The traditional Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics holds that light waves instantaneously collapse into particles, which is a finite length over zero time, which is impossible. Only the Many-Worlds Interpretation escapes this dilemma and is thus more consistent with the rest of physics. Vaidman 21
The reason for adopting the MWI is that it avoids the collapse of the quantum wave. (Other non-collapse theories are not better than MWI for various reasons, e.g., nonlocality of Bohmian mechanics; and the disadvantage of all of them is that they have some additional structure.) The collapse postulate is a physical law that differs from all known physics in two aspects: it is genuinely random and it involves some kind of action at a distance. According to the collapse postulate the outcome of a quantum experiment is not determined by the initial conditions of the Universe prior to the experiment: only the probabilities are governed by the initial state. Moreover, Bell 1964 has shown that there cannot be a compatible local-variables theory that will make deterministic predictions. There is no experimental evidence in favor of collapse and against the MWI. We need not assume that Nature plays dice. The MWI is a deterministic theory for a physical Universe and it explains why a world appears to be indeterministic for human observers.
MWI undermines the notion of personal identity. Vaidman 22
"I" am an object, such as Earth, cat, etc. "I" is defined at a particular time by a complete (classical) description of the state of my body and of my brain. "I" and "Lev" do not name the same things (even though my name is Lev). At the present moment there are many different [me's] "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I". I have a particular, well defined past: I correspond to a particular "Lev" in 2002, but I do not have a well defined future: I correspond to a multitude of [me's] "Lev"s in 2010. In the framework of the MWI it is meaningless to ask: Which Lev in 2010 will I be? I will correspond to them all. Every time I perform a quantum experiment (with several possible results) it only seems to me that I obtain a single definite result. Indeed, Lev who obtains this particular result thinks this way. However, this Lev cannot be identified as the only Lev after the experiment. Lev before the experiment corresponds to all "Lev"s obtaining all possible results. Although this approach to the concept of personal identity seems somewhat unusual, it is plausible in the light of the critique of personal identity by Parfit 1986. Parfit considers some artificial situations in which a person splits into several copies, and argues that there is no good answer to the question: Which copy is me? He concludes that personal identity is not what matters when I divide.
In the absence of personal identity, only end states can matter. Shoemaker 993
Extreme reductionism might lend support to utilitarianism in the following way. Many people claim that we are justified in maximizing the good in our own lives, but not justified in maximizing the good across sets of lives, simply because each of us is a single, deeply unified person, unified by the further fact of identity, whereas there is no such corresponding unity across sets of lives. But if the only justification for the different treatment of individual lives and sets of lives is the further fact, and this fact is undermined by the truth of reductionism, then nothing justifies this different treatment. There are no deeply unified subjects of experience. What remains are merely the experiences themselves, and so any ethical theory distinguishing between individual lives and sets of lives is mistaken. If the deep, further fact is missing, then there are no unities. The morally significant units should then be the states people are in at particular times, and an ethical theory that focused on them and attempted to improve their quality, whatever their location, would be the most plausible. Utilitarianism is just such a theory.
Thus the standard is Minimizing Suffering. There are three additional warrants.
First, happiness is objectively good. Consistency requires we extend our own desire for happiness to others. Sayre McCord writes4
According to the second argument, the evaluative starting point is again each person thinking "my own happiness is valuable," but this fact about each person is taken as evidence, with respect to each bit of happiness that is valued, that that bit is valuable. Each person is seen as ha[s]ving reason to think that the happiness she enjoys is valuable, and reason to think of others -- given that they are in a parallel situation with respect to the happiness they enjoy -- that each person's happiness is such that there is the same evidence available to each for the value of the happiness that another person enjoys as there is for the value of one's own happiness. If happiness is such that every piece of it is desired by someone, then it seems as if, in taking ourselves to have reason to see[ing] the bit we value as valuable, we are committed to acknowledging the value of all the rest.
Second, human equality is a basic assumption of any moral system. Gosepath5
This fundamental idea of equal respect for all persons and of the equal worth or equal dignity of all human beings (Vlastos 1962) is accepted as a minimal standard by all leading schools of modern Western political and moral culture. Any political theory abandoning this notion of equality will not be found plausible today. In a period in which metaphysical, religious and traditional views have lost their general plausibility (Habermas 1983, p. 53, 1992, pp. 39-44), it appears impossible to peacefully reach a general agreement on common political aims without accepting that persons must be treated as equals. As a result, moral equality constitutes the ‘egalitarian plateau’ for all contemporary political theories (Kymlicka 1990, p.5).
