufficient.

Holdren ’20 [John; January 13; Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy in the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Professor of Environmental Science and Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, and Affiliated Professor in the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Science, at Harvard University; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “The overwhelming case for no first use,” vol. 76]

explicit threat brings a small benefit at a very large cost stability an adversary’s estimate that the U S would use won’t be smaller under n f u the existence of nuc s induces a caution irrespective of declaratory policy

The question is whether the explicit threat to use nuclear weapons first is a sensible way to deal with that reality. making this threat brings a very small benefit at a very large cost to nonproliferation goals, as well as to arms-race stability and crisis stability where the prospective adversary is a nuclear-weapon state. The benefit is small because an adversary’s estimate of the probability that the U S would actually use nuclear weapons against a conventional attack the propensity to worst-case assessment means that the estimate won’t be a whole lot smaller under a US n f u stance. the mere existence of US nuc s induces caution on the part of adversaries contemplating aggression, irrespective of US declaratory policy there are better remedies Some are already in hand such as conventional precision strike and some are attainable increasing our capacity to deploy troops , weapons , and supply chains rapidly

question explicit threat sensible small benefit large cost nonproliferation arms-race crisis stability adversary’s estimate U S use nuclear weapons propensity worst-case won’t be smaller n f u existence induces caution irrespective declaratory policy better remedies conventional precision strike capacity deploy troops weapons supply chains

['Against the argument that US conventional superiority is not guaranteed ', 'Of course, it will likely always be true that the United States (or NATO) cannot be immediately superior on the ground, in the air, or at sea at every location where need for conventional force projection might arise. The real question is whether the explicit threat to use nuclear weapons first in such a circumstance is a sensible way to deal with that reality. I believe that making this threat brings a very small benefit at a very large cost to our nonproliferation goals, as well as to arms-race stability and crisis stability in cases where the prospective adversary is a nuclear-weapon state.', 'The benefit is small because – whatever an adversary’s estimate of the probability that the United States, under our current declaratory policy and posture, would actually use nuclear weapons against a conventional attack – the propensity to worst-case assessment means that the adversary’s estimate of that probability won’t be a whole lot smaller under a US no-first-use stance. That is, the mere existence of US nuclear weapons induces a non-negligible degree of caution on the part of adversaries contemplating aggression, irrespective of US declaratory policy and the details of posture. ', 'Besides, there are better remedies for the problem: Some are already in hand (such as conventional precision strike), and some are attainable at a more favorable ratio of benefit to cost and risk than that of our first-use stance (such as increasing our capacity to deploy troops, weapons, and supply chains rapidly to wherever they are needed). ']

[(0, 11)]

ndtceda

Michigan-ShGa-Aff-Indiana-Round-4.docx

Michigan

ShGa

fc455d626312c397111414e64a4e6287343a7a85de8e544c8ac5b280a1b65d67

The university is good---every key reform to bolster state-sponsored capitalism is pushed by neoliberal epistemology.

David Brooks 19. Teaches @ Yale. “I Was Once a Socialist. Then I Saw How It Worked.” NYT. 12-5-2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/opinion/socialism-capitalism.html

the answer to capitalism is fairer capitalism capitalism produced the greatest reduction in global income inequality in history people find it hard to become capitalists These are signs we need more capitalism reform in education welfare worker co-ops, which build skills mobility subsidies tax subsidies for health care a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions Every idea comes from the neoliberal elite these would make capitalism better The supportive state makes better capitalists Scandinavian nations have welfare states The reason they afford welfare is they have free markets The state nurtures prosperity when it helps capitalists . The state causes misery when it meddles with the learning system that market mechanisms make possible

the answer to problems of capitalism is wider and fairer capitalism parts of our capitalist system in the United States are in good shape But capitalism is unbalanced capitalism has produced the greatest reduction in global income inequality in history reduction of inequality among nations has led to the increase of inequality within rich nations education levels have not kept pace with technology people find it hard er to acquire the skills to become good capitalists These are not signs that capitalism is broken They are signs that we need more capitalism We need reform in to our education systems Human capital-building is like nutrition: It’s something you have to attend to We need welfare that not only subsidize consumption but also subsidize capacity We need worker co-ops, which build skills and represent labor at the negotiating table. We need wage subsidies and mobility subsidies We need tax subsidies for health care , to make it easier for people to switch jobs. We need a higher earned-income tax credit, to give the working poor financial security We need a carbon tax to reduce carbon emissions Every single idea I just mentioned comes from A E I or Brookings or some other the neoliberal elite these ideas would make capitalism better The supportive state makes better capitalists Scandinavian nations have very supportive welfare states . They also have very free markets . The only reason they can afford welfare is they have very free markets The state nurtures prosperity when it helps people become capitalists . The state causes incredible levels of misery when it gets too far inside the decision-making processes of capitalists It causes enormous misery when it meddles with the relentless learning system that market mechanisms make possible . Capitalism is not a religion. It won’t save your soul it will arouse your energies it will put you on a lifelong learning journey to know, to improve, to dare and to dare again.

problems of capitalism fairer capitalism capitalism has produced the greatest reduction in global income inequality in history These are not signs that capitalism is broken more capitalism reform education welfare capacity build skills wage subsidies mobility subsidies health care carbon tax Every single idea A E I or Brookings neoliberal elite make capitalism better The supportive state better capitalists have very free markets afford welfare is they have very free markets nurtures prosperity become capitalists too far inside the decision-making processes of capitalists learning system market mechanisms make possible it will arouse your energies

['All of these leaders understood that the answer to the problems of capitalism is wider and fairer capitalism.', 'Today, parts of our capitalist system in the United States are in good shape. Growth is remarkably steady, inflation is low, employment is high, wages for the poorest Americans are rising twice as fast as for high-wage workers.', 'But capitalism, like all human systems, is always unbalanced one way or another. Over the last generation, capitalism has produced the greatest reduction in global income inequality in history. The downside is that low-skill workers in the U.S. are now competing with workers in Vietnam, India and Malaysia. The reduction of inequality among nations has led to the increase of inequality within rich nations, like the United States.', 'Also, education levels have not kept pace with technology. More people grow up with inadequate schools, disrupted families and fragmented neighborhoods. They find it harder to acquire the skills to become good capitalists. The market is effectively closed off to them.', 'These problems are not signs that capitalism is broken. They are signs that we need more and better capitalism. We need a massive infusion of money and reform into our education systems, from infancy through life. Human capital-building is like nutrition: It’s something you have to attend to every day. We need welfare programs that not only subsidize poor people’s consumption but also subsidize their capacity to produce.', 'We need worker co-ops, which build skills and represent labor at the negotiating table. We need wage subsidies and mobility subsidies, so people can afford to move to opportunity. We need tax subsidies for health care, to make it easier for people to switch jobs. We need a higher earned-income tax credit, to give the working poor financial security so they don’t get swept away amid the creative destruction. We need a carbon tax, to give everyone an incentive to reduce carbon emissions without pretending we know the best way to do it.', 'Every single idea I just mentioned comes from the American Enterprise Institute or Brookings or some other institution derided as being part of the neoliberal elite. All these ideas would make capitalism work better.', 'A big mistake those of us on the conservative side made was to think that anything that made the government bigger also made the market less dynamic. We failed to distinguish between the supportive state and the regulatory state. The supportive state makes better and more secure capitalists. The Scandinavian nations have very supportive welfare states. They also have very free markets. The only reason they can afford to have generous welfare states is they also have very free markets.', 'I don’t know if the Scandinavian welfare model would work in nations as big and diverse as the U.S. But its success points to a few truths: The state nurtures prosperity when it helps people become capitalists. The state causes incredible levels of misery when it gets too far inside the decision-making processes of capitalists. It creates enormous misery when it cripples the motivational system that drives capitalism. It causes enormous misery when it meddles with the relentless learning system that market mechanisms make possible.', 'Capitalism is not a religion. It won’t save your soul or fulfill the yearnings of your heart. But somehow it will arouse your energies, it will lift your sights, it will put you on a lifelong learning journey to know, to improve, to dare and to dare again.', '', '']

[(6, 15)]

ndtceda

Emory-HeLo-Aff-Gonzaga-Jesuit-Debates-Round-5.docx

Emory

HeLo

5c156ee192b2f798b7b6ea2b0fc1a5498706654be4c2d236d9a641788bc9b809

The accompanying operational changes structurally reduce the likelihood of miscalculation and eliminate the primary drivers of Russian nuclear buildup.

Nina Tannenwald 19. Director of the International Relations Program at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies and a senior lecturer in political science. Franklin Fellow in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation in the U.S. State Department. She holds a Master’s degree from the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs and a Ph.D. in international relations from Cornell University. “It’s Time for a U.S. No-First-Use Nuclear Policy.” https://tnsr.org/roundtable/its-time-for-a-u-s-no-first-use-nuclear-policy/.

clear n f u reduce risk of Russian miscalculation during crisis alleviating concerns about U.S nuclear strike require doctrinal operational changes significantly reduce risk of accidental, unauthorized, mistaken preemptive use strengthen strategic and crisis stability contribute to US non-prolif objectives remove one source of crisis instability ought to unilaterally adopt an NFU create political space for Russia to follow suit given conventional capabilities, there are no circumstances which the U S start a nuclear war Relying on the pretense unacceptably increases the chances of nuclear escalation declared NFU reduce the risks of nuclear war

a clear U.S. n o- f irst- u se policy would reduce the risk of Russian nuclear miscalculation during a crisis by alleviating concerns about a devastating U.S . nuclear first- strike the United States would rely on nuclear weapons only to deter nuclear attacks it would require meaningful doctrinal and operational changes it would allow the United States to adopt a less threatening nuclear posture. It would help shape the physical qualities of nuclear forces in a way that renders them unsuitable for missions other than deterrence of nuclear attacks. Implementing these steps would significantly reduce the risk of accidental, unauthorized, mistaken , or preemptive use removal of threats would also strengthen strategic and crisis stability . adopting an NFU policy would help address humanitarian concerns reduce the salience of nuclear weapons it would “be more consistent with the long-term goal of global nuclear disarmament and would better contribute to US nuclear non-prolif eration objectives . ” NFU nevertheless remove at least one source of crisis instability The United States ought to unilaterally adopt an NFU policy constitute the formal adoption of what is already essentially de facto U.S. policy create political space for Russia to follow suit Doctrinal and operational changes would need to follow such a declaration China’s restrained nuclear arsenal provides the best example of an NFU pledge implemented in practice. The most important goal of the United States today is to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. The policy of relying on the threat to use nuclear weapons first is an outdated legacy of the Cold War given U.S. conventional capabilities, there are no circumstances in which the U nited S tates ought to start a nuclear war . Relying on the pretense that it might do so in order to deter a conventional threat unacceptably increases the chances of nuclear escalation Moving toward declared NFU policies is the best way to reduce the risks of nuclear war

Russian it would require meaningful doctrinal and operational changes strategic crisis stability non-prolif eration objectives . crisis instability de facto Russia to follow suit nuclear escalation reduce the risks of nuclear war

['As Kingston Reif and Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association have argued, “a clear U.S. no-first-use policy would reduce the risk of Russian or Chinese nuclear miscalculation during a crisis by alleviating concerns about a devastating U.S. nuclear first-strike.”24 This would mean that the United States would rely on nuclear weapons only to deter nuclear attacks. Adopting this approach would involve more than “cheap talk,” for it would require meaningful doctrinal and operational changes.25 Specifically, it would allow the United States to adopt a less threatening nuclear posture. It would eliminate first-strike postures, preemptive capabilities, and other types of destabilizing warfighting strategies. It would emphasize restraint in targeting, launch-on-warning, alert levels of deployed systems, procurement, and modernization plans. In other words, it would help shape the physical qualities of nuclear forces in a way that renders them unsuitable for missions other than deterrence of nuclear attacks.26 Implementing these steps would significantly reduce the risk of accidental, unauthorized, mistaken, or preemptive use. The removal of threats of a nuclear first strike would also strengthen strategic and crisis stability.27 Of perhaps equal importance, adopting an NFU policy would help address humanitarian concerns and reduce the salience of nuclear weapons.28 Likewise, it would “be more consistent with the long-term goal of global nuclear disarmament and would better contribute to US nuclear non-proliferation objectives.”29 A multilateral NFU pledge would have even more benefits. It would move Russia and Pakistan away from their high-risk doctrines and reduce a source of Russia-NATO tensions. A common NFU policy would help anchor the existing NFU policies of China and India and implicitly acknowledge their leadership in this area, a virtue when middle-power states are feeling disenfranchised from the global nuclear order. Some analysts have questioned whether, in an asymmetric conflict, an American NFU policy would actually help reduce the risk of nuclear escalation by an adversary. The United States is so conventionally dominant, they argue that, in a crisis, a country like North Korea might employ nuclear weapons preemptively because the United States could take out North Korean targets even with just conventional weapons.30 It is true that an NFU policy might make no difference in such a situation. Still, it might nevertheless remove at least one source of crisis instability. Most importantly, however, in an era of “multi-front” deterrence, North Korea is not the only adversary and a U.S. NFU policy would remain valuable in less asymmetric conflicts. A second concern is that a real NFU strategy would require a greater commitment to a counter-value targeting strategy — targeting civilians rather than nuclear silos — and thus run up against moral and legal rules prohibiting the direct targeting of civilians.31 This is a legitimate point. However, current U.S. counterforce targeting policy will likely result in massive civilian casualties as “collateral damage,” making the risk to civilians of an NFU strategy little different.32 Implementation The United States ought to unilaterally adopt an NFU policy, and ask other nuclear-armed states to do the same. This would constitute the formal adoption of what is already essentially de facto U.S. policy.33 A U.S. NFU policy would create political space for Russia to follow suit: For Russia to consider NFU, its concerns about U.S. ballistic missile defenses, imbalances in conventional forces, and issues of NATO enlargement would need to be addressed. The United States would also need to tackle the issue of extended deterrence with its allies and move toward conventional extended deterrence.34 India and Pakistan would need a modus vivendi on Kashmir, while the United States and North Korea would need to sign a non-aggression pact. In fact, the United States could actually negotiate a mutual NFU agreement with North Korea. The United States is extremely unlikely to use nuclear weapons first on North Korea, therefore an agreement that provided a basis for imposing some restraint on the North Korean arsenal would be in America’s interest.35 Doctrinal and operational changes would need to follow such a declaration. China’s restrained nuclear arsenal provides the best example of an NFU pledge implemented in practice. Unlike the United States and Russia, China keeps its warheads and missiles separated. It has not developed precision-strike nuclear war-fighting capabilities, such as tactical nuclear weapons, and it does not keep its forces on “launch-on-warning” alert. China has also invested heavily in conventional military modernization so that it would not have to consider nuclear escalation in a conventional war.36 India, too, keeps its warheads and missiles separate in support of its NFU pledge, though some analysts argue that India’s NFU policy does not run especially deep and that it “is neither a stable nor a reliable predictor of how the Indian military and political leadership might actually use nuclear weapons.”37 Nevertheless, both countries’ operational postures reflect (to some degree) their NFU policies.38 The United States and the other nuclear powers should move in this direction. Conclusion What are the prospects for an NFU policy? On Jan. 30, 2019, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) introduced legislation that declared, “It is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first.”39 But Congress is divided on this.40 Skeptics have objected that the geopolitical preconditions are not ripe for an NFU policy at this time. In 2016, the Obama administration seriously considered declaring an NFU policy but then hesitated at the last minute largely because of pushback from European and Asian allies who are under the U.S. nuclear umbrella.41 Donald Trump, for his part, has been busy dismantling arms control agreements, not creating them.42 Adoption of an NFU policy will require close consultation with allies, but the U.S. administration should begin this task. As an initial step on the way to NFU, U.S. leaders should consider the recent proposal by Jeffrey Lewis and Scott Sagan that the United States should declare it will not use nuclear weapons “against any target that could be reliably destroyed by conventional means.”43 This policy would not solve the problem posed by highly asymmetric crises, as noted above. Nevertheless, it would represent an initial important declaratory statement of nuclear restraint. The most important goal of the United States today is to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. The policy of relying on the threat to use nuclear weapons first is an outdated legacy of the Cold War. As even card-carrying realists such as the “four horsemen” recognized, given U.S. conventional capabilities, there are no circumstances in which the United States ought to start a nuclear war.44 Relying on the pretense that it might do so in order to deter a conventional threat unacceptably increases the chances of nuclear escalation. Moving toward declared NFU policies is the best way to reduce the risks of nuclear war.']

[(5, 18)]

ndtceda

Emory-KeRa-Aff-Dartmouth-RR-Round-2.docx

Emory

KeRa

2a0bd67e8a84450c721181a0dcb1b4066bb84efaaa79f89a0f20d415f589c1df

Wrecks innovation.

Lemley and Creary ’21 [Mark and Andrew; Professor of Law @ Stanford and JD MBA Candidate @ Stanford; “EXIT STRATEGY”; 101 B.U. L. REV. 1 (2021)]

Schumpeterian competition stalled Monopoly lead to higher prices less consumer choice concentration of tech Tech diffusing slowly long-term drop in productivity sustained declines entrepreneurship consolidation bad for growth killer acquisitions companies buy competitors to eliminate threat Kronos effect firms acquihire a startup to get the brainpower it employs not the products or ideas Facebook shut down dozens of projects Google the same killer acquisitions threaten business model altogether

concentration in tech is a large and growing problem The normal waves of Schumpeterian competition have stalled companies that dominate the digital economy are all more than fifteen years old tech monopolists broadened their monopolies that in another era would have displaced them Monopoly can lead to higher prices though that has not been true for most of today's tech giants. it can also lead to less consumer-friendly nonprice terms, such as reduced privacy, increased advertising exposure and less consumer choice and this appears to be happening today incumbent acquisition has contributed to the increasing concentration of tech Tech is diffusing from leaders to followers more slowly Economists have blamed this for a long-term drop in productivity for sustained declines in entrepreneurship over the last decade consolidation of technological leadership and resulting loss of technology diffusion is bad for economic growth more generally. tech giants often buy up promising startups only to shut them down this is intentional Economists have documented cases of " killer acquisitions "- companies buy incipient competitors in order to eliminate the threat they pose Facebook, Google, and Oracle have all bought and shut down competing firms the " Kronos effect killing your competitors in their infancy firms engage in " acquihire s "-buying a startup to get the brainpower it employs , not the products or ideas the startup offers Facebook alone has shut down dozens of once-promising projects and Google has done the same . some might worry about market concentration for its own sake They and their controlling founders also shape the news that reaches consumers and citizens, corporate executives, and public officials Society tends to benefit when companies compete with incumbents, not cave to them. N Purposeful killer acquisitions seem most likely of direct competitors and perhaps of companies that threaten the business model altogether

large and growing problem Schumpeterian competition lead to higher prices less consumer choice Tech more slowly long-term drop in productivity sustained declines bad for economic growth more generally. buy up promising startups only to shut them down this is intentional Economists have documented cases of " killer acquisitions "- the " Kronos effect killing your competitors in their infancy get the brainpower it employs products or ideas dozens the Purposeful killer acquisitions

['III. THE PROBLEM WITH EXIT STRATEGIES', "Should it trouble us that the nature of today's startup and VC industries drives startups to sell to incumbent monopolists? In this Part, we argue that the answer is yes.", "A. What's Wrong with Incumbents Acquiring Startups?", 'There are several reasons to be concerned that startups tend to be acquired by incumbents rather than go public or merge with another maverick and that VCs intensify this phenomenon.', "First, concentration in the tech industry is a large and growing problem. Others have recognized as much. 273 The normal waves of Schumpeterian competition that disciplined previous network markets seem to have stalled; the companies that dominate the digital economy are all more than fifteen years old and have dominated their market categories for more than a decade. 274 While monopoly alone is not illegal or necessarily problematic, today's tech monopolists have almost certainly held onto and even broadened their monopolies by acquiring firms that in another era would have displaced them. At the very least, these acquisitions have reduced the likelihood of disruptive innovation that would challenge the power of those monopolies. Monopoly can lead to higher prices, though that has not been true for most of today's tech giants. But it can also lead to less consumer-friendly nonprice terms, such as reduced privacy, increased advertising exposure, and less consumer choice and this appears to be happening today.275", "Second, incumbent acquisition has contributed to the increasing concentration of technological capacity. Technology is diffusing from leaders to followers more slowly than it used to. Economists have blamed this for a long-term drop in productivity in recent decades and for sustained declines in entrepreneurship over the last decade. 276 Even if today's tech monopolists are good for consumers-and they may be in many ways-the consolidation of technological leadership and resulting loss of technology diffusion is bad for economic growth more generally.", 'Third, and perhaps most problematic, tech giants often buy up promising startups only to shut them down. Sometimes this is intentional. Economists have documented cases of "killer acquisitions"-companies that buy incipient competitors in order to eliminate the threat they pose. 277 While especially prominent in biotech, the practice is also prominent among big tech firms: Facebook, Google, and Oracle have all bought and shut down competing firms, sometimes in the same day.278 Tim Wu calls this the "Kronos effect"-killing your competitors in their infancy. 279 At other times, firms engage in "acquihires"-buying a startup to get the brainpower it employs, not the products or ideas the startup offers. 280 (Both outcomes often come together: as one tech journalist put it, "[a]nother day, another acqui-hired shutdown." 281 ) But even incumbents that buy startups in good faith often shut them down within a few years. While companies fail all the time, incumbent mergers seem littered with failures. Facebook alone has shut down dozens of once-promising projects after it acquired them, and Google has done the same. 282 Those are not just technologies that no longer compete with the monopolist; they are technologies that we no longer have access to at all because of the exit strategy.', "Finally, some might worry about market concentration for its own sake. As New Brandeis scholars remind us, economic concentration often leads to political concentration. 283 And today, tech firms spend more than others to lobby local, state, and federal governments. 284 They and their controlling founders also shape the news that reaches consumers and citizens, corporate executives, and public officials.285 And even supposing their leadership is unimpeachably civic, their structural concentration makes their platforms easier or at least more valuable targets for state and nonstate actors to exploit through disinformation, surveillance, and other campaigns meant to undermine social and political processes. 286 Today's dominant tech platforms aren't solely to blame for political divisions,287 and the lack of alternative exit strategies for VC-backed firms aren't solely to blame for these platforms-but we're not optimistic that current incentives make better alternatives likely to come about. Society tends to benefit when companies compete with incumbents, not cave to them. Not all of these effects apply to all acquisitions. Startups acquired by incumbents fall into three basic categories: companies that compete directly, companies that offer complementary products, and companies that might change the nature of the market altogether. Purposeful killer acquisitions seem most likely of direct competitors and perhaps of companies that threaten the business model altogether. Acquisitions of complements, by contrast, may be more socially beneficial, a prospect we explore in the next Section. Even complementary mergers, however, raise concerns. While an incumbent is unlikely to buy a complement in order to shut it down, complementary acquisitions still increase the size and political power of the incumbent. They may also make eventual direct challenges less likely by expanding the footprint of the incumbent across related markets, making the job of building a competitor that much more complicated."]

[(0, 21)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-Bald-ChangDeutsch-Aff-wake-Octas.docx

Dartmouth

BaCh

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Dartmouth/BaCh/Dartmouth-Bald-ChangDeutsch-Aff-wake-Octas.docx

2affddb33dec9df89da36f461352a0878185b8f6a695db3d281b3ff88387e5d7

Nuclear-conventional entanglement doesn’t create escalation and the aff can’t solve through firebreak.

Don Snyder & Alexis A. Blanc 23. Blanc is a Ph.D. in political science, George Washington University; M.A. in security policy studies, George Washington University. Snyder is an analyst at RAND. “Unraveling Entanglement.” 2023.

entanglement gained currency We found no evidence that decisions were based on concerns about inadvertent escalation stemming from entanglement decisions were organizationally bounded The record contradicts dedicated systems for mitigating escalation some commingling of nuclear and conventional command is inevitable radars cannot distinguish Even if command and control systems could be perfectly disentangled it would not guarantee avoidance without continuous inspections , it is nearly impossible for any state to fully assure adversaries systems can solely be used for nuclear not conventional

A concept labeled entanglement has recently gained currency within the academic nuclear policy community Acton the most prominent advocate of entanglement, argues that the risks of inadvertent escalation are . . likely to increase significantly in the future. Driving these risks is the possibility that Chinese assets could be attacked over the course of a conventional conflict These assets include satellites used for early warning , communication , and intelligence , surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR ground-based radars and transmitters; and communication aircraft. We found no evidence that decisions about command and control systems were based on concerns about inadvertent escalation stemming from entanglement these decisions were organizationally bounded and were made first and foremost on how to ensure a survivable set of systems for each organization that would allow for escalation control. The historical record thus contradicts the notion of employing dedicated systems for the sake of mitigating the risks of inadvertent escalation Indeed, some commingling of nuclear and conventional command and control systems is inevitable Ground-based radars or overhead collection cannot generally distinguish between conventionaland nuclear-armed weapons Even if command and control systems could be perfectly disentangled , it would not guarantee the avoidance of inadvertent escalation risks Processes and procedures could be used to impose artificial constraints, but there is no physical or technical limitation preventing the United States from employing nominally dedicated NC2 systems to support the conventional warfighter Therefore, without invasive, continuous inspections , it is nearly impossible for any state to fully assure adversaries that these systems can solely be used for the control of nuclear forces and not conventional forces

entanglement Acton inadvertent escalation increase significantly Chinese assets conventional conflict early warning communication intelligence reconnaissance no evidence decisions command and control systems inadvertent escalation stemming entanglement organizationally bounded ensure survivable set of systems contradicts dedicated systems mitigating risks of inadvertent escalation some commingling nuclear conventional command control systems is inevitable Ground-based radars overhead collection conventionaland nuclear-armed weapons command control systems perfectly disentangled avoidance inadvertent escalation risks no physical technical limitation dedicated NC2 systems conventional warfighter continuous inspections nearly impossible adversaries control of nuclear forces conventional forces

['https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA900/RRA976-3/RAND_RRA976-3.pdf', 'A concept labeled entanglement has recently gained currency within the academic nuclear policy community.3 James Acton, the most prominent advocate of entanglement, argues that the risks of inadvertent escalation are ', '. . . likely to increase significantly in the future. Driving these risks is the possibility that Chinese, Russian, or U.S. C3I [command, control, communications, and intelligence] assets located outside—potentially far outside—theaters of operation could be attacked over the course of a conventional conflict. These assets include satellites used for early warning, communication, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); ground-based radars and transmitters; and communication aircraft. Such assets constitute nodes in states’ nuclear C3I systems, but they are also “entangled” with nonnuclear weapons in two ways. First, they are typically dual use; that is, they enable both nuclear and nonnuclear operations. Second, they are increasingly vulnerable to nonnuclear attack— much more vulnerable, in fact, than most nuclear-weapon delivery systems. Entanglement could lead to escalation because both sides in a U.S.-Chinese or U.S.-Russian conflict could have strong incentives to attack the adversary’s dual use C3I capabilities to undermine its nonnuclear operations. As a result, over the course of a conventional war, the nuclear C3I systems of one or both of the belligerents could become severely degraded. It is, therefore, not just U.S. nonnuclear strikes against China or Russia that could prove escalatory; Chinese or Russian strikes against American C3I assets could also . . . .', '4 Our review of primary source documents from the Cold War suggests that any argument or concern about entanglement that is predicated on the assumption that, in the past, the United States solely fielded systems dedicated to the nuclear mission, is flawed.5 The Cold War–era command and control systems were never fully or substantially “disentangled.” For strategic nuclear weapons, the United States fielded a few specialized assets to communicate with certain nuclear-only weapon platforms, such as the Emergency Rocket Communications System. But the ubiquity of substrategic nuclear weapons at the time also drove the use of general-purpose command and control for NC2. Any system capable of command and control of nuclear forces was considered available for such use, and the full functioning of NC2 relied on systems not dedicated to NC2 for pre-, trans-, and post-nuclear attack phases. We found no evidence that historical decisions about command and control systems were based on concerns about inadvertent escalation stemming from entanglement. Rather these decisions were organizationally bounded and were made first and foremost on how to ensure a survivable set of systems for each organization that would allow for escalation control.6 The historical record thus contradicts the notion of employing dedicated systems for the sake of mitigating the risks of inadvertent escalation. Concerns about escalation significantly motivated decisionmakers, but the primary emphasis was on sufficient survivability of command and control to operate in a protracted, limited nuclear war. Indeed, some commingling of nuclear and conventional command and control systems is inevitable. Some processes or procedures between conventional and nuclear command and control might plausibly be entirely separated. But tactical warning systems are an example of a situation in which separation is problematic. Ground-based radars or overhead collection cannot generally distinguish between conventionaland nuclear-armed weapons. Even if command and control systems could be perfectly disentangled, it would not guarantee the avoidance of inadvertent escalation risks. A command and control system can be used for whatever purpose the United States desires, regardless of what is implied or declared. Processes and procedures could be used to impose artificial constraints, but there is no physical or technical limitation preventing the United States from employing nominally dedicated NC2 systems to support the conventional warfighter. Therefore, without invasive, continuous inspections, it is nearly impossible for any state to fully assure adversaries that these systems can solely be used for the control of nuclear forces and not conventional forces. But the entanglement argument cannot be dismissed on these grounds alone, if only because circumstances have changed since the Cold War. Conventional weapons will increasingly be able to hold at risk systems that support nuclear warfare in a nonnuclear conflict and do so in a manner that was not possible during the Cold War. Antisatellite weapons and their potential use against space-based early warning assets are a concrete example. Long-range precision-guided munitions and cyber weapons and their potential use to infiltrate and disable command and control networks, respectively, offer further examples. The term entanglement implies an undesired snarled state of nuclear and conventional command and control that should be undone but is difficult to undo. The term also implies that the decision to field non-dedicated NC2 systems is a binary one, which mischaracterizes the decision at hand. Some systems can be dedicated and others not. To the extent that non-dedicated systems create entanglement, that entanglement will vary depending on the number of non-dedicated systems, the roles that they play, and how decisionmakers respond to attacks on each system. For these reasons, we favor the more neutral phrase non-dedicated systems for NC2.', '']

[(4, 12), (23, 28), (29, 32)]

ndtceda

Emory-MiPi-Neg-3---Harvard-Round-4.docx

Emory

MiPi

01fdf7a4521f562c5e9261afaa485adf2dab328703c9b081d05a7d5fc850c62c

‘Should’ requires mandating action

David H. Sawyer 17, Judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals, J.D. from Valparaiso School of Law, “Spartan Specialties, Ltd. v. Senior Servs.”, Court of Appeals of Michigan, 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 1178, 7/20/2017, Lexis

ordinary common meaning of "should" is a mandatory obligation used to express propriety

An ordinary and common meaning of the word "should" is that it denotes a mandatory obligation See People v Fosnaugh stating that "the word 'should' can, in certain contexts, connote an obligatory effect " Webster's defining "should," in pertinent part, as " used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety , or expediency "

ordinary common mandatory obligation obligatory effect propriety

['The specifications in the drawings for the mini-piles stated that the capacity for the mini-piles was "to be" 6,000 or 8,000 pounds and that the length of the mini-piles was "to be" adequate to get into undisturbed soil to a depth adequate for obtaining the required capacity. The specifications in the project manual stated that the mini-piles "should" have a capacity of 4 tons and 3 tons, that the mini-piles "should" be driven to minimum depth of 25 feet, and that a grout bulb "should" be formed at the base of a mini-pile. Kenneth Winters, an expert in structural engineering, and Richard Anderson, an expert in geotechnical engineering, agreed with Steve Maranowski, plaintiff\'s president, that the specifications in the project manual, because those specifications used the word "should," were permissive and suggestions of what plaintiff could do to achieve the required capacity. However, the trial court, when it instructed the jury on how to interpret the contract, instructed the jury that it was to interpret the words of the contract by giving them their ordinary and common meaning. An ordinary and common meaning of the word "should" is that it denotes a mandatory obligation. [*9] See People v Fosnaugh, 248 Mich App 444, 455; 639 NW2d 587 (2001) (stating that "the word \'should\' can, in certain contexts, connote an obligatory effect"); Merriam-Webster\'s College Dictionary (11th ed) (defining "should," in pertinent part, as "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency"). Accordingly, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to defendant, reasonable jurors could have honestly reached different conclusions on whether the specifications in the project manual were mandatory and, because Maranowski admitted that plaintiff did not use grout bulbs and did not drive all the mini-piles at least 25 feet into the ground, whether plaintiff breached the contract. Morinelli, 242 Mich App at 260-261.']

[(9, 18)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-GrKi-Neg-Wake-Triples.docx

Kentucky

GrKi

1bc2f271a343b08579b7aabbe06b95d8757bbece0c1692d23ec4c6d662d3b58a

2] Flexible Sociality Link – difference is the modus operandi of capital – their method’s valorization of instability and anti-normativity is a strategy for dispossession thru flexible production that drives post-Fordism – turns case, alt’s a prior question

McRuer 18. Robert. Professor of English at George Washington University. Crip Times: Disability, Globalization, and Resistance. New York University Press. 75-9.

neoliberalism is characterized by "flexible production" privatization facilitated rapid redistribution of wealth post-Fordism thrives on instability not reliant on normativity but dispossession the structural component of capitalism has "given up" on normalization they capitalized upon radical forms of being-in-common inventive sociality disappear into identities of neoliberalism to value and integrate difference by privatizing it to neutralize radical collective sociality that produced identities as resistant to isolation and pathologization New celebrated identities are available to but "a few" protected radical forms of crip sociality emerged with the advent of neoliberalism capital targets crip sociality and uses their identities to mask capital's predations capital dispossesses the rest

the era of post-Fordism or neoliberalism is characterized on the macroeconomic level by "flexible production" aimed at proliferating identifiable targets Post-Fordism privileges capital accumulation over the short term, and through massive programs of privatization has facilitated the rapid redistribution of wealth upward This mode of regulation no longer uses the state to contain capital's most destructive tendencies Klein calls this mode of accumulation "disaster capitalism;' as "natural" and human-made disasters often provided the excuse for pushing through privatization and other neoliberal "reforms.” stability has not been a necessary component of post-Fordism , which more openly thrives on instability It's easy to imagine a future in which a growing number of cities have their frail and neglected infrastructures knocked out by disasters and then are left to rot, their core services never repaired or rehabilitated The well-off will withdraw into gated communities, their needs met by privatized providers the business of providing 'security' in the midst of perceived instability s contributed to the massive, shortterm accumulation of capital for the few at the expense of the many post-Fordism is not so reliant on normativity Floyd posits that the microlevel strategy for post-Fordism can be described not as normalization or enforced uniformity but as dispossession Not making it in this new social and economic system doesn't necessarily mean one is made to conform with or consent to social norms; it means that, whether you are "normal" or "freaky;' you are simply and similarly dispossessed, displaced, shut out-literally made homeless or interred/made into a refugee something that should be understood as "dispossession" has been a (or even the ) structural component of capitalism from its origins global capital has increasingly "given up" on some earlier norms of normalization or enforced uniformity, installing in place of those forms of control an accelerated commitment to dispossession that does not require Fordist uniformity of behavior and identity the architects of neoliberalism have strategically secured this new mode of regulation through a foreclosure or containment of radical queer sociality and the identities that emerged from it an ultimately global horizon of speculative capital threatens to eviscerate" queer sociality Klein underwear ads Even if they didn't explicitly present as "openly gay;' the ads mark a capitalist recognition of queer sociality and a marketing to some of those whose identities emerge from it Regardless of whether they are "straight" or "gay,” they have for more than thirty years contained (and capitalized upon ) more radical forms of being-in-common inventive sociality disappear into the identities of neoliberalism What Floyd terms "identity's glossy normalization" appears to value and integrate difference , but only by privatizing it , attempting to neutralize in the process the more radical forms of collective sociality that produced some identities or identifications as resistant to isolation and pathologization in the first place New and celebrated identities are available to a few, but "a few" who are protected , securitized, gated (both locked into the system, but in many ways locked out of or inoculated from the world-transformative sociality that materialized those identities) Neoliberalism takes possession of gay identity and forecloses upon the radical potentiality that gay identity at times signaled and signals radical forms of crip sociality emerged simultaneously in the 1960s and 1970s with the advent of neoliberalism -these forms of sociality similarly resisted homogenization and normalization and argued for collective modes of existence, caring, and being-in-common In crip communities, and later with the rise of HIV/ AIDS activism, these two forms of bodily engagement could at times come together neoliberal capital identifies or targets some who are caught up in that crip sociality and then uses their identities to mask capital's predations neoliberal capital essentially relocates, displaces, dispossesses , or disappears the rest This move was quite literal with the Times Square ad-as gay consumers and travelers in a redeveloped Times Square gazed up at such ads, queer communities or collectivities were being dispossessed and displaced, gentrified out of existence What lies behind this sheen of interchangeable identities and airbrushed bodies is a horizon of genuinely collective queer movement, as well as the distinctively neoliberal prospect of its disappearance This move was similarly quite literal from a crip perspective in the UK in August 2012 as disability identity at the most-watched Paralympics ever was spotlighted, globally broadcast, and turned into inspirational memes and advertisements about the Superhumans at the exact same time that disabled people on the ground in the UK were, in actual fact, being measured and assessed in ways that ensured they would be dispossessed of services, sustenance, and livelihood

"flexible production" thrives on instability not so reliant on normativity dispossession structural component capitalized upon disappear into the identities of neoliberalism value and integrate difference privatizing neutralize but "a few" advent of neoliberalism uses their identities to mask capital's predations

['To flip things, for Floyd the era of post-Fordism or neoliberalism is characterized on the macroeconomic level by "flexible production" aimed at proliferating identifiable targets (target markets were in existence under Fordism but were more muted, and were certainly not "dominant" in Raymond Williams\'s sense). Post-Fordism privileges capital accumulation over the short term, and through massive programs of privatization has facilitated the rapid redistribution of wealth upward. This mode of regulation no longer uses the state to contain (but rather, arguably, to facilitate) capital\'s most destructive tendencies. Naomi Klein, as I suggested in the Introduction, actually calls this mode of accumulation "disaster capitalism;\' as "natural" and human-made disasters often provided the excuse for pushing through privatization and other neoliberal "reforms.” If an imagined (and in many ways imaginary) stability was a component of Fordism, it has not been a necessary component of post-Fordism, which more openly (and structurally) thrives on instability. To this point, Klein reads the global rise of privatized security systems (and gated communities, such as the one in which Pistorius and Steenkamp lived) through this new form of capitalization on and through destruction and disaster: "It\'s easy to imagine a future in which a growing number of cities have their frail and neglected infrastructures knocked out by disasters and then are left to rot, their core services never repaired or rehabilitated. The well-off, meanwhile, will withdraw [end page 75] into gated communities, their needs met by privatized providers" (525). Throughout The Shock Doctrine, Klein demonstrates how "the business of providing \'security\'" in the midst of perceived instability, in multiple locations including South Africa, has contributed to the massive, shortterm accumulation of capital for the few at the expense of the many (552).', 'On a microlevel, post-Fordism is not so reliant on normativity and homogeneity. Floyd thus puts forward two significant conclusions. First, drawing on the work of Harvey, Floyd posits that the microlevel strategy for post-Fordism can be described not as normalization or enforced uniformity but as dispossession (Floyd 207). Not making it in this new social and economic system doesn\'t necessarily mean one is made to conform with or consent to social norms; it means that, whether you are "normal" or "freaky;\' you are simply and similarly dispossessed, displaced, shut out-literally made homeless, as parts of Floyd\'s analysis of Wojnarowicz suggest, or interred/made into a refugee, in various parts of Klein\'s analysis. Harvey, beginning his own analysis of "accumulation by dispossession" with a discussion of Rosa Luxemburg, of course makes clear that something that should be understood as "dispossession" has been a (or even the) structural component of capitalism from its origins (New 137). Harvey\'s study, nonetheless, is still called The New Imperialism, suggesting that he intends to spotlight important ("new") differences between generalized capitalist dispossession and what is happening in our own moment. Floyd quotes Harvey\'s insight that "the U.S. has given up on hegemony through consent and resorts more and more to domination by coercion" (Harvey 201; qtd. in Floyd 207). I interpret Floyd as using Harvey\'s insights to suggest that global capital has increasingly "given up" on some earlier norms of normalization or enforced uniformity, installing in place of those forms of control an accelerated (and essentially militarized) commitment to dispossession that does not always and everywhere require Fordist uniformity of behavior and identity.', 'Second, the architects of neoliberalism have strategically secured this new mode of regulation through a foreclosure or containment of radical queer sociality and the identities that emerged from it; indeed, Floyd suggests even more forcefully that "an ultimately global horizon of speculative capital threatens to eviscerate" queer sociality (204). Whatever Wojnarowicz\'s intent (and Fire in the Belly is a very cryptic film [end page 76] throughout), the images of the artist stitching his mouth shut are easy to read as part and parcel of a new mode of regulation that contains or domesticates radical sociality. This is why, in contrast, the Calvin Klein underwear ads were not exactly "pornographic" for Floyd. Even if they didn\'t explicitly present as "openly gay;\' the ads mark a capitalist recognition of queer sociality and a marketing to some of those whose identities emerge from it. 10 Ironically but perhaps poetically, Calvin Klein\'s first "openly gay" billboard in New York City, on the corner of Houston and Lafayette Streets, appeared during revisions of this book, in August 2015. The ad features two young white men, one sporting a leather jacket on top of the other, in jeans and a sweater. The young man on top has his arms around the neck of the second man, and the two potentially appear as though they are about to kiss. I\'m tempted to flip Floyd and suggest that this is twenty-first century "window advertising" (even as it is a logical outcome of the processes he traces): "appealing to [antihomophobic straight] consumers in ways that are sexual but not too sexual, ways intended to avoid alienating [gay] consumers:\' Despite the "difference" the advertisers want to be legible, the 1982 and 2015 Calvin Klein ads are actually quite similar. Regardless of whether they are "straight" or "gay,” they have for more than thirty years contained (and capitalized upon) more radical and queer forms of being-in-common.', 'The inventive pornography and difference of queer sociality, in other words, could disappear into the identities of neoliberalism. What Floyd terms "identity\'s glossy normalization" appears to value and integrate difference, but only by privatizing it, attempting to neutralize in the process the more radical forms of collective sociality that produced some identities or identifications as resistant to isolation and pathologization in the first place (203). New and celebrated identities are available to a few, but "a few" who are protected, securitized, gated (both locked into the system, but in many ways locked out of or inoculated from the world-transformative sociality that materialized those identities). Neoliberalism thereby takes possession of gay identity (not least by encouraging those with that identity to realize themselves through increasing their personal possessions) and forecloses upon the radical potentiality that gay identity at times signaled and signals. 11', 'I draw three conclusions from Floyd as I adapt his arguments here for crip times (and Crip Times). First, radical forms of ', '', '', '', 'queer and crip [end page 77] sociality emerged simultaneously in the 1960s and 1970s with the advent of neoliberalism-these forms of sociality similarly resisted homogenization and normalization and argued for collective modes of existence, caring, and being-in-common. These forms of sociality were also radically embodied in far-reaching ways, including both new forms of engaging with others sexually and new forms of caring for others\' bodily needs. In crip communities, and later with the rise of HIV/ AIDS activism, these two forms of bodily engagement could at times come together-Corbett Joan O\'Toole remembers how the occupation of San Francisco City Hall by disability activists for twenty-eight days in 1978, for example, generated precisely such care-based and sexual experimentation (activists in San Francisco were demanding that the administration of President Jimmy Carter enforce executive orders on disability rights that had been crafted but not implemented over three presidential administrations) (54-74). O\'Toole explains in detail how bodily needs (such as bathing) were collectively met during the occupation, but pointedly emphasizes that the monthlong takeover of city administrators\' offices included a range of bodily interactions, including "sex in their hallways" ( 66). Second, neoliberal capital identifies or targets some who are caught up in that crip or queer sociality and then uses their identities to mask capital\'s predations. Third, neoliberal capital essentially relocates, displaces, dispossesses, or disappears the rest. This move was quite literal with the Times Square ad-as gay consumers and travelers in a redeveloped Times Square gazed up at such ads, queer communities or collectivities were being dispossessed and displaced, gentrified out of existence. As Floyd puts it, "What lies behind this sheen of interchangeable identities and airbrushed bodies is a horizon of genuinely collective queer movement, as well as the distinctively neoliberal prospect of its disappearance" (202). This move was similarly quite literal from a crip perspective in the UK in August 2012 as disability identity at the most-watched Paralympics ever was spotlighted, globally broadcast, and turned into inspirational memes and advertisements about the Superhumans at the exact same time that disabled people on the ground in the UK were, in actual fact, being measured and assessed in ways that ensured they would be dispossessed of services, sustenance, and livelihood. 12']

[(0, 6), (7, 9)]

ndtceda

Emory-DoSa-Neg-Franklin-R-Shirley-at-Wake-Forest-Round-3.docx

Emory

DoSa

0363431c55991657785c992d6f4156308e6ddd3533938dfb927e48e9682bbd16

Courts are experienced and competent at calculating fair royalties.

