Recent Changes

Friday, March 17

  1. page home edited ... Wiki: http://www.circuitdebater.wikispaces.com The wiki is open again for edits, so feel free…
    ...
    Wiki: http://www.circuitdebater.wikispaces.com
    The wiki is open again for edits, so feel free to add your page link below.
    2017 Tournament of Champions: Constitutionally Protected Speech
    2016 Tournament of Champions: Handgun Ban
    Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.
    (view changes)
    10:19 am

Sunday, November 6

  1. page Sprague BR (Brandon Roth) edited Hi, this place really helped me out a lot when I was first learning nat circuit debate, so I'm exci…
    Hi, this place really helped me out a lot when I was first learning nat circuit debate, so I'm excited to give back. My email is brandonrothschool@gmail.com if you have any questions. I'll probably upload more later, but here's a start.
    ...
    my wiki. http://hsld.debatecoaches.org/Sprague/https://hsld15.debatecoaches.org/Sprague/
    Aff
    {AC Egoism.docx} Most aff rounds
    (view changes)

Saturday, September 17

  1. page Interlake AM edited {fast {ffdisad.docx} {fast reactor cp.docx}
    {fast{ffdisad.docx} {fast reactor cp.docx}
    (view changes)
    8:02 am
  2. page Interlake AM edited youll {fast reactor cp.docx} youll find my
    youll {fast reactor cp.docx} youll find my
    (view changes)
    8:01 am
  3. page Interlake AM edited youll find my files that i ran here
    youll find my files that i ran here
    (view changes)
    8:01 am
  4. file ffdisad.docx uploaded
    8:01 am
  5. 8:00 am
  6. page Byram Hills PE (Paul Erlanger) edited ... Other: RTBF Nailbomb Aff {Nailbomb AC fro cd.docx} Infamous Tricky Util AC {Tricky Util Af…
    ...
    Other:
    RTBF Nailbomb Aff {Nailbomb AC fro cd.docx}
    Infamous Tricky Util AC {Tricky Util Aff.docx}
    (view changes)
    5:30 am
  7. 5:29 am