Only util gives all people equal respect. Rakowski6
On one side, it presses toward the consequentialist view that individuals' status as moral equals requires that the number of people kept alive [life] be maximized. Only in this way, the thought runs, can we give due weight to the fundamental equality of persons; to allow more deaths when we can ensure fewer is to treat some people as less valuable than others. Further, killing some to save others, or letting some die for that purpose, does not entail that those who are killed or left to their fate are being used merely as means to the well-being of others, as would be true if they were slain or left to drown merely to please people who would live anyway. They do, of course, in some cases serve as means. But they do not act merely as means. Those who die are no less ends than those who live. It is because they are also no more ends than others whose lives are in the balance that an impartial decision-maker must choose to save the more numerous group, even if she must kill to do so.
And third, util is the only moral system available to policy-makers. Goodin 90 writes7
My larger argument turns on the proposition that there is something special about the situation of public officials that makes utilitarianism more probable for them than private individuals. Before proceeding with the large argument, I must therefore say what it is that makes it so special about public officials and their situations that make it both more necessary and more desirable for them to adopt a more credible form of utilitarianism. Consider, first, the argument from necessity. Public officials are obliged to make their choices under uncertainty, and uncertainty of a very special sort at that. All choices – public and private alike – are made under some degree of uncertainty, of course. But in the nature of things, private individuals will usually have more complete information on the peculiarities of their own circumstances and on the ramifications that alternative possible choices might have for them. Public officials, in contrast, [they] are relatively poorly informed as to the effects that their choices will have on individuals, one by one. What they typically do know are generalities: averages and aggregates. They know what will happen most often to most people as a result of their various possible choices, but that is all. That is enough to allow[s] public policy-makers to use the utilitarian calculus – assuming they want to use it at all – to chose general rules or conduct.
Ignore skepticism and presumption because moral uncertainty means we’ll always have a non-zero credence in the existence of morality, so there’s always a risk of offense in favor of one action.
Plan: The USFG ought to repeal section 20411 of the VCCLEA. I reserve the right to clarify, so no theory violations until he checks in CX. Current laws don’t matter because affirming means amending the laws to make the aff world consistent with them.
Aff gets RVIs on I meets and counter-interps because
(a) 1AR timeskew means I can’t cover theory and still have a fair shot on substance.
(b) no risk theory would give neg a free source of no risk offense which allows him to moot the AC.
Contention 1 is Competitiveness
US economic competitiveness is declining now. The US needs more skilled workers to catch up to other countries. Cooper et al. 128
The U.S. economy is weakening relative to our global competitors. Recent economic growth is 40 percent below any other growth period since World War II as other economies around the globe draw in more investment, both foreign and domestic. In contrast, despite still being the world’s leading recipient of direct foreign investment, business investment overall in the United States between 2001 and 2007 was the slowest in U.S. history.
Meanwhile, competition is on the rise. From 1980 to 2011 China increased its share of world economic output from 2 percent to 14 percent. And India more than doubled its output during that period, from 2.5 percent of global production to 5.7 percent. The U.S. share of the world economy fell to 19 percent from 25 percent.
While increasing global competition is inevitable, lackluster U.S. performance need not be. Indeed, rising growth and incomes in other countries present potential new opportunities and markets for American workers and companies. But if the United States means to continue to lead the world and to share our prosperity with it, U.S. policymakers must deploy an American strategy that is responsive to modern economic challenges—a strategy that makes it possible for every American family to ensure that children entering adulthood are prepared to find a successful place in the global economy.
What should the strategy be? Economists of all stripes point to a robust pipeline of skilled workers as the essential ingredient of a strong and growing economy. Indeed, the two countries most rapidly gaining on the United States in terms of economic competitiveness—China and India—have ambitious national strategies of investing and promoting improved educational outcomes for children to strengthen their positions as contenders in the global economy.