Cary et al. 08, *George Cary is a partner in the Washington office of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. He is a former Deputy Director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition and 1976 graduate of the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California-Berkeley. *Larry Work-Dembowski is an associate in the Washington office of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP and a 2002 graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center. *Paul Hayes is an associate in the Washington office of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP and a 2001 graduate of the New York University School of Law; (“Antitrust Implications of Abuse of Standard-Setting”, 15 GEO. Mason L. REV. 1241 (2008))

courts are competent to apply antitrust law to FRAND Courts routinely calculate "reasonable royalties" in patent litigation and compare the "but for" competitive market to the market in which a restraint of competition exists a court would compare royalties charged ex post to ex ante

courts and enforcement agencies are competent to apply antitrust law to deceptive FRAND commitments Assessing whether a licensor has complied does not require courts or agencies to make any determinations that they do not already commonly make in antitrust Courts routinely calculate "reasonable royalties" in the patent litigation context and compare the "but for" competitive market to the market in which a restraint of competition exists a court would engage in similar calculations it would compare royalties charged ex post market to its assessment of what royalties would have prevailed in the competitive ex ante market

courts enforcement agencies competent apply antitrust law FRAND commitments make any determinations commonly make routinely calculate "reasonable royalties" compare the "but for" competitive market similar calculations ex post market ex ante market

['Although evaluation of FRAND commitments and licensing terms can be complex and fact-intensive, there should be no doubt that the courts and enforcement agencies are competent to apply antitrust law to deceptive FRAND commitments. Assessing whether a licensor has complied with its FRAND obligations does not require courts or agencies to make any determinations that they do not already commonly make in antitrust and intellectual property cases. Courts routinely calculate "reasonable royalties" in the patent litigation context 1 \' and compare the "but for" competitive market to the market in which a restraint of competition exists in order to determine damages in the antitrust context. 4 \' In assessing whether a licensor has met its FRAND obligations, a court would engage in similar calculations; it would compare the royalties charged in the ex post market to its assessment of what royalties would have prevailed in the competitive ex ante market.\'43 In determining what royalties would have prevailed ex ante, a court would likely consider, among other things, the available alternatives to the technology at issue, the royalties charged to licensees practicing other standards for comparable technologies, and the royalties charged to licensees for comparable technologies in industries where there are no standards or FRAND commitments. Although this may be a demanding task in some cases, it is necessary because the alternative-concluding that FRAND obligations cannot be defined or enforced by the courts-would render FRAND obligations meaningless, would allow unfettered exercise of monopoly power by essential patent holders, and would cause debilitating un- certainty in the standard-setting process.']

[(0, 14)]

ndtceda

Kansas-Barreto-Snow-Aff-Kentucky-Round3.docx

Kansas

BaSn

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kansas/BaSn/Kansas-Barreto-Snow-Aff-Kentucky-Round3.docx

f3d5420fbc6d01fd7040f32fbeca6cf2c5380d5f71594a24293c95b1d9d459fc

Every “near miss” is evidence that safety measures work – no system is perfect, but ours is as close as it gets. There hasn’t been a near miss in decades.

Lowther and Williams 23. Adam Lowther (Director of Strategic Deterrence Programs at the National Strategic Research Institute at the University of Nebraska) and Derek Williams (B-52 Weapons System Officer and graduate of Sandia National Laboratories' Weapons Intern program), 7-10-2023, "Why America Has a Launch on Attack Option", War on the Rocks, https://warontherocks.com/2023/07/why-america-has-a-launch-on-attack-option/ sean!

in every example all of which are decades old, redundant safety measures ensured one failure did not lead to actual failure military expects mistakes redundancy worked In 32 accidents the U S never experienced detonation or miscalculation the Swiss cheese model Nowhere in the system does safety rely on a single point of failure There is always some risk every error was analyzed to make the system safer the U S has been accident-free

The Fallacy of Accidental Launch Montoya and Kemp argue that “there are many historical examples of early-warning systems generating false alarms in every example , all of which are decades old, redundant safety measures ensured that any one failure in the system did not lead to an actual failure with nuclear weapons. U.S. military expects the humans operating the nuclear arsenal and its command and control system to make mistakes safety measures built into the weapons, training of crews, the personnel reliability assurance program, operational procedures, and a command and control system comprised of layers the redundancy built into the system worked . In 32 accidents involving nuclear weapons, the U nited S tates never experienced an accidental detonation or miscalculation same is true of errors in the systems that comprise American integrated tactical warning and attack assessment the Swiss cheese model no hole runs all the way through the entire block of cheese each slice may have holes in different places, but none of the holes line up perfectly on every slice Nowhere in the system does safety rely on a single point of failure . no system is perfect. There is always some level of risk , even if it is very small. every human or technical error that occurred in the past was carefully analyzed and used to make the system safer . the U nited S tates has been accident-free for four decades.

redundant safety measures the system worked the Swiss cheese model always some level of risk the U nited S tates has been accident-free

['The Fallacy of Accidental Launch', 'In addition to suggesting that a significant portion of the intercontinental ballistic missile force would survive a Russian nuclear strike, Montoya and Kemp argue that “there are many historical examples of early-warning systems generating false alarms or computer-generated messages pretending to be actual warnings. When combined with a launch on warning posture, these glitches create real risks of accidental war.” ', 'What they fail to mention is that in every example, all of which are decades old, redundant safety measures ensured that any one failure in the system did not lead to an actual failure with nuclear weapons. The U.S. military expects the humans operating the nuclear arsenal and its command and control system to make mistakes. While the military strives for perfection, everything from the weapons themselves to the crews that maintain and operate them are designed to mitigate error.', 'This is done through the safety measures built into the weapons, training of crews, the personnel reliability assurance program, operational procedures, and a command and control system comprised of layers specifically designed to prevent the very accidental war Montoya and Kemp fret about. In every instance of a mistake or error that detractors can provide, the simple fact is that the redundancy built into the system worked.', 'In 32 accidents involving nuclear weapons, the United States never experienced an accidental detonation or miscalculation leading to war. Arguments suggesting that because part of the system failed, the entire system failed willfully ignore that the system, which is much better today than when the last accident occurred four decades ago, was specifically designed to account for the inevitable mistakes that would happen. ', 'The same is true of errors in the systems that comprise American integrated tactical warning and attack assessment. Where one layer failed, another layer succeeded. This layering of systems is sometimes referred to as Reason’s Accident Causation Model, or the Swiss cheese model. There may be holes in one slice of cheese (system), but no hole runs all the way through the entire block of cheese (system of systems). If slices of Swiss cheese are like the layers of redundancy, each slice may have holes in different places, but none of the holes line up perfectly on every slice. Thus, a hole (mistake/error) in one slice is covered in another slice. ', 'In the aviation world, the crew resource management model builds redundancies into the system to prevent human error when it comes to the combat crews flying nuclear-armed bombers. Similar approaches are in effect across the nuclear enterprise to prevent the kind of accidents Montoya and Kemp fear. Nowhere in the system does safety rely on a single point of failure. Multiple failures must occur, both mechanical or technical and human, before an accidental detonation or nuclear war can happen. It is certainly worth pointing out that no system is perfect. There is always some level of risk, even if it is very small. ', 'In reality, every human or technical error that occurred in the past was carefully analyzed and used to make the system safer. It is for good reason that the United States has been accident-free for four decades. To continue this safety record, America must invest in people, weapons systems, and nuclear warhead production infrastructure. Regularly building new nuclear warheads that continue to enhance safety and use control is the most reliable way to ensure the least possible risk. ']

[(0, 24)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-VaWa-Neg-Long-Beach-Round-3.docx

Dartmouth

VaWa

e6c869d946158e0e56095432a5746de240690cb55a17a6351135647a0f8f0646

Turns case. The plan creates complacency about nuclear escalation by adversaries.

Costlow ’21 [Matthew; Senior Analyst @ National Institute for Public Policy; Occasional Paper, “A Net Assessment of “No First Use” and “Sole Purpose” Nuclear Policies,” vol. 1; AS]

leaders will believe opponents find policy to be credible officials may feel unjustified confidence conventional operations remain conventional instead of assessing risks of nuclear escalation in the face of conventional superiority that could lead to defeat

U.S. leaders will believe opponents will find U.S. policy to be credible .S. officials may feel an unjustified sense of confidence conventional operations will remain at the conventional level instead of accurately assessing the risks of an opponent’s nuclear escalation in the face of conventional U.S. superiority that could lead to their defeat

believe credible unjustified sense confidence conventional level accurately assessing nuclear escalation lead to their defeat

['The second significant danger is that U.S. leaders will believe, and act on their belief, that opponents will find U.S. policy to be credible. That is, if U.S. officials enter a crisis or conflict believing that the adversary is sufficiently reassured that the United States will not attack them with nuclear weapons, then they may feel an unjustified sense of confidence that conventional operations will remain at the conventional level, instead of accurately assessing the risks of an opponent’s nuclear escalation in the face of conventional U.S. superiority that could lead to their defeat. Ironically, it appears that if U.S. officials adopt a nuclear no first use or sole purpose policy, they should assume the opponent will not be reassured or believe U.S. policy—all for the purpose of not becoming complacent about the risks of an opponent’s nuclear escalation.']

[(0, 11)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-BaCa-Neg-4---Harvard-Round-3.docx

Dartmouth

BaCa

0d23a2af15e5ff77751172fb6577078c1783f8d6f8823ad0594d905fe2bb0eb0

Prior Approval

Loughlin and Oliver 10-28-2021, (Chuck Loughlin, Leigh Oliver, “FTC establishes broad policy to require prior approval provisions in all merger divestiture orders,” )

Prior Approval will discourage companies from anticompetitive” deals, demanding prior approval extend beyond relevant markets will create uncertainty and increase the burden on merging parties The effect could be more litigation that it may seek prior approval provisions would require parties using resources on expensive litigation This provision could push more parties to litigate mergers

Prior Approval the FTC is hoping that the more liberal use of prior approval provisions will discourage companies from anticompetitive” deals, demanding prior approval provisions which may extend beyond the relevant markets affected will create uncertainty and increase the burden on merging parties The effect could be parties take more cases to litigation rather than agree to consent decrees the Commission’s suggestion that it may seek prior approval provisions even when parties abandon a merger would necessarily require the FTC to continue a litigation parties using resources on expensive litigation that is no longer needed . This provision could push more parties to litigate mergers

Prior Approval extend beyond relevant markets uncertainty increase the burden on merging parties even when parties abandon a merger parties using resources on expensive litigation more parties to litigate

['', 'Analysis', 'The FTC’s Prior Approval Statement explains that the FTC is hoping that the more liberal use of prior approval provisions will discourage companies from moving ahead with “facially anticompetitive” deals, preserve Commission resources, and flag anticompetitive deals that fall below the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) thresholds and do not trigger federal reporting requirements. Certainly, demanding prior approval provisions—which may extend beyond the relevant markets affected by the merger—will create uncertainty and increase the burden on merging parties. The effect could be that parties take more cases to litigation rather than agree to consent decrees with prior approval provisions that go beyond the scope of the challenged transaction. Moreover, the Commission’s suggestion that it may seek prior approval provisions even when parties abandon a merger would necessarily require the FTC to continue a litigation even after the parties abandoned the deal, using up important Commission resources on expensive litigation that is no longer needed to block the transaction at issue that allegedly has an imminent threat of harming competition. This provision, and others that stretch beyond the transaction at issue, could push more parties to litigate mergers that they would otherwise abandon. After all, if the FTC is going to litigate the issues in the case in order to secure a prior approval provision, then parties may be less willing to abandon the deal in the first place. The Commission appears to hope that these requirements result in less deal activity to begin with, but that is not at all certain.', '', '', '']

[(0, 8), (20, 25)]

ndtceda

Kansas-Barreto-Snow-Aff-Shirley-Octas.docx

Kansas

BaSn

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kansas/BaSn/Kansas-Barreto-Snow-Aff-Shirley-Octas.docx

d045bc9831cb822fed45b0f33f3edac25583ffb9e9f8a6cc4a1b4cf15c999f1f

The CP is advice of agency intent with no binding force

Dr. Nicholas R. Parrillo 19, Professor of Law and Professor of History at Yale Law School, JD from Yale Law School, PhD in American Studies from Yale University, AB in History and Literature from Harvard University, “Should the Public Get to Participate Before Federal Agencies Issue Guidance? An Empirical Study”, Administrative Law Review, Volume 71, Issue 1, 71 ADMIN. L. REV. 57, Winter 2019, Lexis

officials provide "guidance," that is, general statements advising on how proposes to interpret law regulations that officially bind known as "legislative rules" guidance, unlike is not binding It is only a suggestion --a mere announcement of current thinking not something agency will follow ironclad

officials provide the public with lots of "guidance," that is, general statements advising the public on how the agency proposes to exercise discretion or interpret law Full-blown regulations that officially bind the agency and the public-- known as "legislative rules" --can be enacted by an agency only through a costly, time-consuming set of procedures imposed by the (APA), including notice and comment By contrast , agencies can issue guidance without any such process, because of the APA's exemptions for "general statements of policy" and "interpretative rules," which together cover guidance in all its varieties guidance, unlike a legislative rule , is not binding on the agency or the public. It is only a suggestion --a mere tentative announcement of the agency's current thinking about what to do in individual adjudicatory or enforcement proceedings, not something the agency will follow in an automatic, ironclad manner as it would a legislative rule agency officials, in real life , are not tentative or flexible when it comes to guidance but instead follow guidance as if it were binding and regulated parties are under coercive pressure to do the same

"guidance," general statements proposes regulations officially bind "legislative rules" unlike a legislative rule not binding only a suggestion mere tentative announcement current thinking not automatic, ironclad manner real life not tentative or flexible instead as if it were binding coercive pressure

['For individuals and firms regulated by federal agencies, actual regulations are just the beginning of the story. Despite being voluminous and complex, regulations leave numerous important decisions to the agency\'s discretion or interpretation. Individuals and firms want to know how the agency will use its discretion and how it will read the regulations\' ambiguous provisions. And agency officials want individuals and firms to have that knowledge in order to facilitate compliance. So officials provide the public with lots of "guidance," that is, general statements advising the public on how the agency proposes to exercise discretion or interpret law. Guidance comes in an endless variety of labels and formats, depending on the agency: advisories, circulars, bulletins, memos, interpretive letters, enforcement manuals, fact sheets, FAQs, highlights, you name it. Nobody knows exactly how much guidance there is, because it is not comprehensively collected anywhere, but its page count for any given agency is estimated to dwarf that of actual regulations by a factor of twenty, forty, or even [*168] two hundred. Guidance is "the bread and butter of agency practice," declares a veteran EPA lawyer. "I cannot imagine a world without guidance," says a former senior FDA official.', 'Though guidance is a ubiquitous and essential feature of the administrative state, it is also controversial. Full-blown regulations that officially bind the agency and the public--known as "legislative rules"--can be enacted by an agency only through a costly, time-consuming set of procedures imposed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including notice and comment, in which the parties who will be bound by a policy can participate in its formulation before it is set in stone. By contrast, agencies can issue guidance without any such process, because of the APA\'s exemptions for "general statements of policy" and "interpretative rules," which together cover guidance in all its varieties. Thus guidance can be produced and altered much faster, in higher volume, and with less accountability than legislative rules can. What justifies this disparity, in the familiar telling, is that guidance, unlike a legislative rule, is not binding on the agency or the public. It is only a suggestion--a mere tentative announcement of [*169] the agency\'s current thinking about what to do in individual adjudicatory or enforcement proceedings, not something the agency will follow in an automatic, ironclad manner as it would a legislative rule. Guidance is supposed to leave space for the agency\'s case-by-case discretion. If a particular individual or firm wants to do something (or wants the agency to do something) that is different than what the guidance suggests, the agency is supposed to give fair consideration to that alternative approach. If officials treat guidance with this kind of flexibility, it doesn\'t seem so bad for the agency to be unconstrained in issuing guidance to begin with.', 'The great fear is that agency officials, in real life, are not tentative or flexible when it comes to guidance but instead follow guidance as if it were a binding legislative rule, and regulated parties are under coercive pressure to do the same. If true, this complaint reveals a giant loophole in the APA: agencies can issue de facto regulations at will, simply by calling them "guidance," with no say from individuals and firms who will be effectively bound. The fear and the controversy have burned for decades, and most hotly in the last few years, giving rise to expos-s, congressional hearings, bills, a 4-4 Supreme Court [*170] deadlock, and a directive from then-Attorney General Sessions condemning "improper guidance documents."']

[(16, 27)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-Adam-Kiihnl-Neg-Northwestern-Round3.docx

Kentucky

AdKi

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kentucky/AdKi/Kentucky-Adam-Kiihnl-Neg-Northwestern-Round3.docx

5febbd9b1c11dbbf23868618329b16993fd85f967d4580459b6422e1b238010b

4---Growth increases war---both funds AND motivates aggression

Lucas Hahn 16, Bryant University, Senior Staff Accountant at EDF Renewables, “Global Economic Expansion and the Prevalence of Militarized Interstate Disputes,” April 2016, https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/honors_economics/24/

caches of resources lead to violence as governments compet to gain access growth lead to increased military/defense spending this war chest may pay for new or continuing military engagements in this way, nations may be able to engage in more conflict expansion builds confidence to a point where they feel invincible expansion, actually increases MIDs trade cheapened war

economic factors are leading to an increase in MIDs the presence of significant caches of resources has been shown to lead to violence as corrupt governments take advantage Violent conflict can also exist between the multiple nations that are compet ing to gain access or control over natural resources in a given area He states that economic growth can lead to increased military/defense spending and that this buildup of a nation’s “ war chest ” may be used to pay for new or continuing military engagements increased economic power often leads to greater capabilities of the nation-state as a whole particularly true in terms of military capabilities and in this way, nations may thus be able to engage in more conflict positive economic expansion builds up the confidence of the nation to a point where they may feel invincible and thus, engage in violent conflict that will help them to continue to expand economic expansion, actually increases MIDs increased economic interdependence and trade may have, in some ways, “ cheapened war ”, and thus made it easier to wage war more frequently

economic factors increase in MIDs significant caches resources lead to violence take advantage compet to gain access control over natural resources increased military/defense spending new or continuing military engagements capabilities military capabilities able more conflict feel invincible engage in violent conflict increases MIDs economic interdependence trade cheapened war easier to wage war more frequently

['Economic Factors Leading to Increased Militarized Interstate Disputes ', 'Running counter to the arguments that global economic expansion has led to a decline in MIDs throughout the world, there is a large body of literature that claims the exact opposite. In particular, some authors argue that the recent declines that have been observed are a direct result of a decline in conflict after major spikes during the World Wars and the Cold War. The following section will highlight four different economic factors that are potentially leading to an increase in MIDs. These four factors include: (1) imperialism and resources, (2) the “War-Chest Proposition”, (3) Neo-Marxist views on asymmetrical trade, and (4) interdependence versus interconnectedness. ', '1. Imperialism and Resources ', 'The presence of imperialism between the 17th and early 20th centuries was, in a way, a precursor to globalization today. During this period of time the most developed nations worked to expand their empires and in doing so, began to connect the people of the world for the first time. However, while there were many positive benefits of this expansion, there were also many negative happenings that led to violent conflict. As Arquilla (2009, 73) frames it imperialism involved commercial practices (often supported by military force) that took advantage of the colonized people and ultimately destroyed their way of life. Thus, the increased economic expansion that was brought about in order to build the empire, often led to violent encounters. ', 'More specifically, imperialism and the conquest of particular regions was often done in an effort to gain access to that region’s natural resources. Authors such as Schneider (2014) state that undeveloped nations or regions are often subject to what he refers to as the “domestic resource curse”. Basically, during the times of imperialism, the more powerful nations would go to undeveloped areas and take whatever they wanted or needed from areas that were rich with resources5. This often involved a great deal of conflict and the native people were often exploited. In modern times, the presence of significant caches of national resources, particularly in Africa, has been shown to lead to violence as corrupt governments and warlords take advantage of those native to the area. Additionally, as Barbieri (1996) points out, conflict over resources may not be limited to an imperialist nation’s encounter with the undeveloped region. Violent conflict can also exist between the multiple nations that are competing to gain access or control over natural resources in a given area. ', '2. The “War Chest Proposition” ', 'Building on the previous discussion, Boehmer (2010) proposes something that he calls the “War-Chest Proposition”. He states that economic growth can lead to increased military/defense spending and that this buildup of a nation’s “war chest” may be used to pay for new or continuing military engagements (251). In other words, increased economic power often leads to greater capabilities of the nation-state as a whole. This is particularly true in terms of military capabilities and in this way, nations may thus be able to engage in more conflict. Furthermore, he argues that positive economic expansion builds up the confidence of the nation to a point where they may feel invincible and thus, engage in violent conflict that will help them to continue to expand. ', '3. Neo-Marxist Views on Asymmetrical Trade ', 'One of the most supported arguments against the notion that economic expansion promotes peace is that trade, brought about by economic expansion, actually increases MIDs. Many authors have in fact argued that increased economic interdependence and increased trade may have, in some ways, “cheapened war”, and thus made it easier to wage war more frequently (Harrison and Nikolaus 2012).']

[(6, 13)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-Deo-Fridman-Aff-NUSO-Round1.docx

Northwestern

DeFr

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Northwestern/DeFr/Northwestern-Deo-Fridman-Aff-NUSO-Round1.docx

f5443ed4b7547fb86fb1d643232df0a3f0b7c5c8da206bb637da33e7b4faffbd

Reassurance is not FIATed, it’s a result.

Jon B. Wolfsthal. 19. Director of the Nuclear Crisis Group and a senior advisor at Global Zero. “3. Nuclear First-Use Is Dangerous and Unnecessary”. Texas National Security Review. 7-2-19. https://tnsr.org/roundtable/policy-roundtable-nuclear-first-use-and-presidential-authority/#essay3

hard to see which ally respond to coordinated move by breaking with U.S. alliance structure withdrawing from N p T and building nuc s countries facing security challenges , remains unlikely states prolif by decision to maintain strong alliance and credible retal posture adopting NFU likely lead to steps to increase credibility of conventional and political commitments

Advocates for maintaining first-use claim, with little evidence , that adopting an NFU would lead allies to reconsider their own non-nuclear status it is hard to see which U.S. ally would respond to a coordinated move by the United States to adopt NFU by breaking with the U.S. alliance structure withdrawing from the Nuclear N on p roliferation T reaty, and building nuc lear weapon s countries in Europe and Asia are facing complex security and political challenges . Yet , it remains unlikely “front line” states are likely to be driven to prolif erate by a U.S. decision to maintain a strong alliance and a credible retal iatory nuclear posture the U S adopting NFU would likely lead to steps to increase the credibility of U.S. conventional and political commitments to allied security.

with little evidence hard to see coordinated move breaking with the U.S. alliance structure withdrawing it remains unlikely maintain a strong alliance credible retal iatory nuclear posture likely increase the credibility

['Advocates for maintaining a first-use posture also claim, with little evidence, that adopting an NFU posture would lead allies to reconsider their own non-nuclear status.69 In theory, this is a risk. Decades ago, the extension of the U.S. nuclear umbrella influenced the decision of states to forgo independent nuclear options during the Cold War and commit instead to an international nonproliferation norm. Any proliferation now, even by a close U.S. ally, would be met with global concern and a collective response.70', 'In reality, it is hard to see which U.S. ally would respond to a coordinated move by the United States to adopt NFU by breaking with the U.S. alliance structure, withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and building nuclear weapons. To be sure, countries in Europe and Asia are facing complex security and political challenges. Yet, it remains unlikely that Germany, South Korea, Poland, or other “front line” states are likely to be driven to proliferate by a U.S. decision to maintain a strong alliance and a credible retaliatory nuclear posture while adopting an NFU pledge. Indeed, the United States adopting NFU would likely lead to steps to increase the credibility of U.S. conventional and political commitments to allied security.', '']

[(7, 21)]

ndtceda

Emory-MiPi-Aff-5---Long-Beach-Round-6.docx

Emory

MiPi

50f6882744b41083d09b60bfb8f66ceaf7904db9d690785249dfd8c09c27d74f

A.I. as “legal person” would get challenged – forcing The Judiciary to render “fetal personhood” determinations. Roe’s departure means The Judiciary no longer has its “easy out” for dodging such inquiries.

Willick ‘83

the e Court refused to resolve when life begins, decided on other grounds The court be taken aback law denying protections to individuals that would, become recognized human persons, while it protected individuals that could never be If computers are ever considered attaining personality, the courts could be caught up in just such a task.

denial of the legal status of "persons" to fetuses by the Suprem e Court 35 stirred a social and political struggle which is still escalating Roe v Wade The Court simply stated that "'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn." The Court reasoned that personhood for constitutional protection depended on a finding of "life." Texas maintained that human life began at conception and that constitutional guarantees attached at that time The Court refused to resolve the question of when life begins, The Court then decided the case on other grounds where a computer has gained access to a court and is resisting a claim of ownership a human party- opponent might well argue the abortion decisions should be dispositive Alleging that a finding of life is a necessary precondition to the existence of a legal interest the human could move for dismissal The court might well be taken aback by assertion that the law was denying protections to individuals that would, become recognized human persons, while it protected individuals that could never be human The contrast is between a biological individual that would at some point be considered a human though at the critical time exhibiting no intelligent behavior and a mechanical individual that would never be human The abortion decisions however, were ultimately decided on grounds other than "definition-of-life'' language. The court might decide the case to avoid answering such questions If computers are ever nonetheless considered as attaining personality, the courts could be caught up in just such a task. The potential problems would be staggering

['Marshal S. Willick - Attorney at Law Nevada Supreme Court staff Carson City, Nevada - “ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: Some Legal Approaches and Implications” - THE AI MAGAZINE Summer 1983 – modified for language that may offend – continues to footnote #35 – not text omitted - #E&F - https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/392/328. ', 'The denial of the legal status of "persons" to fetuses by the Supreme Court 35 stirred a social and political struggle which in many regards is still escalating 36. (continues to footnote 35) Roe v Wade, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973). The Court simply stated that "\'person,\' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." Id. p. 729. The Court had reasoned that personhood, for constitutional protection, depended upon a finding of "life." Texas, seeking to uphold state restrictions on abortion, maintained that human life began at conception, and that constitutional guarantees attached at that time. The Court refused to resolve the question of when life begins, stating: When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man\'s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.37 The Court then examined in detail the history of medical, philosophical, theological and legal definitions of life, but decided the case, finally, on other grounds. Proponents of the various stands on abortion today perceive the gist of the conflict in different ways. Some view abortion decisions as strictly moral judgments which are reflective of the nation\'s moral fabric.38 Others see abortion as a purely religious question.39 Still others maintain that regulation of abortion, presumptively based on a resolution of when life begins, is in reality a ruse to hide economic discrimination against women.40 One commentator dismissed the various labels attributed to abortion decisions as merely semantic. In examining the legal struggle over abortion, he said: "[I]n America,... moral issues become legal issues, and legal issues become constitutional issues What is right must be legal, and what is wrong must be unconstitutional" .41 Returning to the situation posited above, where a computer has gained access to a court and is resisting a claim of ownership, a human party-opponent might well argue that the abortion decisions should be dispositive of the case. Alleging that a finding of life is a necessary precondition to the existence of a legal interest, the human could move for dismissal of the suit based on the lack of proper parties.42 The court might well be taken aback by an assertion that the law was denying protections to individuals that would, if allowed, become recognized human persons, while it protected individuals that could never be human. The contrast is between a biological individual that would at some point be considered a human being (though at the critical time exhibiting no intelligent behavior) and a mechanical individual that would never be human (though at the critical time exhibiting considerable intelligent behavior). The abortion decisions, however, were ultimately decided on grounds other than "definition-of-life\'\' language. Further, the decisions were very much concerned with human life, and did not even consider any alternatives. The abortion decisions could be read as establishing a focus on development of the individual; somewhere along an individual\'s linear course of development, a line can be crossed between the potential for personality and its actuality. For fetuses, the inquiry relates to given levels of physical development. In the case above, however, the court would have to determine the computer\'s knowledge of the world and whether that knowledge, in light of its structure as a machine, entitled it to legal recognition. The court might well decline jurisdiction (and thus decide the case) to avoid answering such questions. The court would thus be spared the necessity of deciding whether computers are "aware" of their surroundings or "understand" concepts, freeing it from an inherently philosophical task that could prove (as in Roe v. Wade to be beyond the ability of the judiciary "at this point in the development of man\'s knowledge".43 If computers are ever nonetheless viewed (considered) as individuals capable of attaining personality, the courts could be caught up in just such a task. Pressure will then be upon the legislature (as it is now concerning the abortion issue) to determine the necessary minimum requirements for legal recognition. Standards could be found in the satisfaction of some test of reasoning or by comparison with a model combination of hardware and software. The potential problems of enforcing such a scheme, however, would be staggering.', '']

[(0, 11)]

ndtceda

MichiganState-GeSc-Neg-UK-Round-6.docx

MichiganState

GeSc

90838976ba4d64595d757e4663ab1b418a6746356879a1aec83d9127e1112f40

Battery storage thumps fossil fuels

David Stringer 19, senior reporter @ Bloomberg, Aug 2 2019, "A Deluge of Batteries Is About to Rewire the Power Grid", Bloomberg, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-08-03/a-deluge-of-batteries-is-about-to-rewire-the-power-grid

solar and wind will supply half the electricity, bringing to an end coal and gas storage can be the leapfrog tech optimism abounds . Battery tech is near a tipping point By 2040 60% of new car sales will be electric Investors underestimate the impact falling battery prices will have as well as the speed change will come consequences will be profoundly negative for conventional utilities an unstoppable outcome .”

By 2050 solar and wind will supply almost half the world’s electricity, bringing to an end an energy era dominated by coal and gas It can’t happen without storage. storage can be the leapfrog tech nology that’s really needed in a world that’s focused on dramatic climate change It’s the killer app in a vision to move away from bulk delivery systems optimism abounds . Battery storage tech nology is near ing a tipping point like the one that accompanied the “massive” adoption of solar power some years ago Mainstream adoption of electric cars is the third great stage in the transformation of the global energy sector And it’s coming By 2040 , almost 60% of new car sales and about a third of passenger vehicles on the road will be electric . Automakers are becoming “a part of the electricity ecosystem,” Oil giants are also investing in storage In parts of the U.S., storage batteries are already a cheaper option than so-called peaking plants. These typically are environmentally unfriendly fossil-fuel-fired power stations As some coal-fired power stations are retired, “there could be a situation where, instead of building that new peaking plant, I am putting more storage on the grid,” Investors probably underestimate the impact falling battery prices will have on the energy sector, as well as the speed at which change will come The consequences , he says, “ will be profoundly negative for conventional utilities . That’s an almost unstoppable outcome .”

solar and wind bringing to an end coal and gas storage can be the leapfrog tech optimism abounds near ing a tipping point Oil giants are also investing in storage underestimate the impact falling battery prices will have speed profoundly negative unstoppable outcome

['By 2050 solar and wind will supply almost half the world’s electricity, bringing to an end an energy era dominated by coal and gas, according to forecasts by BloombergNEF, Bloomberg LP’s primary research service on energy transition.', 'It can’t happen without storage. The switch from an electricity system supplied by large fossil fuel plants that run virtually uninterrupted to a more haphazard mix of smaller, intermittent renewable sources needs energy storage to overcome two key hurdles: using power harvested during the day to supply peak energy demand in the evening and ensuring there’s power available even when the wind drops or the sun goes down.', '“We think storage can be the leapfrog technology that’s really needed in a world that’s focused on dramatic climate change,” says Mary Powell, chief executive officer of Green Mountain Power Corp., a utility based in Colchester, Vt., that’s worked with Tesla to deploy more than 2,000 residential storage batteries. “It’s the killer app in a vision to move away from bulk delivery systems to a community-, home-, and business-based energy system.”', 'Utilities aren’t panicking yet. The prospect of large numbers of residential consumers moving fully off the grid is probably overstated, says Zak Kuznar, managing director of microgrid and energy storage development at Duke Energy Corp., a Charlotte-based utility that supplies electricity to more than 7.5 million customers in six American states. “If you are wanting to run your home just on solar and batteries,” he says, “from where the technology is today, it’s going to be tough. It’s something we are keeping an eye on, but at this point it’s pretty overstated.”', 'Lithium-ion batteries continue to have limits in terms of the amount of energy they can store, and they’re typically able to supply energy to grids for just hours at a time, not days or weeks. What’s more, concerns are rising over the environmental costs of mining lithium in Chile’s parched Atacama Desert and over a cobalt industry that’s tarnished by the use of child labor in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to supply battery manufacturers. And the sector is just beginning to prepare for the future need to recycle or dispose of a torrent of expired battery packs.', 'Still, optimism abounds. Battery storage technology is nearing a tipping point like the one that accompanied the “massive” adoption of solar power some years ago, says David Frankel, a partner at McKinsey & Co. in Los Angeles whose clients include energy and industrial companies.', 'Mainstream adoption of electric cars is the third great stage in the transformation of the global energy sector—a natural outgrowth of the first two: the spread of cheaper renewable energy and the evolution of batteries, says Marcus Fendt, a managing director at Mobility House GmbH, a tech company in Munich.', 'And it’s coming, however slowly. By 2040, according to a BNEF forecast in May, almost 60% of new car sales and about a third of passenger vehicles on the road will be electric.', 'Automakers are becoming “a part of the electricity ecosystem,” as Renault’s Assef puts it. They’re not just making EVs that can return power to the grid. Like Tesla, Nissan produces and sells energy-storage products, while Volkswagen AG—the carmaker with the most aggressive timetable for adding electric models—plans to supply homes and small businesses with renewable energy through a retail power subsidiary, Elli Group GmbH.', 'Oil giants are also investing in storage. Through its New Energies division, Royal Dutch Shell Plc is spending about $2 billion a year on these technologies. The company says it wants to become the largest electrical power company in the world by the early 2030s. In addition to acquiring a U.K. electricity provider and a car-charging operator, Shell this year bought Germany’s Sonnen GmbH, a leading supplier of residential storage systems. In May, Shell announced plans to install industrial-scale batteries at two facilities in Ontario, a crude refinery and a motor oil plant. Chevron, Total, and BP have also made investments in electric car charging or storage companies.', 'In parts of the U.S., storage batteries are already a cheaper option than so-called peaking plants. These typically are environmentally unfriendly fossil-fuel-fired power stations that are needed only for a couple of weeks each summer, when electricity demand spikes, and are idle the rest of the time. As some coal-fired power stations are retired, “there could be a situation where, instead of building that new peaking plant, I am putting more storage on the grid,” says Duke Energy’s Kuznar.', 'Duke has outlined plans to invest more than $500 million in battery storage projects over the next 15 years. Other utilities from California to China are also considering how battery systems can be added to existing networks, potentially deferring or eliminating the need for some investments in power plants.', 'Investors probably underestimate the impact falling battery prices will have on the energy sector, as well as the speed at which change will come, says Tom King, chief investment officer at Nanuk Asset Management Pty., a Sydney-based fund that focuses on renewables and energy efficiency. The consequences, he says, “will be profoundly negative for conventional utilities. That’s an almost unstoppable outcome.”', '']

[(6, 17)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-Landgraff-Wegener-Aff-Navy-Round6.docx

Northwestern

LaWe

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Northwestern/LaWe/Northwestern-Landgraff-Wegener-Aff-Navy-Round6.docx

2c1b241280348ca41847c064e41c0a2584b4e3c9315c1a32e9f98848b1a7a3fd

Assurance is at an all-time high---it’s overcome past shocks.

Kim ’23 [Seung Min; July 12; White House reporter citing official statements; Associated Press, “Biden proclaims NATO alliance ‘more united than ever’ in contrast to predecessor Trump,” https://apnews.com/article/president-joe-biden-white-house-nato-finland-716380d2299ccbfcfd73745a8327119a]

Trump upended alliance Biden’s was a rebuke portrait of leader whose belief in alliances will be part of reelection we will stay beginning , middle and end other leaders showed alliance “ more united than ever .” Though demand for an explicit path to NATO remained elusive emphasized agreements with countries would support Kyiv without entry Zelenskyy “ended up happy ” despite frustrations Turkey dropped objections to Sweden

Trump upended the annual gathering of the military alliance sided with Putin while casting doubt on his community Biden’s journey was a n unsaid yet indelible rebuke of his predecessor It was a portrait of a leader whose ardent belief in international alliances will be part of his case for reelection we will stay connected to NATO beginning , middle and end . We’re a transatlantic partnership . That’s what I’ve said demonstrate the force of the international coalition other NATO leaders showed alliance “ more united than ever .” Though Ukraine’s demand for an explicit path to NATO membership remained elusive , Biden emphasized that agreements with countries in the alliance would support Kyiv ’s long-term security even without its formal entry Zelenskyy “ended up very happy ” despite his expressed frustrations Turkey dropped its objections to Sweden paves the way for Sweden to become member of the alliance

upended gathering sided doubt community indelible rebuke portrait ardent belief alliances reelection will beginning middle end partnership demonstrate force more united demand explicit elusive agreements support even without very happy frustrations dropped paves

['The president was Donald Trump and the year was 2018. In July of that year, Trump had upended the annual gathering of the military alliance, criticized the British prime minister to the London tabloids and ultimately, in Helsinki, sided with Russian leader Vladimir Putin while casting doubt on his own intelligence community.', 'President Joe Biden’s journey through Europe this week was nearly identical, but every point of his three-country tour was an unsaid yet indelible rebuke of his predecessor who tore through the continent a half-decade ago. It was a portrait of a leader whose ardent belief in international alliances will be part of his case for reelection, particularly if Biden faces a rematch against Trump and his opposing worldviews next year.', '“Nobody can guarantee the future, but this is the best bet that anyone can make,” Biden said of the U.S. commitment to the 74-year-old military alliance. When a Finnish journalist noted that Biden said no one could make guarantees, he testily responded: “Let me be clear, I didn’t say ... we couldn’t guarantee the future. You can’t tell me whether you’re going to be able to go home tonight. No one can be sure what they’re going to do.”', 'Voice raised, he declared, “I’m saying, as sure as anything can possibly be said about American foreign policy, we will stay connected to NATO -- connected to NATO, beginning, middle and end. We’re a transatlantic partnership. That’s what I’ve said.”', 'His five-day trip to Europe — which wound through the United Kingdom, Lithuania and Finland — was meant to demonstrate the force of the international coalition against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And Biden appeared confident he had accomplished that mission, proclaiming that he and other NATO leaders showed the military alliance “more united than ever.”', 'Trump, in contrast, has often been dismissive of NATO. And in his news conference in Helsinki five years ago, he took issue with his own intelligence agencies’ firm finding that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. election to his benefit, seeming to accept Russian President Putin’s insistence that Moscow’s hands were clean.', 'Though Ukraine’s demand for an explicit path to NATO membership remained elusive, Biden emphasized that agreements with countries in the alliance would support Kyiv’s long-term security even without its formal entry. During a meeting with Finnish President Sauli Niinistö earlier Thursday, Biden insisted that Zelenskyy “ended up very happy” despite his expressed frustrations at the lack of a clear timetable for Ukraine to join the alliance.', 'Biden and other administration officials also held what aides said were pivotal conversations with Turkey before that country this week dropped its objections to Sweden joining NATO. That paves the way for Sweden to become the 32nd member of the alliance, after Finland formally joined earlier this year.']

[(0, 7)]

ndtceda

Michigan-ShGa-Neg-Kentucky-Round-1.docx

Michigan

ShGa

ce1bb6b42d74a2097ac74692aa491f1901117d2ad1f69d4d37df98a623601e58

Nuclear terrorism causes extinction.