Friday, September 16

  1. page Neg2 edited I value the protect of human life. My method of evaluating the round or value criterion is Utilita…
    I value the protect of human life. My method of evaluating the round or value criterion is Utilitarianism maximizing societal well being and minimizing suffering for the following.
    1) Avoidance of pain and pursuit of pleasure are objective goods that ought to be maximized, requiring a Utilitarian framework.
    Nagel
    Thomas Nagel. “The View From Nowhere.” HUP. 1986. 156-168.
    I shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, no matter whose they are. The point of the exercise is to see how the pressures of objectification operate in a simple case. Physical pleasure and pain do not usually depend onactivities ordesires which themselves raise questions of justification and value. They are just sensory experiences in relation to which we are fairly passive, but toward which we feel involuntary desire or aversion. Almost everyone [values] takesthe avoidance of his own pain and the promotion of his own pleasure as subjective reasons for action in a fairly simple way; they are not back up by any further reasons.On the other hand if someone pursues pain or avoids pleasure, either it as a means to some end or it is backed up by dark reasons like guilt or sexual masochism. What sort of general value, if any, ought to be assigned to pleasure and pain when we consider these facts from an objective standpoint? What kind of judgment can we reasonably make about these things when we view them in abstraction from who we are?We can begin by asking why there is no plausibility in the zero position, that [if] pleasure and pain have no value of any kind that can be objectively recognized. That would mean that I have no reason to take aspirin for a severe headache, however I may in fact be motivated; and that looking at it from outside, you couldn't even say that someone had a reason not to put his hand on a hot stove, just because of the pain. Try looking at it from the outside and see whether you can manage to withhold that judgment. If the idea of objective practical reason makes any sense at all,so that there is some judgment to withhold, it does not seem possible.If the general arguments against the reality of objective reasons are no good, then it is at least possible that I have a reason, and not just an inclination, to refrain from putting my hand on a hot stove. But given the possibility, it seems meaningless to deny that this is so. Oddly enough, however, we can think of a story that would go with such a denial. It might be suggested that the aversion to pain is a useful phobia—having nothing to do with the intrinsic undesirability of pain itself—which helps us avoid or escape the injuries that are signaled by pain. (The same type of purely instrumental value might be ascribed to sensory pleasure: the pleasures of food, drink, and sex might be regarded as having no value in themselves, though our natural attraction to them assists survival and reproduction.) There would then be nothing wrong with pain in itself, and someone who was never motivated deliberately to do anything just because he knew it would reduce or avoid pain would have nothing the matter with him. He would still have involuntary avoidance reactions, otherwise it would be hard to say that he felt pain at all. And he would be motivated to reduce pain for other reasons—because it was an effective way to avoid the danger being signaled, or because interfered with some physical or mental activity that was important to him. He just wouldn't regard the pain as itself something he had any reason to avoid, even though he hated the feeling just as much as the rest of us. (And of course he wouldn't be able to justify the avoidance of pain in the way that we customarily justify avoiding what we hate without reason—that is, on the ground that even an irrational hatred makes its object very unpleasant!) There is nothing self-contradictory in this proposal, but it seems nevertheless insane. Without some positive reason to think there is nothing in itself good or bad about having an experience you intensely like or dislike, we can't seriously regard the common impression to the contrary as a collective illusion. Such things are at least good or bad for us, if anything is. What seems to be going on here is that we cannot from an objective standpoint withhold a certain kind of endorsement of the most direct and immediate subjective value judgments we make concerning the contents of our own consciousness.We regard ourselves as too close to those things to be mistaken in our immediate, nonideological evaluative impressions. No objective view we can attain could possibly overrule our subjective authorityin such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here.
    2) All questions of morality depend on consequentialist considerations.
    Harris
    Sam Harris (CEO Project Reason; PHD UCLA Neuroscience; BA Stanford Philosophy). “The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.” 2010.
    Here is my (consequentialist) starting point: all questions of value[s](right and wrong, good and evil, etc.) depend upon the possibility of experiencing such value.Without potential consequences at the level of experience—happiness, suffering, joy, despair, etc.—all talk of value is empty. Therefore, to say that an act is morally necessary, or evil, or blameless, is to make(tacit) claims about its consequences in the lives of conscious creatures (whether actual or potential).
    3) Governments must use a consequentialist weighing mechanism.
    Harries 94
    Owen Harries, editor and founder of National Interest, Senior Fellow at Centre for Independent Studies, Spring 1993/1994, “Power and Civilization,” The National Interest, pg. 84
    Performance is the test. Asked directly by a Western interviewer, “In principle, do you believe in one standard of human rights and free expression?”, Lee immediately answers, “Look, it is not a matter of principle but of practice.” This might appear to represent a simple and rather crude pragmatism. But in its context it might also be interpreted as an appreciation of the fundamental point made by Max Weber that, in politics, it is “the ethic of responsibility” rather than “the ethic of absolute ends” that is appropriate.While an individual is free totreat human rights as absolute, to be observed whatever the cost,governments must always weigh consequences and the competing claims of other ends. So once they enter the realm of politics, human rights have to take their place in a hierarchy of interests,including such basic thingsas national security and the promotion of prosperity.Their place in that hierarchy will vary with circumstances, but no responsible government [and] willever be able to put them always at the top and treat them as inviolable and over-riding. The cost of implementing and promoting them will always have to be considered.