Pell Grants for prisoners are key to improving the pool of skilled workers in America. Buzzini 9 writes9
[Brackets in original] When an inmate is first released from prison, it is not as if his (or her – women’s prisons are growing just as fast, perhaps even more rapidly than men’s) can simply go on as before. For example, if the inmate was making an honest income, he may no longer be welcome at his previous work due to his ex-con, or felon, status. The job market might restrict him to jobs that keep him below the poverty line, unable to take proper care of himself and his family. On the other hand, many offenders serving time today are in for mandatory drug sentencing. These offenders may be tempted to return to their drug-slinging ways, but now fear repercussions doubly, especially if they are closing in on a three-strike scenario (after which some states require a life sentence). But how should a youth fresh from the inside be expected to get a job with an eighth-grade reading level and no skills in math, history, science, [or] the arts, or even communication or basic socialization? “Ex-cons are often woefully unequipped to make it in the legit world. Prison education dramatically improves the odds. Studies have shown a 30 to 70 percent reduction in recidivism rates for those who get some higher education” (Leder 1). A study from the 1980s shows that 60 to 75 percent of inmates who pursued (and graduated) from higher education during their sentence were able to find the job, compared to only 40 percent of inmates without a degree (Taylor “Pell Grants”). Jon Marc Taylor, who writes prolifically on the topic of prison education, has been featured in a number of journals, including the Correctional Education Association’s own publication, the Journal of Correctional Education. Taylor himself is three-time prison grad, earning his A.A., B.A., and M.A. from a PSCE program at his own prison. He has also received two journalism awards for his efforts (“Jon Marc Taylor”). Taylor knows the process in and out from his own struggles to find alternative sources for funding. He explains that college programs for inmates “offset the social stigma attached to ex-con status” (Taylor “Pell Grants”). This stigma is offset due to the fact that education acts as an actual rehabilitator. “There have been enough studies now that show high school graduation and [post-secondary] job preparation is a magical number. When people achieve those levels while incarcerated, there’s a much different rate of recidivism, employability, and success than those people who don’t,” says the executive director of the CEA, Stephen Steurer (Leder 2). Even former President Bill Clinton believed that these programs offer a good service at a reasonable price. He “opposed both the Wynn and Gordon amendments, backing Pell Grants to prisoners as rehabilitation” (“House Kills…”).
Education is key to competitiveness. Cooper et al. 1210
Competition from rapidly growing countries such as China and India are changing business norms and the links between national economies. We are quite familiar with what economists call “global labor arbitrage,” the substitution of high-wage workers in advanced economy countries with low-wage workers in developing economies. That’s led to a global re-ordering of production, jobs, and growth.
More recently, technological advances in telecommunications and transportation, as well as skills development in the developing world, are dragging more U.S. industries—including computer programming, high-tech manufacturing, and service sectors—into international competition. This development is feeding a mounting demand for high-skilled labor around the world.
To position the United States for the future, substantial investments are needed in research, infrastructure, and education. The most important of these areas to address is education. Why? Because as this report shows, the overwhelming economic evidence points to education—and human capital investments, generally—as the key drivers of economic competitiveness in the long term.
Harvard University economist Gregory Mankiw, for example, has shown that in advanced countries such as the United States, human capital investment had three times the positive effect on economic growth as did physical investment. And educational investment is particularly important in early childhood development and learning, according to growth economists. The return on investment from interventions such as prenatal care and early childhood programs is higher than for virtually any class of financial assets over time, according to Nobel Prize winning economist James Heckman. The academic literature also shows that failing to provide broad opportunities for nurturing, learning, and productive development harms economic growth and national competitiveness.
Competitiveness decline tanks US military strength. Baru 0911
Hence, economic policies and performance do have strategic consequences.2 In the modern era, the idea that strong economic performance is the foundation of power was argued most persuasively by historian Paul Kennedy. 'Victory (in war)', Kennedy claimed, 'has repeatedly gone to the side with more flourishing productive base'.3 Drawing attention to the interrelationships between economic wealth, technological innovation, and the ability of states to efficiently mobilize economic and technological resources for power projection and national defence, Kennedy argued that nations that were able to better combine military and economic strength scored over others. 'The fact remains', Kennedy argued, 'that all of the major shifts in the world's military-power balance have followed alterations in the productive balances; and further, that the rising and falling of the various empires and states in the international system has been confirmed by the outcomes of the major Great Power wars, where victory has always gone to the side with the greatest material resources'.4 In Kennedy's view, the geopolitical consequences of an economic crisis, or even decline, would be transmitted through a nation's inability to find adequate financial resources to simultaneously sustain economic growth and military power, the classic 'guns versus butter' dilemma.