Silky Kaur 23, PhD Jawaharlal Nehru University, Associate Fellow, Centre for Air Power Studies, The Global Nuclear Landscape: Energy, Non-proliferation and Disarmament, “Contemporary Missile Developments in United States and Russia post-INF Treaty,” Routledge, June 2023, pg. 199-202. [italics in original]

plutonium and H E U located in countries without rules Theft of .01 per cent cause global catastrophe threat to assets terrorists can use AI cyber deep fake to manipulate NC3 and signalling creating misperceptions and escalation of conflict With poisoning of data non-state actors stage escalatory attacks that draw states into crisis we live in the rise of global terror network allowing threats to manifest too severe

around 520 tons of separated plutonium and 1,335 tons of H ighly E nriched U ranium stocks are located in hundreds of buildings in two dozen countries without specific global rules and arrangements to secure nuclear weapons or the materials Theft of 0 .01 per cent of the world’s stockpile could cause a global catastrophe threat to nuclear assets is evolving and dynamic terrorists can use emerging technologies like AI cyber attack deep fake technology to manipulate NC3 nuclear doctrine posturing and signalling creating misperceptions and consequently escalation of nuclear conflict non-state actors can create misperceptions and escalation of the confict by generating fake videos of a leader suggesting they have deployed nuclear weapons With the corruption and poisoning of data non-state actors could stage escalatory attacks that can draw adversarial states into a nuclear crisis or falsely blame one state military and security establishment downplay the seriousness of nuclear terrorism we live in a world of the rise of a global terror ist network and the potential for terrorist use of nuclear weapons require new responses because the consequences of allowing latent threats to manifest or of allowing existing threats to spread are simply too severe

520 tons plutonium 1,335 tons H E U without specific secure 0 .01 per cent global catastrophe evolving dynamic AI cyber attack deep fake manipulate NC3 misperceptions escalation nuclear conflict fake videos poisoning escalatory attacks nuclear crisis downplay seriousness rise global terror ist network new responses manifest spread too severe

['Besides, around 520 tons of separated plutonium and 1,335 tons of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) stocks are located in hundreds of buildings, and bunkers, in two dozen countries without specific global rules and arrangements to secure nuclear weapons or the materials.23 Theft of 0.01 per cent of the world’s stockpile, opines Mathew Bunn, could cause a global catastrophe.', 'Emerging and Disruptive Technology', 'The threat to nuclear assets is evolving and dynamic. It can emanate from anywhere. Besides physical threats, terrorists can use emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI), cyber attack, deep fake technology to manipulate Nuclear Command, Control, and Communication (NC3), nuclear doctrine, posturing and signalling; creating misperceptions and, consequently escalation of nuclear conflict. In times of crisis, non-state actors can create misperceptions and escalation of the confict by generating fake videos of a leader suggesting that they have deployed nuclear weapons against an adversary. Though such attempts can be quickly detected, but once these videos become viral in social media, they will create widespread public chaos. “As ‘deep fake’ technology matures, it is likely to be salient in military information operations and can also create compulsions of a counterattack based on lies and fabrications.”24 ', 'With the corruption and poisoning of data, non-state actors could stage escalatory attacks that can draw adversarial states into a nuclear crisis or falsely blame one state for the actions of a non-state actor. In December 2016, a fake news story on a site claimed that Israel had threatened to attack Pakistan with nuclear weapons if Islamabad interfered in Syria. This triggered a Twitter response none other than by Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif, who indicated that Israel should remember that Pakistan is a nuclear-armed state. A prompt response from the Israeli Defence Ministry on the “fictitious” story put an end to the controversy. “This episode, however, highlights the potentially serious consequences of deliberate misinformation or manipulation of information, particularly in a crisis and in instances where the sides do not have reliable communication channels, or have a very short time to act on such information, or where local commanders have been delegated the authority to launch theatre nuclear weapons or submarine-based systems. Such scenarios are particularly relevant in conflict-prone South Asia.”25', 'Never say ‘No’ ', 'Unfortunately, in most instances, many, in the military and security establishment as well as intelligentsia, downplay the seriousness of nuclear terrorism. They often advance their “solemn word” that “our nuclear weapons are safe, secure and under complete institutional and professional control.”26 The UN Report A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility (2004) observes that “we live in a world of new and evolving threats where new aspects of the threat…including the rise of a global terrorist network, and the potential for terrorist use of nuclear (biological or chemical) weapons—require new responses” because “the consequences of allowing latent threats to become manifest, or of allowing existing threats to spread, are simply too severe.”27 ', '', '']

[(6, 13)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-GaSl-Aff-ADA-Nationals-Round-1.docx

Kentucky

GaSl

2e47d42e6605f8a8827c76b9db673fa39567a535ae41f6d751aa8b2f6f45d7f1

Other countries---causes conflict---rapid escalation in the capabilities of AI causes destabilizing military conflict and the use of autonomous weapons.

Dr. Riccardo Campa et al. 21, PhD, Professor of Sociology and Director of the History of Ideas Research Centre at Jagiellonian University in Cracow, Poland, also Fellow of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, “Electronic persons. It is premature to grant personhood to machines but never say never”, Gregorianum 101, 4 (2020) 793-812

it is too early to grant rights to machines this step could be dangerous in relation to war robotic weapons are now used in the battlefield when decision-making speed exceeds humans the only way to defend will be to oppose with another autonomous system fighting will be entirely ‘in the hands’ of machines

we think it is too early to grant rights to machines Taking this step prematurely could be dangerous Problems could arise in relation to war crimes as a growing number of robotic weapons are now used in the battlefield when the autonomous weapon system’s decision-making speed exceeds that of humans the only way to defend oneself against it will be to oppose it with another autonomous weapon system The fighting will be entirely ‘in the hands’ of machines because the side that decides to retain human control would lose out This scenario raises concerns for the fate of soldiers and the civilian population

too early grant rights to machines dangerous war crimes robotic weapons decision-making speed oppose it another autonomous weapon system entirely ‘in the hands’ of machines concerns

['We do not dismiss this possibility either. The reasons why we think it is too early to grant rights to machines are rather pragmatic ones. Taking this step prematurely could be dangerous for human workers, because it would exempt the entrepreneurs from responsibility, leaving human workers without protection. Problems could also arise in relation to war crimes, as a growing number of robotic weapons are now used in the battlefield. As Caruana rightly notices, «when the autonomous weapon system’s decision-making speed exceeds that of humans, the only way to defend oneself against it will be to oppose it with another autonomous weapon system. The fighting will be entirely ‘in the hands’ of machines because the side that decides to retain human control would lose out»17. This scenario raises ethical concerns for the fate of human soldiers and the civilian population, and it has been explored in several studies18.', '', '']

[(13, 28)]

ndtceda

Emory-HeMi-Neg-Owen-L-Coon-Memorial-Tournament-at-Northwestern-Round-4.docx

Emory

HeMi

b434ff60ffddb0152c102aa0e1a637147111c393a02cc14369bab4794f1b11cc

Biden executive order outweighs.

Posner 21, professor at the University of Chicago Law School (Eric, 7-21-2021, "The Antitrust War’s Opening Salvo", Project Syndicate, )

Biden’s executive order is significant Biden is the first president since Truman to take a strong public The executive order accuses businesses of unfair practices in tech ag health and telecom s

Biden’s new executive order is more significant for what it says Biden is the first president since Truman to take a strong public and he has backed it up by ardent anti-monopoly advocates to his government. The executive order is ambitious in its scope and style it accuses businesses of monopolistic and unfair practices in major industries tech nology, ag riculture, health care, and telecom munication s The order also establishes a new bureaucratic organization in the White House to lead the anti-monopoly effort

significant says strong public ardent advocates ambitious scope style unfair practices new bureaucratic organization anti-monopoly effort

['CHICAGO – US President Joe Biden’s new executive order on “Promoting Competition in the American Economy” is more significant for what it says than for what it does. In fact, the order doesn’t actually order anything. Rather, it “encourages” federal agencies with authority over market competition to use their existing legal powers to do something about the growing problem of monopoly and cartelization in the United States. In some cases, the relevant agencies are asked merely to “consider” ramping up enforcement; in others, they are directed to issue regulations, but the content of those regulations remains largely up to them.', 'Nonetheless, it would be a mistake to dismiss the order’s tentative language as mere rhetoric. Antitrust is the main body of law governing market competition in the US, and it has been the object of sustained attack by business interests and conservative intellectuals for more than 50 years. Biden is the first president since Harry Truman to take a strong public\xa0, and he has backed it up by\xa0\xa0ardent anti-monopoly advocates to his government.', 'The executive order is ambitious in its scope and style. In strongly worded passages, it accuses businesses of monopolistic and unfair practices in major industries, including technology, agriculture, health care, and telecommunications. It laments the decline of government antitrust enforcement, and identifies numerous harms that have resulted – including economic stagnation and rising inequality.', 'The order also establishes a new bureaucratic organization in the White House to lead the anti-monopoly effort. Demanding a “whole-of-government” approach, it calls on the vast resources of numerous agencies, and not just the two that traditionally oversee antitrust (the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission).']

[(0, 6), (7, 9)]

ndtceda

Kansas-Barreto-Snow-Aff-Kentucky-Round5.docx

Kansas

BaSn

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kansas/BaSn/Kansas-Barreto-Snow-Aff-Kentucky-Round5.docx

806380591c70527824df89b53c900a1c34470272153dd1cb843dd8a45315dcde

Warming causes extinction

David Spratt 19, Research Director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration, Ian Dunlop, member of the Club of Rome, formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive, chairman of the Australian Coal Association, May 2019, “Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach,” https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_b2c0c79dc4344b279bcf2365336ff23b.pdf

existential risk may be annihilating intelligent life commitments to Paris do not include “long-term” carbon-cycle feedbacks , which are unprecedented 4° is devastating to ecosystems high probability of being beyond adaptation impact could be catastrophic by 2050 humanity must choose between unprecedented action , or accepting the consequences the present path will end civilisation “fat-tail” events threaten survival with a greater likelihood of warming in excess of average amount predicted by models

existential risk to civilisation is posing permanent large negative consequences which may never be undone annihilating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtailing its potential With commitments by nations to the 2015 Paris Agreement, the current path of warming is 3°C or more But this figure do es not include “long-term” carbon-cycle feedbacks , which are materially relevant now and in the near future due to the unprecedented rate at which human activity is perturbing the climate system warming of 4° C is incompatible with an organised global community, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems and has a high probability of not being stable beyond adaptation an existential threat may also exist for many peoples and regions at a significantly lower level of warming 3°C of warming was categorised as “catastrophic” high- impact warming could be catastrophic by 2050 . climate change is now reaching the end-game where very soon humanity must choose between taking unprecedented action , or accepting that it has been left too late and bear the consequences if we continue down the present path “there is a very big risk that we will just end our civilisation Prudent risk-management means a tough, objective look at the real risks to which we are exposed, especially at those “fat-tail” events , which may have consequences that are damaging beyond quantification, and threaten the survival of human civilisation . Global warming projections display a “fat-tailed” distribution with a greater likelihood of warming that is well in excess of the average amount of warming predicted by climate models , and are of a higher probability than would be expected

permanent large negative consequences annihilating intelligent life Paris carbon-cycle feedbacks unprecedented rate devastating majority of ecosystems high probability beyond adaptation end-game taking unprecedented action bear the consequences end our civilisation “fat-tail” events threaten the survival of human civilisation greater likelihood excess of the average amount of warming predicted by climate models

['An existential risk to civilisation is one posing permanent large negative consequences to humanity which may never be undone, either annihilating intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtailing its potential. ', 'With the commitments by nations to the 2015 Paris Agreement, the current path of warming is 3°C or more by 2100. But this figure does not include “long-term” carbon-cycle feedbacks, which are materially relevant now and in the near future due to the unprecedented rate at which human activity is perturbing the climate system. Taking these into account, the Paris path would lead to around 5°C of warming by 2100. ', 'Scientists warn that warming of 4°C is incompatible with an organised global community, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable. The World Bank says it may be “beyond adaptation”. But an existential threat may also exist for many peoples and regions at a significantly lower level of warming. In 2017, 3°C of warming was categorised as “catastrophic” with a warning that, on a path of unchecked emissions, low-probability, high-impact warming could be catastrophic by 2050. ', 'The Emeritus Director of the Potsdam Institute, Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, warns that “climate change is now reaching the end-game, where very soon humanity must choose between taking unprecedented action, or accepting that it has been left too late and bear the consequences.” He says that if we continue down the present path “there is a very big risk that we will just end our civilisation. The human species will survive somehow but we will destroy almost everything we have built up over the last two thousand years.”11 ', 'Unfortunately, conventional risk and probability analysis becomes useless in these circumstances because it excludes the full implications of outlier events and possibilities lurking at the fringes.12 ', 'Prudent risk-management means a tough, objective look at the real risks to which we are exposed, especially at those “fat-tail” events, which may have consequences that are damaging beyond quantification, and threaten the survival of human civilisation. ', 'Global warming projections display a “fat-tailed” distribution with a greater likelihood of warming that is well in excess of the average amount of warming predicted by climate models, and are of a higher probability than would be expected under typical statistical assumptions. More importantly, the risk lies disproportionately in the “fat-tail” outcomes, as illustrated in Figure 1. ']

[(6, 15)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-DeWe-Aff-Franklin-R-Shirley-Round-6-Round-6.docx

Northwestern

DeWe

769b04367bb7d6b07fab42949f15b4f3731478ec5009de4d0889c5ed04f4bc12

Precision agriculture is an impact filter—it prevents food shortages, mass starvation, warming, and air, water, and soil pollution

Keerthi 16 – Strategic Consultant in Agriculture at IndustryARC (Ravi, “Precision Agriculture: The Potential Solution for Looming Food Shortage and Environmental Issues”, Linkedin Pulse, , March 17, 2016)

Precision agriculture is proven to meet rising requirements of crop production India and Africa are expected to produce 60% and 15% of domestic food demand in 2030 precision farming is capable of addressing food shortage Ag land accounts for 14% of (GHG) managing crop production is key for reducing GHG emission Excess use of pesticides leads to air, water and soil pollution reduce environmental impact through precision spraying PA reducing usage of land, chemicals, water, machinery and manpower

developing economies are expected to face food shortage issues if current agricultural productivity growth remains stagnant in the coming years food shortage issues are expected to be more severe in Asia where population is mounting consistently Declining arable land and shortage of agricultural labor are also key issues that are compounding the concerns Precision agriculture (PA) is proven to be economical and environmentally sustainable approach to meet the rising requirements of crop production Controlled operations of machinery will help the farmer to manage the cost as well as reduce the emissions that affect the climate Food Shortages and Productivity Its high time for agricultural systems of India to embrace the precision agriculture India and Africa are expected to produce 60% and 15% of their domestic food demand in 2030 To overcome the incoming food shortages Agricultural systems in these nations are expected to establish institutes to provide guidance on transforming conventional farming into precision farming which is capable of addressing food shortage issues Eco-Friendly Ag ricultural land covers around 35% of the total land area and also accounts for nearly 14% of the total global Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions With the population booming farming communities will be challenged with an intent to reduce the GHG emissions while increasing the overall yield Adjusting the methods for managing crop production with precise application of inputs is a key element for reducing the GHG emission Excess use of pesticides leads to environmental issues like air, water and soil pollution considerable number of samples from groundwater, rivers and wells are proven to contain high pesticide concentrations pesticides causes harm to aquatic animals Several chemicals used in pesticides are perpetual soil contaminants whose impact remains for decades and adversely affect the soil conservation agrochemicals reduce their environmental impact which is possible through the use of precision spraying equipment Economical Precision agriculture (PA) aids the farmers in decision making for efficient farm management reporting the farm variability in real-time to various stake holders has become a key factor for decision making which can be achieved by data management solutions Increasing usage of machinery and large scale farming stimulated the usage of in-field and remote sensing in the recent years that assists farmers to locate particular machinery or farm The annual savings in crop production is estimated to increase drastically in the coming years with the escalating penetration of precision agriculture especially in the developed agricultural economies Food and Agriculture regulatory bodies need to step forward to promote PA till it reaches granular level of farm operations thereby reducing the overall usage of land, chemicals, water, machinery and manpower

Food Shortages and Productivity India and Africa 60% and 15% food shortage Eco-Friendly GHG emission air, water and soil pollution precision spraying Economical efficient farm management land, chemicals, water, machinery and manpower

['', 'The food, fiber, fuel and feed needs are growing rapidly on a global scale with rising population. The global population is estimated to reach 9.6 billion by 2050. Many developing and under developed economies are expected to face food shortage issues if current agricultural productivity growth remains stagnant in the coming years. These food shortage issues are expected to be more severe in Asia and Africa where population is mounting consistently. Declining arable land and shortage of agricultural labor are also key issues that are compounding the concerns. Precision agriculture (PA) which has emerged in 1980s is proven to be economical and environmentally sustainable approach to meet the rising requirements of crop production. Controlled operations of machinery will help the farmer to manage the cost as well as reduce the emissions that affect the climate. The use of precision agricultural systems is very high in the U.S. and Western Europe mainly due to large-scale farming practices and high adoption of agricultural technologies. However, with the proven profitability and rising awareness the precision agriculture is expected to spread rapidly in the global agricultural space. Food Shortages and Productivity: Its high time for agricultural systems of India and Africa to embrace the precision agriculture. At the current growth rate of agricultural production, India and Africa are expected to produce 60% and 15% of their domestic food demand in 2030. To overcome the incoming food shortages, government agencies as well as research institutes have been partnering to educate the farmers and encourage the adoption of precision agriculture. Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia (CSISA) is one of such initiatives focusing on spreading awareness on controlled use of fertilizers in South Asia. In the recent years, U.S. Aid and Bill & Melinda gates foundation have been actively funding to strengthen these initiatives. Soil testing equipment and precise fertilizer applicators have a huge role to play in these nations as farmers have been realizing the adverse effects on soil fertility due to excess application of chemical fertilizers. Agricultural systems in these nations are expected to establish institutes to provide guidance on transforming conventional farming into precision farming which is capable of addressing food shortage issues. Eco-Friendly: Agricultural land covers around 35% of the total land area and also accounts for nearly 14% of the total global Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. With the population booming across the globe, farming communities will be challenged with an intent to reduce the GHG emissions while increasing the overall yield. Declining arable land and agricultural labor is also one of the major factors for excess use of machinery and fertilizers. Adjusting the methods for managing crop production with precise application of inputs is a key element for reducing the GHG emission. Excess use of pesticides leads to environmental issues like air, water and soil pollution. In the survey on water samples conducted in the U.S. and U.K., considerable number of samples from groundwater, rivers and wells are proven to contain high pesticide concentrations. In addition, these pesticides causes harm to aquatic animals. Several chemicals used in pesticides are perpetual soil contaminants whose impact remains for decades and adversely affect the soil conservation. Government of various nations have been emphasizing on scrupulous usage of agrochemicals to reduce their environmental impact which is possible through the use of precision spraying equipment. Economical: Balancing the yield and cost has become increasingly difficult for the agricultural workers. In the past two decades, there has been a paradigm shift in agricultural practices with the integration of technological and managerial systems to address the challenges of farming. Precision agriculture (PA) is one among such solutions that aids the farmers in decision making for efficient farm management. The technologies also help the farmer in evaluating the crop production cycle with yield monitoring. With the advent of corporate farming; reporting the farm variability in real-time to various stake holders has become a key factor for decision making which can be achieved by data management solutions. Increasing usage of machinery and large scale farming stimulated the usage of in-field and remote sensing in the recent years that assists farmers to locate particular machinery or farm. Variable rate fertilization, section/row controlled planting and precision spraying uses GPS and GIS for meticulous application of resources resulting in low-cost operations. Yield monitoring and data management solutions are estimated to grow faster in the coming years with the advent of cloud services and data analytics. According to the study conducted by Auburn University on 670,000 farms who adopted PA technologies in Alabama state, an average of $14.9 have been saved on input costs per acre in 2009. Furthermore, according to similar study, farmers reported 15% savings on crop inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and chemicals. With the adoption of precision agriculture the annual savings per each corn crop in U.S. is estimated to be around $9,000 in 2014. The annual savings in crop production is estimated to increase drastically in the coming years with the escalating penetration of precision agriculture especially in the developed agricultural economies. Manufacturers have been providing farm machinery which is equipped with advance devices in some or other form to address precision needs of farming. Around 70-80% of the machinery sold annually is equipped with precision systems in U.S. With the proven profitability coupled with need for higher crop yield and rising concern on carbon footprint; farmers of emerging economies are gradually realizing the importance of precision equipment. Food and Agriculture regulatory bodies need to step forward to promote PA till it reaches granular level of farm operations thereby reducing the overall usage of land, chemicals, water, machinery and manpower.', '', '', '', '']

[(0, 10)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-Davis-Parrish-Neg-MAC-Round1.docx

Minnesota

DaPa

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Minnesota/DaPa/Minnesota-Davis-Parrish-Neg-MAC-Round1.docx

1fb67390fd2e2fcbfa85611b26997ab29615209962e315192ef115ea2cc2d718

Impact uniqueness. States are considering nukes now, which proves assurance isn’t credible.

Dr. Paul van Hooft 21. Senior Strategic Analyst, Hague Centre for Strategic Studies; Ph.D., political science, University of Amsterdam. Postdoctoral fellow, Security Studies Program (SSP), Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “The US and Extended Deterrence.” Chapter 6 in Deterrence in the 21st Century—Insights from Theory and Practice, Frans Osinga and Tim Sweijs, eds. T.M.C. Asser Press. 2021. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/43303/1/2021_Book_NLARMSNetherlandsAnnualReviewO.pdf#page=107.

non-proliferation will not be sustainable if trends continue even in Europe remarkable debate on alternative nuclear arrangement emerged allies in Asia are questioning non-proliferation increasingly precarious commitment of the U.S. to alliances requires them to

non-proliferation stance of U.S. allies will not be sustainable if the trends above continue The NPR assuring allies depends on their confidence in credibility of U.S. extended nuclear deterrence this enables most allies to eschew possession of nuclear weapons Yet even in Europe , a remarkable debate on alternative European nuclear arrangement emerged allies in Asia are also questioning their non-proliferation stances An alternative is to rely on other nuclear states Another is acquisition of significant advanced conventional weapon capabilities increasingly precarious commitment of the U.S. to its European and Asian alliances requires them to do so.

will not be sustainable depends confidence credibility Yet Europe remarkable questioning precarious commitment requires

['Third, the non-proliferation stance of U.S. allies will not be sustainable if the trends above continue. The 2018 NPR reiterates established U.S. policy by effectively assuring allies and partners depends on their confidence in the credibility of U.S. extended nuclear deterrence. In turn, this enables most allies and partners to eschew possession of nuclear weapons, and consequently contributes to U.S. non-proliferation goals.89 Yet, even in Europe, a small but remarkable debate on alternative European nuclear arrangement emerged following the 2016 election of Donald Trump.90 U.S. allies in Asia are also questioning their non-proliferation stances. An alternative to pursuing independent nuclear weapons, with all the instability and risk of escalation that might ensue, is to rely on other nuclear states for their protection. For European allies, such options, theoretically, exist as the UK and France are nuclear weapon states with significant interests in European security. Another alternative is the acquisition of significant advanced conventional weapon capabilities by allies who fear U.S. abandonment. In doing so, they can significantly improve their deterrence by denial capabilities to partially compensate for the absence of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. U.S. allies should ask themselves these questions and seek for satisfactory answers. The increasingly precarious commitment of the U.S. to its European and Asian alliances requires them to do so.']

[(9, 21)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-BaCa-Aff-1---Northwestern-Round-6.docx

Dartmouth

BaCa

c7ea1d7190a0ff33cce951d9334144038490eb32d0b9f6a0ed4340033f2952fb

Any new policies cause both kinds of enforcement—that’s an intrinsic feature of the laws.

Brodley 95—(Professor of Law and Economics and Kennison Distinguished Scholar of Law, Boston University). Joseph F. Brodley. 1995. “Antitrust Standing in Private Merger Cases: Reconciling Private Incentives and Public Enforcement Goals”. 94 MICH. L. REV. 1. .

The dual enforcement goal that private augments public enforcement , is reflected in the statutes , legislative history , and judicial articulations . The antitrust statutes contain exceptionally powerful private remedies, comparable in scope to public enforcement. The statutes create a parallel system citing legislative histories of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act policy goals remain the same whether enforcement is public or private

1. Dual Enforcement The dual enforcement goal which recognizes that private enforcement augments public enforcement , is reflected in the statutes , legislative history , and consistent judicial articulations . The antitrust statutes contain exceptionally powerful private remedies, comparable in scope and effect to the remedies available under public enforcement. The statutes thereby create a parallel enforcement system complete with punitive sanctions, enforcement funding, and enabling processes. [BEGIN FOOTNOTE 36] citing legislative histories of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act that discuss how treble damages meet punitive purposes as well as other goals [END FOOTNOTE 36] Legislative history also reflects an intent to strengthen public enforcement through private suits substantive policy goals of antitrust enforcement remain the same whether enforcement is public or private .

1. Dual Enforcement dual enforcement goal private enforcement augments public enforcement statutes legislative history judicial articulations exceptionally powerful comparable in scope parallel enforcement system [BEGIN FOOTNOTE 36] legislative histories Sherman Act and Clayton Act [END FOOTNOTE 36] policy goals remain the same whether enforcement is public or private

['', '1. Dual Enforcement', "The dual enforcement goal, which recognizes that private enforcement augments public enforcement, is reflected in the statutes, legislative history, and consistent judicial articulations. The antitrust statutes contain exceptionally powerful private remedies, comparable in scope and effect to the remedies available under public enforcement. The statutes thereby create a parallel enforcement system, complete with punitive sanctions, enforcement funding, and enabling processes. Thus, the statutes contain the striking penalty of treble damages, attorney's fees by right for successful plaintiffs, expansive venue provisions, and other powerful procedures.35", 'Comparison of public and private remedies makes the statutory plan transparent. The trebling of damages is the private analogue to the public penalty of imprisonment and :fine.36 ', '[BEGIN FOOTNOTE 36]', '36. Although some have argued that trebling simply reflects discounting for the difficulty of detecting a hidden offense, RICHARD A. POSNER & FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, ANTITRUST 549-53, 555-59 {2d ed. 1981 & Supp. 1984), the ability to conceal is not a c95-ondition for trebling, which is mandatory. Thus, trebling adds a punitive amount, as the courts have noted. See Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-0-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 486 n.10 {1977) (citing legislative histories of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act that discuss how treble damages meet punitive purposes as well as other goals). ', '[END FOOTNOTE 36]', "The awarding of attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff is the analogue to the public funding of the Attorney General. Expanded venue and injunction remedies apply without distinction in both public and private actions. 37 Moreover, Congress expanded these remedies in 1976 by extending mandatory attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs to private injunction actions, including merger cases.38 ", 'Legislative history also reflects an intent to strengthen public enforcement through private suits - an intent particularly apparent in the Clayton Act and the 1976 Antitrust Improvements Act.39 The House Report on the 1976 Antitrust Improvements Act - the most recent legislation on private antitrust actions - explained that private actions "reflect the national policy of encouraging private parties ... to help enforce the antitrust laws. "40', 'Finally, the courts have repeatedly emphasized that private antitrust enforcement is designed "not merely to provide private relief, but ... to serve as well the high purpose of enforcing the antitrust laws."41 To that end, the antitrust statutes designate antitrust plaintiffs as" \'private attorneys general\' to enforce the antitrust laws,"42 and thereby to maintain "an ever-present threat" against antitrust wrongdoers.43 In private merger enforcement, these aspirations can be realized only if there are viable private enforcers, able and motivated to bring merger actions. ', '2. The Deterrence Goal ', 'Although private antitrust enforcement has both deterrence and compensation goals, deterrence is primary in private merger enforcement. To be sure, Supreme Court decisions in nonmerger cases differ in their relative emphasis on deterrence and compensation depending on the specific context of the case, but even here, the Court often emphasizes the deterrence aspect.44 Although some decisions have emphasized the compensation goal,45 in most of its decisions, the Supreme Court has recognized the key importance of deterrence. 46 ', 'Deterrence is paramount in private merger enforcement because the action is typically filed before the merger occurs and the remedy sought is an injunction to bar the merger. Thus, there is no present injury to be compensated but only a future injury to be prevented. For this reason, the injunction remedy in private merger enforcement functions wholly as a deterrent.47 ', '3. Substantive Uniformity ', "The substantive policy goals of antitrust enforcement remain the same whether enforcement is public or private.48 Strange as it may appear, this principle is sometimes challenged in the interpretation of the antitrust injury doctrine. As we have seen, that doctrine requires that the claimed private injury be within the anticompetitive rationale of the statutory violation. The problem of substantive uniformity arises because some would hold that an anticompetitive rationale sufficient to establish antitrust injury requires proof of a direct causal link between plaintiff's injury and the output restriction of a monopoly or cartel that has entered its exploitive stage.49 But this formulation, which registers only the immediate and shortrun allocative effects of anticompetitive behavior, omits the vital long-run goals of preserving competitive processes and market structures and promoting dynamic efficiency. To be sure, one way of attempting to achieve both short-run and long-run goals would be to penalize only immediately exploitive behavior or conduct closely linked to such demonstrably exploitive behavior.so But this is not the path our antitrust enforcement system has taken - or indeed that of any other developed antitrust regime.st Thus, though exploitive or monopoly pricing stemming from collusion or predation provides an important indicator of antitrust violation, the law is not confined to final stage intervention to prevent cartel or monopoly price exploitation. ", '', '']

[(0, 10)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-Amundsen-Frese-Neg-Mid%20America%20Championships-Round3.docx

Minnesota

AmFr

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Minnesota/AmFr/Minnesota-Amundsen-Frese-Neg-Mid%2520America%2520Championships-Round3.docx

59e842c0917b9434cdd97f875104f7c9df7f55553559855ba0b5183b2e41bfc7

That’s a form of crisis thinking which exposes local class contradictions and denies the lingua franca of the commodity-form.

Cubitt 3-7-22, Professor of Screen and Cultural Studies at the University of Melbourne (Sean, “Turning Disaster into Crisis”, International Journal of Cultural Studies, . Accessed from KU Libraries: 3/21/2022)—js

economic infrastructure is dedicated to ensuring that no future arrives Critical thinking is thinking of, in, through and as crisis, as turning point and as the prelude for action as intellectual property, ideas struggle to be shared We are certainly not all in this together economic and thus cultural abstraction of capital may prove catastrophic in the medium term, but its local effects are disastrous in the short At present, local languages must translate into and from the demands of , the lingua franca of money but globalising processes of capital are incomprehensible without the intensity of local experience Critical thinking must demonstrate the failure of a capitalist epistemology based on the exclusion of natural-human ecologies as waste, the human-natural environments act as the unconscious of capital Against abstraction crisis thinking exposes the local that capital abandons in order to enhance and encourage the conditions of crisis that capital itself produces thinking an occasion for denying information capital , the commodity form, and the trade in chaos

truth has evaporated in a world whose economic infrastructure is dedicated to ensuring that no future worth the name ever arrives . This is the real disaster of informatics and derivatives. Critical thinking is thinking of, in, through and as crisis, as turning point and as the prelude for action Crisis thinking is thinking about crisis but also thinking as crisis . Commodities are mobile but, as intellectual property, ideas struggle to be shared . . We are certainly not all in this together : there is no singular humanity under capital, and even less so in an era of hegemonic transition One of the features distinguishing (post)coloniser and (post)colonised is the far greater proximity of colonial subjects to the effects of the pandemic The refugee camps of Cox's Bazaar offer no escape routes like those available to Americans fleeing the US West Coast forest fires of 2021. economic and thus cultural abstraction of capital of and from natural processes may prove catastrophic in the medium term, but its local effects are disastrous in the short . Critical thinking observes this as a crisis in the partition of the world, and seeks critical action, on the lines drawn up in the Porto Alegre manifesto, as the basis for an alter-globalisation – not another world-system but a planetary alliance of dispersed local forces . At present, local languages must translate into and from the demands of the hegemonic tongue , the lingua franca of money The global abstraction of the universal medium of exchange wins out but globalising processes of capital are incomprehensible without the intensity of local experience that the remainder of human living is surplus to requirements. Human bodies, except as disciplined machineries of consumption and efficient sources of information, have become environmental, and capital treats them as it does the natural world Critical thinking therefore must demonstrate the failure of a capitalist epistemology based on the exclusion of natural-human ecologies . The waste of human and natural life is integral to capital's functioning, the externality it needs for cost-free exploitation. But as waste, the human-natural environments act as the unconscious of capital as indigenous knowledges act as the unconscious of the dominant discourse of global systems. Disaster capitalism aims to extract profit from difference, but the differences it seeks out are only comprehensible in its terms when they are reduced to information, a global abstraction it must ignore local experience, including its foundations in the experience of space as locality . The mode of difference that disaster capital profits from actually erases the differences it exploits, the uniqueness and continuity of place and time, by translating them into its universal code. , capital devastates the local in pursuit of present profit. Thus, by treating disasters as unique events, capital eliminates the dimensions of historical change, so averting the crisis that perpetually underpins its process. Against the abstraction of localities by disaster capital's universalising ethos and teleology, crisis thinking exposes the local that capital abandons in order to enhance and encourage the conditions of crisis that capital itself produces . crisis thinking is an occasion for denying the universalist language of information capital , the commodity form, and the trade in chaos

Critical thinking is thinking of, in, through and as crisis, as turning point and as the prelude for action Crisis thinking is thinking about crisis but also thinking as crisis We are certainly not all in this together economic and thus cultural abstraction of capital of and from natural processes At present, local languages must translate into and from the demands of the hegemonic tongue , the lingua franca of money wins out that the remainder of human living is surplus to requirements. Critical thinking therefore must demonstrate the failure of a capitalist epistemology based on the exclusion of natural-human ecologies . human-natural environments act as the unconscious of capital it must ignore local experience, including its foundations in the experience of space as locality crisis thinking exposes the local that capital abandons in order to enhance and encourage the conditions of crisis that capital itself produces denying the universalist language of information capital

["No wonder, then, that truth has evaporated in a world whose economic infrastructure is dedicated to ensuring that no future worth the name ever arrives. This is the real disaster of informatics and derivatives. Critical thinking is thinking of, in, through and as crisis, as turning point and as the prelude for action. Crisis thinking is thinking about crisis but also thinking as crisis. Our borders are in crisis, but not yet the right crisis. Borders are closed to people but never to money. Commodities are mobile but, as intellectual property, ideas struggle to be shared. The privilege granted to the wealthy extends beyond permissions to travel through quarantine borders. We are certainly not all in this together: there is no singular humanity under capital, and even less so in an era of hegemonic transition. One of the features distinguishing (post)coloniser and (post)colonised is the far greater proximity of colonial subjects to the effects of the pandemic. This itself is a token that globalisation describes the condition of the global elites and, more importantly, the capitalist system that maintains them, compared to the local condition of the disaster-prone poor. The refugee camps of Cox's Bazaar offer no escape routes like those available to Americans fleeing the US West Coast forest fires of 2021.", 'The economic and thus cultural abstraction of capital of and from natural processes (Sohn-Rethel, 1978: 61) may prove catastrophic in the medium term, but its local effects are disastrous in the short. Critical thinking observes this as a crisis in the partition of the world, and seeks critical action, on the lines drawn up in the Porto Alegre manifesto, as the basis for an alter-globalisation – not another world-system but a planetary alliance of dispersed local forces. At present, local languages must translate into and from the demands of the hegemonic tongue, the lingua franca of money. The global abstraction of the universal medium of exchange, divorced from the human-natural ecology of the local, wins out, but at the same time the globalising processes of capital are incomprehensible without the intensity of local experience (cf. Cubitt, 2020). Worse still, ‘the global gaze that constructs, marginalizes and then induces the resistance of local actors’ (Fogel 2004: 122) only induces global elites to favour local entreprises seeking to benefit from globalisation rather than listening to those harmed by it. When local resistance takes the form of vaccine refusal, the local suffers more than the global, but both suffer. It is only at the local scale that human and environmental reconnect, unless further divided by global resource and knowledge extraction, making the diversity of localities a vital part of the global commons, where currently it is reduced to the universal equivalents of consumer ‘demand’ and cash.', "The pandemic demonstrates what information capital had already shown us about human lives beyond what they offer up by way of data: that the remainder of human living is surplus to requirements. Human bodies, except as disciplined machineries of consumption and efficient sources of information, have become environmental, and capital treats them as it does the natural world. Critical thinking of and through crisis therefore must demonstrate the failure of a capitalist epistemology based on the exclusion of natural-human ecologies. The waste of human and natural life is integral to capital's functioning, the externality it needs for cost-free exploitation. But as waste, the human-natural environments act as the unconscious of capital, just as indigenous knowledges act as the unconscious of the dominant discourse of global systems.", 'Disaster capitalism aims to extract profit from difference, but the differences it seeks out are only comprehensible in its terms when they are reduced to information, a global abstraction. For that to happen it must ignore local experience, including its foundations in the experience of space as locality. Similarly, it reduces the continuity of time to discursive discontinuities, units of exploitable difference, which, since they must be reduced to universal equivalence of money, no longer include the reach of experience of time, only the perpetual present of profit. The mode of difference that disaster capital profits from actually erases the differences it exploits, the uniqueness and continuity of place and time, by translating them into its universal code. The political aspect of political economy provides for administrative abstraction of localities, from municipalities to nation states and regional blocs. Even when a municipality is seized by progressive political forces, enforced boundaries ensure it remains within the administrative abstraction, subject to the indifferent differences that make profit possible. Just as it devastates the planet it depends on, capital devastates the local in pursuit of present profit. Thus, by treating disasters as unique events, capital eliminates the dimensions of historical change, so averting the crisis that perpetually underpins its process.', "Against the abstraction of localities by disaster capital's universalising ethos and teleology, crisis thinking exposes the local that capital abandons in order to enhance and encourage the conditions of crisis that capital itself produces. The pandemic as capital construes it is a driver for spending. For crisis thinking, it is an occasion for denying the universalist language of information capital, the commodity form, and the trade in chaos. Porto Alegre began the process of making a commons composed of localities and local struggles capable of planetary action, but never abstracting itself above the lived differences that compose the actual world. Far less often quoted than its opening phrase, Bateson's definition speaks of ‘differences that make a difference in a later state of affairs’ (Bateson, 1973: 428, my emphasis). We have felt like lockdowns hit the pause button on history: turning disaster into crisis hits fast forward. "]

[(0, 6), (11, 13)]

ndtceda

Kansas-Spiers-Basore-Neg-CEDA-Round2.docx

Kansas

SpBa

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kansas/SpBa/Kansas-Spiers-Basore-Neg-CEDA-Round2.docx

b048145fb66d21f1466e6ff5c4b05e96b0ed6e898cc4055bb135f6085345975f

Squo solves spoofing---investment upgrades.

Page O. Stoutland & Samantha Pitts-Kiefer 18. **NTI’s Vice President for Scientific and Technical Affairs; doctorate in chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley; senior positions at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. **Senior Director of NTI’s Global Nuclear Policy Program; JD. “NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE NEW CYBER AGE.” Nuclear Threat Intiative. September 2018. https://www.nti.org/media/documents/Cyber_report_finalsmall.pdf

the U S is addressing cyber threats the Navy and Air Force are each spending 500 million to improve c and c upgrading communications links Strategic Cybersecurity Program improving cybersecurity These efforts minimize risk of cyberattacks on nuc systems

the U S is increasing its emphasis on addressing cyber threats to nuc systems details on new and ongoing cyber resilience modernization priorities can be derived from budgets the Navy and Air Force are each spending 500 million to make improve ments to strategic c ommand and c ontrol Those improvements include upgrading communications links between all elements of the nuclear triad with the N C A Within several independent program justifications, improving cybersecurity is listed as a priority improving cybersecurity of NC3 is a priority the commander of Strat Com and Cyber Com conduct an annual joint assessment of the cyber resiliency of the nuclear command and control system a Strategic Cybersecurity Program will assist the department in improving the cybersecurity of systems , including (a) offensive cyber systems, (b) long-range strike systems, (c) nuclear deterrent systems, (d) national security systems, and (e) critical infrastructure of the DoD consistent with the recommendations of the 2017 Defense Science Board report on cyber deterrence establishment of a “thin line” of cyber-resilient systems These and other efforts will be important to minimize the risk of cyberattacks on nuc lear weapons systems

['Publicly available information suggests that the United States is increasing its emphasis on addressing cyber threats to nuclear weapons systems. Although the specifics are not publicly available, some details on new and ongoing cyber resilience modernization priorities can be derived from U.S. defense budgets. For example, the U.S. Navy and Air Force are each spending approximately $500 million to make improvements to strategic command and control. Those improvements include upgrading communications links between all elements of the nuclear triad with the National Command Authority. Within several independent program justifications, improving cybersecurity is listed as a priority. In addition, in its FY 2018 Congressional Budget Justification, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) requested more than $186 million from its weapons activities budget for enhancements to crosscutting NNSA information technology and cybersecurity efforts. Although this budget may cut across efforts to reduce cyber vulnerabilities on nuclear weapons systems, it cannot be specifically attributed to those efforts. Other indications that improving cybersecurity of NC3 systems is becoming a priority can be found in the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, which became law on December 12 17. Section 1651 of that Act calls for the commander of the United States Strategic Command and the commander of the United States Cyber Command to conduct an annual joint assessment of the cyber resiliency of the nuclear command and control system. In addition, Section 1640 calls on the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the director of the National Security Agency, to provide a plan to establish a Department of Defense (DoD) “Strategic Cybersecurity Program,” which will assist the department in improving the cybersecurity of systems, including (a) offensive cyber systems, (b) long-range strike systems, (c) nuclear deterrent systems, (d) national security systems, and (e) critical infrastructure of the DoD. This is consistent with the recommendations of the 2017 Defense Science Board report on cyber deterrence, which recommended the establishment of a “thin line” of cyber-resilient systems in nearly those same categories. These and other efforts will be important to minimize the risk of cyberattacks on nuclear weapons systems. As highlighted in this report, however, although technical efforts are critical, no technological solution alone will be wholly effective; nuclear policy and posture changes must be implemented as well.']