    Essentially: It is impossible for the government to treat everyone’s liberty as unconditional as there are always disagreements, thus, they have to weigh people equally in a consequentialist approach.
    The negative advocacy is the expanded usage of molten salt reactors to replace fossil fuels.
    Williams 16
    Stephen William for ZME Science, Stephen Williams is a retired software engineer and former technical writer. Since retiring, Stephen has become preoccupied with the many issues surrounding energy use, such as climate change, ocean acidification, energy poverty, and pollution. ZME Science was established in the summer of 2007. Along the years, we’ve grown into a trusted and provocative source of science news and features, covering research and developments from all scientific fields. Our purpose has always been to bring you the best and latest information, while keeping it as simple as possible. We strive to make our articles accessible for everybody, regardless of their age, education and background, so that everyone can learn, stay informed, and develop as human beings. The website is staffed by a dedicated group of professionals from such fields as geology, physics, chemistry, astrophysics or medicine who have contributed to an archive numbering more than 6,500 published articles. We also host guest columns edited by experts and regularly feature interviews with scientists from the forefront of research today.
    Why this sudden interest in a nuclear technology that dates back to the 1950s? The answer lies in both the phenomenal safety of MSRs and their potential to help solve so many of today’s energy related problems, from climate change to energy poverty to the intermittency of wind and solar power.
    The current dependence on fossil fuels creates a problem of climate change.
    Carrington 14
    Damian Carrington is the head of environment at the Guardian, (The Gaurdian) , 2014
    Clean energy will have to at least treble in output and dominate world energy supplies by 2050 in order to avoid catastrophic climate change, a UN report is set to conclude on Sunday.
    The report produced by hundreds of experts and backed by almost 200 world governments, will detail the dramatic transformation [is] required of the entire globe's power system, including ending centuries of coal, oil and gas supremacy.
    Currently fossil fuels provide more than 80% of all energy but the urgent need to cut planet-warming carbon emissions means this must fall to as little as a third of present levels in coming decades,according to a leaked draft of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report seen by the Guardian.
    Banning nuclear power means switching back to fossil fuels.
    Tvberg 11
    Gail Tvberg is an actuary interested in finite world issues - oil depletion, natural gas depletion, water shortages, and climate change. Oil limits look very different from what most expect, with high prices leading to recession, and low prices leading to inadequate supply, for Business Insider is an American business, celebrity, and technology news website launched in February 2009 and based in New York City. Mar. 16, 2011, 6:00 PM
    To the extent that fossil fuels are able to scale up to replace nuclear, CO2 levels are likely to be higher. The fossil fuels most in use for generating electricity are coal and natural gas. To the extent that more of these fuels are burned than today, CO2 levels can be expected to be higher. Both of these fuels have other issues as well. Coal also has huge pollution issues, in addition to CO2 issues.Natural gas is now increasingly being extracted using fracking, a technique which has become controversial, especially when used in populated areas.Its price will likely need to be much higher in order to significantly raise production, making it less[It is] affordable for homeowners than either coal or natural gas today.
    Molten salt are effective in solving climate change and replacing fossil fuels.
    Williams 16
    Stephen William for ZME Science, Stephen Williams is a retired software engineer and former technical writer. Since retiring, Stephen has become preoccupied with the many issues surrounding energy use, such as climate change, ocean acidification, energy poverty, and pollution. ZME Science was established in the summer of 2007. Along the years, we’ve grown into a trusted and provocative source of science news and features, covering research and developments from all scientific fields. Our purpose has always been to bring you the best and latest information, while keeping it as simple as possible. We strive to make our articles accessible for everybody, regardless of their age, education and background, so that everyone can learn, stay informed, and develop as human beings. The website is staffed by a dedicated group of professionals from such fields as geology, physics, chemistry, astrophysics or medicine who have contributed to an archive numbering more than 6,500 published articles. We also host guest columns edited by experts and regularly feature interviews with scientists from the forefront of research today.
    How do we get all 7 billion people on the planet [can](perhaps 9 billion by 2050) to agree to drastically cut their CO2 emissions [if we]? The answer: make it in their immediate self-interest by providing cheap C02-free energy, energy cheaper than they can get by burning coal.MSRs can be made cheaply because they are simple compared to conventional reactors that have large pressurized containment domes and many engineered (and not inherent) and redundant safety systems. Having far few parts than conventional reactors, MSRs are inherently cheaper. This simplicity also allows MSRs to be small, which in turn makes them ideal for factory-based mass production(unlike conventional reactors). The cost efficiencies associated with mass production further drive down the cost and can make the ramp up of nuclear power much faster. A significant limitation of solar and wind power is their intermittency and unreliability. Currently these issues are dealt with in the U.S. by quickly firing-up natural gas plants to load follow solar and wind power. In other words, gas plants must ramp up quickly when power from wind and sun is scarce, and ramp down quickly when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. Unfortunately, this is an inefficient way to burn natural gas, which can result in almost as much CO2 