American military strength solves extinction. Barnett 1112
Events in Libya are a further reminder for Americans that we stand at a crossroads in our continuing evolution as the world's sole full-service superpower. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeking change without cost, and shirking from risk because we are tired of the responsibility. We don't know who we are anymore, and our president is a big part of that problem. Instead of leading us, he explains to us. Barack Obama would have us believe that he is practicing strategic patience. But many experts and ordinary citizens alike have concluded that he is actually beset by strategic incoherence -- in effect, a man overmatched by the job. It is worth first examining the larger picture: We live in a time of arguably the greatest structural change in the global order yet endured, with this historical moment's most amazing feature being its relative and absolute lack of mass violence. That is something to consider when Americans contemplate military intervention in Libya, because if we do take the step to prevent larger-scale killing by engaging in some killing of our own, we will not be adding to some fantastically imagined global death count stemming from the ongoing "megalomania" and "evil" of American "empire." We'll be engaging in the same sort of system-administering activity that has marked our stunningly successful stewardship of global order since World War II. Let me be more blunt: As the guardian of globalization, the U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace the world has ever known. Had America been removed from the global dynamics that governed the 20th century, the mass murder never would have ended. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable there would now be no identifiable human civilization left, once nuclear weapons entered the killing equation. But the world did not keep sliding down that path of perpetual war. Instead, America stepped up and changed everything by ushering in our now-perpetual great-power peace. We introduced the international liberal trade order known as globalization and played loyal Leviathan over its spread. What resulted was the collapse of empires, an explosion of democracy, the persistent spread of human rights, the liberation of women, the doubling of life expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDP and a profound and persistent reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts. That is what American "hubris" actually delivered. Please remember that the next time some TV pundit sells you the image of "unbridled" American military power as the cause of global disorder instead of its cure. With self-deprecation bordering on self-loathing, we now imagine a post-American world that is anything but. Just watch who scatters and who steps up as the Facebook revolutions erupt across the Arab world. While we might imagine ourselves the status quo power, we remain the world's most vigorously revisionist force. As for the sheer "evil" that is our military-industrial complex, again, let's examine what the world looked like before that establishment reared its ugly head. The last great period of global structural change was the first half of the 20th century, a period that saw a death toll of about 100 million across two world wars. That comes to an average of 2 million deaths a year in a world of approximately 2 billion souls. Today, with far more comprehensive worldwide reporting, researchers report an average of less than 100,000 battle deaths annually in a world fast approaching 7 billion people. Though admittedly crude, these calculations suggest a 90 percent absolute drop and a 99 percent relative drop in deaths due to war. We are clearly headed for a world order characterized by multipolarity, something the American-birthed system was designed to both encourage and accommodate. But given how things turned out the last time we collectively faced such a fluid structure, we would do well to keep U.S. power, in all of its forms, deeply embedded in the geometry to come. To continue the historical survey, after salvaging Western Europe from its half-century of civil war, the U.S. emerged as the progenitor of a new, far more just form of globalization -- one based on actual free trade rather than colonialism. America then successfully replicated globalization further in East Asia over the second half of the 20th century, setting the stage for the Pacific Century now unfolding.