[(8, 19), (35, 41), (42, 44)]

ndtceda

Emory-KeRa-Neg-Harvard-Round-6.docx

Emory

KeRa

54fd2c209f2db33eb3720f00b5bc517c101478eb9fe49c3c6280e8b2bd84aaea

Digital authoritarianism will be limited AND doesn’t spill over

Dr. Jessica Chen Weiss 20, Professor of Political Science at Cornell University, Editor at the Washington Post Monkey Cage Blog, and Non-Resident Senior Associate at CSIS, “Understanding and Rolling Back Digital Authoritarianism”, War on the Rocks, 2/17/2020, https://warontherocks.com/2020/02/understanding-and-rolling-back-digital-authoritarianism/

fears of demise may be exaggerated the global proportion democratic remains high . In China’s backyard little ev of backsliding backsliding has many fathers it will be very difficult to determine importance of tech When assessing tech ’s political impact keep in mind selection effects and counterfactuals Exaggerating lead to mistaken conclusion that combating surveillance will be enough

fears of democracy’s demise may be exaggerated , as the global proportion of countries that are democratic remains high . In China’s backyard there is little ev idence of democratic backsliding across Southeast Asia. Even if democratic practices have weakened in some countries, as in the Philippines and Indonesia , others have become more liberal , such as Myanmar Assessing the impact of tech change must take into account factors that condition its usage Democratic backsliding has many fathers , including not only domestic conditions but also systemic developments it will be very difficult to determine the relative importance of tech nology vis-à-vis other factors When assessing tech nology ’s political impact , one must keep in mind selection effects and counterfactuals Exaggerating the threat posed by technology could lead to the mistaken conclusion that combating the global spread of surveillance technologies will be enough to secure democracy

exaggerated global proportion high backyard ev Philippines Indonesia more liberal Myanmar tech condition its usage many fathers systemic developments difficult relative importance tech tech ’s selection effects counterfactuals Exaggerating mistaken conclusion enough

['Democratic Backsliding and Digital Authoritarianism', 'Fears of democracy’s retreat around the world are rising, with setbacks in countries from Turkey to Brazil to Hungary. But fears of democracy’s demise may be exaggerated, as the global proportion of countries that are democratic remains high. In China’s backyard, for example, there is little evidence of democratic backsliding across Southeast Asia. Even if democratic practices have weakened in some countries, as in the Philippines and Indonesia, others have become more liberal, such as Myanmar.', 'Assessing the political impact of technological change must also take into account factors that condition its usage, as well as other forces that determine political outcomes. Democratic backsliding has many fathers, including not only domestic conditions but also systemic developments, as Seva Gunitsky’s work suggests. As a social scientist, I expect that it will be very difficult to determine the relative importance of technology vis-à-vis other factors, just as economists and political scientists are still debating whether it is technology (robots) or outsourcing (the “China shock”) that has done more to decimate manufacturing jobs in the United States. These are econometric debates that are unlikely to be definitively resolved.', 'When assessing technology’s political impact, one must keep in mind selection effects and counterfactuals. Let’s start with selection effects: What differentiates a country that has adopted tools of digital authoritarianism from one that considered but declined to adopt those tools? Understanding the different political trajectories or preexisting conditions that separate adopters from non-adopters is crucial to diagnosing the difference that these technologies make.', 'On to counterfactuals: What would politics in that country have looked like if that technology had not been adopted? Would it be more or less autocratic had the government relied instead on old-fashioned methods of repression and surveillance?', 'Reinforcing Democracy', 'Answering these questions is a necessary first step to right-sizing the challenge posed by the spread of digital technologies that can be used to enhance the power of the state — whether to combat terrorism or repress dissent. Exaggerating the threat posed by technology could lead to the mistaken conclusion that combating the global spread of surveillance technologies will be enough to secure democracy.']

[(17, 25)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-Adam-Kiihnl-Neg-Harvard-Round5.docx

Kentucky

AdKi

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kentucky/AdKi/Kentucky-Adam-Kiihnl-Neg-Harvard-Round5.docx

9bc545343e8d9e6c58128acbc7fcd5342b088a4bd7cff4609fefee928fa09f93

Losses are spread, so no individual party faces too much risk.

Wanting ’21 [Liu; November 2021; Ph.D. Candidate at Jilin University School of Law; China Legal Science, “The Contract in AI Era: Vulnerability and Risk Allocation,” vol. 9]

when there is unexpected damage the operator should be liable we wa nt the loss spread as broad as possible we want burden to be borne by those able to pay financial institutions choose to use algorithms The price of service is provided by the operator the enterprises spread the losses to consumers through the price The enterprise can internalize the losses in the price , which assigns the risk to all clients

when there is unexpected damage which is not set in front in contracts the algorithms' operator should be liable for the damage When thinking about risk distribution there are two main factors to consider: first, we wa nt the loss to be spread as broad as possible ; second, we want the burden of losses to be borne by those most able to pay the cost of injuries should be borne by the activities which caused them, whether or not fault is involved the loss should be placed on the party which is most likely to cause the burden to be reflected in the price The financial institutions choose to use the algorithms to do the jobs initially The price of providing financial a dvice service is provided by the algorithm's operator the enterprises can spread the losses beyond enterprises to consumers and resource owners. This is accomplished through the price The enterprise charges the clients for the service they can actually internalize the risk and losses in the price , which actually assigns the risk to all of the clients it spreads the risk and avoids specific clients bearing the great loss

unexpected not liable for the damage as broad as possible burden of losses most able to pay cost of injuries activities most likely to cause choose price provided spread the losses beyond enterprises accomplished price charges actually internalize in the price actually assigns all of the clients spreads the risk specific clients great loss

["Talking about the example of using algorithms to help clients make financial decisions, this article holds that, when there is unexpected damage which is not set in front in contracts, the enterprise of the algorithms, that is the algorithms' operator, should be liable for the damage, which means this risk should be allocated to the enterprise. The concept of risk allocation in torts law can provide thoughts and references for this question.", 'There are two goals when we adopt allocative cost rules in torts: first, it should be fair. Second, it should reduce the cost of accidents." These goals generate two principles. The first one is the compensation principle which states the victim should be given compensation for the harm they suffered by others; the second one is the marginal principle, which states social costs should be minimized by equating the incremental benefit of each precautionary activity to its incremental cost." When thinking about the risk distribution question in torts, there are usually two main factors we need to consider: first, we want the loss to be spread as broad of all losses, both interpersonally and intertemporally, as possible; second, we want the burden of losses to be borne by those classes that are most able to pay and have the capacity to undertake it.', "Under a strict resource-allocation theory, the prices of goods accurately reflect their full cost to society. Therefore, the cost of injuries should be borne by the activities which caused them, whether or not fault is involved; among several parties engaged in an enterprise, the loss should be placed on the party which is most likely to cause the burden to be reflected in the price of whatever the enterprise sells.' Based on resource-allocation theory, in the model of picking stock example, it is the operator. The financial institutions choose to use the algorithms to do the jobs initially, but the clients ask them to provide such service. The price of providing financial advice service is provided by the algorithm's operator.", "When talking about the allocation of losses on a no-fault basis, an important element that will be considered and mentioned is the spreading of losses. The doctrine of this thought is the real burden of a loss is smaller the more people share it. This is an extension of the factor which will be considered, which is the capacity to bear the loss. One hundred dollars will hurt a poor person more than a rich person. Similarly, taking a large sum of money from one person is more likely to result in economic dislocation.' By setting the risk to enterprises, the enterprises can finish the risk- spreading by spreading the losses beyond enterprises to consumers and resource owners. This is accomplished through the price enterprises pay for the resources they buy and the prices they get for the goods they sell.' They are looking back to our example. The financial institutions use the algorithms not only to provide the service for one client but face a group of clients. The enterprise charges the clients for the service, they can actually internalize the risk and losses in the price, which actually assigns the risk to all of the clients but the enterprise undertakes the loss itself. In addition, it also spreads the risk and avoids some specific clients bearing the great loss. In this sense, the vulnerabilities of algorithms are exactly the risks for all the related parties who get involved in this activity. Besides, the enterprises are also the party who are more likely to get insurance for these losses and risks which can also help to re-allocate the risks and actually transfer the risks so that the enterprises do not suffer great losses."]

[(0, 11)]

ndtceda

Michigan-PiPh-Neg-Texas-Finals.docx

Michigan

PiPh

d8efc804fadc31fd673ceb60849a07d20a25085713a090431168bfd8623ac98a

3. Extended deterrence makes allied prolif more likely.

Lauren Sukin & Toby Dalton 21. Pre-doctoral fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation. Senior fellow at, and co-director of, the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Reducing Nuclear Salience: How to Reassure Northeast Asian Allies.” The Washington Quarterly 44(2). 6-17-2021. doi: 10.1080/0163660X.2021.1934257.

Increasing salience of nuc s in Asia fail backfire emphasis on usability of nuc s raised fears in So Ko Japan about whether policies make nuclear conflict more likely efforts to make extended deterrence credible increase support for acquisition states worry they will be dragged into conflict worries about a rash decision to use nuc s drive allies to seek military independence US over-valuing nuc deterrence spur beliefs nuc s are necessary surveys provide clear evidence respondents prefer Korea possess its own when US nuclear guarantees highly credible

Increasing the salience of nuc lear weapon s in Northeast Asia may not only fail to adequately address durability and capability concerns about US extended nuclear deterrence but also could backfire . emphasis on expanding nuclear capabilities and perceptions about the increased “ usability ” of nuc lear weapon s raised fears in So uth Ko rea and Japan about whether these policies would make nuclear conflict in the region more likely . efforts to make extended deterrence appear highly credible can actually increase support in ally states for the acquisition of nuclear weapons for two reasons. First, states worry that they will be dragged into conflict escalation initiated or provoked by their alliance partners, and they consequently seek reassurances that this won’t occur. Second, worries about a rash US decision to use nuc lear weapon s could drive allies to seek greater military independence , including by developing their own nuclear weapons . At the same time, US over-valuing of nuc lear deterrence can spur beliefs among allies that nuc lear weapon s are a necessary capability . Two original surveys of South Korean citizens—in 2018 and 2019— provide clear evidence for the potential proliferation consequences of efforts to increase the salience of US extended nuclear deterrence . respondents were more likely to prefer that South Korea possess its own nuclear arsenal , rather than rely on the United States' nuclear capabilities, when US nuclear guarantees were presented as highly credible .

Increasing nuc lear weapon s fail backfire usability nuc lear weapon s So uth Ko rea Japan nuclear conflict more likely extended deterrence highly credible increase support ally states acquisition nuclear weapons dragged into conflict escalation rash US decision nuc lear weapon s allies greater military independence nuclear weapons over-valuing nuc lear deterrence nuc lear weapon s necessary capability surveys South Korean clear evidence proliferation increase nuclear deterrence respondents prefer nuclear arsenal nuclear guarantees highly credible

["Increasing the salience of nuclear weapons in Northeast Asia may not only fail to adequately address durability and capability concerns about US extended nuclear deterrence but also could backfire. Allies not only want assurance that the United States would be willing and able to use nuclear capabilities in their defense; they also want reassurance that the United States will not rashly or precipitously use these capabilities, thus entangling its ally in conflict. Notably, the 2018 NPR’s emphasis on expanding nuclear capabilities and perceptions about the increased “usability” of nuclear weapons raised fears in South Korea and Japan about whether these policies would make nuclear conflict in the region more likely.26 Though US security guarantees to European and Asian allies are intended to stymie nuclear proliferation, among other objectives, efforts to make extended deterrence appear highly credible can actually increase support in ally states for the acquisition of nuclear weapons for two reasons. First, states worry that they will be dragged into conflict escalation initiated or provoked by their alliance partners, and they consequently seek reassurances that this won’t occur.27 (The traditional understanding of the entanglement problem in alliances—mainly about risks to the nuclear guarantor—overlooks this problem, which specifically stems from a situation in which an ally perceives escalation risks from a guarantor’s nuclear threats.) Under the Trump administration, Northeast Asian allies worried that Trump’s “fire and fury” rhetoric and inconsistent approach to denuclearization could have resulted in an unwanted, unnecessary, and possibly nuclear conflict with North Korea.28 After all, a majority of South Koreans would prefer not to use nuclear weapons against North Korea, even in the event of a full-scale invasion.29 Second, worries about a rash US decision to use nuclear weapons could drive allies to seek greater military independence, including by developing their own nuclear weapons. At the same time, US over-valuing of nuclear deterrence can spur beliefs among allies that nuclear weapons are a necessary capability. South Korean and Japanese proponents of independent nuclear capabilities have highlighted their purported value for wresting greater control of the security environment, deterring conflict with North Korea, and avoiding the risks they perceive with the US alliance. The combination of these two phenomena means that the US actions to increase the visibility of nuclear operations over the last decade have laid the foundation for a backfire effect. For example, the 2013 flights of US B-52 and B-2 aircraft over South Korean airspace and of B-52 aircraft over contested territory in the East China Sea seemingly had little positive effect on US credibility with its allies (and arguably no effect on deterring threats from North Korea).30 At the same time, these symbolic missions fed fears of crisis escalation and contributed to South Korean steps to strengthen its military capabilities independent of the alliance.31 Indeed, to the extent that these flights raised the perceived relevance of nuclear weapons in the face of North Korean threats, they also contributed to bolstered calls among conservative South Korean politicians—and the solidification of majority public support—for a “South Korean bomb.”32 US actions to increase the visibility of nuclear operations could have a backfire effect Two original surveys of South Korean citizens—in 2018 and 2019—provide clear evidence for the potential proliferation consequences of efforts to increase the salience of US extended nuclear deterrence.33 In both surveys, respondents were more likely to prefer that South Korea possess its own nuclear arsenal, rather than rely on the United States' nuclear capabilities, when US nuclear guarantees were presented as highly credible. This effect was even bigger among South Koreans who opposed the use of nuclear weapons against a possible North Korean invasion, demonstrating a clear linkage between South Korean desire for nuclear autonomy and concern that the ongoing reliance on the United States could entangle South Korea in an unwanted nuclear conflict with its northern neighbor.", '']

[(7, 14), (20, 29)]

ndtceda

Emory-MiPi-Aff-5---Long-Beach-Doubles.docx

Emory

MiPi

902278e607bee1374bb64a95d862e3dfedab118121b48dedf3a1a5917e5dcab2

Plank 2 solves democracy.

Brown et al. 21 [Frances Z.; Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former Director for Democracy on the National Security Council staff; Thomas Carothers; Senior Vice President for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Alex Pascal; Nonresident Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; 1-15-2021; "America Needs a Democracy Summit More Than Ever"; Foreign Affairs; https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2021-01-15/america-needs-democracy-summit-more-ever; Accessed 1-19-2021; BM]

a U.S.-hosted summit reinvigorating American democracy develop blueprint for global engagement collective, mutually supportive commitments make powerful statement about Washington’s commitment to democratic renewal summit should zero in on Anticorruption policy— ripe with concrete, impactful potential actions Defending against authoritarianism to prevent political interference by authoritarian actors in existing democracies how to adapt democracy to the digital age a tiered model form steering committee members would be full partners in shaping agenda avoid impression it is a narrow, U.S.-led All participating countries pledge to make substantive commitments Nongov attendees participate rallying like-valued nations to advance domestic democratic renewal surest path to restoring U.S. leadership

a U.S.-hosted summit could serve as a vital mechanism for repairing and reinvigorating American democracy develop a new blueprint for U.S. global engagement on democracy the incoming administration should dedicate the summit to domestic democratic renovation participating states make collective, mutually supportive commitments to improve their own democracies and to stand up for democracy whenever it is threatened in other countries an egalitarian reframing of the discussion about democracy, organized by a new U.S. administration willing to speak with honesty and realism about the United States’ own democratic failings, would make a powerful statement about Washington’s commitment to democratic renewal in the post-Trump era. under the overarching theme of democratic renewal, the summit should zero in on several discrete topics to focus discussion and action. Anticorruption policy— which is key to solving the problem of accountability that haunts so many democracies—is an excellent choice for the summit’s agenda. It is a policy domain ripe with concrete, impactful potential actions Defending against authoritarianism must also be a focus of the summit framing its objectives more broadly: to prevent political interference by authoritarian actors in existing democracies and to support universal democratic values and aspirations by people wherever they live. One agenda item that is timely and likely to garner wide support is democratic inclusion. Efforts to build more representative institutions, and to end the political, economic, and social marginalization of certain populations, continue to challenge newer and established democracies alike. This is an area where the United States can lead with humility. Cutting across all of these issues is digital technologies technology enabled grave threats to democracy in many countries while also creating tremendous opportunities for citizen engagement and transparent, responsive governance. The summit must wrestle head-on with how to adapt democracy to the digital age . summit planners should consider a tiered model . They could form a small steering committee whose members would be full partners in shaping the agenda and mobilizing commitments from others. to help avoid the impression that it is a narrow, U.S.-led endeavor. They might even host follow-on events or future summits. The steering committee would consist of a handful of countries that demonstrate passion and capacity for such a role and provide some geographic diversity The Biden team could then take a moderately big-tent approach to general summit participants All participating countries would need to pledge to make substantive commitments in order to attend and would take concrete actions before the summit. Democracies thrive thanks to the combined efforts of countless stakeholders—including civic groups, private-sector entities, and multilateral organizations Nongov ernmental attendees could participate alongside governments in working groups organized around each of the summit’s themes. rallying a community of like-valued nations to advance domestic democratic renewal is the surest path to restoring U.S. leadership of the democratic world.

reinvigorating American democracy global engagement powerful statement democratic renewal concrete, impactful potential actions political interference digital age tiered model U.S. leadership

['In the wake of last week’s attempted insurrection, the scholars James Goldgeier and Bruce Jentleson argued in Foreign Affairs that the incoming Biden administration should abandon its plan for a global democracy summit and focus instead on repairing democracy at home. We respectfully disagree. Scrapping the summit entirely could damage Biden’s broader efforts to reestablish the United States as an engaged, constructive, and cooperative international actor. Moreover, and perhaps more important, a U.S.-hosted summit could serve as a vital mechanism for repairing and reinvigorating American democracy at home. Instead of canceling the event, Washington should use the summit to develop a new blueprint for U.S. global engagement on democracy—one that is more humble and honest about painful political challenges at home but is no less committed to supporting the cause abroad. A RIGHT-SIZED SUMMIT In pushing ahead with the summit, the Biden administration should strive to organize more than a symbolic gathering, where officials make lofty statements but engage in minimal action. Such a “summit lite” would reinforce existing cynicism about the depth of Washington’s commitment to democratic norms and squander the new administration’s short window of opportunity to initiate a substantive democracy agenda. But Biden’s team must also avoid trying to accomplish too much with a single summit—by seeking to establish a new strategic alliance or league of democratic states, for example. The United States should continue to participate in existing democratic groupings with well-defined parameters, such as the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, and the United States) in the Indo-Pacific. It should also entertain the British idea of expanding the G-7 to a D-10 that includes Asia’s three most important democracies (Australia, India, and South Korea). But an attempt to forge a new, large-scale, open-ended democratic “alliance” would almost certainly fail given that the geopolitical and economic interests of a diverse group of democracies do not align well on many issues. Instead, the incoming administration should dedicate the summit to domestic democratic renovation, in which participating states make collective, mutually supportive commitments to improve their own democracies and to stand up for democracy whenever it is threatened in other countries. Such an egalitarian reframing of the discussion about democracy, organized by a new U.S. administration willing to speak with honesty and realism about the United States’ own democratic failings, would make a powerful statement about Washington’s commitment to democratic renewal in the post-Trump era. AN AGENDA FOR RENEWAL The summit’s planners will face a powerful temptation to turn the agenda into a laundry list of every concern across the democracy advocacy community. They should resist this pull. Instead, under the overarching theme of democratic renewal, the summit should zero in on several discrete topics to focus discussion and action. Early in his campaign for president, when Biden first proposed hosting a summit of the world’s democracies, he identified three priority agenda items: fighting corruption, defending against authoritarianism, and advancing human rights. Anticorruption policy—which is key to solving the problem of accountability that haunts so many democracies—is an excellent choice for the summit’s agenda. It is a policy domain ripe with concrete, impactful potential actions in realms ranging from tax and finance to government procurement to transparency and civil society. Washington will have to walk a tightrope between reclaiming global leadership and humbly acknowledging its flaws. Defending against authoritarianism must also be a focus of the summit, but some caution here is necessary: references to authoritarianism may be understood as code for “aligning against China and Russia” and deter or chill some other democracies that would otherwise actively participate. It would be a problem if authoritarian countries perceived the summit as an effort by the United States to forge a democratic coalition aimed at regime change in authoritarian countries. The Biden administration can minimize this risk by framing its objectives more broadly: to prevent political interference by authoritarian actors in existing democracies and to support universal democratic values and aspirations by people wherever they live. Biden’s goal of advancing human rights should command agreement from a wide range of potential partners and will help the United States reaffirm its commitment to universal values after four years of selective advocacy of certain rights, such as religious freedom. But the human rights agenda is vast, and focusing the discussion, perhaps by agreeing in advance on a few key rights to emphasize, will be crucial. Freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly seem like natural candidates for inclusion, given the attacks on them in so many places. One additional agenda item that is both timely and likely to garner wide support is democratic inclusion. Efforts to build more representative institutions, and to end the political, economic, and social marginalization of certain populations, continue to challenge newer and established democracies alike. This is an area where the United States, thanks to its long history of exclusion, can lead with humility. Cutting across all of these issues is the transformation wrought by digital technologies. Although technology itself is politically neutral, it has enabled grave threats to democracy in many countries while also creating tremendous opportunities for citizen engagement and transparent, responsive governance. The summit must wrestle head-on with how to adapt democracy responsibly to the digital age. A TWO-TIERED TENT In addition to the agenda, the Biden administration must determine the appropriate invite list (that perennial summit-host headache). It will have to decide whether to invite a smaller, selective set of established democracies that are seriously committed to self-improvement and acting on substantive challenges or to take a big-tent approach and include countries that claim democratic aspirations but fall significantly short in practice. Historically, multilateral democracy summits have opted for greater inclusion—at the expense of credibility and coherence. Given that tradeoff, Biden’s summit planners should consider a tiered model. They could form a small steering committee whose members would be full partners in shaping the agenda and mobilizing commitments from others. Steering committee members would publicly communicate about the summit in order to help avoid the impression that it is a narrow, U.S.-led endeavor. They would also co-lead discussions on the main thematic areas and help drive progress on summit commitments via thematic working groups that continue to meet after the summit is over. They might even host follow-on events or future summits. The steering committee would consist of a handful of countries that demonstrate passion and capacity for such a role and provide some geographic diversity, without chasing the elusive goal of perfect regional representation. The summit must wrestle head-on with how to adapt democracy responsibly to the digital age. The Biden team could then take a moderately big-tent approach to general summit participants, with some threshold of demonstrated “will” to merit an invitation. All participating countries would need to pledge to make substantive commitments in order to attend and ideally would take concrete actions before the summit. Summit planners should also use some clear and externally based criteria for determining who is in and who is out, drawing on reputable independent indexes of countries’ fidelity to democratic values and practices—cognizant, of course, that the standing of the United States in these rankings has slid markedly in recent years. Another hard question the administration will have to grapple with is whether to invite nongovernmental entities, and if so, which ones. Democracies thrive thanks to the combined efforts of countless stakeholders—including civic groups, private-sector entities, and multilateral organizations. The summit must reflect this reality, without opening the floodgates to an impractical number of participants. In order to whittle down the vast universe of potential invitees, organizers should tie the list of nongovernmental participants directly to the summit’s specific themes. Nongovernmental attendees could then participate alongside governments in working groups organized around each of the summit’s themes. This approach would still require difficult choices—and demand that organizers find ways to ensure diversity—but it would foster more focused outcomes than a maximalist invite list and reflect the reality of democracy as practiced in the modern world. POETRY INTO PROSE Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo once famously noted that politicians campaign in poetry but govern in prose. Biden’s campaign pledge to host a democracy summit delighted many global leaders and citizens who have been demoralized by Trump’s relentless attacks on democracy at home and abroad. But executing an effective summit will require painstakingly translating lofty campaign poetry into practical governing prose. That will not be an easy task: the United States will have to walk a tightrope between reclaiming global leadership and humbly acknowledging and addressing its flaws. But rallying a community of like-valued nations to advance domestic democratic renewal is the surest path to restoring U.S. leadership of the democratic world.', '']

[(0, 15)]

ndtceda

Emory-MiPi-Neg-4---Wake-Forest-Round-5.docx

Emory

MiPi

ff6c9643ad2ac5323dfcc83ac07e44c3740a18cd041cdb2868e3140acb1f4099

The plan’s declaration solidifies a sustainable foundation for predictable relations AND reduces tensions.

MacDonald ’21 [Alexander; May 20; North American and Arctic Defense and Security Network, “Reflections on Arctic Arms Control and Proposals for an Arctic Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone (ANWFZ),” https://www.naadsn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MacDonald-ANWFZ-strategic-perspective.pdf]

ANWFZ have yet to be viable The problem lies in conditions that must be present states must have mutual confidence there is the need to insulate cooperation while recognizing security issues c b m s are necessary to Arctic denuclearization declarations can act as foundation for the building of predictable relations agreements create a milieu in which you preserve stability prospects for progress under Biden were the possibility of a n f u Such a change would have ramifications on activity in the Arctic it would remove threat Russian SSBNs n f u pledge is a key measure

ANWFZ proposals have yet to be considered viable policy options The problem lies not so much in the proposals themselves but in conditions that must be present for such a proposal to be considered states must have a certain degree of mutual confidence part of the problem with the n uclear w eapons f ree z one is that it's an ends rather than a process there is both the recognition of the need to insulate soft-security cooperation mechanisms while at the same time recognizing hard- security issues c o nfidence b uilding m easure s are a necessary step along the pathway to Arctic denuclearization political declarations can act as foundation stones or reference points for the further building of confidence and predictable relations such agreements create a kind of milieu in which you want to preserve internal stability within the region The experts also link Arctic arms control and the global non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament regime NACD the global NACD regime is not wholly determinate of the situation in the Arctic The prospects for NACD progress under Biden were particularly noted especially the possibility of a n f u Such a change would have direct ramifications on military activity in the Arctic region it would remove the rationale for US submarine patrols that threat en Russian SSBNs in what are international waters n f u pledge is a key confidence building measure within proposed framework for an ANWFZ

ANWFZ considered viable conditions that must be present mutual confidence n w f z ends process insulate soft-security cooperation hard- security c b m s necessary step declarations foundation stones confidence relations milieu internal stability arms control NACD not wholly determinate NACD progress especially n f u direct ramifications Arctic submarine patrols Russian SSBNs n f u ANWFZ

['Preconditions for Success', 'ANWFZ proposals have thus far failed to make the crucial transition from NGO advocacy circles to government policy circles. That is, proposals have yet to be considered viable policy options. The experts generally agreed that the problem lies not so much in the proposals themselves, but in conditions that must be present for such a proposal to be considered. Specifically, states in the region must have a certain degree of mutual confidence which can be produced through confidence building measures followed by intermediary arms control measures.', "In this regard, Dr. Franklyn Griffiths remarked that “part of the problem with the nuclear weapons free zone is that it's an ends rather than a process. The process is really what should be worked out. How do you get from here to there? There is not too much talk about the analysis of preconditions. Instead, it’s people going to directly for the Holy Grail [the NWFZ], and others are not ready to go there and the whole thing is held up.”82", 'In the context of creating the necessary preconditions for Arctic denuclearization, Griffiths stressed the importance of “creating a kind of civil society in the Arctic, where you have vested interests in non-military cooperation that slowly offsets and provides a context in which hard edged, or pointed, military matters are discussed… so you get to arms control discussions indirectly.”83 Through this “indirect approach” there is both the recognition of the need to insulate the soft-security cooperation mechanisms of the Arctic, while at the same time recognizing the need to address hard-security issues as well, but in a way which does not threaten the hard-won successes of Arctic soft-security thus far.84 Dr. Thomas Axworthy likewise stressed the importance of building “constituencies” within the context of promoting an ANWFZ policy, especially when the government of a given country is not yet enticed by the idea.', 'Ernie Regehr emphasized the need to insulate the work of the Arctic Council from hard-security questions to safeguard its efficacy as a venue of cooperation for soft-security and governance cooperation. Regehr nonetheless stressed the necessity of a forum which could produce “a better understanding of day-to-day [military] operations to avoid mishaps, close encounters, and misinterpretation of military events.”85 Dr. Buckley echoed this idea, suggesting the creation of an “Arctic Security Forum” since hard security “doesn’t fit and would be detrimental” to the work of the Arctic Council.86 Regehr highlighted that an additional benefit of such a forum would be that it “helps to set the context for larger strategic relations and strategic studies, that is, discussions that then go beyond the immediate military operations issues, and towards arms control, and broader strategic relations.”87', 'This is essentially a call for Arctic states to free themselves from their self-imposed moratorium on addressing hard security issues. A dual track approach to cooperation is needed. The two tracks are soft security cooperation on the one hand, and defence diplomacy on the other.88 In this conceptualization, the two tracks run in parallel to each other, to the benefit of each other, while remaining mutually insulated from each other to preserve one another’s efficacy. The realm of soft-security cooperation (i.e., fisheries, search and rescue, environment, shipping, etc.) has been intensely guarded by the Arctic regional states in an effort to prevent extra-Arctic politics and tensions from disrupting regional soft-security cooperation. In this way, hard security issues can be addressed with the same earnest that soft security issues have been addressed.', 'Taking the comments of the experts together, they agree that the Arctic Council would not be the right forum to address hard security issues, but that for the ANWFZ to have any future hard security issues need to be addressed in some sort of formal way. Moreover, this dialogue on hard security issues is the first step to building confidence in the region on hard security matters which in turn enhances the prospects for intermediary arms control measures leading to possible denuclearization. Dialogue, confidence building, and intermediary arms control measures are thus the necessary preconditions for consideration of an ANWFZ proposal.', 'Building Confidence', 'If confidence building measures are a necessary step along the pathway to Arctic denuclearization, what are they and what would they address? Ernie Regehr emphasized the importance of developing confidence building measures to strengthen and enhance the cooperative governance environment of the Arctic region. Regehr particularly made reference to the 2012 proposal of Dr. Axworthy which includes a whole section on confidence building measures, the first of which is to specifically avoid actions which do not build confidence.89 Regehr also highlighted the importance of non-binding political declarations like the Ilulissat Declaration of 2018, since they can act as foundation stones or reference points for the further building of confidence and predictable relations.90 Regehr emphasized that such agreements, while not binding, do help to create a “kind of milieu in which you want to preserve a sense of internal stability within the region.”91', "The experts also made the link between Arctic arms control and the global non-proliferation, arms control, and disarmament regime (NACD). All seem to agree that while the global NACD regime affects strategic postures and decisions in the Arctic, that it is not wholly determinate of the situation in the Arctic. This, it seems, is not a position grounded in Arctic Exceptionalism – that the Arctic is inherently unique – but rather the consequence of a conviction of the need and desirability for non-proliferation and disarmament. For if we wait for the situation to improve elsewhere to address the situation in the Arctic, we may never actually address the Arctic situation. Ronald Purver, admitted that the status of global non-proliferation is “not that great at the moment, so that might argue against the practicality of certain Arctic proposals, on the other hand, it may enforce the argument that you've got to start somewhere, and the Arctic might be the place.”92 In a similar vein, Dr. Hamel-Green noted that “you have to have regional initiatives side by side with global initiatives… regional initiatives can lay the way for global initiatives as well, and vice versa.”93", 'The prospects for NACD progress under the new Biden Administration were particularly noted, especially the possibility of a no-first-use pledge.94 Such a change in US strategic posture would have direct ramifications on military activity in the Arctic region, for as Regehr remarked, it “would remove the rationale for US submarine patrols that threaten Russian SSBNs in what are international waters, but often considered as Russian home waters,” because of their bastion defence posture.95 A no-first-use pledge is a key confidence building measure within Axworthy’s proposed framework for an ANWFZ.96', 'Dr. Hamel-Green, while strongly emphasizing the necessity of confidence building measures, noted that “confidence building measures are one of the interesting things that helped defuse things between the Trump administration and North Korea. It was American willingness to cancel its military exercises using nuclear bombers close to the North Korean border.”97 Applying this rationale to the Arctic, Dr. Hamel-Green proposed that “there could be right away an initial agreement not to have any military exercises in the Arctic Ocean, which is quite a feasible thing that could be bilaterally attractive to Russia and America.”98']

[(0, 13)]

ndtceda

Michigan-DoPh-Aff-Dartmouth-RR-Round-4.docx

Michigan

DoPh

d2e18c888af2d3859a7e9ece5e5b21606b385655deaac9459b6db1f45d031716

Chinese modernization is destabilizing---the aff SOLVES.

David C. Logan & Phillip C. Saunders 23. Ph.D. Candidate in Security Studies at the Princeton University School of Public and International Affairs and incoming Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the MIT Security Studies Program. Director of the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs at the Institute for National Strategic Studies. “Discerning the Drivers of China’s Nuclear Force Development: Models, Indicators, and Data.” https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratperspective/china/chinaPerspectives-18.pdf?ver=vfq7ubtJyhPAKNAaO21jkQ%3d%3d.

status models consistent with China’s current development encourage China to continue nuclear buildup seek parity with U.S China adopt a launch-on-warning compensate for survivability accompanied by alert status delegation distributed warhead handling shifts generate second-order effects empowerment nuclear constituencies bureaucratic drivers capabilities ease tech constraints alter China’s strategy China respond to advances that negate the gains U.S. nuclear force establish the benchmark for nuclear Great Power China to pursue capabilities that match those Chinese participating with superpowers as a near peer rather than second-tier power

status models are most consistent with China’s current and projected nuclear force development China is likely to continue to increase the overall size of its nuclear forces Great Power status drivers might encourage China to continue its nuclear buildup to seek quantitative and qualitative parity with U.S nuclear capabilities incorporate more advanced technologies into its nuclear force development if China chooses to adopt a launch-on-warning posture compensate for the limited survivability this move may be accompanied by a higher alert status greater delegation distributed model of nuclear warhead handling formal revision of China’s n o- f irst- u se policy interpret inbound adversary nuclear missiles as a “ first use ” that justifies a retaliatory launch increase the readiness of its nuclear forces ongoing shifts in China’s nuclear force development generate second-order effects creation and empowerment of nuclear constituencies generate new bureaucratic drivers introduction of new capabilities will further ease previous tech nological constraints promote the development of operational concepts alter China’s nuclear strategy coordinating nuclear planning, operations, and force structure development which could give the PLA more say in the formulation of nuclear strategy and policy blur the lines between conventional and nuclear forces and promote the bleed-over of more forward-leaning operational concepts from conventional to nuclear units China will respond to changes in U.S. strategic forces If China is likely to respond to advances in U.S. offensive nuclear capabilities th force development efforts of its own that negate the anticipated gains policymakers should take this response into account China’s nuclear force development is likely to respond to perceived U.S. strategic policy developments U.S. nuclear force developments establish the benchmark for what it means to be a nuclear Great Power cause China to pursue capabilities that match those of the United States if concerns about status continue to play an increasing role in Chinese nuclear thinking, future attempts to enlist Chinese participation in arms control highlight the distinction that comes from participating in arms control negotiations with the nuclear superpowers as a near peer rather than as a second-tier nuclear power

most consistent current projected quantitative and qualitative parity nuclear capabilities advanced technologies launch-on-warning higher alert status greater delegation distributed model of nuclear warhead handling n f u first use retaliatory launch readiness generate second-order effects nuclear constituencies bureaucratic drivers new capabilities alter China’s nuclear strategy nuclear strategy policy blur the lines conventional nuclear bleed-over will respond likely to respond perceived developments establish the benchmark pursue capabilities match those near peer second-tier nuclear power

['This study makes several contributions to the understanding of China’s nuclear force development. First, it develops six competing models for understanding the underlying logic of China’s nuclear force development. Second, it identifies the features of nuclear forces and strategy most likely to emerge under each model. Third, it develops additional observable indicators that can help adjudicate between the competing models. Finally, using new open-source data on China’s nuclear forces and supporting elements, it assesses which models best explain China’s ongoing nuclear force development. Our analysis suggests that the secure second-strike, nuclear shield, and Great Power status models are most consistent with China’s current and projected nuclear force development. These findings suggest specific predictions about China’s near-term nuclear force development. Specifically, they suggest that China is likely to continue to increase the overall size of its nuclear forces. The logic of nuclear expansion differs between the models, with the secure second-strike model emphasizing the need for larger nuclear forces to increase their survivability against possible counterforce strikes and BMD capabilities, nuclear shield emphasizing the need to deter U.S. nuclear threats and conventional intervention, and Great Power status emphasizing the desire to win increased status and prestige for China by distinguishing it from second-tier nuclear states. Each therefore predicts a different ultimate size for Chinese nuclear forces, with the size predicted by the secure second-strike model at the lower end, that predicted by Great Power status at the higher end, and that predicted by nuclear shield in the middle. The findings suggest that the primary drivers of China’s nuclear force development are ensuring survivability, deterring U.S. military threats and intervention, and bolstering status. In the long run, Great Power status drivers might encourage China to continue its nuclear buildup to seek quantitative and qualitative parity with U.S. and Russian nuclear capabilities, though such a buildup would generate increasing operational costs and risks, might come at the expense of conventional capabilities and missions that the Rocket Force and the PLA still appear to prioritize, and could have costs in terms of China’s desire to project a benevolent and peaceful image that differs from that of the superpowers. These models also imply that China’s nuclear force development probably will not emphasize advanced precision-strike capabilities to satisfy military requirements, though China may incorporate more advanced technologies into its nuclear force development if they are seen as markers of prestige and achievement. These three models predict that China is likely to retain a relatively restrained operational posture featuring moderate levels of alert status, low levels of launch authority delegation, and maintenance of a no-first-use policy. However, if China chooses to adopt a launch-on-warning posture to compensate for the limited survivability of its large silo-based ICBM force, this move may be accompanied by a higher alert status, greater delegation of launch authority, a more distributed model of nuclear warhead handling, and formal revision of China’s no-first-use policy to interpret inbound adversary nuclear missiles as a “first use” that justifies a retaliatory launch. China may also increase the readiness of its nuclear forces if it decides that qualitative and quantitative enhancements to its nuclear forces are insufficient to secure their survivability or if it considers higher alert status or greater delegation hallmarks of a nuclear Great Power. Finally, these models imply a small role for BMD capabilities and a moderate role for strategic ISR assets. China is likely to continue investing in BMD systems but is unlikely to deploy an extensive BMD architecture beyond what would be necessary to demonstrate its technological achievements in this area. In contrast, it is likely to develop and deploy more robust ISR strategic warning capabilities to support a launch-on-warning posture and to distinguish itself as only the third country ever to obtain a missile early-warning system. (An additional finding of the analysis is that enhanced strategic warning capabilities are valued in all the models.) These predictions are summarized in table 11. In addition to these first-order changes, however, ongoing shifts in China’s nuclear force development may generate second-order effects, which could encourage additional shifts in the medium to long term. For instance, although bureaucratic dynamics appear to exhibit a low to moderate influence on China’s current nuclear force development, the creation and empowerment of nuclear constituencies within the Chinese military could generate new bureaucratic drivers. As China more fully develops the air and sea legs of its nuclear triad, there will be new organizations with a vested interest in maintaining and expanding China’s nuclear forces and missions. In addition, the introduction of new capabilities will further ease previous technological constraints and may promote the development of operational concepts that alter China’s nuclear strategy. For example, the growing diversification of PLA nuclear forces may lead to the creation of formal institutions and policies for coordinating and deconflicting nuclear planning, operations, and force structure development across the various services, which could give the PLA more say in the formulation of nuclear strategy and policy. The introduction of truly dualcapable systems such as the DF-26 may further blur the lines between conventional and nuclear forces and promote the bleed-over of more forward-leaning operational concepts from conventional to nuclear units.84 If nuclear forces are viewed as more prestigious, service in nuclear units may be viewed as an avenue to professional success, perhaps further empowering personnel from nuclear communities.85 Our analysis relies on open sources, which, while valuable, have certain inherent limitations. The framework presented in this report can potentially employ alternative and updated data sources to validate or revise our findings. U.S. intelligence analysts could replace our open source assessments with classified data and recode the values for China’s current and projected nuclear force structure and the additional indicators. Beyond validating or revising the specific conclusions of this study, using this framework with classified data could help illuminate the promise and pitfalls of open-source analysis of the PLA more generally. The findings presented here have several important implications for U.S. policy. First, the United States should anticipate that China will respond to changes in U.S. strategic forces as necessary to maintain a survivable second strike. If China is likely to respond to advances in U.S. offensive nuclear capabilities and defensive BMD systems with force development efforts of its own that negate the anticipated gains, U.S. policymakers should take this response into account in decisions about U.S. force investments. Second, China’s efforts to deter U.S. military threats and intervention through a larger nuclear force will place a greater premium on the local conventional force balance. U.S. policymakers will face difficult choices about allocating defense dollars across nuclear and conventional forces.86 Third, beyond considerations of survivability and deterrence, China’s nuclear force development is likely to respond to perceived U.S. strategic policy developments because U.S. nuclear force developments will establish the benchmark for what it means to be a nuclear Great Power. This effect may cause China to pursue capabilities that, at least qualitatively, match those of the United States. Fourth, China will likely remain reluctant to enter into arms control agreements if it views such agreements as hindering efforts to enhance the survivability and deterrent value of its nuclear forces or formally locking it into an inferior position.87 However, if concerns about status continue to play an increasing role in Chinese nuclear thinking, future attempts to enlist Chinese participation in arms control could highlight the distinction that comes from participating in arms control negotiations with the nuclear superpowers as a near peer rather than as a second-tier nuclear power.', '']

[(9, 16), (28, 39)]

ndtceda

Emory-GaHe-Aff-Owen-L-Coon-Memorial-Debates-Round-2.docx

Emory

GaHe

c11ddab7970d7c0fde06e6af67938c1d3cf375c2de687af33c0df58d060fe53f

The prefix alone rules them out.

Noce ’9 [David; October 28; Federal Magistrate Judge; Westlaw, “Hoodlums Welding Hoods, LLC v. Redtail Int'l, LLC,” No. 4:08 CV 893 DDN, 2009 WL 3617479]

The parties agree on meaning of “ nonhuman ,” as “ [a] ll living things other than humans.”

The parties agree on the meaning of the term “ nonhuman ,” The parties define “non-human” as “ [a] ll living things other than humans.”

agree meaning nonhuman define [a] ll living things

['The parties agree on the meaning of the terms “animal” and “nonhuman,” as found in the claims. (Doc. 37, Ex. A at 2.) The parties define “animal” as “[a] living organism distinct from plants, including but not limited to humans, gorillas or dogs, as shown in Figures 5 through 9 of the ′972 patent.” (Id.) The parties define “non-human” as “[a]ll living things other than humans.” (Id.) The parties disagree, however, on the meaning of six other terms found within the four claims of the ′972 patent:']

[(0, 7)]

ndtceda

Michigan-McSk-Neg-Wake-Round-4.docx

Michigan

McSk

07e6aeae5fe7a5fda607b1df5153f700a2a3c56da965862ebafcf6f0775b172c

*The TVA can center the transnational and global nature of antinuclear movements while still advocating for legal restrictions.