output from gas plants ramping up and down as from when they simply run continuously. And, of course, continued use of natural gas requires continued fracking. (Although many hope that a grid-level energy storage technology will someday negate the need to use natural gas plants, no economic energy storage is on the horizon.) Unlike conventional nuclear reactors, the characteristics of MSRs make them good candidates for CO2-free load following of solar and wind power. This is because slowing down nuclear reactions results in an increased release of xenon gas. When conventional reactors do this, they must wait several days to restart while the xenon gas decays. This extra xenon is not a problem for MSRs because of their off-gas system, which allows immediate removal of xenon; hence, no delay is needed after ramping up or down an MSR. Note that conventional reactors can be designed to load follow, but typically haven’t been for economic reasons (because more profit can be made by running conventional reactors at full power for base load applications). Although it is sometimes claimed that nuclear power is not sustainable, the truth is that there is enough nuclear fuel on earth to provide humanity with abundant energy for millions of years. MSRs can run on uranium and existing stockpiles of plutonium and nuclear waste. A variant of an MSR, a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), will be able to use abundant thorium as a fuel. In addition, breeder reactors (which include some types of MSRs) make it possible to use uranium-238 as fuel, which makes up 93.3% of all natural uranium. Conventional reactors use only uranium-235, which makes up a mere 0.7% of natural uranium. MSR technology has potential far beyond generating electricity cheaply and without emitting CO2. For example,MSRs could be used to replace fossil fuelsfor high heat industrial processes such as water desalinization and the production of cement and aluminum. (In the U.S., industrial processes account for a little over 5% of greenhouse gases.) MSRs can even provide high heat for cheap production of feedstock for synthetic, CO2-free liquid fuels. MSRs could also be used to power large container ships, which currently run on diesel. The 15 largest of these ships produce as much air pollution every day as do all of the cars on the planet.
    Climate change from use of fossil fuels is a pressing issue that if not checked will lead to human extinction.
    Snow and Hannam 14
    Deborah Snow, Peter Hannam, The Sydney Morning Herald, March 31 2014
    The Earth is warming so rapidly that unless humans can arrest the trend, we risk becoming ''extinct'' as a species, a leading Australian health academic has warned.
    Helen Berry, associate dean in the faculty of health at the University of Canberra, said while the Earth has been warmer and colder at different points in the planet's history, the rate of change has never been as fast as it is today.
    ''What is remarkable, and alarming, is the speed of the change since the 1970s, when we started burninga lot of fossil fuels in a massive way,'' she said. ''We can't possibly evolve to match this rate [of warming] and, unless we get control of it, it will mean our extinction eventually.''
    Professor Berry is one of three leading academics who have contributed to the health chapter of a Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report due on Monday. She and co-authors Tony McMichael, of the Australian National University, and Colin Butler, of the University of Canberra, have outlined the health risks of rapid global warming in a companion piece for The Conversation, also published on Monday. The three warnthat the adverse effects on population health and social stability have been ''missing from the discussion'' on climate change.
    ''Human-driven climate change poses a great threat, unprecedented in type and scale, to wellbeing, healthandperhaps even tohuman survival,''they write.
    They predict that the greatest challenges will come from undernutrition and impaired child development from reduced food yields; hospitalisations and deaths due to intense heat waves, fires and other weather-related disasters; and the spread of infectious diseases.
    They warn the ''largest impacts'' will be on poorer and vulnerable populations, winding back recent hard-won gains of social development programs.
    Projecting to an average global warming of 4 degrees by 2100, they say ''people won't be able to cope, let alone work productively, in the hottest parts of the year''.
    They say that action on climate change would produce ''extremely large health benefits'', which would greatly outweigh the costs of curbing emission growth.
    A leaked draft of the IPCC report notes that a warming climate would lead to fewer cold weather-related deaths but the benefits would be ''greatly'' outweighed by the impacts of more frequent heat extremes.Under a high emissions scenario, some land regions will experience temperatures four to seven degrees higher than pre-industrial times,the report said.
    While some adaptive measures are possible, limits to humans' ability to regulate heat will affect health and potentially cut global productivity in the warmest months by 40 per cent by 2100.
    Body temperatures rising above 38 degrees impair physical and cognitive functions, while risks of organ damage, loss of consciousness and death increase sharply above 40.6 degrees, the draft report said.
    Farm crops and livestock will also struggle with thermal and water stress. Staple crops such as corn, rice, wheat and soybeans are assumed to face a temperature limit of 40-45 degrees, with temperature thresholds for key sowing stages near or below 35 degrees, the report said.
    Minimizing extinction is relevant under every moral framework
    Bostrom 02
    These reflections onmoral uncertainty suggest[s] an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential risk. Let me elaborate. Our [that our] present understanding of axiology might wellbe confused. We may not now know—at least not in concrete detail—what outcomes would [benefit]count as a big win for humanity; we might not even yet be able to imagine the best ends of our journey. If we are indeed profoundly uncertain about our ultimate aims, then we should recognize that there is a great option value in preserving—and ideally improving—our ability to recognize value and to steer the future accordingly. Ensuring that there will be a future version of humanitywith great powers and a propensity to use them wisely is plausibly the best way available to usto increase the probability that the future will contain a lot of value.”

    (view changes)
    12:40 pm

More