Contention 2 is Crime
Providing Pell Grants to prisoners solves crime. Buzzini 9 writes13
It’s no secret that the education system in the United States is in shambles – and not just for inmates. Students aren’t receiving a proper education, which encourages the nation’s youth to get involved in gangs, drugs, and violence. Many inmates can’t even read well, ranking in at “maybe a seventh-grade level” (Leder 1). Were it possible for inmates to receive an education while serving time (a GED if an equivalent had not been attained, followed by a post-secondary degree) they would have a much greater chance of escaping the clutches of poverty and their ties to illegal activity when they are released back into society. This must have been the line of thinking that inspired the inception of the first post-secondary correctional education program, which began in 1953 at the University of Southern Illinois in Menard. Such a program must have been a bit ahead of its time, because by 1965 only 11 more post-secondary correctional education (PCSE) programs appeared. 1965 was a landmark year for PCSE it marked the first time that inmates were eligible to receive Pell Grants to fund their college aspirations. Thanks to the availability of federal funding, programs began popping up nationwide. In 1973 there were 182 programs; by 1982 there were 350. Programs reached their peak when, in the early 1990s, there were a total of 772 on-site college programs in 1,287 prisons (Taylor “Pell Grants” 2). The majority of inmates covered their costs with the aid of the Pell Grant. However, in 1994, thanks to the prevailing “tough on crime” attitude of the time, inmates were no longer able to receive federal aid in the form of Pell Grants. While peak enrollment in PCSE programs totaled at 12 percent of inmate populations, the s0-called “deteriorated state” counted less than 4 percent (Taylor “Pell Grants” 3). There is myriad statistical data to show that education programs inside prisons aid in actual rehabilitation and do reduce recidivism rates. But these facts were glossed over as politicians wowed their constituents with their tough policies regarding crime. However, they didn’t bother to mention to their constituents that “Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York are among the states [that reported] reductions in recidivism of as high as 15.5 percent for inmates who participated in education programs (Freedman 6).” That 15.5 percent reduction means 15.5 percent of inmates were actually rehabilitated, as opposed to merely punished, during their time on the inside. The numbers are even more impressive on a national scale, as “inmates with at least two years of college had a 10 percent re-arrest rate; the national average is 60 percent” (“Statehouses Debate…”). That means 50 percent less people went back to prison, simply because they completed some form of higher education. It is for reasons such as this that “critics lament the loss of Pell Grants as short-sighted in light of studies documenting lower recidivism and misconduct rates among inmates who pursue post-secondary education” (Freedman 8). It truly is a serious loss, for the depletion of funding via Pell Grants for PSCE has resulted in a devastating loss of programs nationwide, despite such programs’ ability to reduce recidivism and markedly rehabilitate many inmates who participate. Should the Pell Grant be re-instated, corrections in America would see a much-needed turn for the better.
Crime kills international credibility. This evidence is amazing. The author works for the United Nations, so he’s most qualified on how the United States’ international reputation is declining. Falk 1214
This unabashed avowal of imperial goals is the main thesis of the article, perhaps most graphically expressed in the following words: "The United States can increase the effectiveness of its military forces and make the world safe for soft power, America's inherent comparative advantage." As the glove fits the hand, soft power complements hard power within the wider enterprise of transforming the world in the United States' image, or at least in the ideal version of the United States' sense of self.
The authors acknowledge (rather parenthetically) that their strategy may not work if the US continues much longer to be seen unfavourably abroad as a national abode of drugs, crime, [and] violence, fiscal irresponsibility, family breakdown, and political gridlock. They make a rather meaningless plea to restore "a healthy democracy" at home as a prelude to the heavy lifting of democratising the world, but they do not pretend medical knowledge, and offer no prescriptions for restoring the health of the American body politic. And now, 16 years after their article appeared, it would appear that the adage, "disease unknown, cure unknown", applies.
International credibility solves multiple scenarios for extinction. Nye and Armitage 0715
Soft power is the ability to attract people to our side without coercion. Legitimacy is central to soft power. If a people or nation believes American objectives to be legitimate, we are more likely to persuade them to follow our lead without using threats and bribes. Legitimacy can also reduce opposition to—and the costs of—using hard power when the situation demands. Appealing to others’ values, interests, and preferences can, in certain circumstances, replace the dependence on carrots and sticks. Cooperation is always a matter of degree, and it is profoundly influenced by attraction…The information age has heightened political consciousness, but also made political groupings less cohesive. Small, adaptable, transnational networks have access to tools of destruction that are increasingly cheap, easy to conceal, and more readily available. Although the integration of the global economy has brought tremendous benefits, threats such as pandemic disease and the collapse of financial markets are more distributed and more likely to arise without warning. The threat of widespread physical harm to the planet posed by nuclear catastrophe has existed for half a century, though the realization of the threat will become more likely as the number of nuclear weapons states increases. The potential security challenges posed by climate change raise[s] the possibility of an entirely new set of threats for the United States to consider… States and non-state actors who improve their ability to draw in allies will gain competitive advantages in today’s environment. Those who alienate potential friends will stand at greater risk. China has invested in its soft power to ensure access to resources and to ensure against efforts to undermine its military modernization. Terrorists depend on their ability to attract support from the crowd at least as much as their ability to destroy the enemy’s will to fight.