Acheson 21 (Ray Acheson (they/them) is an organiser, activist, and writer. They are Director of Reaching Critical Will, the disarmament programme of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), the world's oldest feminist peace organisation. They serve on the steering group of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work to ban nuclear weapons, as well as the steering committees of Stop Killer Robots and the International Network on Explosive Weapons. Revitalizing a Movement – Chapter 5 in BANNING THE BOMB, SMASHING THE PATRIARCHY, Published by Rowman & Littlefield 2021, JKS)

connections with Indigenous communities into ICAN networks across borders is something that antinuclear activism has always offered ICAN sought to reinforce the transnational character of this work to include activists from countries that traditionally hadn’t been active ICAN as “a coalition of dreams of hope of a people to achieve one objective

She considered herself to be an activist whose learning and experience was “geared more towards tactics for direct action But when a paid gig opened up with ICAN, she jumped at the opportunity to learn something new One of the most important aspects of the work from her perspective was able to bring her connections with Indigenous communities around the country into ICAN ’s campaigning on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons and for the ban treaty. Building networks across borders is something that antinuclear activism has always offered In the 1980s protesters in Western Europe and North America were connected in their opposition and even in many of their actions. ICAN sought to reinforce the transnational character of this work to include activists from countries that traditionally hadn’t been very active in antinuclear work . activist from Kenya said she was drawn to the “synergy and complementarity among campaigners” in ICAN Sharing research and knowledge, undertaking collaborative campaign actions” across countries, she describes ICAN as “a coalition of dreams of hope of a people to achieve one objective —banning nuclear weapons

Building networks across borders is something that antinuclear activism has always offered ICAN sought to reinforce the transnational character of this work to include activists from countries that traditionally hadn’t been very active in antinuclear work .

['This was part of the reason another Australian campaigner got involved. Previously, she had worked with Traditional Owners of the land, Indigenous groups that were active in resisting nuclear waste dumps and uranium mines. She came to know about ICAN through this work but wasn’t involved in weapons issues because it “didn’t feel as present” to her. “It was more of an intangible idea that others were dealing with, rather than lands being smashed and people affected” every day by other aspects of the nuclear chain. She considered herself to be an activist whose learning and experience was “geared more towards tactics for direct action, like forest blockades and legal strategies.” But when a paid gig opened up with ICAN, she jumped at the opportunity to learn something new. “Being paid to work on antinuclear issues is rare,” she laughed. One of the most important aspects of the work from her perspective was able to bring her connections with Indigenous communities around the country into ICAN’s national and international campaigning on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons and for the ban treaty.', 'Building networks across borders is something that antinuclear activism has always offered. In the 1980s in particular, protesters in Western Europe and North America were connected in their opposition and even in many of their actions. ICAN sought to reinforce the transnational character of this work—and to include activists from countries that traditionally hadn’t been very active in antinuclear work. An activist from Kenya said she was drawn to the “synergy and complementarity among campaigners” in ICAN. “Sharing research and knowledge, undertaking collaborative campaign actions” across countries, she describes ICAN as “a coalition of dreams of hope of a people to achieve one objective—banning nuclear weapons.” She was also encouraged by the “unity in diversity and accord amongst campaigners of different ages, nationalities, religious or political affiliations,” to which she attributes keeping “the momentum of the campaign alive.”']

[(0, 10)]

ndtceda

MichiganState-BeMo-Neg-2---Kentucky-Doubles.docx

MichiganState

BeMo

9ee083079ba256e026d4956d7ac7f9a8362f7ad6cea7ef690986b44b2d4f74d7

The CP solves---bolsters U.S. leadership in the short-term, ensures future NFU decisions are based on the global security environment, and does risk reduction measures that solve the case. The plan collapses deterrence against Chinese aggression---AND sparks prolif by Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Taiwan---all that causes nuclear war

Duyeon Kim 22, adjunct senior fellow with the Center for a New American Security, 2/15/22, “Biden Can Find Middle Ground in Heated Nuclear Debate,” https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/15/nuclear-weapons-review-biden/

a middle way is possible n f u would be accompanied by changes to force posture allies objected alterations could put their security at risk changes would exacerbate doubts enemies would pay no attention , but allies would pay too much allies do not want nuclear use only responding to nuclear attack . For Asian allies psychological effect is important Even if conventional weapons could effectively respond they need something much stronger n f u would bring back America first” nightmare U S should lead reducing nuclear dangers But conditions in security environment must support it China’s n f u has been met with skepticism China made strides in conventional capabilities and are increasingly aggressive there is no evidence countries will follow on n f u decision on n f u should be guided by security landscape according to threat assessments of concerned parties ; adversaries’ doctrines allies’ confidence and U.S. capabilities to deter Biden could demonstrate serious about working toward n f u First reiterate n f u is America’s goal without yet giving up first use compile list of circumstances it might employ a nuc much more limited than Trump’s N P R run threat assessments of allies to gauge circumstances all parties would feel comfortable renouncing first use if the U S renounced first use it would undermine the deterrent In Asia, allies would consider nuclear options South Korea , Japan , Taiwan Australia toyed with nuclear programs South Korea would call for nuc s Japan’s nuclear armament would ignite arms race Washington could discuss nuclear states agreeing to reciprocal n f u advantages including preventing going first to find no one follows n f u pose more risks than benefits in today’s environment . But is a long-term goal provided right conditions Until then, nuclear deterrence is effective

Biden is faced with competing pressures the niche, but important, arms control community and foreign allies have been hotly debating whether Washington should adopt a policy the U S will not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis (a preemptive attack or first strike), referred to as a “ n f u and that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack referred to as a “sole purpose” policy. Both sides fiercely argue their viewpoint—b ut a middle way is possible In 2017 Biden articulated his belief the U S does not need to use nuclear weapons first During his presidential campaign, Biden pledged to push for n f u Declaring n f u would inevitably be accompanied by making changes to U.S. force posture and structure, including increasing the time and steps it takes to launch allies objected to alterations in U.S. nuclear doctrine that could put their own security at risk . Many Asian and European officials told me changes would exacerbate existing doubts about Washington’s security commitment to them The real danger of n f u is our enemies would pay no attention , but our allies would pay too much losing confidence in the alliances the next president could reverse Biden’s decision , further undermining U.S. credibility. Allies firmly resisted when Obama was considering adopting n f u That’s hard to ignore when Biden is attempting to strengthen alliances damaged during Trump’s presidency Those who advocate n f u and/or sole purpose present arguments whose common denominator is enhancing crisis stability Some experts believe n f u and sole purpose are different. The latter avoids “eroding primary or extended deterrence” because such language leaves enough ambiguity about the circumstances in which the U S would use nuclear weapons U.S. allies do not want Washington to limit its nuclear use to only responding to a nuclear attack . For Asian allies in particular, the psychological effect is just as important as their physical destructive power. Even if high-tech conventional weapons could effectively respond to non-nuclear attacks Asian officials they still need something much stronger to scare and deter adversaries from waging any kind of attack decision-makers in allied and adversarial countries will not spend time analyzing words and researching definitions and historical origins according to different formulations of the language presented in the N P R Several officials have told me they will interpret n f u and sole purpose as the same concept , and either will have the same effect on allies and rivals. A premature pledge would bring back the ghosts of Trump’s “ America first” nightmare , in which allies’ needs were abandoned in favor of a narrow concept of American security The U S should play a lead ership role in reducing nuclear dangers worldwide. But the conditions in the global security environment must support it . Not all nuclear-possessing countries have a n f u Russia dropped it in 1993 nuclear weapons play a key role in its military do ctrine important to remember amid invasion of Ukraine and the potential for Moscow to be further emboldened by an American n f u sole purpose China’s claimed n f u has been met with increasing skepticism India’s conditional n f u reserves the right to use nuclear weapons ag ainst biological or chemical attacks Pakistan, France, and the U K have first-use policies China and Russia have made strides in conventional capabilities , continue to modernize their nuclear capabilities, and are increasingly aggressive . North Korea’s nuclear weapons advancements and sophistication drive neighbors to want their own nuclear deterrent Emerging non-nuclear threats and new technologies have increased uncertainties about their destructive power as well as possibilities for nuclear use there is no guarantee or evidence other countries will follow America’s lead on n f u sole purpose decision on when and how to take tangible steps toward n f u sole purpose should be guided primarily by the circumstances in the security landscape and security concerns of the U S and its allies assessed according to threat assessments of concerned parties ; adversaries’ nuclear doctrines , force postures, and military capabilities; allies’ confidence in U.S. security guarantees; and U.S. military and political capabilities to deter nuclear and non-nuclear threats Biden could demonstrate it is serious about working toward n f u sole purpose by taking a series of declaratory and actionable steps. First reiterate that n f u sole purpose is America’s ultimate goal and that it will proactively work toward that end Such a statement would further advance Obama’s N P R which articulated its commitment to work toward reducing the role of nuclear weapons without yet giving up its right to nuclear first use , while acknowledging the Trump N P R ’s assessment of a sharp deterioration of the security environment with growing threats from China , Russia , North Korea , and non-nuclear strategic sources Biden could compile an illustrative list of circumstances under which it might consider employ ing a nuc lear weapon against a non-nuclear attack Such a list would indicate those circumstances would be much more limited than the impression conveyed in Trump’s N P R Washington could announce it will take steps toward adopting n f u /sole purpose in close consultation with allies the administration could run threat assessments of the U S and its allies to gauge specific circumstances under which all parties would feel comfortable with Washington renouncing first use , declaring sole purpose, and beginning to take steps to add credibility to its declaratory policy moving nuclear weapons off high alert, or ready to launch instantly These discussions could be held in newly created consultative mechanisms with allies or included in existing ones that deal with defense and extended deterrence issues. Congress could stay informed From an alliance perspective, if the U S renounced its right to nuclear first use in extreme circumstances and declared sole purpose today , it would contradict NATO’s policy and undermine the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons . European allies object to n f u because of Russia’s revanchism and growing reliance on nuclear weapons. Washington would need to manage any future n f u sole purpose polic y within NATO In Asia, allies have already been increasingly skeptical about the U.S. extended nuclear deterrent and would be tempted to seriously consider their own nuclear options because of threats from China and North Korea South Korea , Japan , Taiwan , and even Australia previously toyed with nuclear programs . South Korea ns tell me progressives might use a n f u sole purpose policy as rationale arguing the nuclear umbrella is gone or broken—to question the need for U.S. troop presence and the U N Command, while moderates and conservatives would use the same rationale to call for the country’s own nuc lear weapon s . Prospects of Japan’s nuclear armament would ignite a nuclear arms race in the region as well Washington could discuss with senior officials of nuclear states eventually agreeing to global or reciprocal n o- f irst- u se postures or beginning conversations on how to reduce pressures for nuclear use. There are many advantages of the former, including preventing Washington from going first only to find no one else follows and reducing the likelihood of intentional, accidental, unauthorized, or miscalculated nuclear use. States would still retain their deterrent , but the threshold would be raised for nuclear use and nuclear war. Global n f u could be achieved from a cobweb of bilateral agreements or multilateral ones n f u /sole purpose and force posture would pose more risks than benefits in today’s strategic environment . But it is still a long-term goal the U S could strive for provided the right conditions are in place . Until then, nuclear deterrence is effective when adversaries know the U S would actually use its nuclear weapons

hotly debating U S n f u sole purpose middle way is possible U S need n f u n f u inevitably allies exacerbate existing doubts n f u enemies would pay no attention allies would pay too much reverse Biden’s decision n f u attempting to strengthen alliances n f u n f u enough ambiguity U S U.S. allies do not want only responding to a nuclear attack psychological effect still need something much stronger any kind of attack analyzing words and researching definitions and historical origins N P R told me n f u same concept either bring back the ghosts of Trump’s “ America first” nightmare U S lead conditions in the global security environment must support it n f u invasion of Ukraine Moscow to be further emboldened n f u n f u n f u U K increasingly aggressive want their own nuclear deterrent possibilities for nuclear use no guarantee or evidence follow America’s lead n f u n f u circumstances in the security landscape U S threat assessments of concerned parties adversaries’ nuclear doctrines allies’ confidence U.S. capabilities to deter n f u First n f u America’s ultimate goal N P R without yet giving up its right to nuclear first use N P R ’s China Russia North Korea illustrative list employ nuc much more limited N P R n f u close consultation with allies threat assessments U S all parties renouncing first use newly created consultative mechanisms included in existing ones U S today contradict NATO’s policy undermine the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons n f u Russia’s revanchism n f u within NATO seriously consider their own nuclear options South Korea Japan Taiwan Australia toyed with nuclear programs South Korea n f u rationale question the need for U.S. troop presence U N country’s own nuc lear weapon s ignite a nuclear arms race global or reciprocal n o- f irst- u se postures preventing Washington from going first still retain their deterrent Global n f u cobweb of bilateral agreements or multilateral ones n f u more risks than benefits in today’s strategic environment long-term goal U S right conditions are in place nuclear deterrence is effective know U S actually use

['U.S. President Joe Biden is faced with competing pressures as his administration prepares to announce the results of the latest Nuclear Posture Review. The administration; the niche, but important, arms control community in Washington; and foreign allies have been hotly debating whether Washington should adopt a policy pledging that the United States will not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis (a preemptive attack or first strike), referred to as a “no first use” policy, and that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack against America and its allies, referred to as a “sole purpose” policy. Both sides fiercely argue their viewpoint—but a middle way is possible.', 'In January 2017, then-Vice President Biden articulated his long-held belief that the United States does not need to use nuclear weapons first. It mirrored then-President Barack Obama’s convictions about reducing the role of nuclear weapons and America’s “moral responsibility … to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” It also reflected a reduction in Washington’s perceived need to retain the first-use option against non-nuclear attacks since the end of the Cold War. During his 2020 presidential campaign, Biden pledged to push for a no-first-use policy, with his website stating, “As president, he will work to put that belief into practice, in consultation with our allies and military.”', 'Biden is being pressed to make good on his campaign commitment by Democratic leaders such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Adam Smith, who reintroduced the No First Use Bill in April 2021 and signed on to a letter delivered to the president on Jan. 26, and he is also facing pressure from some experts in the nongovernmental arms control community.', 'Declaring a no-first-use policy would inevitably be accompanied by making changes to U.S. force posture and structure, including increasing the time and steps it takes to launch a nuclear weapon.', 'American allies, however, have firmly objected to alterations in U.S. nuclear doctrine that could put their own security at risk. Many Asian and European officials and experts in allied countries have told me that changes would also exacerbate existing doubts about Washington’s security commitment to them. As former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Walter Slocombe said in 2014, “The real danger of a no-first-use pledge is that our enemies would pay no attention, but our allies would pay too much [attention], losing confidence in the alliances.”', 'Plus, the next American president could reverse Biden’s decision, further undermining U.S. credibility. Allies firmly resisted when the Obama administration was considering adopting a no-first-use pledge and most recently expressed similar concerns during the Biden administration’s consultations. That’s hard to ignore at a time when Biden is attempting to strengthen alliances damaged during his predecessor Donald Trump’s presidency.', 'Those who advocate for a no-first-use and/or sole purpose policy present many important arguments whose common denominator is enhancing crisis stability, reducing the chances of escalation to the nuclear level, and leading by example through unilateral nuclear restraint. The potential return of Trumpism (and a president’s sole authority to launch nuclear weapons) would add more weight to these claims, even though such policy could be reversed by a future president. Some experts also believe that no-first-use and sole purpose are different. The latter, they argue, avoids “eroding primary or extended deterrence” because such language leaves enough ambiguity about the circumstances in which the United States would use nuclear weapons.', 'However, U.S. allies do not want Washington to limit its nuclear use to only responding to a nuclear attack. For Asian allies in particular, the psychological effect of nuclear weapons is just as important as their physical destructive power. Even if high-tech conventional weapons could effectively respond to non-nuclear attacks from an operational standpoint, Asian officials say they still need something much stronger to scare and deter adversaries from waging any kind of attack.', 'Plus, decision-makers in both allied and adversarial countries will not spend time analyzing words and researching definitions and historical origins according to different formulations of the language presented in the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review. Several officials have told me that they will interpret no-first-use and sole purpose as the same concept, and either articulation will have the same effect on allies and rivals. A premature pledge would also bring back the ghosts of Trump’s “America first” nightmare, in which allies’ needs were abandoned in favor of a narrow concept of American security.', 'The United States can and should play a leadership role in reducing nuclear dangers worldwide. But the conditions or circumstances in the global security environment must support it. Not all nuclear-possessing countries have a no-first-use policy. Russia dropped it in 1993, and nuclear weapons play a key role in its military doctrine. This is important to remember amid increasing fears of another Russian invasion of Ukraine and the potential for Moscow to be further emboldened by an American no-first-use/sole purpose policy. China’s claimed no-first-use policy has been met with increasing skepticism. North Korea maintains a first-use policy. India’s conditional no-first-use policy reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against biological or chemical weapons attacks. Pakistan, France, and the United Kingdom have first-use policies.', 'What’s more, China and Russia have made strides in their conventional capabilities, continue to modernize their nuclear weapons capabilities, and are increasingly aggressive. North Korea’s nuclear weapons advancements and sophistication drive neighbors to want their own nuclear deterrent. Advanced weapons in both conventional and dual-capable systems risk blurring the distinction between an incoming conventional and nuclear attack. Emerging non-nuclear threats and new technologies have also increased uncertainties about their destructive power and impact on military strategies as well as possibilities for nuclear use. And there is no guarantee or evidence that other countries will follow America’s lead on no-first-use/sole purpose. The list goes on.', 'A decision on when and how to take tangible steps toward no-first-use/sole purpose, therefore, should be guided primarily by the circumstances in the security landscape and the security concerns of both the United States and its allies. They could be assessed according to four general conditions: threat assessments of concerned parties; adversaries’ nuclear doctrines, force postures, and military capabilities; allies’ confidence in U.S. security guarantees; and U.S. military and political capabilities to deter both nuclear-weapons use and non-nuclear threats that can cause mass destruction by adversaries.', 'The Biden administration could demonstrate it is serious about working toward no-first-use/sole purpose by taking a series of declaratory and actionable steps. First, it could reiterate that no-first-use/sole purpose is America’s ultimate goal and that it will proactively work toward that end. It could outline specific steps in the Nuclear Posture Review or in a separate format.', 'Such a statement would further advance Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, which articulated its commitment to work toward reducing the role of nuclear weapons without yet giving up its right to nuclear first use, while acknowledging the Trump’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review’s assessment of a sharp deterioration of the security environment with growing threats from China, Russia, North Korea, and non-nuclear strategic sources.', 'The Biden administration could compile an illustrative list of circumstances under which it might consider employing a nuclear weapon against a non-nuclear attack, as proposed by expert Robert Einhorn. Such a list, he argues, would indicate that those circumstances would be much more limited than the impression that was conveyed in Trump’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. The Obama administration stated that Washington would consider the use of nuclear weapons only “in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.” It did not elaborate on “extreme circumstances.” The Trump administration used almost identical language, but it went further to articulate that “Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks … [which] include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.”', 'Washington could also announce that it will take steps toward adopting no-first-use/sole purpose in close consultation with allies. Specifically, the administration could run threat assessments of both the United States and its allies respectively to gauge the specific circumstances under which all parties would feel comfortable with Washington renouncing nuclear first use, declaring sole purpose, and beginning to take steps to add credibility to its declaratory policy. Such measures would include moving nuclear weapons off high alert, or ready to launch instantly. These discussions could be held in newly created consultative mechanisms with allies or included in existing ones that deal with defense and extended deterrence issues. Congress could also stay informed about the administration’s progress by receiving regular briefings.', 'From an alliance perspective, if the United States renounced its right to nuclear first use in extreme circumstances and declared sole purpose today, it would contradict NATO’s policy and undermine the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons. European allies object to no-first-use because of Russia’s revanchism and growing reliance on nuclear weapons. Washington would, therefore, need to manage any future no-first-use/sole purpose policy within NATO.', 'In Asia, allies have already been increasingly skeptical about the reliability of the U.S. extended nuclear deterrent, or nuclear umbrella, and would be tempted to seriously consider their own nuclear options because of threats from China and North Korea. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and even Australia have previously toyed with nuclear weapons programs. South Koreans tell me that progressives might use a no-first-use/sole purpose policy as rationale—arguing that the nuclear umbrella is gone or broken—to question the need for U.S. troop presence and the United Nations Command, while moderates and conservatives would likely use the same rationale to call for the country’s own nuclear weapons. Prospects of Japan’s nuclear armament would ignite a nuclear arms race in the region as well.', 'Washington could also announce that it plans to discuss with senior officials of nuclear states either eventually agreeing to global or reciprocal no-first-use postures or beginning conversations on how to reduce pressures for nuclear use. There are many advantages of the former, including preventing Washington from going first only to find no one else follows and reducing the likelihood of intentional, accidental, unauthorized, or miscalculated nuclear use. States would still retain their deterrent, but the threshold would be raised for nuclear use and nuclear war. Global no-first-use could be achieved from a cobweb of bilateral agreements or multilateral ones. ', 'But it’s true that global or reciprocal no-first-use is ambitious and unrealistic for the foreseeable future. The more feasible option could then be for the administration to begin senior-level discussions with nuclear states on how to reduce pressures for nuclear use.', 'Either way, these measures would provide a more tangible way for nuclear weapons-possessing states to create a more reassuring security environment together.', 'A no-first-use/sole purpose pledge and force posture would pose more risks than benefits in today’s strategic environment. But it is still a long-term goal that the United States could strive for provided the right conditions or circumstances are in place. Until then, nuclear deterrence is effective—when adversaries know the United States would actually use its nuclear weapons.', '', '']

[(7, 13)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-AgRu-Neg-Indiana-Round-5.docx

Northwestern

AgRu

ba11a0dc86c5b4ff520540367091c979cf468606560c834330dd36b6abd4e2c5

Contradictory SEC and FINRA interpretations on the fiduciary duties of robo-advisors undermines the global financial system---each day without clarification structurally increases risk.

Bret E. Strzelczyk 17. Executive Editor of the DePaul Business and Commercial Law Journal. “Rise of the Machines: The Legal Implications for Investor Protection with the Rise of Robo-Advisors.” .

judiciary controls lagged behind the devices regulatory bodies unable to process to ensure investors and th economy are protected judiciary need only to look treatment of human advisors and their fiduciary duty begin untangling counteractive reg s answer the robo-advisor question inability to define the relationship complicate the global financial system Each day without additional regulation and legal guidance means dramatic losses and lack of remedy for investors having Congress settle the question of fiduciary status eliminating differences between SEC, FINRA, and DOL interpretations through legislation address heightened systemic risk. steps fallen short in providing investor protection and creating safeguards against systemic risk

The size and complexity of the financial industry along with its fierce competitiveness regulatory and judiciary controls have lagged behind the devices used by industry players to beat their competition regulatory bodies have been unable to process new technologies or practices quickly enough to ensure that investors and th e overall economy are properly protected robo-advisors highlights technological innovation and the inability to properly guide the industry judiciary need only to look to their treatment of human advisors and their fiduciary duty understanding of the fiduciary obligations begin untangling the competing and often counteractive reg ulation s , laws, policy papers, and other forms of guidance that have been given to attempt to answer the robo-advisor question Innovation has never been allowed to sever the common law and statutory obligations that exist between advisor and investor – it should not do so now. inability to correctly define the relationship between investor and robo-advisor stands to complicate the existing global financial system with each passing day as more investors pursue economic advancement through low-cost, automated options Each day without additional regulation and legal guidance means further opportunity for dramatic losses and a lack of remedy for investors having Congress settle the question of fiduciary status once and for all by eliminating the differences between the various SEC, FINRA, and DOL interpretations through legislation represent solutions which have been used in the past to address market areas that have posed threats to investor protection and that have heightened systemic risk. steps have fallen short in providing investor protection and creating appropriate safeguards against systemic risk ps were proposed in this note to move forward as technology moves forward in a way that will not stifle innovation. these steps can provide the proper protections for investors developers and financial institutions alike to take on the challenges of investing in the twenty-first century.

investors and th e overall economy are properly protected treatment of human advisors and their fiduciary duty inability to correctly define the relationship existing global financial system means further opportunity for dramatic losses and a lack of remedy for investors the question of fiduciary status systemic risk. creating appropriate safeguards against systemic risk

['Robo-advisors The size and complexity of the financial industry along with its fierce competitiveness has always meant that regulatory and judiciary controls have lagged behind the devices and business methods used by industry players to beat their competition and provide a higher quality of service to their customers. Often, regulatory bodies have been unable to process new technologies or practices quickly enough to ensure that investors and the overall economy are properly protected. The present situation involving robo-advisors highlights technological innovation and the inability to properly guide the industry. FINRA, the SEC, the DOL, and the judiciary need only to look to their treatment of human advisors and their fiduciary duty to collaborate on a common understanding of the fiduciary obligations. Doing so would begin untangling the competing and often counteractive regulations, laws, policy papers, and other forms of guidance that have been given to attempt to answer the robo-advisor question. Innovation has never been allowed to sever the common law and statutory obligations that exist between advisor and investor – it should not do so now. The inability to correctly define the relationship between investor and robo-advisor stands to complicate the existing global financial system with each passing day as more investors pursue economic advancement through these low-cost, automated options. Each day without additional regulation and legal guidance means further opportunity for dramatic losses and a lack of remedy for investors. As discussed in this note, the present inadequacies of current laws and the inability of financial regulatory bodies to use their expertise to guide both the legislative and judicial branches of our government towards a more equitable investment industry for all participants. The inability to define the fiduciary structure of the robo-advisor may be remedied by forcing robo-advisors out of the market and replacing them with hybrid robo-advisors which combine the positive elements of artificial intelligence and human portfolio analysis. This note is unique because those following the rise of robo-advisors have not sought to compile the conflicting regulations, press releases, and guidance that the numerous agencies have distributed. No one has attempted to make sense of why a robo-advisor may comply with the elements necessary to invoke the fiduciary standard of care, but still the final answer remains severed from existing case law involving human advisers and SEC declarations. This note has put forth several solutions to an extremely complicated and quickly evolving question. Those solutions range from free market initiatives, to allowing states to serve as the laboratories of democracy in regulating these types of firms, to heavy-handed federal government intervention to essentially push out pure robo-advisors in favor of hybrid models, to having Congress settle the question of fiduciary status once and for all by eliminating the differences between the various SEC, FINRA, and DOL interpretations through legislation. The author admits that none of these solutions are easy, but they represent solutions which have been used in the past to address market areas that have posed threats to investor protection and that have heightened systemic risk. The regulatory questions and political issues involving robo-advisors have begun to take more precedent within the legal industry as retail investors and institutional investors have begun to invest more heavily in these areas. Those steps have fallen short in providing proper investor protection and creating appropriate safeguards against systemic risk. Several steps were proposed in this note to move forward as technology moves forward in a way that will not stifle innovation. If implemented, these steps can provide the proper protections for investors, investment platform developers, and financial institutions alike to take on the challenges of investing in the twenty-first century.', '']

[(8, 21)]

ndtceda

Emory-MiPi-Aff-NDT-Round-1.docx

Emory

MiPi

cd25464e7fe7e9b17d130011c4a3690903074c71852d5a96404ddab92242c8bb

Russia is postured for a surprise attack now.

Pry 22, is Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, served as Chief of Staff of the Congressional EMP Commission, Director of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum, and on the staffs of the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA. (Peter Vincent, 3-17-2022, “The Nuclear 9/11 in Our Future,” Real Clear Defense, https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/03/17/the_nuclear_911_in_our_future_822292.html)

Russia Postured For Surprise Attack Putin's threats are credible because postured for surprise all the time , in C C R ICBMs are 95% ready to launch secretly , using secure C3 retractable roofs allow launching without deployment Russia’s at least 800 enough for a surprise submarines strike U.S. launching port

Russia Postured For Nuclear Surprise Attack there is a nuclear 9/11 in our future Putin's nuclear threats are credible because his strategic forces are postured for surprise attack all the time , in a perpetual alert status called " C onstant C ombat R eadiness," which does not require highly visible force-wide mobilization Russia's silo-based and mobile ICBMs are always over 95% ready to launch in minutes and can be ordered to launch secretly , using highly secure C3 Russia’s garages have rapidly retractable roofs to allow launching without field deployment . Mobile ICBMs garaged or in the field all have highly secure C3 for receiving and executing launch orders secretly Russia’s ICBMs, if not cheating on New START , has at least 800 warheads, more than enough for a surprise nuclear attack against all U.S. strategic force targets Russian missile submarines carry i nter c ontinental- r ange m issiles that can strike the U.S. launching from port . They have highly secure C3 enabling secret preparation and execution of a surprise attack

Postured nuclear 9/11 credible postured all the time perpetual alert status C C R 95% in minutes secretly highly secure C3 rapidly retractable roofs without field deployment highly secure C3 not cheating New START at least 800 more than enough surprise nuclear attack submarines i c r m from port highly secure C3 secret preparation surprise attack

['Russia Postured For Nuclear Surprise Attack', 'The above erroneous “happy face” analysis by DNI Haines—a lawyer, not a specialist in nuclear forces and operations—exemplifies why someday, perhaps soon, there is a nuclear 9/11 in our future:', '“Indications and Warning 101” for elevated risk of nuclear attack is a big war in Europe involving the superpowers, happening now.', 'Vladimir Putin is Russia’s Nuclear Command Authority, a former KGB thug, megalomaniac, and ruthless killer. Credible nuclear threats from Putin (or from China’s Xi or North Korea’s Kim Jong-un) warrant raising the DEFCON level of U.S. nuclear forces to deter surprise attack.', 'Putin\'s nuclear threats are credible because his strategic forces are postured for surprise attack all the time, in a perpetual alert status called "Constant Combat Readiness," which does not require highly visible force-wide mobilization, which is what DNI Haines is looking for.', "Under Constant Combat Readiness, Russia's silo-based and mobile ICBMs are always over 95% ready to launch in minutes and can be ordered to launch secretly, using highly secure command-control-communications (C3).", 'DNI Haines is looking for Russia’s mobile ICBMs deploying to the field, but they do not have to deploy for a surprise attack because their garages have rapidly retractable roofs to allow launching without field deployment. Mobile ICBMs garaged or in the field all have highly secure C3 for receiving and executing launch orders secretly.', 'Russia’s ICBMs, if Moscow is not cheating on New START, has at least 800 warheads, more than enough for a surprise nuclear attack against all U.S. strategic force targets: 400 ICBM silos, 3 nuclear bomber bases, 2 missile submarine ports, and key C3I nodes.', "DNI Haines is looking for Russia's missile submarines to deploy to sea. But Russian missile submarines carry intercontinental-range missiles that can strike the U.S. launching from port. They also have highly secure C3 enabling secret preparation and execution of a surprise attack.", '', '', '']

[(0, 6)]

ndtceda

Kansas-MaPa-Neg-2---Kentucky-Octas.docx

Kansas

MaPa

7f53a08dda3b55e226fa7dcd2fc28516487acd4a20fc159cda68eb0c6c43f4ce

Anarchist movements are too afraid of power to gather enough power to solve their impacts.

Condit 19 – is an American-born naturalised Finnish citizen retired from a lectureship in English, translation and culture studies in the University of Eastern Finland, you should know em by now (Stephen, “Chapter Two: EVOKING ANARCHISM” chapter in the book Anarchism in Local Governance: A Case Study from Finland, via Anthem Press, pp. 17-18, accessed 9/9/19 on Jstor)

An assertion that statist authority is unjust, exploitative and alienating, is factually wrong and can only lead to a clumsy rejection of participation This risks abdication of self-governance and the capacity to empower others challenging it, might jeopardise our capability to self-governance within it I cannot accept, the frequent declaration of anarchism that the state can never be used ‘as a vehicle for the removal of social ills; for the state must inevitably reinforce principles and practices of inequality and exploitation’ This view condemns the welfare state, for fragmenting communities into isolated declassed citizens’, whose citizenship is a mockery of self-governance and merely the justification of their subordination Social ills are so complex that to reject the state is folly. Yet, the state’s culpability must be declared Anarchism is sensitive to social ills in statist policies and institutions

An assertion that statist authority in all its myriad forms always corrupts ethics and usurps self-governance, that it is invariably unjust, exploitative and alienating, is often factually wrong and can only lead to a clumsy rejection of participation in it. This risks an abdication of self-governance and the capacity to encounter and empower the self-governance of others despite recurring tension and conflicts, a statist context may be a precondition of legitimate participation In propitious circumstances, we may acquire our self-governance by acknowledging the legitimacy of statist government for specific purposes to which we owe an obligation of obedience, thereby abdicating some aspects of self-governance We can pragmatically focus our obligations on matters essential to our self-governance for transformational communality. Statist obligation assumes too much reality in the choice to make the decision to abdicate anything to the state. We are not in such an original position, at least not until the social order collapses It might be wise to bracket too much insistence on challenging it, which might jeopardise our capability to self-governance within it I cannot accept, therefore, the frequent declaration of anarchism that the state can never be used ‘as a vehicle for the removal of identifiable social ills; for the state , even a revolutionary state, must inevitably reinforce principles and practices of inequality and exploitation’ This view condemns the state, and particularly the welfare state, for fragmenting communities into isolated , powerless and ‘ declassed citizens’, whose citizenship is a mockery of self-governance and merely the justification of their subordination . As always, there is a worthwhile intention in this radical judgement: anarchism must pursue new forms of social intercourse and communal endeavour Social ills are so complex that to reject the state is folly. Yet, the state’s culpability must be declared Anarchism is sensitive to the origin of social ills in statist policies and institutions . This renders us sceptical about relying on it to manage them. This problem is particularly acute in the municipality, which is statist in many of its interests and yet a victim of the ruling order’s defects, possibly to be available in resisting and reforming them.

factually wrong and can only lead to a clumsy rejection of participation We are not in such an original position, at least not until the social order collapses It might be wise to bracket too much insistence on challenging it, which might jeopardise our capability to self-governance within it I cannot accept, therefore, the frequent declaration of anarchism that the state can never be used ‘as a vehicle for the removal of identifiable social ills; for the state , even a revolutionary state, must inevitably reinforce principles and practices of inequality and exploitation’

['', '', 'An assertion that statist authority in all its myriad forms always corrupts ethics and usurps self-governance, that it is invariably unjust, exploitative and alienating, is often factually wrong and can only lead to a clumsy rejection of participation in it. This risks an abdication of self-governance and the capacity to encounter and empower the self-governance of others. Kinna suggests that no legitimate mode of governance can flourish within the state. I argue that, despite the recurring tension and conflicts, a statist context may be, in some circumstances, a precondition of legitimate participation, although not of its fullest flourishing. The municipality and local civil society are indeed statist, but they are also much more. Anarchism can seek to empower them beyond their statist features. This may be a palpable experience of the ‘paradox of authority’ sometimes suggested as a justification for political obligation to the state. In propitious circumstances, we may acquire our self-governance by acknowledging the legitimacy of statist government for specific purposes to which we owe an obligation of obedience, thereby abdicating some aspects of self-governance (Egoumenides 2014, 26–30). The argument rests on the need for a stable social order with widely accepted norms of social behaviour. We abdicate some self-governance in order to focus it on matters closest to our character. Egoumenides accepts this reasoning but not as grounds for the legitimacy of the state and our obligation to it. We can pragmatically focus our obligations on matters essential to our self-governance for transformational communality. Statist obligation assumes too much reality in the choice to make the decision to abdicate anything to the state. We are not in such an original position, at least not until the social order collapses. But she grants that self-governance entails cooperatively generated constraints and that good governance must make these possible. What remains ambiguous is the extent to which participation within these constraints constitutes acknowledgement of the legitimacy of statist authority, overriding all other forms, purposes and origins of authority. It might be wise to bracket too much insistence on challenging it, which might jeopardise our capability to self-governance within it. This is an exigent, although seldom explicated, problem in municipal politics. I cannot accept, therefore, the frequent declaration of anarchism that the state can never be used ‘as a vehicle for the removal of identifiable social ills; for the state, even a revolutionary state, must inevitably reinforce principles and practices of inequality and exploitation’ (Harrison 1983, 13, 13–71). This view condemns the state, and particularly the welfare state, for fragmenting communities into isolated, powerless and ‘declassed citizens’, whose citizenship is a mockery of self-governance and merely the justification of their subordination. As always, there is a worthwhile intention in this radical judgement: anarchism must pursue new forms of social intercourse and communal endeavour. Statist policies often exacerbate social ills and impede other means to alleviate them. An example in my situation is the national government’s policy of managing the public debt by shifting a considerable burden of reducing expenditure to local and regional government, which have the greater means and responsibility of social services to address social ills. A better response to the state’s fiscal policy is not to denounce the state but rather to participate in it more effectively and purposively, within and without municipal politics. Social ills are so complex that to reject the state is folly. Yet, the state’s culpability must be declared (Sale 1996, 38–54). Anarchism is sensitive to the origin of social ills in statist policies and institutions. This renders us sceptical about relying on it to manage them. This problem is particularly acute in the municipality, which is statist in many of its interests and yet a victim of the ruling order’s defects, possibly to be available in resisting and reforming them.', '']

[(0, 9)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-Johnson-Sun-Aff-4-Harvard-Round5.docx

Minnesota

JoSu

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Minnesota/JoSu/Minnesota-Johnson-Sun-Aff-4-Harvard-Round5.docx

06ac4fef79d06de841b2ad3b2ff86affca412e344e02107845341f82884c9af6

The United States federal government should substantially increase its prohibitions on anticompetitive private cartel practices in cases where foreign plaintiffs cannot secure adequate relief in alternative for a by expanding the scope of its interpretive obligations under customary international law and expanding the scope of its core antitrust laws.

Bradley 15, William Van Alstyne Professor of Law at Duke Law School, where he is a co-director of the Law School's Center for International and Comparative Law (Curtis A. Bradley, 5-18-2015, "Customary international law’s uncertain status in the US Legal System," Oxford University Press Blog, https://blog.oup.com/2015/05/customary-international-laws-uncertain-status-in-the-us-legal-system/)

Congress can incorporate c i l by codifying standards

Congress can incorporate c ustomary i nternational l aw into US law, and has done so such as by codifying standards providing a civil cause of action and allowing criminal prosecution

Congress c i l codifying standards civil cause of action criminal prosecution

['Even if customary international law does not have the status of self-executing federal law, it does not mean that its role in the US legal system is unimportant. Congress can incorporate customary international law into US law, and it has done so in a number of ways, such as by codifying the standards for foreign sovereign immunity, providing a civil cause of action for acts of torture committed under color of foreign law, and allowing for criminal prosecution of acts of piracy “as defined by the law of nations.” Courts also have long applied a canon of construction – known as the “Charming Betsy canon” – whereby they will construe federal statutes, where reasonably possible, to avoid violations of customary international law. In addition, it is possible that in developing some rules of federal common law relating to foreign affairs, courts will take account of a mixture of international law and domestic law considerations, even if they do not apply customary international law directly. This may be happening, for example, with respect to the law governing the immunity of foreign government officials, something that the US Supreme Court in its 2010 Samantar decision indicated should be developed as a matter of federal common law.', ' ']

[(0, 10)]

ndtceda

Kansas-Snow-Scott-Aff-1%20-%20ADA-Quarters.docx

Kansas

SnSc

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kansas/SnSc/Kansas-Snow-Scott-Aff-1%2520-%2520ADA-Quarters.docx

837349e0ee9c3a66336b947d71f9003cd04b8d5cd814571c2a7e368e89c5fa8b

Extinction outweighs---it’s irreversible and denies agency---killing everyone for ethics justifies genocide.

Anthony Burke et al 16, Associate Professor of International and Political Studies @ UNSW, Australia, Stefanie Fishel is Assistant Professor, Department of Gender and Race Studies at the University of Alabama, Audra Mitchell is CIGI Chair in Global Governance and Ethics at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, Simon Dalby is CIGI Chair in the Political Economy of Climate Change at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, and, Daniel J. Levine is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama, “Planet Politics: Manifesto from the End of IR,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 1–25

Mass extinction is a qualitatively different phenomena that demands its own ethical categories Not only does it erase life their histories and possibilities , but it threatens ontological conditions they imagine a denuded planet not the comprehensive negation mass extinction entails this fails to recognise reality which is being and nonbeing , not one of life and death Worlds erupt from intersection of diverse forms of being Concepts of violence that focus only on humans ignore destruction which undermines conditions of plurality that enables life to thrive

Global ethics must respond to mass extinction for three decades, conservation biologists have been warning of a ‘sixth mass extinction’, which, by definition, could eliminate more than three quarters of currently existing life forms in just a few centuries it could threaten the practical possibility of the survival of earthly life. Mass extinction is not simply extinction (or death) writ large it is a qualitatively different phenomena that demands its own ethical categories . It cannot be grasped by aggregating species extinctions, Not only does it erase diverse, irreplaceable life forms their unique histories and open-ended possibilities , but it threatens the ontological conditions of Earthly life . Cold-War era concepts such as ‘nuclear winter’ and ‘omnicide’ gesture towards harms massive in their scale and moral horror they are asymptotic: they imagine nightmares of a severely denuded planet , yet they do not contemplate the comprehensive negation that a mass extinction event entails . this approach fails to recognise the reality of extinction, which is a matter of being and nonbeing , not one of life and death processes. Confronting the enormity of a possible mass extinction event requires a total overhaul of human perceptions of what is at stake in the disruption of the conditions of Earthly life. The question of what is ‘lost’ in extinction has been addressed in terms of financial cost Yet the enormity, complexity, and scale of mass extinction is so huge that humans need to draw on every possible resource in order to find ways of responding . it is crucial and urgent to realise that extinction is a matter of global ethics It is not simply an issue of management or security, or even of particular visions of the good life Instead, it is about staking a claim as to the goodness of life itself. If it does not fit within the existing parameters of global ethics, then it is these boundaries that need to change we can and should reframe it as authors like Karen Barad ‘entanglement’ is a radical, indeed fundamental condition of being-with, This means that no being is truly autonomous or separate, whether at the scale of international politics or of quantum physics. World emerges from the poetics of existence, the collision of energy and matter, the tumult of agencies, the fusion and diffusion of bonds. Worlds erupt from , and consist in, the intersection of diverse forms of being Because of the tumultuousness of the Earth with which they are entangled, worlds’ are not static, rigid or permanent. They are permeable and fluid They can be created , modified – and, of course, destroyed. Concepts of violence , harm and (in)security that focus only on humans ignore at their peril the destruction and severance of worlds, which undermines the conditions of plurality that enables life on Earth to thrive .

it is a qualitatively different phenomena that demands its own ethical categories . unique histories open-ended possibilities threatens the ontological conditions of Earthly life comprehensive negation matter of being and nonbeing enormity, complexity, and scale draw on every possible resource in order to find ways of responding matter of global ethics diverse forms of being worlds’ are not static, rigid or permanent. They are permeable and fluid created modified which undermines the conditions of plurality that enables life on Earth to thrive .

['8. Global ethics must respond to mass extinction. In late 2014, the Worldwide Fund for Nature reported a startling statistic: according to their global study, 52% of species had gone extinct between 1970 and 2010.60 This is not news: for three decades, conservation biologists have been warning of a ‘sixth mass extinction’, which, by definition, could eliminate more than three quarters of currently existing life forms in just a few centuries.61 In other words, it could threaten the practical possibility of the survival of earthly life. Mass extinction is not simply extinction (or death) writ large: it is a qualitatively different phenomena that demands its own ethical categories. It cannot be grasped by aggregating species extinctions, let alone the deaths of individual organisms. Not only does it erase diverse, irreplaceable life forms, their unique histories and open-ended possibilities, but it threatens the ontological conditions of Earthly life.¶ IR is one of few disciplines that is explicitly devoted to the pursuit of survival, yet it has almost nothing to say in the face of a possible mass extinction event.62 It utterly lacks the conceptual and ethical frameworks necessary to foster diverse, meaningful responses to this phenomenon. As mentioned above, Cold-War era concepts such as ‘nuclear winter’ and ‘omnicide’ gesture towards harms massive in their scale and moral horror. However, they are asymptotic: they imagine nightmares of a severely denuded planet, yet they do not contemplate the comprehensive negation that a mass extinction event entails. In contemporary IR discourses, where it appears at all, extinction is treated as a problem of scientific management and biopolitical control aimed at securing existing human lifestyles.63 Once again, this approach fails to recognise the reality of extinction, which is a matter of being and nonbeing, not one of life and death processes.¶ Confronting the enormity of a possible mass extinction event requires a total overhaul of human perceptions of what is at stake in the disruption of the conditions of Earthly life. The question of what is ‘lost’ in extinction has, since the inception of the concept of ‘conservation’, been addressed in terms of financial cost and economic liabilities.64 Beyond reducing life to forms to capital, currencies and financial instruments, the dominant neoliberal political economy of conservation imposes a homogenising, Western secular worldview on a planetary phenomenon. Yet the enormity, complexity, and scale of mass extinction is so huge that humans need to draw on every possible resource in order to find ways of responding. This means that they need to mobilise multiple worldviews and lifeways – including those emerging from indigenous and marginalised cosmologies. Above all, it is crucial and urgent to realise that extinction is a matter of global ethics. It is not simply an issue of management or security, or even of particular visions of the good life. Instead, it is about staking a claim as to the goodness of life itself. If it does not fit within the existing parameters of global ethics, then it is these boundaries that need to change.¶ 9. An Earth-worldly politics. Humans are worldly – that is, we are fundamentally worldforming and embedded in multiple worlds that traverse the Earth. However, the Earth is not ‘our’ world, as the grand theories of IR, and some accounts of the Anthropocene have it – an object and possession to be appropriated, circumnavigated, instrumentalised and englobed.65 Rather, it is a complex of worlds that we share, co-constitute, create, destroy and inhabit with countless other life forms and beings.¶ The formation of the Anthropocene reflects a particular type of worlding, one in which the Earth is treated as raw material for the creation of a world tailored to human needs. Heidegger famously framed ‘earth’ and ‘world’ as two countervailing, conflicting forces that constrain and shape one another. We contend that existing political, economic and social conditions have pushed human worlding so far to one extreme that it has become almost entirely detached from the conditions of the Earth. Planet Politics calls, instead, for a mode of worlding that is responsive to, and grounded in, the Earth. One of these ways of being Earth-worldly is to embrace the condition of being entangled. We can interpret this term in the way that Heidegger66 did, as the condition of being mired in everyday human concerns, worries, and anxiety, to prolong existence. But, in contrast, we can and should reframe it as authors like Karen Barad67 and Donna Haraway68 have done. To them and many others, ‘entanglement’ is a radical, indeed fundamental condition of being-with, or, as Jean-Luc Nancy puts it, ‘being singular plural’.69 This means that no being is truly autonomous or separate, whether at the scale of international politics or of quantum physics. World itself is singular plural: what humans tend to refer to as ‘the’ world is actually a multiplicity of worlds at various scales that intersect, overlap, conflict, emerge as they surge across the Earth. World emerges from the poetics of existence, the collision of energy and matter, the tumult of agencies, the fusion and diffusion of bonds.¶ Worlds erupt from, and consist in, the intersection of diverse forms of being – material and intangible, organic and inorganic, ‘living’ and ‘nonliving’. Because of the tumultuousness of the Earth with which they are entangled, ‘worlds’ are not static, rigid or permanent. They are permeable and fluid. They can be created, modified – and, of course, destroyed. Concepts of violence, harm and (in)security that focus only on humans ignore at their peril the destruction and severance of worlds,70 which undermines the conditions of plurality that enables life on Earth to thrive.', '', '']

[(8, 22)]

ndtceda

Emory-RuSh-Aff-1---JW-Patterson-Invitational-Round-1.docx

Emory

RuSh

0e8c6523b0c18c26c49b8a6d254b8a455c8428ae216dd08f7736c67f6e0400bf

African instability causes nuclear war – AND terror.

Mead ‘13 [Walter; 12/15/13; James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities, Bard College; The American Interest; “Peace in The Congo? Why the World Should Care,” ]

there is potential for huge destructive conflict across Africa wars spread instability trigger conflict India Africa is of importance to American security weak states are ideal for Al Qaeda war in the Congo create swirling underworld of arms trading illegal commerce destabilizes states

One of the biggest questions of the 21st century is whether this destructive dynamic can be contained, or whether the demand for ethnic, cultural and/or religious homogeneity will continue to convulse world politics , drive new generations of conflict , and create millions more victims The Congo conflict suggest there is potential for this kind of conflict huge and destructive conflict across Africa The Congo war should be a reminder to us all that the foundations of our world are dynamite , and that the potential for new conflicts on the scale of the horrific wars of the 20th century is very much with us today The problem is that these wars spread They may start in places that we don’t care much about but they tend to spread to places that we do care very much about instability in a very remote place triggers problems in places that we care about very much waves of insurgency and instability that threaten to rip nuclear-armed Pakistan apart or with trigger wider conflict India Out of the mess in Syria a witches’ brew of terrorism and religious conflict looks set to complicate the security of our allies in Europe and the Middle East and even the security of the oil supply on which the world economy so profoundly depends Africa , and the potential for upheaval there, is of more importance to American security than many people may understand The line between Africa and the Middle East is a soft one weak states are ideal petri dishes for Al Qaeda type groups to form and attract local support There are networks of funding and religious contact that give groups in these countries potential access to funds , fighters , training and weapons from the Middle Ea st A war in the eastern Congo helps to create the swirling underworld of arms trading , money transfers, illegal commerce and the rise of a generation of young men who become experienced fighters —and know no other way to make a living It destabilizes the environment for neighboring states (like Uganda and Kenya) that play much more direct role in potential crises of greater concern to us

biggest questions of the 21st century destructive dynamic convulse world politics drive new generations of conflict create millions more victims Congo conflict suggest huge and destructive conflict foundations of our world are dynamite scale of the horrific wars of the 20th century spread rip nuclear-armed Pakistan apart with trigger wider conflict India Africa more importance to American security between Africa and the Middle East weak states ideal petri dishes Al Qaeda type groups networks funds fighters training weapons war in the eastern Congo swirling underworld experienced fighters destabilizes

['One of the biggest questions of the 21st century is whether this destructive dynamic can be contained, or whether the demand for ethnic, cultural and/or religious homogeneity will continue to convulse world politics, drive new generations of conflict, and create millions more victims. The Congo conflict is a disturbing piece of evidence suggesting that, in Africa at least, there is potential for this kind of conflict. The Congo war (and the long Hutu-Tutsi conflict in neighboring countries) is not, unfortunately alone. The secession of South Sudan from Sudan proper, the wars in what remains of that unhappy country, the secession of Eritrea from Ethiopia and the rise of Christian-Muslim tension right across Africa (where religious conflict often is fed by and intensifies “tribal”—in Europe we would say “ethnic” or “national”—conflicts) are strong indications that the potential for huge and destructive conflict across Africa is very real.', 'But one must look beyond Africa. The Middle East of course is aflame in religious and ethnic conflict. The old British Raj including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka offers countless examples of ethnic and religious conflict that sometimes is contained, and sometimes boils to the surface in horrendous acts of violence.', 'Beyond that, rival nationalisms in East and Southeast Asia are keeping the world awake at night.', 'The Congo war should be a reminder to us all that the foundations of our world are dynamite, and that the potential for new conflicts on the scale of the horrific wars of the 20th century is very much with us today.', 'The second lesson from this conflict stems from the realization of how much patience and commitment from the international community (which in this case included the Atlantic democracies and a coalition of African states working as individual countries and through various international institutions) it has taken to get this far towards peace. Particularly at a time when many Americans want the US to turn inwards, there are people who make the argument that it is really none of America’s business to invest time and energy in the often thankless task of solving these conflicts.', 'That might be an ugly but defensible position if we didn’t live in such a tinderbox world. Someone could rationally say, yes, it’s terrible that a million plus people are being killed overseas in a horrific conflict, but the war is really very far away and America has urgent needs at home and we should husband the resources we have available for foreign policy on things that have more power to affect us directly.', 'The problem is that these wars spread. They may start in places that we don’t care much about (most Americans didn’t give a rat’s patootie about whether Germany controlled the Sudetenland in 1938 or Danzig in 1939) but they tend to spread to places that we do care very much about. This can be because a revisionist great power like Germany in 1938-39 needs to overturn the balance of power in Europe to achieve its goals, or it can be because instability in a very remote place triggers problems in places that we care about very much. Out of Afghanistan in 2001 came both 9/11 and the waves of insurgency and instability that threaten to rip nuclear-armed Pakistan apart or with trigger wider conflict India. Out of the mess in Syria a witches’ brew of terrorism and religious conflict looks set to complicate the security of our allies in Europe and the Middle East and even the security of the oil supply on which the world economy so profoundly depends.', 'Africa, and the potential for upheaval there, is of more importance to American security than many people may understand. The line between Africa and the Middle East is a soft one. The weak states that straddle the southern approaches of the Sahara are ideal petri dishes for Al Qaeda type groups to form and attract local support. There are networks of funding and religious contact that give groups in these countries potential access to funds, fighters, training and weapons from the Middle East. A war in the eastern Congo might not directly trigger these other conflicts, but it helps to create the swirling underworld of arms trading, money transfers, illegal commerce and the rise of a generation of young men who become experienced fighters—and know no other way to make a living. It destabilizes the environment for neighboring states (like Uganda and Kenya) that play much more direct role in potential crises of greater concern to us.']

[(0, 4), (6, 8)]

ndtceda

Michigan-Phil-Skoulikaris-Aff-Kentucky-Round2.docx

Michigan

PhSk

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Michigan/PhSk/Michigan-Phil-Skoulikaris-Aff-Kentucky-Round2.docx

8232b858e2301243f0bf26ea431a200da3d4d4c556d3f57b578f2d6d1dd5b546

The alternative is to engage in hermeneutical suspicion AND categorically reject whiteness at every turn.

Sabaratnam ’20 [Meera; 2020; Senior Lecturer in International Relations at SOAS University of London, PhD and MSc from the London School of Economics in Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy; Millennium: Journal of International Studies, “Is IR Theory White? Racialised Subject-Positioning in Three Canonical Texts,” vol. 49 no. 1]

what would it mean to re-imagine study de-mythologise and de-centre Both require epistemological situatedness requires an alertness to contours of Eurocentrism treason to Whiteness is loyalty to humanity This principle totally deconstructs research on ‘ Great Powers ’ would be possible but explicitly have to embrace internal diversities much more attention need to be paid to coercion enabled by Otherness . All projects would be informed by hermeneutic suspicion uphold rigour which make persistence of racialised ignorance impossible In the absence of this theory will continue to be White

what would it mean to re-imagine the study of IR ? de-mythologise and de-centre this racialised standpoint. Both require a more sophisticated awareness of epistemological situatedness and a wider ethical and political vocabulary and universe . It requires an alertness to the intellectual contours of Eurocentrism ‘ treason to Whiteness is loyalty to humanity ’ This principle totally deconstructs it analytically and ethically A research programme focused on ‘ Great Powers ’ would still be possible but be explicitly a study of empires and other polities It would have to embrace internal diversities for a research programme interested in the emergence of forces of socialisation and collective identification , much more attention would need to be paid to coercion enabled by productions of Otherness . All such projects would be informed by that spirit of hermeneutic suspicion it is up to the field to uphold standards of rigour which make the persistence of racialised ignorance , immanence, and innocence impossible In the absence of this change, IR theory will continue to be White .

re-imagine study of IR ? de-mythologise de-centre sophisticated epistemological wider universe alertness Eurocentrism treason to Whiteness loyalty to humanity totally deconstructs ethically research Great Powers explicitly empires other polities embrace internal diversities research socialisation collective identification attention coercion Otherness All such projects hermeneutic suspicion rigour persistence racialised ignorance impossible absence IR theory White

['Beyond White Subject-Positioning in IR ', 'Given this, what would it mean to re-imagine the study of IR in a way that attempted to overcome epistemologies of immanence, ignorance, and innocence? While it is impossible to do justice here to the wide range of traditions that have alternative starting points, as scholars of IR our priorities should be to (1) ‘de-mythologise’121 and (2) ‘de-centre’ this racialised standpoint. Both require a more sophisticated awareness of epistemological situatedness, a better global-historical education and a wider ethical and political vocabulary and universe. It requires an alertness not just to the intellectual contours of Eurocentrism, but the interlocking moral and epistemological consequences of White subject-positioning. They may be animated by the abolitionist principle that ‘treason to Whiteness is loyalty to humanity’.122 This principle does not build the grounds for a ‘redeemed’ or ‘modified’ Whiteness but totally deconstructs it analytically and ethically.', 'A ‘de-mythologising’ strategy challenges epistemologies of immanence and ignorance – the specific racialised metahistorical narratives and myths about the exceptional, vanguardist, and progressive character of the ‘West’ and its peoples as a point of departure for building international theory. Alternative accounts are already available to us which emphasise the uneven but interconnected ways in which the modern international system came to be. These look at the contributions of the ‘non-West’ to the rise of the ‘West’,123 the role of transnational networks as drivers of development,124 the enduring role of hierarchies as an organising principle of global order,125 the colonial origins of sovereignty practices126 and the transnational character of political thought.127 There is considerable scope for more historically oriented work which excavates in particular the relation between the ‘colonial’ and the ‘modern’.', 'Another way of ‘de-mythologising’ Whiteness in IR is to re-think the discipline’s constitutive distinction between ‘war’ and ‘violence’, particularly where the coding of historical events into one or another category have been as a result of racialised categorisations and thinking about whose deaths count, thus enabling an epistemology of ‘innocence’.128 Withholding the assumption that ‘war’ (meaning wars as recognised by and between Western powers) rather than ‘violence’ should be studied in IR – as in peace studies, for example129 – offers considerable scope for contemplating the rich web of interconnections and entanglements that constitute the international system, and particularly its colonial, imperial and racialised inheritances. It is a particularly productive point of departure for conceiving of questions of consent and sovereignty under radical inequalities of power globally, and potential shared forms of theorising among feminist approaches,130 critical environmentalisms,131 Indigenous political thought,132 and so on.', '‘De-centring’ Whiteness means not only a regional expansion of IR’s gaze but more profoundly a re-locating of its intellectual and ethical centre of gravity away from its stories of ‘immanence’ and ‘innocence’. One way of doing this might be, as Wynter does, to re-centre Blackness as the starting point for the embrace of the ‘human’ in all its multiple potentialities, given that Blackness has been historically overdetermined by experiences and epistemes which locate it at the underside of humanity.133 This radical shaking-up of IR’s epistemological orientations would be particularly productive in dismantling the limits identified here. This could connect them to forms of worldly politics rooted in experiences of diasporic connectivity and suffering, and creativity and solidarity.134 These signal different sites of sovereignty, rights, borders, and power,135 and open up questions of historical injustice, responsibility, and reparations. It could conceive of more ‘conventional’ IR theory that began with African presence rather than absence.136 Finally, working with and through Blackness would give an important corrective to debates on the ‘post-human’ which have not always contemplated the racialisation of humanity in depth.137 The point here is not simply to ‘replace’ White-centredness with Black-centredness as part of historical justice – but through re-positioning to reveal what has been obscured about the organisation of authority, relationality, rights, obligations, materiality, and knowledge.', 'Would the kind of IR theory examined here be possible with such starting points? Absolutely. A research programme focused on ‘Great Powers’ would still be possible but be explicitly a study of empires and other polities across time and space. It would have to embrace rather than ignore their internal diversities and forms of interconnectedness – overall, this might lead to an abandonment of the ‘anarchy’ problematique in favour of a more positive historical appreciation of diverse forms of authority and sociality. For a research programme interested in international co-operation, it would have to take a wider understanding of the kinds of co-operation which are possible, the kinds of political purposes that they underpin, and the forms of exclusion, collusion, and expropriation which are likely involved in setting them up. This would make it impossible to study ‘institutions’ or ‘organisations’ among powerful actors in a way which is disembedded from their political foundations. Similarly, for a research programme interested in the emergence of forces of socialisation and collective identification, much more attention would need to be paid to the political context and drivers of particular forms of sociality and the kinds of coercion enabled by productions of Otherness. All such projects would be informed by that spirit of hermeneutic suspicion with which writers not racialised as White have often greeted projections of Western civilisation.', 'However, it is up to the field as a whole to uphold standards of rigour which make the persistence of racialised ignorance, immanence, and innocence impossible. What has happened over the last several decades has been a continued asymmetry in the practice of our ‘science’, such that the profound epistemological challenges presented for the field in a range of critical writing have been sidelined through practices of training and citation which together reproduce a White subject-position in the discipline. The vast bulk of references to ToIP, AH, and SToIP continue to treat them as authoritative texts. This is an institutional problem more than an epistemological one in many respects and one that is unlikely to be solved in the near future, or at least by this generation. Identifying the logics constitutive of Whiteness in IR theory is a necessary step towards institutional change, but no more than that. In the absence of this change, IR theory will continue to be White.', 'Adv CP ']

[(0, 14)]

ndtceda

Michigan-DoPh-Neg-Texas-Semis.docx

Michigan

DoPh

70b92354eccdb07a0f87c16b9049ae145e33fe956b5bb82fa9407dc01493e53b

Cap is sustainable.

Piper '21 [Kelsey; 8/2/21; staff writer at Vox; "Can we save the planet by shrinking the economy?" https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22408556/save-planet-shrink-economy-degrowth/]

Billions go hungry don’t have shelter and sanitation , economic boom means cancer treatments neonatal care vaccines plumbing heating Degrowth’s romantic But would be impossible Degrowth is personal not policy especially where billions live in poverty growth without emissions is happening since 2005 Green Solar is cheapest coal peaked research finds absolute decoupling in 32 countries degrowth is fringe No politician endorsed In coming decades emissions happen in middle-income countries developing nations climate is set to worsen But alternative is nonstarter suppressing growth consequences devastating . Hunger child mortality Degrowthers argue sustained reduction wouldn’t be recession. Recessions, they agree, are really bad Degrowth is wildly optimistic disconnected from results there’s strong association between growth and welfare Richer countries are better-off in all metrics we ought to be as skeptical about prospects of decoupling from living standards People want food the doctor childcare good education and services details never add up pessimistic about our system oddly optimistic they’ll be solved once we embrace different view it can’t be brought about Climate scientists sound more optimistic We have the tech renewable grid and storage We need carbon capture mitigation , and cash transfers tech have made big difference

Most of the world is very poor . Billions of people go hungry , can’t afford a doctor don’t have adequate shelter and sanitation , and struggle to exercise freedoms essential to a good life because of material deprivation one thing is undeniable : For the past several centuries the world has been getting much richer That economic boom means a lot of things. It means cancer treatments and neonatal intensive care and smallpox vaccines and insulin It means, in many parts of the world, houses have indoor plumbing and gas heating and electricity It means that infant mortality is down and life expectancies are longer it means a lot of good things and some bad things Mainstream climate policy has developed over the years with a certain assumption — that we can get rid of the bad things while still preserving the good things a slice of climate activists The degrowth movement argues humanity can’t keep growing Degrowth’s proponents argue that to save Earth, humans need to shrink global economic activity It’s a bold, even romantic vision . But there are two problems with it: It doesn’t add up — and it would be nearly impossible to implement Stirring as it might be to some degrowth’s radicalism won’t fix the climate. Degrowth is most compelling as a personal ethos a way of life. What it’s not is a serious policy program to solve climate change, especially in a world where billions still live in poverty Hickel and his fellow degrowthers are skeptical that economic growth as we know it can ever truly be achieved without accompanying growth in emissions critics argue that not only is it possible — it’s already been happening . For the past decade, as many countries have transitioned to green energy , they have successfully seen their emissions shrink while their GDP has grown “There have been really big changes since 2005 Green energy has gotten cheap . Solar power is the cheapest energy at the margins in every country Global coal use has peaked research finds evidence of “ absolute decoupling ” — emissions shrinking while GDP grows — in 32 countries , including the U nited S tates, the U nited K ingdom, and Germany Degrowthers argue it won’t be enough to shrink emissions as rapidly as they need pessimists have picked up momentum of late. It’s true degrowth is a somewhat fringe idea : No politician has endorsed it, and no serious policy proposals based on it have been put forth One big problem with degrowth is this simple fact : In the coming decades , most carbon emissions won’t be coming from rich countries they’ll be happen ing in newly middle-income countries , like India , China , or Indonesia . Already, developing nations account for 63 percent of emissions, and they’re expected to account for even more as they develop further and as the rich world decarbonizes Even if emissions in rich countries go to zero very climate change is set to worsen as poorer countries increase their own emissions That will, of course, have deeply negative climate impacts. But the alternative is a nonstarter — should the world really prioritize curbing emissions and economic growth if it meant suppressing the growth of those countries? Degrowthers see no dilemma envisions is global movement in two directions: Poor countries develop to a certain level of prosperity and then stop; rich countries develop down then stop From climate change perspective there’s a problem it means that degrowth would do nothing about the bulk of emissions , which are occurring in developing countries the global economy interconnected When Covid-19 hit, poor countries were devastated by the aftershocks of virus-induced slowdowns in consumption in rich countries the pandemic offered a taste of how a sudden drop in rich-world consumption would actually affect the developing world . Covid-19 dramatically curtailed Western imports and tourism The consequences in poor countries were devastating . Hunger rose , and child mortality followed Covid-19 wreaked direct economic havoc with lockdowns having negative impact on poor countries Degrowthers argue that a sustained , deliberate reduction wouldn’t be anything like a recession. Recessions, they agree, are really bad , but that’s because consumption falls in affected sectors, instead of being targeted they contend there is some path to economic growth in poor countries that doesn’t rely on trade it means that degrowth’s case for not crushing the poor world is predicated on a speculative take on how those countries can grow — one that democratically elected leaders in those countries largely don’t share There’s a lot of speculation here Degrowth is fundamentally premised on the claim that we can cease to focus on growth while getting better than ever at addressing human needs it’s a vision more wildly optimistic — disconnected from actual policy results — than any of the more standard “ sustainable development ” models degrowthers criticize for being out of touch in the world today, there’s an extremely strong association between growth and welfare outcomes of every kind. GDP, is a better predictor of a country’s welfare state, outcomes for poor citizens and well-being measures like leisure time and life expectancy than any other measure It is imperfect and one-dimensional. But it is imperfect at the edges while fairly accurate overall . Richer countries are generally better-off in almost all metrics , from education , life expectancy , child mortality to women’s employment etc. Not only that: richer people are also on average healthier , better educated , and happier . Income indeed buys you health and happiness in general, wealth strongly predicts child survival the examples degrowthers point to remain speculative ones ; if we ought to be skeptical, as degrowthers argue we should be, about the decoupling of wealth from ecological impact, we ought to be at least as skeptical about the prospects of decoupling wealth from living standards People want to have enough food , they need to go to the doctor , they need childcare , they want a good education . People need lots of stuff, and one thing that people care about are goods and services , and they need to be produced degrowth suffers from being both too radical and not radical enough There’s a lot of broad-brush policy prescriptions but those details never really add up policies seem laughably inadequate for the magnitude of the task confronting the climate crisis. Degrowth persuades that guiding humanity and our planet will be really, really hard — but not in a way degrowth particularly solves Where degrowth literature is relentlessly pessimistic about prospect of our problems being solved under our current economic system , it turns oddly optimistic about the prospect that they’ll be solved once we embrace a different way of view ing wealth If cutting carbon emissions fast enough to matter requires shrinking the global economy by 0.5 percent a year indefinitely, starting right now that’ll take policy measures In that sense, there’s actually something anti-radical about any climate plan so radical that it can’t be concretely brought about in the next decade a good analogy for degrowth might actually be locavorism — the movement that focuses on eating food grown locally. It’s popular with environmentalists Its actual climate impacts are limited or even negative it’s better for them to be grown in their optimal environment even with carbon-intensive shipping The future will almost certainly require eat less meat change land use, and invest a significant chunk of resources in mitigation Climate scientists have spent a long time warning the world about climate change, but they nonetheless tend to sound a more optimistic note We have the tech nology to solve the problem — renewable energy , smart grid technology , and existing energy storage It should go without saying that since rich governments got us into this climate mess, they should be at the forefront We need investments in carbon capture , green energy , plant-based meat , mitigation , and straight-up cash transfers to poor countries articulations of different philosophies of human flourishing should not be mistaken for public policy We don’t have very long, and we need to decarbonize quickly. We have tech nologies that have made a big difference already , and they must be made available on an unprecedented scale

very poor adequate shelter sanitation material deprivation undeniable getting much richer economic boom cancer treatments neonatal intensive care smallpox vaccines insulin indoor plumbing gas heating electricity infant mortality down life expectancies longer degrowth romantic vision doesn’t add up impossible to implement personal ethos serious policy program billions still live in poverty possible been happening green energy emissions shrink GDP has grown big changes cheap cheapest energy Global coal use has peaked absolute decoupling 32 countries U S U K Germany fringe idea big problem simple fact coming decades emissions middle-income countries India China Indonesia even more develop further the alternative is a nonstarter suppressing the growth do nothing bulk of emissions developing countries interconnected aftershocks slowdowns rich countries sudden drop developing world consequences poor countries devastating Hunger rose child mortality followed negative impact Recessions, they agree, are really bad , but that’s because consumption falls speculative take democratically elected leaders largely don’t share lot of speculation fundamentally premised cease to focus on growth wildly optimistic disconnected sustainable development extremely strong association growth welfare outcomes fairly accurate overall all metrics education life expectancy child mortality women’s employment healthier better educated happier child survival speculative ones at least as skeptical decoupling wealth from living standards enough food go to the doctor need childcare want a good education people care about goods services too radical not radical enough details never really add up laughably inadequate oddly optimistic different way of view ing wealth anti-radical can’t be concretely brought about actual climate impacts limited negative optimal environment Climate scientists more optimistic note tech nology solve the problem renewable energy smart grid technology energy storage carbon capture green energy plant-based meat mitigation cash transfers decarbonize tech nologies made a big difference already made available unprecedented scale

['Most of the world is very poor. Billions of people go hungry, can’t afford a doctor when they get sick, don’t have adequate shelter and sanitation, and struggle to exercise the freedoms essential to a good life because of material deprivation.', 'But for all the immiseration around us, one thing is undeniable: For the past several centuries — and especially for the past 70 years, since the end of World War II — the world has been getting much richer.', 'That economic boom means a lot of things. It means cancer treatments and neonatal intensive care units and smallpox vaccines and insulin.', 'It means, in many parts of the world, houses have indoor plumbing and gas heating and electricity.', 'It means that infant mortality is down and life expectancies are longer.', 'But an increasingly wealthy world also means we eat more meat, mostly from factory-farmed animals. It means we emit lots more greenhouse gases. It means that consumers in developed countries buy a lot and throw away a lot.', 'In other words, it means a lot of good things and certainly some bad things as well.', 'Mainstream climate and environmental policy has developed over the years with a certain assumption — that we can get rid of the bad things while still preserving the good things. That is, it’s sought to figure out how to reduce carbon emissions, preserve ecosystems, and save endangered species while continuing to improve material living conditions for everyone in the world.', 'But to a vocal slice of climate activists, that approach seems increasingly doomed. The degrowth movement, as it’s called, argues that humanity can’t keep growing without driving humanity into climate catastrophe. The only solution, the argument goes, is an extreme transformation of our way of life — a transition away from treating economic growth as a policy priority to an acceptance of shrinking GDP as a prerequisite to saving the planet.', 'At the core of degrowth is the climate crisis. Degrowth’s proponents argue that to save Earth, humans need to shrink global economic activity, because at our current levels of consumption, the world won’t hit the IPCC target of stabilizing global temperatures at no more than 1.5 degrees of warming. The degrowth movement argues that climate change should prompt a radical rethinking of economic growth, and policymakers serious about climate change should try to build a livable world without economic growth fueling it.', 'It’s a bold, even romantic vision. But there are two problems with it: It doesn’t add up — and it would be nearly impossible to implement.', 'Addressing climate change will take genuinely radical changes to how our society works. Stirring as it might be to some, though, degrowth’s radicalism won’t fix the climate. Degrowth is most compelling as a personal ethos, a lens on your consumption habits, a way of life. What it’s not is a serious policy program to solve climate change, especially in a world where billions still live in poverty.', 'The basics of degrowth', 'Pinning down what degrowth means can be tricky because degrowthers often differ on details. But there are some common threads to their thought.', 'In general, degrowthers believe that in the modern world, economic growth has become unmoored from improvements in the human condition.', 'Jason Hickel, an anthropologist at the London School of Economics and the author of Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World, has emerged as one of the leading spokespeople for the movement. To Hickel, the case for degrowth goes like this: The world is producing too much greenhouse gases. It is also overfishing, is overpolluting, is unsustainable in a dozen ways, from deforestation to plastic accumulating in the oceans.', 'Scientists have made impressive progress on technologies that, he argues, should have been sufficient to address the climate crisis — think solar panels, meat alternatives, eco-friendly houses. But because wealthy societies are so focused on growing the economy, those gains have been immediately plowed back into the economy, producing more stuff for the same ecological footprint, yes, but not actually shrinking the ecological footprint.', 'Hickel argues that this problem is unsolvable within our current framework. “In a growth-oriented economy,” he writes in Less Is More, “efficiency improvements that could help us reduce our impact are harnessed instead to advance the objectives of growth — to pull ever-larger swaths of nature into circuits of extraction and production. It’s not our technology that’s the problem. It’s growth.”', 'His solution? To abandon the lodestar of economic policy in nearly every country, which is to aim for economic growth over time, increasing wealth per person and expanding the ability of their citizens to purchase the things they want and need. Instead, Hickel argues, rich countries should focus on getting emissions to zero — even if the result is a much-contracted economy.', 'If that sounds unappealing, he devoted much of the book — and much of our interview — to arguing that it wouldn’t be. He points out that some countries, like the United States, are rich but get very little for their spending, in terms of national well-being; poorer countries like Spain have better health care systems. He argues that current levels of well-being could be maintained at a tenth of Finland’s current GDP — assuming that society also adopted wide-scale redistribution and socialist labor policies.', 'At the heart of Hickel’s argument is an idea that divides degrowthers and their critics: the concept of “decoupling” growth from environmental impact. Hickel and his fellow degrowthers are skeptical that economic growth as we know it can ever truly be achieved without accompanying growth in emissions.', 'But critics argue that not only is it possible — it’s already been happening. For the past decade, as many countries have transitioned to green energy, they have successfully seen their emissions shrink while their GDP has grown.', '“There have been really big changes since 2005,” when people were debating whether decoupling was even possible, Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at the Breakthrough Institute, told me. “Green energy has gotten cheap. Solar power is the cheapest energy at the margins in every country today. Global coal use has peaked.” His research finds evidence of “absolute decoupling” — emissions shrinking while GDP grows — in 32 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany.', 'Degrowthers I spoke to don’t dispute that decoupling is possible. But they argue it won’t be enough to shrink emissions as rapidly as they need to. And there’s a compelling bit of evidence for that view: Even as some countries have decoupled, others have increased emissions, and overall atmospheric carbon is at its highest level ever recorded.', 'Where an optimist might see, in the decoupling of the past few decades, signs that growth and climate solutions can coexist, a pessimist might find the degrowth diagnosis more persuasive: that our growth-focused society clearly isn’t up to the task of solving climate change.', 'The pessimists have picked up momentum of late. It’s true, in one sense, that degrowth is a somewhat fringe idea: No politician has endorsed it, and no serious policy proposals based on it have been put forth. But degrowth has nonetheless drawn sympathy in some quarters — including among prominent climate thinkers.', 'Steven Chu, who served as secretary of energy under President Obama, has endorsed it, arguing, “You have to design an economy based on no growth or even shrinking growth.”', 'More than 11,000 scientists signed William Ripple’s 2019 letter “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency,” which argues “our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality.”', 'And a recent paper in Nature explored how a “degrowth” of 0.5 percent of GDP per year might interact with climate and emissions targets, arguing that while “substantial challenges remain regarding political feasibility,” such approaches should be “thoroughly considered.”', 'The tension at the heart of degrowth: Can we fix global poverty without economic growth?', 'One big problem with degrowth is this simple fact: In the coming decades, most carbon emissions won’t be coming from rich countries like the US — they’ll be happening in newly middle-income countries, like India, China, or Indonesia. Already, developing nations account for 63 percent of emissions, and they’re expected to account for even more as they develop further and as the rich world decarbonizes.', 'Even if emissions in rich countries go to zero very soon, climate change is set to worsen as poorer countries increase their own emissions.', 'That will, of course, have deeply negative climate impacts. But the alternative is a nonstarter — should the world really prioritize curbing emissions and economic growth if it meant suppressing the growth of those countries?', 'Degrowthers see no dilemma here. What Hickel envisions is global movement in two directions: Poor countries could develop up to a certain level of prosperity and then stop; rich countries could develop down to that level and then stop. Thus, climate catastrophe could be averted, all while making the world’s poor more prosperous.', '“Rich countries urgently need to reduce their excess energy and resource use to sustainable levels so our sisters and brothers in the global South can live well too,” Hickel put it. “We live on an abundant planet and we can all flourish on it together, but to do so we have to share it more fairly, and build economies that are designed around meeting human needs rather than around perpetual growth.”', 'From a climate change perspective, though, there’s a problem. First, it means that degrowth would do nothing about the bulk of emissions, which are occurring in developing countries.', 'Second, the global economy is more interconnected than Hickel implies. When Covid-19 hit, poor countries were devastated not just by the virus but by the aftershocks of virus-induced slowdowns in consumption in rich countries.', 'There’s some genuine appeal to the idea of an end to “consumerism,” but the pandemic offered a taste of how a sudden drop in rich-world consumption would actually affect the developing world. Covid-19 dramatically curtailed Western imports and tourism for a time. The consequences in poor countries were devastating. Hunger rose, and child mortality followed.', 'Covid-19, of course, wreaked direct economic havoc at the same time, with lockdowns having an especially negative impact on some poor countries; the effects of the pandemic and international demand shock were combined, and in some cases they’re hard to separate. But the United Nations, the World Bank, and expert analyses point to the decline in global consumption as a significant part of the picture.', 'Degrowthers reject this concern on two fronts: First, they argue that a sustained, deliberate reduction in consumption wouldn’t be anything like a recession. Recessions, they agree, are really bad, but that’s because consumption falls in affected sectors, instead of being targeted at things that don’t improve well-being. Degrowth, they say, would be different.', 'Second, they contend that there is some path to economic growth in poor countries that doesn’t rely on trade with rich ones — certainly some countries managed economic growth when the whole world was poor, after all.', 'Hickel’s perspective is that most trade between rich and poor countries is extractive, not mutually beneficial — and that maybe when that dynamic ceases, poor countries will have the chance for the catch-up growth they merit. That’s one take. But it means that degrowth’s case for not crushing the poor world is predicated on a speculative take on how those countries can grow — one that democratically elected leaders in those countries largely don’t share.', 'What GDP doesn’t capture — and what it can tell us', 'In a way, the debate over degrowth is a debate over the meaning of one economic indicator: gross domestic product (GDP).', 'GDP measures the transactions within an economy — all the occasions when money changes hands in exchange for goods and services. It’s not wealth, but it’s one of the primary ways we measure wealth.', 'It certainly doesn’t capture everything of value. When parents spend a quiet weekend at home teaching their children to read, for example, nothing GDP-generating has happened — but value has certainly been created.', 'Degrowth articles burst with such examples. GDP, they love to point out, includes the production of things like nerve gas, even though that has no social value. And it doesn’t include storytelling, singing, gardening, and other simple human pleasures.', '“If our washing machines, fridges, and phones lasted twice as long, we would consume half as many (thus the output of those industries would decline), but with zero reduction in our access to those goods,” Hickel told me. If everyone worked half the hours they currently do, and made half the income, they might mostly be better off — at least, assuming that their basic needs were still met.', '“We propose policies like a living wage, a maximum income ratio, wealth taxes, etc. to accomplish this,” Hickel told me. “Given all of this, the language of poverty really gets it wrong: longer-lasting products, living wages, shorter working weeks, better access to public services and affordable housing — we are calling for the opposite of poverty. Yes, industries like SUVs and fast fashion would decline, but that doesn’t mean poverty. We can replace them with public transportation and longer-lasting fashion, thus meeting everyone’s needs.”', 'There’s a lot of speculation here, and a lot of what degrowth’s critics would call hand-waving. Degrowth is fundamentally premised on the claim that we can cease to focus on growth while getting better than ever at addressing human needs. If that’s true, then that would certainly be great news.', 'But in many ways, it’s a vision more wildly optimistic — disconnected from actual policy results — than any of the more standard “sustainable development” models degrowthers criticize for being out of touch.', 'First, in the world today, there’s an extremely strong association between growth and welfare outcomes of every kind. GDP, while imperfect, is a better predictor of a country’s welfare state, outcomes for poor citizens in that country, and well-being measures like leisure time and life expectancy than any other measure.', '“GDP does leave out non-commercialized activities that are welfare-enhancing,” economist Branko Milanovic writes in a rebuttal of degrowth:', 'It is, like every other measure, imperfect and one-dimensional. But ... it is imperfect at the edges while fairly accurate overall. Richer countries are countries that are generally better-off in almost all metrics, from education, life expectancy, child mortality to women’s employment etc. Not only that: richer people are also on average healthier, better educated, and happier. Income indeed buys you health and happiness. (It does not guarantee that you are a better person; but that’s a different topic.) The metric of income or GDP is strongly associated with positive outcomes, whether we compare countries to each other, or people (within a country) to each other.', 'The things degrowthers care about — leisure time, health care, life expectancy — are strongly correlated with societal wealth. The generosity of a welfare state and the availability of transfers to a state’s poorest people are also strongly correlated with societal wealth. Innovation, discovery, invention, and medical technology improvements are also strongly correlated with societal wealth.', 'The strong correlation between child mortality and GDP per capita is apparent on the above graph. There are some outliers — some countries outperform or underperform their GDP somewhat, in terms of preventing child deaths — but in general, wealth strongly predicts child survival. No single, simple medical intervention causes the difference. Wealthier societies on average get better health outcomes across the board.', 'This graph looks at child mortality not just by comparing rich countries to poor ones but also by comparing countries over time, as they get richer: Getting richer improves outcomes for children.', 'Leisure time, too, has increased — and hours worked have declined — as the world has gotten wealthier.', 'It might be possible in principle to do better — to decouple, if you will, health and well-being from access to material resources, so that everyone is well-off with many fewer resources.', 'But the examples degrowthers point to remain speculative ones; if we ought to be skeptical, as degrowthers argue we should be, about the decoupling of wealth from ecological impact, we ought to be at least as skeptical about the prospects of decoupling wealth from living standards.', '“In the end, economic growth is about the production of stuff that people need and then the consumption of those things by the people who need it,” Max Roser at Our World in Data, a research institute focused on finding, visualizing, and communicating historical economic and health data, told me. He added:', 'The money aspect, and the abstract concept of GDP, distract us and make it less obvious what it’s actually about. People want to have enough food, they need to go to the doctor, they need childcare, they want a good education. People need lots of stuff, and one thing that people care about are goods and services, and they need to be produced, and economic growth is about an increase in the quality and quantity of the goods and services that people need.', 'There’s also the knotty problem of who gets to decide which goods and services people choose to spend their money on. Many of the climate scientists I spoke to shared Hickel’s impatience for many specific carbon-intensive modern industries. “I’m not going to defend bitcoin,” the Breakthrough Institute’s Hausfather told me. (The cryptocurrency has attracted intense criticism for being astoundingly carbon-intensive.)', 'But there is a lot in between bitcoin and basic subsistence needs. And “enough for everyone who needs it” inherently requires value judgments about what people really need, and what things they value that are frivolous luxuries. That’s why so many anti-poverty programs have moved away from giving people “what they need” toward just giving them cash — that is, giving them wealth, which they can choose to spend however they please.', '“Even poor people have so many needs for goods and services that you can’t possibly put them on a list and say, ‘Now we’re done here,’” Roser told me. “That’s the beauty of money, that you can just go out there and get what you need rather than what some researcher determines are your needs.”', 'Degrowth is unrealistic — and gaining traction', 'As a policy program, degrowth suffers from being both too radical and not radical enough.', 'There’s a lot of broad-brush policy prescriptions in the degrowth lit, but those details never really add up.', 'While it’s not a short book, Less Is More feels surprisingly sparse when it comes to envisioning how the changes it recommends could be brought about. The chapter on solutions recommends cutting the workweek and changing tax policy — two solid proposals — but then rounds that out by recommending ending technological obsolescence, advertising, food waste, and student debt.', 'I’m not particularly opposed to those policies. But they seem laughably inadequate for the magnitude of the task at hand: confronting the climate crisis. Degrowth successfully persuades that guiding humanity and our planet through the 21st century will be really, really hard — but not in a way degrowth particularly solves.', 'Where degrowth literature is relentlessly pessimistic about the prospect of our problems being solved under our current economic system, it turns oddly optimistic about the prospect that they’ll be solved once we embrace a different way of viewing wealth and progress. If cutting carbon emissions fast enough to matter requires shrinking the global economy by 0.5 percent a year indefinitely, starting right now, as the Nature paper estimates, that’ll take policy measures much larger and more ambitious than any proposed in Less Is More.', '“If we are to avert catastrophic warming, we have to lower carbon emissions by a factor of two within the next 10 years. I find it highly implausible that capitalism/market economics will be abandoned by the world on that time frame,” Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann told me. “That means we have to act on the climate crisis within the framework of the current system.”', 'In that sense, there’s actually something anti-radical about any climate plan so radical that it can’t be concretely brought about in the next decade.', 'And yet, implausible as it is, degrowth is gaining a foothold in intellectual and policy circles. What accounts for its seemingly growing popularity? This was a question that puzzled me until I heard the same answer from one degrowth advocate and one opponent: that it’s not, really, exactly about climate.', '“It started in the 1990s in France, picking up on radical European politics in the 1970s,” Giorgos Kallis, a researcher studying degrowth at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, told me. “There was an in-between political space there — radical greens, putting much more emphasis on localized production, emphasis on conviviality and autonomy. This is a discourse that comes from them. It wasn’t just about avoiding a particular environmental problem. It was a holistic proposal.”', 'That was also the diagnosis of Zion Lights, a former spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion, who has become one of the climate movement’s internal critics, arguing that the movement focuses too much on environmentalist-friendly proposals that have nothing to do with climate.', '“It has become difficult to talk about making energy policies for combating climate change, for example, without being told that such thinking is actually irrelevant because it doesn’t involve system change,” she recently argued. “We need cheap, clean energy at scale and we need it now.”', 'In that sense, a good analogy for degrowth might actually be locavorism — the movement that focuses on eating food grown locally. It’s popular with environmentalists, both those whose convictions are about climate change and those who long for a return to the land. Its actual climate impacts are limited or even negative — for some products, it’s better for them to be grown in their optimal environment even with carbon-intensive shipping — and it definitely does less for the climate than, for example, going vegan. But it retains its allure.', 'How to fight climate change while building good human societies', 'Degrowth’s radicalism isn’t where I part ways with it: The future will almost certainly require us to eat much less meat, dramatically change land use, and potentially invest a significant chunk of society’s resources in mitigation indefinitely.', 'But I don’t tend to see such efforts as fundamentally futile. Degrowthers do — even when there have been significant successes.', 'Climate scientists have spent a long time warning the world about climate change, but they nonetheless tend to sound a more optimistic note than degrowthers like Hickel. “It’s undoubtedly a monumental challenge,” Mann told me. “We have the technology to solve the problem — renewable energy, smart grid technology, and existing energy storage. We just need the political will to act.”', 'Take solar panels. Two decades ago, cheap solar panels were just a dream. Now they’re everywhere and have become a crucial tool in the fight against climate change.', 'Not only that, solar panels have democratized electricity. Just one small-scale instance: In rural Kenya, you can see donkeys saddled with solar panels so that farmers can charge their phones. And there are many such examples that count as a win for both human progress and our fight against climate change.', 'It should go without saying that since rich governments got us into this climate mess, they should be at the forefront of getting us out of it. We need massive investments in carbon capture, green energy, plant-based meat, mitigation, and straight-up cash transfers to poor countries disproportionately affected by the climate crisis.', 'Many of the researchers I spoke to were open to the idea that in the long run, humanity would need to rethink many of our cherished assumptions about how economies work, in order to build a civilization that can flourish for thousands or millions of years. They didn’t reject degrowth as a philosophical contribution to the question of what future human civilizations should care about.', 'But such articulations of different philosophies of human flourishing should not be mistaken for public policy.', 'We don’t have very long, and we need to decarbonize quickly. We have technologies that have made a big difference already, and they must be made available on an unprecedented scale. We have more speculative solutions, technological and societal, and we should be prepared to try those, too. The scale of the problem is such that we need to act now — and we need to be clear-eyed about which ideas truly move the needle.', '']

[(0, 9)]

ndtceda

Michigan-Phil-Skoulikaris-Aff-Wake-Round4.docx

Michigan

PhSk

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Michigan/PhSk/Michigan-Phil-Skoulikaris-Aff-Wake-Round4.docx

ab13f70f02272a9673bbf7ce2d35506762b26413dcc6779fe62b26dcc3ee0dbe

Reject that frame. It turns the case because the label itself re-asserts violent Eurocentrism.

Peters & Mica 17 Michael A. Peters is Distinguished Professor in the Faculty of Education at Beijing Normal University and Emeritus Professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign and Carl T. Mika Professor Univ of Waikato University of Waikato Educational Philosophy and Theory, 2017 VOL . 49, NO . 13, 1229–1234, Aborigine, Indian, indigenous or first nations?

There has been opposition by various first nations’ peoples to the term ‘Indigenous’ collective nouns have often been derogatory, historically inaccurate and contaminated by a colonial past the term ‘indigenous’ is not itself indigenous the term Indigenous are often offensive to tribal groups totalizing and universal way to define radically different groups because they have the effect of homogenizing peoples in ways that early imperial anthropology created ‘others’ as ‘indigenous’ in differentiation and opposition to colonial settlers The term ‘indigenous’ There is a strong sense of replication to the term a fit between the linguistic label for the group and the genocidal tools used to stop them from self-populating their tie through the term sits with a racist belief that these populations are more basic and barbaric

There has been opposition by various first nations’ peoples to the term ‘Indigenous’ collective nouns have become increasing problematic the terms have often been derogatory, historically inaccurate and contaminated by a colonial past based on the demeaning notion of ‘primitive’ peoples with its assumption of western cognitive superiori the term ‘indigenous’ is not itself indigenous terminology is a discursive construction of ‘knowledge/power the term Indigenous are often offensive to tribal groups totalizing and universal way to define radically different groups because they have the effect of homogenizing peoples in ways that early imperial anthropology created ‘others’ as ‘indigenous’ in differentiation and opposition to colonial settlers , The term ‘indigenous’ There is a strong sense of replication to the term , a fit between the linguistic label for the group and the genocidal tools used to stop them from self-populating their tie through the term sits with a racist belief that these populations are more basic and barbaric . in the US, the idea of indigenous people has acquired a certain moral charge because of the

‘Indigenous’ Indigenous genocidal tools racist belief

['', 'There has been opposition by various tribal groups and ‘first nations’ peoples to the terms ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Aborigine’ (and its cognates), although governments around the world continue to use both terms. Increasingly, the favoured term is ‘First Nations’ although this term is increasingly used in legal discourse especially in Canada to refer to members of legally recognized reserve communities. Accordingly, some scholars argue that the collective nouns used to name the world’s tribal groups have become increasing problematic and that at source the terms have often been derogatory, historically inaccurate and contaminated by a colonial past based on the demeaning notion of ‘primitive’ peoples with its assumption of western cognitive superiority. One example—the collective noun ‘Maori’—was introduced, according to Rangihau (1992), to destroy the heterogeneity of the indigenous tribes of New Zealand. Most indigenous peoples prefer to be named or referred to by their specific nation or tribe names which themselves are sometimes contentious. It has been noted that the term ‘indigenous’ (or ‘aborigine’) is not itself indigenous. The word ‘tribe’ itself has a troubled history. Béteille (1998) notes that even after the intensive ethnographic fieldwork embarked on during the decades up to the 1950s anthropologists never questioned that what they were studying was ‘tribes’ but finding a suitable definition that covered all cases proved difficult. Finding a definition that transcended the old ideological uses of the term it had inherited from its nineteenth century colonial disciplinary meanings where the concept tribe represented a particular type of society and a stage of evolution proved even more difficult. In the human sciences, as the French philosopher Foucault (1980) demonstrates so convincingly, even the most basic terminology is a discursive construction of ‘knowledge/power.’ The common currency of all of these terms—Aborigine, Indian, Indigenous, or First Nations—their uses and valency in government, legal and scholarly contexts, are often offensive to tribal groups especially when used in an international, totalizing and universal way to define radically different groups because they have the effect of homogenizing peoples in ways that early imperial anthropology created ‘others’ as ‘indigenous’ in differentiation and opposition to colonial settlers, often using these labels for legal, educational, adminstrative and policing purposes. The term ‘indigenous’ derives from the late Latin ‘indigenus’ and ‘indigena’ (native) and from the Old Latin ‘indu’ that is derived from the archaic ‘endo’ (a cognate of the Greek ‘endo’), meaning ‘in, within’ and the Latin ‘gignere’ meaning ‘to beget’, from the root ‘gene’ meaning ‘to produce, give birth, beget.’ ‘Indigena’ in Latin means ‘native’ used of plants, animals, peoples who come from a particular region. Its first known use was in 1640s when it was applied to plants and cultures in the New World. The general sense of the term applied to that produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment; also sometimes used as a synonym for ‘native,’ ‘innate,’ ‘aborigine,’ ‘endemic,’ and ‘inborn.’ There is a strong sense of replication to the term, with the evolution of the indigenous group being self-derived. In indigenous perception, there could quite likely be a fit here between the linguistic label for the group—who, according to the term, have a tendency to rampantly self-populate—and the genocidal tools historically used to stop them from self-populating, or more current attempts to understand them through collecting their genetic material (see for instance Gardiner (1999)). Moreover, their tie through the term to the natural world sits well with a racist belief that these populations are more basic, unreliable and generally barbaric. The word ‘indigenous’ was first used officially by the United Nations in 2002 in its political declaration of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Prior to this time, the term was regarded as ‘still under debate’ for use in UN official documents. Béteille (1998, pp. 190, 191) suggests that in the US, the idea of indigenous people has acquired a certain moral charge, partly because of the awakening of old memories of usurpation, spoliation, and exploitation but also because many contemporary anthropologists seem to enjoy being in a state of moral excitation. Yet Béteille’s comment only emphasizes ‘meaning as use’ and the significance of political, legal and social contexts in shaping acceptable usage of terms that are contentious because of a tainted past. It shows also the need for constant philosophical and linguistic scrutiny for terminology recognizing that language is both dynamic and infinitely revisable.', '', '']

[(0, 16)]

ndtceda

Kansas-WiMc-Neg-4---MAC-Round-2.docx

Kansas

WiMc

65fda5260a40a951e31d3a5bfb30c348ca4d6adfd9d6797b9b0fad9c54baf559

Anti-nuclear lobbies convince the Australian government to support NFU.

Marianne Hanson 22, Associate Professor at the School of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Queensland, 2022, “No-first-use of nuclear weapons: Australian perspectives and possible contributions,” Asian Security, vol. 18(3), pp. 230-238, doi: 10.1080/14799855.2021.2015651

calls to resist NFU overreli on the certainty of nuclear deterrence it is fanciful to think that the US would resort to nuclear rather than conventional weapons under most circumstances support for NFU can be presented by specialists Such an endeavor include nuclear think tanks n g o s public polling academics and NFU advocates within Australia specialists can advocate for Canberra not to oppose US n f u strategic analysts could present submissions in support of NFU a program could acknowledge difficulties while providing convincing arguments

There are problems with such calls to resist NFU As well as demonstrating an overreli ance on the “ certainty ” of nuclear deterrence , which itself is contentious, such arguments neglect the point that the US is far more likely to use conventional rather than nuclear forces to defend its allies but it is fanciful to think that the US would resort to using nuclear , rather than conventional , weapons under most circumstances How Might Obstacles to NFU Be Overcome? it will be necessary to consider alternative visions of support for NFU that can be presented by specialists in the field. Such an endeavor might include nuclear policy-related think tanks , n on- g overnmental o rganization s , the use of public opinion polling academics and a coalition of NFU advocates , within Australia and elsewhere nuclear weapons specialists in Australia can also advocate for Canberra not to oppose any US plans for n on- f irst- u se . There is a group of strategic analysts who could be called on to present short submissions in support of NFU Such a research program could present its views to the government in a timely fashion a clearly-defined research program could acknowledge these difficulties while also providing convincing counter- arguments The research could also canvas possibilities for Australia working more closely with China on the NFU issue it offers an opportunity for diplomatic cooperation on an area outside the current locus of concern and hostility between the two states it could also be used as a way of bringing China into strategic discussions with the US

problems demonstrating an overreli ance far more likely fanciful to think How Might Obstacles to NFU Be Overcome? alternative visions nuclear policy-related think tanks n on- g overnmental o rganization s also advocate n on- f irst- u se short submissions in support of NFU timely fashion convincing counter- arguments canvas possibilities diplomatic cooperation bringing China into strategic discussions

['There are problems with such calls to resist NFU, however. As well as demonstrating an overreliance on the “certainty” of nuclear deterrence, which itself is contentious, such arguments neglect the point that the US is far more likely to use conventional rather than nuclear forces to defend its allies. US security commitments do not, as US expert Jeffrey Lewis has observed, include a specific commitment to use nuclear weapons, especially against non-nuclear attacks. This does not make defense commitments less sincere, but it is fanciful to think that the US would resort to using nuclear, rather than conventional, weapons under most circumstances. Lewis suggests that', 'there is no such thing as the nuclear umbrella . . . there is no specific commitment to use any of those nuclear weapons in defense of Japan – or any other ally. Neither the US-Japan agreement nor any other US defense agreement commits the United States to use nuclear weapons in any specific scenario.21', 'If such guarantees can never be made realistically to states like Japan and South Korea, they are much less likely to be made to Australia, which has, as noted, at best an implicit commitment from the US “to act to meet common dangers.” Yet the strategic analysts who have been previously influential in the current Australian government’s defense and security policies are likely to become more vocal in their opposition to NFU in time, and the government, without alternative proposals, might take its cue from them.', 'How Might Obstacles to NFU Be Overcome?', 'Given the points made above, it will be necessary to consider alternative visions of support for NFU that can be presented, both to Canberra and to Washington, by specialists in the field. Such an endeavor might include nuclear policy-related think tanks, non-governmental organizations, the use of public opinion polling (which repeatedly shows high levels of support for the elimination of nuclear weapons), academics and a coalition of NFU advocates, within Australia and elsewhere. This is already happening within the context of Japan. On 9 August, a letter was delivered to the Japanese Prime Minister and to politicians in all the main parties from a group of US organizations and nuclear weapons policy experts, calling on Japan not to oppose a move by the US to adopt a no-first-use policy.22 This example is likely to be repeated for the case of South Korea and other allies.', 'In the same way, nuclear weapons specialists in Australia can also advocate for Canberra not to oppose any US plans for non-first-use. There is a group of strategic analysts who could be called on to present short submissions in support of NFU.23 A group of like-minded academics can devise a research and writing program which seeks to counter what is likely to be a strongly negative narrative on NFU emerging from Canberra.24 Such a research program could present its views to the government in a timely fashion. While it is important to recognize that there might be some drawbacks to the nuclear weapon states adopting NFU policies, a clearly-defined research program could acknowledge these difficulties while also providing convincing counter-arguments. Questions covered could include the following:', '● Whether or not ambiguity is useful and a good thing. There is a case to be made that confidence and trust building can provide a better outcome than the dangers of relying on ambiguity.', '● The extent to which force postures and military realignments would be needed in the event of moving to NFU. This is likely to be an obstacle, but analysts have argued that there are practical ways of addressing this, and that doing so outweighs the costs involved.25', '● Whether or not a policy of “sole use” might serve as a less contentious step than NFU would. Panda and Narang, for example, argue that “an appropriately crafted sole purpose declaration could help to realize the president’s stated vision on nuclear weapons without unduly jeopardizing U.S. alliances.”26', '● Whether Australia should consider a more independent foreign policy, one where it withdrew itself from the nuclear umbrella, or even from ANZUS itself, (as Malcolm Fraser has suggested).27 This could be framed as ending our strategic dependence on allies (and indeed the Defense Strategic Update makes much of the notion of being more self-reliant), stepping away from nuclear dependence, and developing alternative security outlooks.', '● Whether there is merit in adopting a “nuclear responsibilities” approach, something being explored by Birmingham University, and BASIC, in London. This program seeks to move away from damaging diplomatic hostility between the NWS and the non-NWS and focuses instead on developing a sense of joint and shared nuclear responsibilities. Australia can be seen as having taken on board a nuclear responsibilities approach – as in the convening of the Canberra Commission, and the ICNND. Such a “responsibilities” approach might appeal to an Australian government currently facing criticism locally and globally for being a laggard on other pressing issues such as climate change.', '● The research could also canvas possibilities for Australia working more closely with China on the NFU issue. This could serve several purposes: it offers an opportunity for diplomatic cooperation on an area outside the current locus of concern and hostility between the two states; it could be seen as applauding and supporting China’s NFU policy, siding with it to persuade other NWS to do the same; it could also be used as a way of bringing China into strategic discussions with the US. The US has called for China to be included in any renewal of INF, and for its missile system, etc to be subject to scrutiny. It is unlikely that China will make such concessions, but Australia has a stake in fostering better relations with China, and possibly steering China toward some nuclear collaboration – in time – with the US. China has long pointed to its NFU pledge as something that could be replicated by other states, and that NFU could be a significant, and readily workable step toward genuine international security and multilateral disarmament efforts.', '', '']

[(9, 18)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-AgRu-Aff-Harvard-Round-2.docx

Northwestern

AgRu

3f62d8fc321cca20799c746aff51a96881d40477392eaeb0ce89d95771b2b643

2—Innovation is high

Zurth 21 (Patrick Zurth: Patrick Zurth: Dr. iur., LL.M. (Stanford); Postdoctoral Fellow at the Chair for Private Law and Intellectual Property Law with Information- and IT-Law (GRUR-chair); Prof. Dr. Matthias Leistner, LL.M. (Cambridge) at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, published 11-19-2020, last updated 3-25-2021, “Artificial Creativity? A Case Against Copyright Protection for AI Generated Works,” UCLA Journal of Law & Technology, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3707651)

The argument in favor of IP right in AI works is it would provide incentive to invest there may be enough incentives to create through existing protections protection of software programs specialized machinery and database investment is increasing rapidly to $9 billion in 2018 increase of 165 percent per year increase might be explained by lower development costs public domain products can be used optimally there are barely obstacles demands for an exclusive right are based on lobbying than economic necessity Market failure is not proven

Incentives and Market Failure The most prominent argument in favor of an IP right in AI -created works is that it would provide developers with an incentive to invest in and employ AI tech nology A machine itself does not need any incentive the incentive for disclosure shall be provided for humans behind tech nology Only benefits reaching at least the level of investment will avoid market failure due to underproduction of creative works it does seem desirable to protect investments given that refining AI technologies presupposes sufficient funding On counter however is that there may already be enough incentives to create through existing protections there is copyright or patent protection of software programs patent protection of specialized machinery to produce works and copyright protection of the database the software consults if the main reason for deploying machines to create works is their speed no copyright protection is needed to provide economic incentives as an overall phenomenon investment in AI is currently increasing very rapidly from $282 million in 2011 to $9 .334 billion in 2018 in the U nited S tates even though many relevant markets do not provide protection That results in an average increase of about 165 percent per year The AI industry and AI users may invest in and employ technology out of miscellaneous motivations which may not always include copyright protection The continuing increase in investments might be explained by lower development costs which is why a smaller incentive through mere software protection suffices since public domain products can be used optimally and there are barely any apparent obstacles to investment there is much to suggest that demands for an exclusive right are based on lobbying than on economic necessity Market failure is not proven yet

Incentives and Market Failure IP AI invest in employ AI tech not need disclosure behind tech at least the level of investment market failure sufficient funding there may be enough incentives to create through existing protections copyright patent protection software programs specialized machinery database speed no copyright protection is needed to provide economic incentives very rapidly $282 million $9 .334 billion in 2018 U S not provide protection 165 percent per year lower development costs smaller incentive software protection public domain products optimally barely any obstacles lobbying economic necessity Market failure is not proven yet

['', 'A. Incentives and Market Failure ', 'The most prominent argument in favor of an intellectual property (IP) right in AI-created works is that it would provide developers and entities with an incentive to invest in and employ AI technology.90 A machine itself does not need any incentive; however, the incentive for disclosure shall be provided for the humans behind the technology.91 Only benefits reaching at least the level of investment will avoid market failure due to underproduction of creative works. 92 In general, it does seem desirable to protect investments. 93 After all, given that refining AI technologies presupposes sufficient funding, and sui generis rights under European law are rooted in safeguarding investments, 94 affording such a right for machine-authored works seems an obvious consequence.', 'On counter, however, is that there may already be enough incentives to create through existing protections. 95 Namely, there is “copyright or patent protection of the software programs, patent protection of the specialized machinery to produce works of fine and applied art, and copyright or (in the EU) sui generis protection of the database the software consults.” 96 Furthermore, if the main reason for deploying machines to create works is their speed, as it is, for instance, with authoring online news and other immediately consumable media, no copyright protection is needed to provide economic incentives.97 Moreover, as an overall phenomenon, investment in AI is currently increasing very rapidly—from $282 million in 2011 to $9.334 billion in 2018 in the United States, 98 even though many relevant markets, including the United States and China, do not provide protection.99 That results in an average increase of about 165 percent per year. Globally, investments in AI increased from $4.5 billion in 2013 to $39.2 billion in 2017. 100 Not surprisingly, the number of patent applications worldwide in the area of AI has risen from 22,913 in 2008 to 78,085 in 2018.101 The global revenues from the AI software market is expected to grow from $10.1 billion in 2018 to $126 billion in 2025. 102', 'The AI industry and AI users may invest in and employ that technology out of miscellaneous motivations, which may not always include copyright protection.103 The continuing increase in investments might be explained by lower development costs, for example, when designing fashion or writing articles, which is why a smaller incentive through mere software protection suffices. In any case, a sui generis right would only be economically efficient if the resulting benefit outweighed the costs. However, since public domain products can be used optimally and there are barely any apparent obstacles to investment, there is much to suggest that demands for an exclusive right are based rather on lobbying than on economic necessity.104 Regardless, the burden of proof lies with proponents of protection; whoever pushes for abridging the freedom of use through establishing an exclusive right must prove its economic justification. 105 Market failure is not proven yet. So, even if AI became what we deem creative one day, this would not automatically justify a call for copyright protection.', '', '', '', '', '', '', '', '', '']

[(0, 8)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-PaPr-Aff-Kentucky-Round-3.docx

Minnesota

PaPr

86da015dea5558caa3d70ef91644efe03be335b330dc7e17465a6ed244011873

Only global reductions solve

Payne 23 [Keith B. Payne, Ph.D. in International Relations from the University of Southern California, A.B. in Political Science from the University of California at Berkeley, “Nuclear Disarmament: The Contemporary Great Illusion?,” NIPP Journal of Policy & Strategy, Vol. 3, No. 2, https://nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Analysis-Payne-3.2.pdf]

Nuclear disarmament will “… require global coop Anything short will doom the system to failure To reach nuclear zero it is necessary to achieve state of political relations in which there is no desire to possess nuc s , where tensions have declined Disarmament advocates present it as if it were a profound breakthrough point hardly is useful in advancing any understanding of how to get there transition would require unprecedented cooperation among nations

Nuclear disarmament will “… require global coop eration Anything short of global cooperation will doom the system to failure To reach nuclear zero it is necessary to achieve …a state of political relations among nations in which there is no desire or need to possess nuc lear weapon s , where tensions and animosities have declined It is self-evident that unprecedented “global cooperation” could lead to nuclear disarmament. Disarmament advocates are correct making this point—and often present it as if it were a profound breakthrough in thinking that point hardly is insightful or useful in advancing any understanding of how to get “from here to there transition would first require unprecedented , enduring cooperation among nations

require global coop eration short doom failure necessary state political relations no desire possess nuc s profound breakthrough hardly insightful useful advancing understanding how to get here to there

['Nuclear disarmament, it is said, will “…require global cooperation. Anything short of global cooperation will doom the system to failure…The only way to do this is to insist that the war-centric system be transformed into a peace-centric system that embraces nonviolent geopolitics.”5 And, “To reach nuclear zero it is necessary to achieve…a state of political relations among nations in which there is no desire or need to possess nuclear weapons, where tensions and animosities that lead nations to fear their neighbors have declined to zero.” 6 Nuclear disarmament proposals invariably project that this greater amity and cooperation among nations can move the international system to some form of benign but powerful global governance that mandates and enforces nuclear disarmament. ', 'It is, of course, self-evident that unprecedented “global cooperation” could lead to the establishment of a new “peace-centric” international system, including nuclear disarmament. Disarmament advocates obviously are correct making this point—and often present it as if it were a profound breakthrough in thinking. But that point hardly is insightful or useful in advancing any understanding of how to get “from here to there.” ', 'Such a transition would first require unprecedented, enduring cooperation among nations. Pointing to it simply shifts the question from how does the international system achieve nuclear disarmament to another impenetrable question, i.e., how do international relations become so amicable and cooperative that nuclear disarmament can be the commonly preferred choice of the many national leaderships who now see nuclear arms and deterrence as critical for their national survival in a dangerous world? In short, what is the dynamic that leads to the cooperative transformation of international relations and to nuclear disarmament?', '', '']

[(0, 8)]

ndtceda

MichiganState-JaSc-Neg-Indiana-Round-1.docx

MichiganState

JaSc

c178239d8300538f438609ceee29b2f94626b80d9bb80469ed9046c6418491df

Local ownership via co-ops is key—econometric analyses prove.

Clymer 20—(*MS student in Agricultural Economics, Kansas State; **Professor of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State; ***Director of the Office of Local Government, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State). *Amanda M. Clymer, **Brian C. Briggeman, & ***John C. Leatherman. “Estimating the Value of Local Ownership to a State’s Economy: The Case of Kansas Farmer Cooperatives”. Journal of Cooperatives. Volume 35. https://accc.k-state.edu/ncera210/jocpdfs/v35/ClymerBriggemanLeatherman2020.pdf. Accessed 7/6/21.

Farmer coop s local contribution decrease considerably if patronage is spent as a corporate dividend , which highlights the value of local ownership coop s competitive prices , jobs , and taxes contribute to vitality and sustainability across rural America . Wisconsin Minnesota Texas and Nebraska show economic contribution highlight the vital role coop s serve. within Kansas $1 billion of output was created. this communicate the value of the sector

Farmer coop erative s positively contribute to the vitality of rural communities. The objective of this research is to measure the total economic and local contribution of farmer cooperatives to the Kansas economy. contribution estimates decrease considerably if cash patronage is assumed to be spent as a corporate dividend , which highlights the value of local ownership . Farmer coop erative s provide services and products at competitive prices , merchandise and market commodities , support their local communities , create local jobs , and pay taxes These activities contribute to the vitality and sustainability of the agricultural economy and communities across rural America . there are methods to quantify this value . Economic contribution analysis is a method for understanding economic linkages with other businesses, households, and the government. it is imperative to consider the unique business structure and how patronage refunds are returned to members . Wisconsin cooperatives contribute positively to the state. Folsom’s research for Minnesota cooperatives utilized an approach that treated patronage as profits from a sole proprietorship. Research focusing only on the economic contribution of grain and farm supply cooperatives was completed by Park for Texas and by Herian and for Nebraska . As show n in the literature, measuring the economic contribution of farmer cooperatives helps highlight the vital role coop erative s serve. In this paper, we focus on the research methodology and offer a range of results representing upper and lower bounds of the total economic contribution that grain and farm supply cooperatives provide for the Kansas economy. utilizing an InputOutput (IO) and Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) framework. we provide a detailed approach to estimating the value farmer cooperatives provide to a state’s economy. farmer coop erative s positively contribute to the Kansas economy. Each job at a farmer coop erative helps support one additional job within Kansas a total of $1 billion of output was created. recognizing that patronage is indeed a local income that benefits the communities served by cooperatives provides a larger economic contribution. advocates can utilize this information to communicate the value of the sector

Farmer coop s vitality local contribution decrease considerably corporate dividend value of local ownership coop s competitive prices merchandise and market commodities support their local communities create local jobs pay taxes vitality and sustainability across rural America quantify this value imperative unique patronage refunds are returned to members Wisconsin Minnesota Texas Nebraska show economic contribution coop s research methodology range upper and lower bounds Kansas coop s coop one additional job $1 billion communicate the value of the sector

['', 'Abstract ', 'Farmer cooperatives positively contribute to the vitality of many rural communities. The objective of this research is to measure the total economic and local contribution of farmer cooperatives to the Kansas economy. This analysis utilizes a unique data set to create customized grain cooperative sectors within the IMPLAN economic modeling system. Results show that in 2017, Kansas farmer cooperative business activity contributed over 9,000 jobs, $630 million in labor income, and $1 billion in output. These contribution estimates decrease considerably if cash patronage is assumed to be spent as a corporate dividend, which highlights the value of local ownership. ', 'Introduction ', 'Farmer cooperatives provide services and products at competitive prices, merchandise and market commodities, support their local communities, create local jobs, and pay taxes. These activities contribute to the vitality and sustainability of the agricultural economy and communities across rural America. While these activities are often cited as the value of farmer cooperatives, there are methods to quantify this value. Economic contribution analysis is a method for understanding both the direct contribution of an industry, such as the farmer cooperative sector, and the strength of their economic linkages with other businesses, households, and the government. The purpose of this paper is to examine different approaches to estimating the economic contribution of farmer cooperatives to the state of Kansas, which has not been previously estimated. ', 'A majority of cooperative economic contribution studies have been conducted at the state level. The commonality between these studies is that each one sought to increase the accuracy in modeling the unique economic relationship cooperatives have with their members and communities due to their purpose and principles as member-owned organizations. Zeuli and Deller (2007) argue that it is imperative to consider the uniqueness of the businesses structure and how patronage refunds are returned to members. They found that Wisconsin cooperatives do in fact contribute positively to the state. They also treated patronage refunds as a separate activity in their economic model. This distinction was an attempt to isolate the impact of patronage from other cooperative business activity when evaluating how the industry affects the overall economy. ', 'Alternatively, Folsom’s (2003) research for Minnesota cooperatives utilized an approach that treated patronage as profits from a sole proprietorship. Folsom viewed patronage as proprietary income. Using this allocation approach suggests patronage can represent the value of localized ownership and spending. Making this adjustment provided a larger positive economic contribution to Minnesota than if patronage had been allocated in the economic contribution model as other income. ', 'Research focusing only on the economic contribution of grain and farm supply cooperatives was completed by Park et al. (2009) for Texas and by Herian and Thompson (2016) for Nebraska. Park et al. (2009) chose to consider the economic contribution of Texas agricultural cooperatives in various combinations. Models included consideration of the value of commodities produced and localized ownership, as well as the reverse. Park et al. (2009) argue that the value of a cooperative could not be separated from the value of the commodities produced by members and marketed by the business. Herian and Thompson (2016) chose to consider the value of marginal sales output, labor income, member patronage, and employment utilizing a three-year average of cooperative operational performance. Further model adjustments included consideration of the industry’s capital investments in equipment and facilities on urban versus rural areas of the state. ', 'As shown in the literature, measuring the economic contribution of farmer cooperatives helps highlight the vital role cooperatives serve. However, there is considerable variation in what is counted as the direct contribution of cooperative activity and the approach taken to calculate the indirect economic activity. In this paper, we focus on the research methodology and offer a range of results representing upper and lower bounds of the total economic contribution that grain and farm supply cooperatives provide for the Kansas economy. A contribution of this paper is to demonstrate methods to estimate both the direct scale of economic activity and to create customized cooperative industry sectors utilizing an InputOutput (IO) and Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) framework. IMPLAN, an economic analysis software, uses IO and SAM to quantify economic and employment contributions. This approach is flexible and has been used in many applications such as estimating the economic impact of migrant farm workers on a local economy (Sills, et al. 1994); the impacts of a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak (Pendell, et al. 2007); and the value of localized food systems to a state’s economy (Hodges, et al. 2014). In this paper, we provide a detailed approach to estimating the value farmer cooperatives provide to a state’s economy. ', 'Results show that farmer cooperatives positively contribute to the Kansas economy. Each job at a farmer cooperative helps support one additional job within Kansas. When considering the direct and indirect effects of output from cooperatives, a total of $1 billion of output was created. Finally, recognizing that patronage is indeed a local income that benefits the communities served by cooperatives provides a larger economic contribution. Cooperative management, boards of directors, and industry advocates can utilize this information to communicate the value of the sector. ', '', '']

[(0, 9)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-PhoenixFlood-Rao-Aff-2-UMW-Round3.docx

Minnesota

PhRa

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Minnesota/PhRa/Minnesota-PhoenixFlood-Rao-Aff-2-UMW-Round3.docx

ffef50ff9bb156078dc61b27af4140e2d690f98396145bac1079059380b9d5af

Current antitrust is all pronouncement and no law---it’ll all get jammed up in court AND businesses know that, so it hasn’t effected mergers---the plan is a unique break

John Ingrassia 22, Senior Counsel at Proskauer Rose LLP, JD from Hofstra University School of Law, BA from Pace University, “How to Navigate the Coming Antitrust Policy Tests”, JD Supra, 1/5/2022, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/how-to-navigate-the-coming-antitrust-7543303/

F T C argue antitrust must shed the c w s Khan imposed changes Still, policy precedes practice FTC has yet to test policies in courts c w s has been entrenched jurisprudence for decades , and FTC cannot change that While pronouncements intend to chill it does not appear to have had the outcome filings continue off-the-charts Amid strong M&A advice is to keep moving forward So far FTC have not slow pace Nonetheless parties are now with eyes open heavy resistance will continue in courts

2021 will be remembered in antitrust law Now, F T C argue that antitrust law must shed the constraints of the c w s Khan has imposed sweeping changes The changes are having an impact Still, policy precedes practice , and while the FTC has been heavy on policy, it has yet to test those policies in the courts The tests may come in the next year Still, the c w s has been entrenched in antitrust jurisprudence for decades , and the FTC cannot change that While the FTC's various policy pronouncements are clearly intend ed to chill merger activity, it does not appear to have had the intended outcome filings continue at off-the-charts levels. Amid this strong showing of M&A activity , the advice is to keep moving transactions forward So far , the FTC 's policy changes have not seemed to slow the pace of merger activity Nonetheless , merging parties are now going into with eyes open heavy resistance to these changes will continue and will play out in courts

F T C c w s policy precedes practice yet test courts next year c w s entrenched jurisprudence decades FTC cannot change that pronouncements intend chill not intended outcome continue off-the-charts strong showing M&A activity keep moving transactions forward So far FTC not slow eyes open heavy resistance continue play out in courts

['2021 will be remembered in antitrust law. Not since the 1970s has there been so much chatter over the fundamental purposes of antitrust policy, or such potential for actual sea change.', "Half a century ago, Robert Bork and the Chicago School argued that antitrust law had lost its way and should focus on consumer welfare. Bork's view was that antitrust enforcement was getting in the way of legitimate competition, and the U.S. Supreme Court was quick to embrace the consumer welfare standard.", 'Now, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and the new Brandeisians argue that antitrust law has again lost its way and must shed the constraints of the consumer welfare standard.', "Khan's view is that consolidation has gone unchecked in the American economy, resulting in structural harms to competition that the consumer welfare standard is unable to address.", 'She believes the agency has historically defined markets too narrowly to effectively police broader economic impacts of sustained consolidation, and favored gerrymandered remedies over outright challenges.', 'Khan has imposed sweeping changes aimed at chilling merger activity and shaping the future of merger enforcement. Against dissents from Republican Commissioners Christine Wilson and Noah Phillips, and charge of going rogue from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the FTC stripped away long-standing exemptions and interpretations that streamlined merger review.', 'The action came in response to an unprecedented merger wave — 3,845 acquisitions filed with the agencies in the first 11 months of 2021, substantially more than most full years.', 'The changes are having an impact, making investigations more intrusive, lengthy and less predictable. Still, policy precedes practice, and while the FTC has been heavy on policy, it has yet to test those policies in the courts.', "The tests may come in the next year. Meanwhile, we can also expect the FTC and the U.S. Department of Justice under Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter's leadership, to not only continue the trajectory of policy changes but also begin the task of entrenching them in agency practice.", 'Here, we review the year in FTC policy moves, what they mean and how to navigate the newly laid minefields.', 'Warning Letters After the Close of HSR Waiting Periods', 'In an unprecedented move, the FTC recently began issuing letters to parties in transactions', 'the agency may intend to investigate after expiration of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act waiting period. According to the agency in an Aug. 3, 2021, blog, this is the result of "a tidal wave of merger filings that is straining the agency\'s capacity to rigorously investigate deals ahead of the statutory deadlines."', 'Wilson, however, said on Twitter on Aug. 12, 2021, that she was "gravely concerned that the carefully crafted HSR framework is suffering a death by a thousand cuts," following her Aug. 9 statement that said "For the HSR Act to retain meaning, it cannot be that the FTC will keep merger investigations open indefinitely, as a matter of routine, every time there is a surge in filings."', "The FTC's jurisdiction to review transactions is independent of the HSR reporting requirements, with the power to investigate any transaction before or after closing, whether subject to reporting or not, and whether the HSR waiting period has expired or not.", 'There are examples of the agencies reviewing nonreportable transactions, and even investigating reportable transactions after expiration of the HSR waiting period, though they are rare.', 'The warning letters do not assert new authority not already existing under law, but notifying parties that an investigation may remain open post-HSR clearance implicates finality and certainty of investigations, but not every transaction gets a warning letter. Those with no issues go through unscathed. Those with clear issues are investigated.', 'The deals that might pose some issues, but not enough to draw an investigation, might trigger the newly minted warning letter. To show the letters have teeth, the FTC will sooner or later have to challenge a deal post-HSR waiting period, putting it to the test before courts, where it is likely to face hurdles to the extent the deal did not warrant a full investigation in the first instance.', 'Still, the practice is ushering a change in how provisions are drafted in deal documents. A buyer asserting that it is not required to close over the — arguably — still-pending investigation may face an uphill battle depending on how the closing conditions are drafted, for they typically point to the expiration of applicable waiting periods and not the absence of potential ongoing investigations or issuance of warning letters.', "So careful buyers seek closing requirements that no investigations are threatened and that no warning letters have been issued. Recent examples include the 3D Systems Corp.'s agreement to acquire Oqton Inc. and Universal Corp.'s agreement to buy Shank's Extracts Inc.", "The parties' agreements provided that if a warning letter is issued, the investigation would be treated as closed 30 days after receipt of such letter. Buyers may want to consider similar provisions until more emerges on how the FTC will proceed with warning letter transactions.", 'More Intensive Merger Investigations', 'The FTC announced plans on Aug. 3, 2021, to make the second request process both "more streamlined and more rigorous." The changes include the following:', 'Merger investigations will address additional potentially impacted competition, such as labor markets, cross-market effects, and the impact on incentives of investment firms.', 'Modifications to second requests will be more limited.', 'The agency will require parties to provide more information relating to their use of e- discovery in responding to the investigation.', 'Additional information will be required with respect to privilege claims.', 'The FTC said these changes are in recognition that "an unduly narrow approach to merger review may have created blind spots and enabled unlawful consolidation."', "Possibly in response to such steeped up investigative techniques and resistance to find common ground with merger parties, Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings Inc. and Great Outdoors Group LLC abandoned their proposed merger at the end of 2021, citing indications that the FTC would be unlikely to approve the outdoor sporting goods transaction.", 'The changes, though, do little to streamline the second request process. They make it more complex, burdensome and time-consuming.', 'Perhaps most notable is the use of the process to delve into labor markets. Republicans Wilson and Phillips argued that FTC leadership may have themselves to blame for the merger review crunch, saying in a Nov. 8, 2021 statement:', 'If the agency is lowering thresholds of concern and broadening theories of harm, this certainly would explain why the FTC is unable to conduct merger reviews in a timely manner while our sister agency remains capable of addressing the same increased filing volumes within statutory timeframes.', 'More Onerous Consent Decree Provisions', "Where merger parties settle a challenge rather than litigate, the consent decree process sets out the parties' obligations. Historically, such consent decrees, among other things, required parties to notify the agency prior to certain future acquisitions.", 'The FTC rescinded this long-standing policy, noting that it:', 'Returns now to its prior practice of routinely requiring merging parties subject to a Commission order to obtain prior approval from the FTC before closing any future transaction affecting each relevant market for which a violation was alleged.', 'The agency will also require divestiture buyers to agree to prior approval for any future sale of the assets they acquire. Khan explained the move was to avoid "drain[ing] the already strapped resources of the Commission" on "repeat offenders."', 'The FTC included the new provision in its Oct. 25, 2021, consent decree settling a proposed transaction by DaVita Inc., a dialysis service provider. DaVita is now required to receive prior approval from the FTC of 10 years before any new acquisitions, a dialysis clinic business in Utah being in question.', 'This is a significant change and will chill not only settlements with the FTC, but also M&A transactions at the outset where such provisions are commercially untenable. Wilson and Phillips noted in dissent that "a prior approval requirement imposes significant obligations on merging parties and innocent divestiture buyers."', 'The FTC clearly aims to chill M&A activity, and merger agreements that provide more optionality to abandon deals will become more common, though parties intent on pushing their deal through may see a consent decree with 10-year approval provisions as less palatable than litigating, and force the FTC to cave or go to court.', 'Withdrawal of the Vertical Merger Guidelines', 'In another party-line vote, the FTC withdrew the vertical merger guidelines, which were issued just last year. Democratic commissioners criticized the guidelines as based on "unsound economic theories that are unsupported by the law or market realities," and reflecting a "flawed discussion of the purported procompetitive benefits (i.e., efficiencies) of vertical mergers."', 'Vertical transactions are between firms at different levels in the supply chain. Historically, antitrust enforcement of exceptional vertical mergers were rare and difficult given the previously presumed efficiencies. Vertical mergers can eliminate double marginalization, in which firms at each level mark up prices above marginal cost. Elimination of one markup results in lower prices and can be pro-competitive.', 'Khan, however, argues the guidelines\' "reliance on [elimination of double marginalization] is theoretically and factually misplaced." Going forward, "the FTC will analyze mergers in accordance with its statutory mandate, which does not presume efficiencies for any category of mergers."', 'This too drew a strong rebuke from the Republican commissioners, who said "The FTC leadership continues the disturbing trend of pulling the rug out under from honest businesses and the lawyers who advise them."', "The commission's challenges to chipmaker Nvidia Corp.'s $40 billion acquisition of U.K. chip design provider Arm Ltd. alleged the transaction would combine one of the largest chip producers with a firm that has essential design technology — critical inputs.", 'In a Dec. 2, 2021, statement, the FTC said the acquisition "would distort Arm\'s incentives in chip markets and allow the combined firm to unfairly undermine Nvidia\'s rivals."', 'The FTC\'s lawsuit should "send a strong signal that we will act aggressively to protect our critical infrastructure markets from illegal vertical mergers that have far-reaching and damaging effects on future innovations," FTC Bureau of Competition Director Holly Vedova said in the statement.', 'Given that vertical mergers will be closely scrutinized as a matter of course, parties need to consider concerns the FTC may identify and prepare strong counters — other than elimination of double marginalization.', 'For example, parties could argue that the transaction expands access to products and expands consumer choice. Parties willing to go the distance with a vertical merger should also remain mindful that the guidelines have never been cited or relied on by a court, and it is the established jurisprudence on vertical transactions that will carry the day.', 'Rescinding the Consumer Welfare Standard', 'In July 2021, the FTC rescinded its policy interpreting its statutory mandate to root out "unfair methods of competition" as coterminous with promoting consumer welfare under the Sherman and Clayton Acts.', 'In a July 19, 2021, statement, the FTC called the rescinded policy was "bind[ing] the FTC to liability standards created by generalist judges in private treble-damages actions under the Sherman Act."', "Still, the consumer welfare standard has been entrenched in antitrust jurisprudence for decades, and the FTC cannot change that. The immediate impact is thus more likely to be seen in administrative actions in the FTC's own court.", 'In a dissenting statement, Republican commissioners countered that FTC leadership does not propose a replacement standard and "that efforts to distance Section 5 from the consumer welfare standard are a recipe for bad policy and adverse court decisions," adding that, "unlike those in academia, the FTC will have to defend its interpretation of Section 5 in court, where it should expect a hostile reception if it cannot offer clear limiting principles."', 'Labor Market Scrutiny', 'Government investigations and private litigation relating to no-poach and wage-fixing agreements are ballooning, and criminal indictments are now a reality.', "Encouraged by President Joe Biden's executive order on competition, the FTC and the DOJ have doubled down on investigating labor markets. Merger investigations now routinely include requests for employee compensation data, inquiries regarding noncompete and nonsolicit agreements, and are more likely to delve into both the merger's effects on labor, and the parties' prior labor practices.", "The DOJ's challenge to Penguin Random House LLC's proposed acquisition of Simon & Schuster Inc. focuses on harm to the labor market — for authors.", "In his first public comments, the DOJ's Kanter said:", 'We will fight for American workers including in connection with illegal mergers that substantially lessen competition for laborers. Going forward, you can expect efforts like these not only to continue but to increase.', 'Khan echoed the sentiment, saying:', "Competition and conduct can hurt us not just as consumers who buy products from a shrinking number of large firms, but also as workers who are especially vulnerable and subject to the whims of a boss we can't equally or practically escape.", 'Antitrust compliance policies now must extend to addressing practices with respect to employee recruiting and compensation. Antitrust compliance training must extend beyond the sales team, and include HR. Businesses are reviewing and revising their compliance policies, and beginning new antitrust training programs to ensure that they are not subjected to claims of depressed wages and barriers to worker mobility.', 'Looking Ahead to the Year to Come', "The year 2021 has been like no other for antitrust enforcement. While the FTC's various policy pronouncements are clearly intended to chill merger activity, it does not appear to have had the intended outcome.", 'HSR filings continue at off-the-charts levels. Amid this strong showing of M&A activity, the advice is to keep moving transactions forward, stay ahead of the new tacks the agencies might take, and account for newly injected risk and uncertainty.', "Looking ahead, expect another energetic year. So far, the FTC's policy changes have not seemed to slow the pace of merger activity, but the frenzy cannot last forever. Nonetheless, merging parties are now going into the merger review process with eyes open, knowing it is likely to be more intense and uncertain. Parties to vertical transactions will no longer ride easy on double marginalization theories, and parties will be handing over their HR and payroll files.", 'At the same time, the heavy resistance to these changes will continue, if not strengthen, and will play out not just in courts and the halls of Congress, but will also spill into the political mainstream.']

[(5, 17)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-Adam-Kiihnl-Neg-NDT%20Districts-Round2.docx

Kentucky

AdKi

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kentucky/AdKi/Kentucky-Adam-Kiihnl-Neg-NDT%2520Districts-Round2.docx

7eda12325461e0af505b03456b38c2c3407d61ac83a1ed3f2ba2a37e3a9afb78

Barriers are melting away---AI facilitated smart contracts are key.

Olaniyi ’22 [Olayemi Mikail; July 4; PhD, Professor, Computer Engineering, Department of Computer Engineering, Federal University of Technology; Frontiers, “Artificial Intelligence for Demystifying Blockchain Technology Challenges: A Survey of Recent Advances,” https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.2022.927006]

smart contracts list is inexhaustive AI resolv challenges of former AI crack tasks autonomously M l forecasts patterns d l replicates brain developed for water weather crop markets diseases security and resource allocation there is a need to focus on privacy corruption responsible for vulnerability issues including scalability unrestricted info Blockchain limited by wastage and slowness AI overcome problem smart contract can be enhanced using AI Ingenuine blocks discarded Blockchain superimposed on I o T to overcome security , privacy , and delays AI approach for sharing leakage protected through AI computer vision AI virtualization overcome scalability and interoperability managing traffic and transactions Financial Chains scrutinized with d l malicious Fake product detected risks minimized

smart contracts design computer protocols that autonomously support, enhance, verify and carry out digital contracts blockchain uses smart contracts in economy medicine , financ IoT list is inexhaustive merger of blockchain and AI resolv the challenges of the former trustless nature of blockchain emboldens consensus mechanism in which nodes must reach an agreement on transactions enforces privacy through decentralized structure offer tamper-proof , stability and anonymity AI can crack complex tasks autonomously without interference by humans M l deduc future forecasts on the basis of acquired patterns or identifying clusters of data from input values d l advanced AIs by means of optimization replicates functions of the brain by acquiring knowledge autonomously from unstructured data d l explain interrelationships AI’s d l developed for water weather irrigation yield of the crop markets return forecasting accuratel y determined through m l AI is used to improve medical decision-making and treatment of diseases AI management for security and resource allocation there is a need to focus on privacy in e-commerce progress given rise to threats from adversaries to exploit weaknesses reveal vulnerabilities New solutions are expected to be evolved for infrastructure and resiliency against threats compromises and corruption responsible for vulnerability issues including security scalability unrestricted access to info Blockchain limited by one asset operated at a time causes enormous time wastage and process slowness its performance can be improved interoperability and scalability problems persist AI overcome the problem smart contract refers to promises generated digitally AI can be used to control operations of protocols schemes are weak but can be enhanced outsourced for speedups using AI decisions and rewarding systems effectively managed by AI Ingenuine blocks discarded in conjunction with AI algorithms Blockchain superimposed on I o T to overcome security , privacy , and delays transparency introduced through AI approach for data sharing identity leakage protected through proof-of-conformance mechanisms using AI such as computer vision secrecy can be achieved using AI schemes initial Blockchains built on crypto primitives without trusting an entity for proofing However AI pattern recognition could be explored virtualization overcome scalability and interoperability AI play important roles in managing traffic and large volume of transactions AI has sufficient capabilities to advance exchanges enable maximization Big data require m d l algorithms Financial Chains can be effectively scrutinized with d l algorithms to unveil malicious transactions Fake product detected using m l algorithms risks can be minimized

smart contracts autonomously digital contracts smart contracts economy medicine financ IoT inexhaustive merger resolv challenges former trustless emboldens agreement privacy decentralized tamper-proof anonymity complex autonomously M l deduc forecasts patterns clusters d l optimization replicates brain autonomously unstructured d l d l water weather irrigation crop markets accuratel m l improve diseases security resource privacy e-commerce threats weaknesses vulnerabilities New evolved infrastructure resiliency compromises corruption vulnerability security scalability unrestricted info limited one wastage slowness improved interoperability scalability overcome smart contract digitally control protocols enhanced outsourced speedups effectively Ingenuine discarded algorithms superimposed I o T security privacy delays data sharing identity leakage protected computer vision secrecy achieved crypto primitives trusting However pattern recognition virtualization scalability interoperability managing large volume sufficient maximization require m d l scrutinized d l malicious Fake m l risks minimized

['The intention of Szabo’s smart contracts is to design computer-based protocols that autonomously support, enhance, verify and carry out digital contracts and negotiations entered between individuals or parties without the need for central establishments such as Hyperledger and Ethereum. In effect, blockchain technology uses smart contracts in the digital economy, intelligent manufacturing and industries, medicine, financial management, Internet of Things (IoT), and the list is inexhaustive. Aside immaturity of blockchain technology, security and privacy are the topmost technical hurdles to be scaled (Wang et al., 2019). The blockchain networks are usually complex, the quest to have lightweight clients capable of running mobile interfaces is desirous. This is capable of increasing the application frontiers of this technology (Mukkamala et al., 2018).', 'Artificial intelligence (AI) is a field of computer science responsible for the design and execution of tasks initially undertaken by humans. However, these tasks are often repetitive and well defined (Yang and Yu, 2021). AI was developed to accumulate and identify information of interest within a stockpile of data generated from events. The emergence of AI brought about smart environments. Though, the merger of blockchain technology and AI has been a long subject of investigation by the research community (Azzaoui et al., 2020). Several variants (such as the deep convolutional neural network) of AI have been successful in diverse areas of applications including natural language processing, and computer vision. (Zhang et al., 2019). This survey underpins the contributions of both technologies (that is, blockchain technology and AI) to resolving the challenges of the former. The contributions of this study include the following: 1) To identify current challenges of blockchain technology. 2) To discuss the recent methods of AI for demystifying these challenges in blockchain technology. 3) To highlight the cases, scenarios, and prospects of AI in blockchain technology.', 'Blockchain Technology', 'The Basis of Blockchain Technology', 'The origin of blockchain can be traced to a pseudonym, Satoshi Nakamoto, during a forum on the bitcoin in the year 2008 entitled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. This technology motivated several revolutions in industry and technology. The concept of blockchain technology enables distributed ledger systems, intelligent consensus contracts, asymmetric encryption, and numerous core technologies. Blockchain is the backbone technology for digital cryptocurrencies such as Hyperledger, Bitcoin, and Ethereum. Blockchain offers point-to-point, traceability, anonymity, tamper-proof, trust, and security of transactions. Aside from the financial sector, other application areas of blockchain include the Internet of Things (IoT), edge computing, supply chain management, and Artificial Intelligence (Wang et al., 2020).', 'The blockchain is a database on an append-only structure and operated by the peer-to-peer (P2P) nodes on its networks. It is composed of three key layers including the peer-to-peer network backbone, databases, and associated applications. In this case, the communication process is managed by a P2P network, every node has an equal right to provide and consume information. More so, is the routing process of the network (that is, discovering and establishing connections to adjoining nodes) (Feng et al., 2019). While the global ledger controls the message transmission across addresses assigned to users in form of cryptographic-based public-private keys (Feng et al., 2019).', 'Strengths of Blockchain Technology', 'The trustless nature of blockchain technology emboldens the consensus mechanism in which nodes on the entire network must reach an agreement on authorizing or verifying transactions. Though, the information contained in blocks becomes public due to the disclosure policy of the chain, which raises privacy challenges for the users. However, blockchain is a kind of distributed database that enforces privacy protection through a decentralized structure and data storage mechanism. These offer information tamper-proof, stability of the network, and anonymity in attempts to overcome the issue of privacy disclosure often faced in centralized services, especially in blockchain-propelled voting systems, and intelligent parking lot systems (Wang et al., 2020; Feng et al., 2019).', 'Blockchain technology uses distributed verification of transactions process in that large amounts of miners collaborate in verifying the legitimacy of the transaction prior to appending it to the blockchain. In case of the inconsistent state of the blockchain, all the nodes update their local copy of the blockchain with the state on the basis of the consensus of miners, that is, the exact state of the blockchain is attained through the election. However, this approach is weak to the attacks such as sybil (Conti et al., 2018). Chatterjee and Chatterjee (2017) enlisted the key benefits of blockchain including irreversible (double spending resistant), immutable (tamper-proof), distributed system (participants retain a copy of ledger), resilient (less prone to common attacks), and trustless (peer-to-peer system rather than central authority).', 'Artificial Intelligence', 'The science targeted at evolving machine systems capable of exhibiting intelligence similar to the mind of humans is known as Artificial Intelligence (AI). It can be used to crack complex tasks autonomously without interference by humans. AI can be broadly classified into natural language processing, and machine learning approaches. Natural language processing (NLP) assists humans to interrelate with computers through specialized natural language. NLP understands, deciphers, and comprehends human language in special ways. Machine learning attempts to explain the interrelationship between input and output for the purpose of deducing primary needed for future forecasts on the basis of acquired patterns (supervised learning) or identifying clusters of data from input values (van Klompenburg et al., 2020). Though, deep learning has advanced the applications of AIs by means of optimization processes. In fact, deep learning replicates the functions of the human brain by acquiring knowledge autonomously from unlabeled and unstructured data (Azzaoui et al., 2020; van Klompenburg et al., 2020).', 'In particular, deep learning is applied to high-dimensional data to explain the interrelationships as in the case of, object detection, image classification, and semantic segmentation. Convolutional neural network (CNN), Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM), and Radial Basis Function Network (RBFN) are some forms of AI’s deep learning subcategory (Yang and Yu, 2021). A water management and control station using RBFN was developed for the purpose of predicting water level, weather, and irrigation parameters (Adenugba et al., 2019). The rate of yield of the crop was undertaken with AI’s machine learning subcategories such as deep neural networks, LSTM and CNN. The global markets return forecasting was accurately determined through machine learning methods (Al- Sulaiman and Al- Matouq, 2021). AI is used to improve medical decision-making processes, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic diseases (Battineni et al., 2020). AI-based trust management for security and resource allocation on critical health networks/applications (Abbasi et al., 2021).', 'Problems of Blockchain Technology', 'A peer-to-peer technology-based cryptographically secure electronic payment platform was investigated by Conti et al., (2018), which allows virtual currency (known as Bitcoin) to be traded. Bitcoins arouse interest from researchers and industry players due to their huge market capitalization and increased transaction pull on daily basis. These attracted all manners of attacks including double spending, net-split, the malleability of the transaction, networking attacks, and mining pools. Anonymous digital currency and decentralized networking (such as blockchain and consensus protocols) are mostly used in Bitcoin which removes backtracking property, central controls, and increased openness. Two algorithms have been proposed for the Bitcoin system for privacy protection of users’ transactions including proof-of-work and consensus; but, are unable to resist manipulations and stop certain kinds of attacks. However, there is a need to focus, in future works, on user privacy and anonymity issues in the e-commerce industry.', "One of the topmost cryptocurrencies is the Bitcoin in which all transactions are kept in a distributed append-only public ledger known as the blockchain. Bitcoin is majorly protected through incentive-well-suited proof-of-work using distributed consensus protocol run by miners (network nodes). In reward for the incentive, the miners are required to fairly preserve the blockchain. Since its unveiling in 2009, Bitcoin has amassed a stupendous growth rate and is valued at several billions of dollars. But, the unprecedented progress in the economy of Bitcoin has given rise to threats from adversaries in attempts to exploit weaknesses for profit-making purposes; therefore, researchers are expected to reveal fresh vulnerabilities in this system. In addition, Bitcoin's normal functionality can be distorted due to the vulnerabilities of Proof-of-Work and blockchain (Conti et al., 2018).", 'A number of advantages can be derived from blockchain technology, especially in providing distributed things security services [Salman et al. (2019)] including confidentiality, privacy, provenance, authentication, and integrity. The authentication and confidentiality solutions are attainable through the public-private key cryptography such as encryption and the signature approaches. However, there is no practical experimentation of different blockchain approaches in large-scale and real-world situations for performance assessments. Ferrag et al. (2018) highlighted various blockchain protocols in IoT networks. In particular, these protocols have been applied in Vehicles, Energy, Cloud, and Edge computing. Blockchain-IoT network protocols are vulnerable to threats such as identity, manipulation, cryptanalytic, reputation, and service. New solutions are expected to be evolved for special blockchain infrastructure, vehicular cloud advertisement broadcast, and Skyline query processing, trust management, and resiliency against threats.', 'Blockchain technology is an important part of the cryptocurrency Bitcoin because of its decentralized and falsified properties (Yang et al., 2018). The Blockchain’s distributed and anti-attack nature makes it suited for more advanced applications, especially in IoT systems. These technical properties of blockchain enable distributed privacy and security solutions for IoT systems. Blockchain technology provides less-expensive links and direct exchanges among several IoT devices. Though, IoT and blockchain are distinct technologies whose integration may give rise to new challenges. Most significantly, there is the prospect of advancing both technologies in improving the well-being of people globally through the automation of everyday activities.', 'Data compromises and corruption are largely responsible for the vulnerability of smart places (Brandão et al., 2018)). Moreover, the false integration of new devices and devices running on inconsistent firmware versions will continue to increase risks in addition to the huge pile of data, devices, infrastructures, and end-users available on the Web. Notwithstanding the applications of blockchain in IoT, serious issues abound including security focus (confidence, privacy, scalability, and anonymization); scalability (applications require huge power for computing, verification, and confirmation of transactions); unrestricted access to information (transactions are consummated in public for transparency open identification and backtrack); and data management (centralized service provision to be replaced with a decentralized scheme to eliminate third party controls).', 'Feng et al. (2019) understudied the possible setbacks for the widespread deployment of Blockchain, in which privacy risks is topmost. The general acceptance and awareness of blockchain technology are associated with the decentralized nature and security; as well as a unique mode of storing, sharing, and updating data which is the direction of most upcoming Internet interactive systems such as IoT or supply chain systems. It was discovered that most of the deployed data privacy preservation techniques were based on cryptography for anonymity and transaction privacy only. However, there is a need to evolve conditional methodology for a trusted authority to backtrack users and transactions while hiding the personal data of users in the blockchain network. More so, new privacy protection methods must reduce the overheads due to communication, waiting for delays, and complex computations, especially in non-scalable anonymity sets. The author drew the future efforts in three aspects to include: 1) Obfuscation on the transaction associations to prevent backtrack analysis. 2) Concealing the identities of the sender and the receiver identities by mean complex cryptographic primitives. 3) Blinding the transaction content but, their verifiability and computability are reserved.', 'Blockchain technology is limited by the one-mode of transaction phenomenon; that is, only one type of asset can be operated at a time, while there is a lack of specified amounts of nodes required to attain consensus for transaction approval. This causes enormous time wastage and process slowness on the blockchain (Chatterjee and Chatterjee, 2017). Though there are several upcoming applications motivated by Blockchain, its performance and architecture can be improved subsequently. Notwithstanding, interoperability and scalability problems of blockchains still persist (Ensor et al., 2019) in its subcategories such as public, private, and consortium.', 'Potential Solutions of Artificial Intelligence', 'AI can be significantly applied to overcome the problem of threats and vulnerabilities through effective auditing of blockchain assets and resources (Alfa et al., 2021b). The smart contract refers to the collection of promises generated digitally alongside a collection of rules to guide parties in fulfilling their promises (Wang et al., 2019). AI can be used to adequately control the operations of the consensus mechanisms and protocols in blockchain (Conti et al., 2018). The hash functions are used to generate block hash in order to resist attack as shown in the following equation:', 'y= 2r,(1)', 'where, r=256, 384, 512', ' bits long in present-day blockchains, which must exceed the hashing value of y for every r in Eq. 1 (Meng et al., 2018).', 'However, lightweight cryptography has been identified to overcome the extended hashing processes on the blockchain (Alfa et al., 2021a; Hassan et al., 2019). In addition, lightweight cryptographic schemes are generally weak but can be enhanced with hardening schemes such as Sooner (Alfa et al., 2021b). Authorizations and verifications of transactions on mined blocks in blockchain can be outsourced for effectiveness and speedups using AI approaches.', 'The process of reaching decisions about the mining of blocks and rewarding systems on blockchain technology can be effectively managed by AI approaches (Hassan et al., 2019). Ingenuine blocks are expected to be left unconfirmed and discarded by the blockchain networks in conjunction with Proof-of-Work and AI-inspired algorithms (Ensor et al., 2019). Blockchain technology can be superimposed on other technologies such as the Internet of Things to overcome problems of security, privacy, and delays (Hassan et al., 2019). The Byzantine general’s problem can be resolved with blockchain in which reliability and transparency are introduced through an AI approach for effective data sharing among numerous end-users of the network (Atlam and Wills, 2019).', 'Transactions transmission, communication, and management in blockchain can be carried out more effectively through AI applications. The identity leakage problem and ineffective pseudo identities on the blockchain can be further protected through proof-of-conformance mechanisms using AI approaches such as computer vision (Yang and Yu, 2021). The linkability of identities to information kept on the blockchain has been ineffectively undertaken by anonymization of personally identifiable information (PII). Though, the secrecy of public-private keys of blockchain is the heart of its operational effectiveness, which can be achieved using AI schemes (Wirth and Kolain, 2018). There are numerous opportunities of integrating AI into blockchain technology by leveraging features such as decentralization, transparency, privacy, and auditability, for highly complex and intricate applications (Mukkamala et al., 2018).', 'The initial Blockchains were built on cryptographic primitives without trusting an entity for proofing rather than proofs derived from strong cryptography. The validation and endorsement of transactions rely entirely on digital signatures (Chatterjee and Chatterjee, 2017). However, new approaches based on AI such as pattern recognition could be explored. The virtualization of Distributed Ledger Technology (such as blockchain Technology) could overcome scalability and interoperability problems (Ensor et al., 2019). However, AI could play important roles in managing network traffic and the consummation of a large volume of transactions on blockchains.', 'Prospective Artificial Intelligence Solutions in Blockchain Technology', 'The prospects of AI in blockchain technology for overcoming perceived weaknesses from this study are summarized in Table 1.', '<<TABLE OMITTED>>', 'AI in Blockchain Technology: Cases and Scenarios', 'The AI has sufficient capabilities to advance the data exchanges and transmissions across cloud infrastructures through distributed and multi-computing, visualization, and large-scale computation. These enable numerous services to be performed in parallel including server, network hardware, and space maximization (Namasudra et al., 2020).', 'Big data applications require effective information extrapolation and conversion methods, which can be achieved through high-performance machine/deep learning algorithms. Again, the effectiveness of control access methods in big data applications can be improved with the use of malicious data/transaction identification based on deep learning schemes (Namasudra et al., 2020). Optimization approaches offered by machine learning searching and meta-heuristic algorithms in conjunction with decentralized database structures enable cloud service providers including Google’s Cloud IoT, Microsoft’s Azure IoT Edge, and Amazon’s AWS Greengrass ().', 'Financial Chains and other decentralized applications (DAPPs) can be effectively scrutinized with deep learning algorithms to unveil malicious and ingenuine transactions and manipulations. Fake product reviews can be detected on Blockchain-based platforms using machine learning algorithms. Blockchain supports a secure platform for sharing digital content between buyers and sellers in which data risks can be minimized through machine learning techniques (Naz et al., 2019).']

[(0, 11)]

ndtceda

Michigan-PiPh-Aff-Dartmouth-RR-Round-4.docx

Michigan

PiPh

b363534b507ea24b32c029a32564055473e2799ca23002b5c5968785fc6754c1

. Survivability Bias Link: their model ignores the tangible violence nuclear arsenals are always already producing and defends existing power structures through bad faith utopianism

Pelopidas and Verschuren 2023 [Dr. Benoît Pelopidas is an associate professor at the Center for International Studies at Sciences Po, Paris and the founding director of the Nuclear Knowledges program. Ph.D. in International Security and Cooperation at Stanford. Dr. Sanne Verschuren is an Assistant Professor of International Security at the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies of Boston University. Ph.D. in political science from Brown University. “Writing IR after COVID-19: Reassessing Political Possibilities, Good Faith, and Policy-Relevant Scholarship on Climate Change Mitigation and Nuclear Disarmament,” Global Studies Quarterly (2023) 3, 1–12. , ///k-ng]

To think about possible ends we need to move beyond the “survivability bias” that underpins the IR field Bringing vulnerabilities to the core enables one to seize both the possible material consequences of nuclear war to overlook the gap between the claims of control over those weapons and the unsatisfactory record of doing so in practice the conceptualization of policy relevance should be broadened they must accept the existing framing of the debate, defend the claims of political impossibility and good faith or even contradict the words of policymakers when they acknowledge bad faith policy relevance should move beyond presentism it is crucial to realize nuclear arsenals have already produced and are presently producing harmful outcomes and not just in some possible distant future. allows for a reallocation of responsibilities Without adequate action only two possible alternatives remain: either a non-nuclear As a result, there is no nonutopian course of action Policy-relevant scholarship, which claims to be non-normative, has denied and rejected the utopian imperative. entertain and has become an unacknowledged defense of existing power structures (

. To think about possible ends , we need to move beyond the “survivability bias” that underpins much of the IR field (Keen 2020; Pelopidas 2020). 44 Such bias is visible in the scope of conceivable change within the discipline: a reconfiguration of existing power structures or a redistribution of resources. Both make irredeemable endings inconceivable.45 Bringing the notion of vulnerabilities to the core of our inquiries would open space to imagine unprecedented ends. In the nuclear realm, for example, this enables one to seize both the possible material consequences of nuclear war (material vulnerabilities ) and the temptation to overlook the gap between the claims of control over those weapons and the unsatisfactory record of doing so in practice (epistemic vulnerability). The third prescription that follows from this analysis has to do with the notion of policy relevance, which is widely considered to be one of the central requirements of the discipline. To avoid repeating the Panglossian double failure, the conceptualization of policy relevance should be broadened and modified in terms of its audience, temporality, and normativity. As a result, scholars would not feel like they must accept the existing framing of the debate, defend the claims of political impossibility and good faith on the part of policymakers, or even contradict the words of policymakers when they acknowledge bad faith . Temporally, the notion of policy relevance should move beyond presentism . If the three proposed shifts are implemented, scholars will become responsible not just toward current policymaking elites, but also vis-à-vis citizens of a future in the making and victims of past harm due to the lack of adequate action. In other words, it is crucial to realize that climate change and nuclear arsenals have already produced and are presently producing harmful outcomes , and not just in some possible distant future. In order to do that in a way that is compatible with our earlier recommendation regarding contemplating the possibility of ends to power structures and civilizations, we recommend that scholarship constructs timescapes —the temporal horizons in which agency is defined and accountability is organized —in the shadow of possible ends. This allows for a reallocation of responsibilities (Adam 1998). Without adequate action to meet the nuclear disarmament pledge, only two possible alternatives remain: either a non-nuclear catastrophe will kill us before a nuclear disaster happens or nuclear war is considered inevitable, but its effects could be mitigated by developments such as effective missile defenses. The latter would bring us back to a form of technological utopianism. As a result, there is no nonutopian course of action , if utopian means “unusually challenging” or “unprecedented.”49 This is what we call the utopian imperative. Acknowledging the fact that utopia cannot be escaped other than by accepting death from a third cause becomes crucial in this context . Policy-relevant scholarship, which claims to be non-normative, has denied and rejected the utopian imperative. In doing so, it has unduly restricted the policy options that it allows one to entertain and has become an unacknowledged defense of existing power structures ( Ish -Shalom 2006; Meyn 2018; Green 2020

['To avoid repeating this Panglossian double failure, we propose three amendments to IR scholarship. The first prescription that follows from our analysis has to do with the scoping of political possibilities. COVID-19 reminds scholars that the unprecedented and unforeseen can happen and, when it happens, it can have devastating consequences. We therefore propose four avenues for thinking about possibilities: (1) acknowledging the unknowability of the scope of present possibilities, which requires including the possibility of the end of our society in the scope of what we study (Sears 2021 opens a way in that direction); (2) introducing the concept of vulnerabilities as an organizing descriptor of the current global condition; (3) using a counterfactual methodology to assess claims of past impossibility; and (4) including imagined futures in our understanding of the production of possible worlds. To think about possible ends, we need to move beyond the “survivability bias” that underpins much of the IR field (Keen 2020; Pelopidas 2020).44 Such bias is visible in the scope of conceivable change within the discipline: a reconfiguration of existing power structures or a redistribution of resources. Both make irredeemable endings inconceivable.45 This partly explains why the field has claimed to predict international politics but has missed crucial events, including the end of the Cold War. Bringing the notion of vulnerabilities to the core of our inquiries would open space to imagine unprecedented ends. In the nuclear realm, for example, this enables one to seize both the possible material consequences of nuclear war (material vulnerabilities) and the temptation to overlook the gap between the claims of control over those weapons and the unsatisfactory record of doing so in practice (epistemic vulnerability). Methodologically, counterfactual analysis would be a useful way to assess good faith, as it constitutes an instrument to examine policymakers’ claims about past impossibilities (Lebow 2010). Finally, it is crucial to study imagined futures as constitutive of present and future possibilities, thus turning them into central empirical objects for IR (Berenskoetter 2011; Beckert 2016; Verschuren 2022).', 'Given the impact of foreseeably inadequate action in the realms of climate change and nuclear weapon politics, the second prescription revolves around the need to create and adjudicate the debate between malevolence and failure of the imagination as a cause of inadequate action. In recent years, non-IR scholars who document the role of elites in producing environmental and nuclear disasters have restored the notion of malevolence (Perrow 2010; Castel 2018, 126–27; Latour 2018, 17–25).46 To the contrary, Günther Anders blames the incompetence of our imagination, not evil intent, for our inability to believe what we already know about the scale of the unfolding disasters and to contemplate the amount of harm that we can cause (Anders 1962, 496–97).', 'Setting and adjudicating the debate between malevolence and the failure of imagination has considerable implications for IR writing. First, it would require a more circumspect use of the tragedy trope.47 For instance, on the failure to make progress toward disarmament, we need to distinguish between two attitudes: deliberate failure out of malevolence and the lack of attempts to bring about progress, notwithstanding a sincere commitment to avoid nuclear war, that is grounded in a failure of imagination or a refusal to believe in its possibility. While both are faulty, tragedy may apply to the latter, but should not be misused as an excuse for the former. Second, this debate has implications for contemporary discussions about populism, which have made their way into IR (Epstein, Lindemann, and Sending 2018, 792–93). Because current scholarship assumes good faith on the part of policymaking elites and naturalizes their claims of impossibility to act, scholars have sometimes blamed the public for its anger, anti-elitism, and naïveté or incompetence. They have condemned the public for believing that these pledges were sincere and that they could have been kept in the first place. Yet, if the cause of inadequate action turns out not to be malevolence, but a failure to imagine the consequences of one’s action, as Anders would claim, then the diagnostic of populism should be flipped (Anders 2008, 194). Instead of populism being the emotional expression of an ignorant populace who does not understand the complexity of politics, it becomes the expression of resentment against unfulfilled promises by elites who are equally lacking the required imagination.48', 'The third prescription that follows from this analysis has to do with the notion of policy relevance, which is widely considered to be one of the central requirements of the discipline. To avoid repeating the Panglossian double failure, the conceptualization of policy relevance should be broadened and modified in terms of its audience, temporality, and normativity. As a result, scholars would not feel like they must accept the existing framing of the debate, defend the claims of political impossibility and good faith on the part of policymakers, or even contradict the words of policymakers when they acknowledge bad faith. Policy-relevant work would be empowered to expand decision makers’ horizons, challenge their preconceived notions, and ensure that they remain accountable to their democratic constituencies. ', 'In terms of audience, as indicated by early post–Cold War discussions about the requirements of policy relevance, citizens from all parts of the world should be included in the target audiences (Wallace 1993, 304–309; Smith 1997, 508–509). This allows for the possibility of citizens becoming elected officials and contributes to maintaining the democratic character of representative democracies, even for issues commonly characterized as belonging to “high politics.”', 'Temporally, the notion of policy relevance should move beyond presentism. If the three proposed shifts are implemented, scholars will become responsible not just toward current policymaking elites, but also vis-à-vis citizens of a future in the making and victims of past harm due to the lack of adequate action. In other words, it is crucial to realize that climate change and nuclear arsenals have already produced and are presently producing harmful outcomes, and not just in some possible distant future. A consistent regime of accountability should thus include much more than the present generation. In order to do that in a way that is compatible with our earlier recommendation regarding contemplating the possibility of ends to power structures and civilizations, we recommend that scholarship constructs timescapes—the temporal horizons in which agency is defined and accountability is organized—in the shadow of possible ends. This allows for a reallocation of responsibilities (Adam 1998).', 'Normatively, while current mainstream scholarship has rejected normative stances as nonscientific, we argue that our predicament confronts us with a utopian imperative. The nuclear weapons realm offers a clear illustration of this (Pelopidas 2020). Given the potential devastation due to nuclear weapons technology, the radical unacceptability of nuclear weapon–related disasters, and the decades of commitment that nuclear modernization plans are asking us to make, we cannot escape utopia. On one hand, one could bet on nuclear weapons technology never failing or only failing in non-catastrophic ways within the next five to seven decades. This would represent a technological utopia. On the other hand, one could gamble on the adoption of radical measures of nuclear disarmament that would bring us below the nuclear winter threshold before unwanted nuclear explosions happen. Such a form of change is currently presented as a political utopia by policymakers and scholars.', 'Without adequate action to meet the nuclear disarmament pledge, only two possible alternatives remain: either a non-nuclear catastrophe will kill us before a nuclear disaster happens or nuclear war is considered inevitable, but its effects could be mitigated by developments such as effective missile defenses. The latter would bring us back to a form of technological utopianism. As a result, there is no nonutopian course of action, if utopian means “unusually challenging” or “unprecedented.”49 This is what we call the utopian imperative. Acknowledging the fact that utopia cannot be escaped other than by accepting death from a third cause becomes crucial in this context. Policy-relevant scholarship, which claims to be non-normative, has denied and rejected the utopian imperative. In doing so, it has unduly restricted the policy options that it allows one to entertain and has become an unacknowledged defense of existing power structures (Ish-Shalom 2006; Meyn 2018; Green 2020', '', '', '', '']

[(0, 29)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-RiSl-Neg-Kentucky-Round-3.docx

Kentucky

RiSl

03066523488d8832cf89dec2847c1e104643d62ad8c5682e7172d00920c4593e

Care work and social relation cannot solve their harms---the state’s key.

Harcourt 20 (Bernard E. Harcourt, Professor of Law and Political Science, Columbia University, “For Coöperation and the Abolition of Capital, Or, How to Get Beyond Our Extractive Punitive Society and Achieve a Just Society,” Columbia Public Law Research Paper No. 14-672, 9-1-2020, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3702010)

It is problematic that some glorify mutual aid better than state only really addresses one tiny segment an anarchist bent detrimental to coöperation need a regulatory framework it takes a part for the whole may appear to require less state intervention only because regulation is often hidden licenses regulations for groceries worker s, FDA banking does not address root causes, despite claims building new social relations is not the equivalent to addressing the structural problems of capitalist exploitation

The theory of mutual aid can sometimes elide the structural failures that are the root cause of the problems that give rise to the very need for mutual aid It is problematic , for instance, that some proponents glorify mutual aid , arguing that it works better than state or top-down measures, and as a result (1) ignore the fact that the problems are the product of indifference and structural racism, poverty, classism, and gender discrimination, and (2) suggest that we would all be better off with no state interventions Dean Spade gets to this in his essay, “Solidarity, Not Charity,” mutual aid only really addresses one small or tiny segment of coöperation , the sector that relates to public service—altruistic projects aimed at relieving the immediate effects of poverty and hunger and sickness. This raises several problems First, it has an anarchist bent that may be detrimental to coöperation : the impetus and force of coöperatives and mutuals may well be that the individual workers and members drive the enterprise, and in this sense, many of these initiatives are bottom-up or grass-roots; but that does not signify in any way that there is no need for a n organizational mechanism or regulatory framework to administer and ensure the smooth functioning of these initiatives it does not do away with the state Second, it takes a part for the whole : mutual aid is just one type of coöperationist enterprise, and it fits alongside housing and worker coöperatives , credit unions, mutuals, etc. Mutual aid may appear to require less state intervention than worker coöperatives , but that is only because state regulation is often so hidden . It is pervasive in the mutual aid context : the state licenses food services and has OSHA regulations for groceries as well as all kinds of worker and other regulation s, FDA etc. And these differ from the kinds of regulations that would be necessary for banking through credit unions we could never say that “mutual aid” governs those other areas—that makes far too many assumptions and simplifications about coöperationism Third, mutual aid does not really address root causes, despite its oft-repeated claims : these mutual aid projects are more temporary remedies, than solutions to the problems they depend on some of us having enough money to volunteer and shop for others They build solidarity and reorient our moral compass—all good—but do not resolve the structural problems that give rise to capitalist exploitation When writes Both mutual aid and charity address the effects of inequality, but mutual aid is aimed at root causes I have to disagree. Other forms of coöperation will get at the root causes, but not the mutual aid projects that Dean Spade has been involved with To be sure, mutual aid embraces a notion of people building new social relations and taking matters in their own hands and taking responsibility; but that is not the equivalent to addressing the structural problems of capitalist exploitation mutual aid is only one small dimension of a society built on coöperation It should not be built up to represent the whole , it simply does not constitute a viable economic system for production and growth

mutual aid elide structural failures root cause problematic glorify mutual aid better than state Dean Spade only really addresses one tiny segment coöperation anarchist bent detrimental to coöperation need regulatory framework does not do away with the state takes a part for the whole may appear to require less state intervention only because state regulation is often so hidden pervasive in the mutual aid context state licenses regulations groceries worker FDA banking makes far too many assumptions and simplifications mutual aid does not really address root causes, despite its oft-repeated claims solidarity structural problems not mutual aid Dean Spade building new social relations not the equivalent addressing the structural problems

['The theory of mutual aid can sometimes elide the structural failures that are the root cause of the problems that give rise to the very need for mutual aid. At other times, the concept of mutual aid comes too close to charitable work. It is problematic, for instance, that some proponents glorify mutual aid, arguing that it works better than state or top-down measures, and as a result (1) ignore the fact that the problems are the product of indifference and structural racism, poverty, classism, and gender discrimination, and (2) suggest that we would all be better off with no state interventions. Dean Spade gets to this in his essay, “Solidarity, Not Charity,” when he argues that most of the media stories about recent mutual aid efforts elide the structural causes of the problems; and when he argues that they feed into the rhetoric of small government.312', 'Another concern with mutual aid is that it only really addresses one small or tiny segment of coöperation, the sector that relates to charitable works, non-profit service, or what might be called public service—altruistic projects aimed at relieving the immediate effects of poverty and hunger and sickness. This raises several problems.', 'First, it has an anarchist bent that may be detrimental to coöperation: the impetus and force of coöperatives and mutuals may well be that the individual workers and members drive the enterprise, and in this sense, many of these initiatives are bottom-up or grass-roots; but that does not signify in any way that there is no need for an organizational mechanism or regulatory framework to administer and ensure the smooth functioning of these initiatives. Coöperationism is not anarchism. It may devalue the dirigiste elements of the state (by, among other things, placing ultimate decision-making in the hands of elected members of coöperatives), but it does not do away with the state necessarily.', 'Second, it takes a part for the whole: mutual aid is just one type of coöperationist enterprise, and it fits alongside housing and worker coöperatives, credit unions, mutuals, etc. Each one of these types of enterprise will have their own unique features. Mutual aid may appear to require less state intervention than worker coöperatives, but that is only because state regulation is often so hidden. It is pervasive in the mutual aid context: the state licenses food services and has OSHA regulations for the groceries where Invisible Hands’ Elkind shopped (Fairway Markets), as well as all kinds of worker and other regulations, FDA etc. And these differ from the kinds of regulations that would be necessary for banking through credit unions. Each one of these will need their own conceptualization, and we could never say that “mutual aid” governs those other areas—that makes far too many assumptions and simplifications about coöperationism.', 'Third, mutual aid does not really address root causes, despite its oft-repeated claims: these mutual aid projects are more temporary remedies, than solutions to the problems. They are valiant forms of self-help, but they depend on some of us having enough money to volunteer and shop for others, for instance in the Invisible Hands initiative. They build solidarity and reorient our moral compass—all good—but do not resolve the structural problems that give rise to capitalist exploitation. When Tolentino writes in the New Yorker that “Both mutual aid and charity address the effects of inequality, but mutual aid is aimed at root causes—at the structures that created inequality in the first place,”313 I have to disagree. Other forms of coöperation will get at the root causes, but not the mutual aid projects. Tolentino links in the article to the Big Door Brigade.314 The Big Door Brigade is a project that Dean Spade has been involved with. 315 On its website, built by and maintained by him, Dean Spade explains:', 'Mutual aid is when people get together to meet each other’s basic survival needs with a shared understanding that the systems we live under are not going to meet our needs and we can do it together RIGHT NOW! Mutual aid projects are a form of political participation in which people take responsibility for caring for one another and changing political conditions, not just through symbolic acts or putting pressure on their representatives in government, but by actually building new social relations that are more survivable. Most mutual aid projects are volunteer-based, with people jumping in to participate because they want to change what is going on right now, not wait to convince corporations or politicians to do the right thing.316', 'To be sure, mutual aid embraces a notion of people building new social relations and taking matters in their own hands and taking responsibility; but that is not the equivalent, I would argue, to addressing the structural problems of capitalist exploitation (unless, backing up to the first point, you are an anarchist). So again, more needs to be added to really address the root problems.', 'This is not to impugn mutual aid in any way. There is a long and admirable history to mutual aid that goes back to the Black Panther Party’s free-breakfast program in the United States in the 1960s and well before; and that extends to ongoing initiatives like the groups that leave water in the desert for immigrants crossing the border (the No More Deaths collective).317 There is a strong parallel between mutual aid and Occupy Wall Street: the idea of prefiguring another form of democracy. Kaba talks about the practice of mutual aid as “prefiguring the world in which we want to live.”318 That was, as you will recall, a constant refrain of Occupy and of Judith Butler’s work on assembly.319', 'But mutual aid is only one small dimension of a society built on coöperation, one dimension which has its own peculiarities. It should not be built up to represent the whole. For one thing, it simply does not constitute a viable economic system for production and growth. Contemporary coöperationist enterprises do. ']

[(0, 11)]

ndtceda

Michigan-Pierry-Rabbini-Neg-Shirley-Semis.docx

Michigan

PiRa

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Michigan/PiRa/Michigan-Pierry-Rabbini-Neg-Shirley-Semis.docx