Existential risk outweighs every other impact by orders of magnitude because of the lost potential for future generations. Bostrom 1116
Even if we use the most conservative of these estimates, which entirely ignores the possibility of space colonization and software minds, we find that the expected loss of an existential catastrophe is greater than the value of 1018 human lives. This implies that the expected value of reducing existential risk by a mere one millionth of one percentage point is at least ten times the value of a billion human lives. The more technologically comprehensive estimate of 1054 human-brain-emulation subjective life-years (or 1052 lives of ordinary length) makes the same point even more starkly. Even if we give this allegedly lower bound on the cumulative output potential of a technologically mature civilization a mere 1% chance of being correct, we find that the expected value of reducing existential risk by a mere one billionth of one billionth of one percentage point is worth a hundred billion times as much as a billion human lives.
Moral uncertainty means that extinction comes first under any moral system.
These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest[s] an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential risk. Let me elaborate. Our present understanding of axiology might well be confused. [that] We may not now know—at least not in concrete detail—what outcomes would count as a big win for humanity; we might not even yet be able to imagine the best ends of our journey. If we are indeed profoundly uncertain about our ultimate aims, then we should recognize that there is a great option value in preserving—and ideally improving—our ability to recognize value and to steer the future accordingly. Ensuring that there will be a future version of humanity with great powers and a propensity to use them wisely is plausibly the best way available to us to increase the probability that the future will contain a lot of value.
Contention 3 is Solvency
Pell Grants are key. The vast majority of education programs for prisoners were cut when they couldn’t receive Pell Grants. Jails to Jobs 1318
Before 1995, prisoners had access to Pell Grants, federal financial aid packages that are awarded to students from low-income families and don’t have to be repaid. The passage of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, however, changed all that and prevented giving Pell Grants to prisoners.
According to a Quick & the Ed blog article of Nov. 5 by Education Sector Policy Analyst Sarah Rosenberg, before 1995 there were about 350 college programs for prisoners in the U.S. In 2005 there were 12.
Other grants fail. Pell Grants are key to stable funding. Mentor 419
Despite evidence supporting the connection between higher education and lowered recidivism, the U.S. Congress included a provision in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that eliminated Pell grants for prisoners. This law had a devastating effect on prison education programs. In 1990, there were 350 higher education programs for inmates. By 1997 only 8 programs remained. Ironically, at the same time as the federal government abolished Pell grants for prisoners, many states were undergoing a dollar-for-dollar tradeoff 1between corrections and education spending. New York State, for example, steadily increased its Department of Corrections budget by 76% to $761 million. During the same period, the state decreased funding to university systems by 28%, to $615 million. Much of the increase in corrections spending was the result of longer prison terms and the need for increased prison construction. In the 1993–1994 school year, more than 25,000 students in correctional facilities were recipients of Pell grants. Although these [Pell] grants were not the only source of revenue for these programs, they provided a predictable flow of money that enabled the continued functioning of classes. Since there were no replacement funds, programs were forced to abandon efforts to provide college courses in prison.
Plans are good for education because:
(a) Plans increase depth of education because we can focus on one specific issue each round instead of touching briefly on each aspect of the topic.
Depth is better than breadth. If we go in-depth on a different issue each round, then we’ll get a breadth of info any way, but if we spread ourselves thin discussing a breadth of issues each round, we’ll never have an in-depth discussion of the topic.
(b) Plans are key to incentivize continued research. If the same stock arguments are going to apply every round, there’s no incentive to do new work.
(c) Education for prisoners is uniquely key to topic education. It is the core of the topic. Chlup 0520
The amount and type of education offered in corrections seem to change depending on the approach and philosophy to corrections that are dominant at the time. Historic links between prison reform and corrections education show that when a punitive approach (“lock them up and throw away the key”) is ascendant, educational programming is de-emphasized. Instead inmates may spend 17 hours a day locked in their cells, with one hour a day outside for exercise (Prison Activist Resource Center, retrieved May 16, 2004). At present, this approach is followed by several correctional institutions. This model differs from a rehabilitative approach in which sentencing is viewed as the punishment and time spent in correctional institutions focuses on rehabilitation, counseling, overcoming addictions, acquiring vocational skills, and academic learning. Earlier reformatory models sought to take a Progressive Era, rehabilitative approach (Gehring, 1995).
Offense/defense paradigm is good. Neg burden is to prove that a competitive post-fiat policy option is better than the aff. Two reasons:
First, this interp is most fair because it gives reciprocal burdens to both sides instead of allowing the neg to moot the AC by questioning one of its infinite assumptions, giving the neg a no-risk, insufficient burden which the aff can’t weigh against or win offense on.
Second, this interp is most educational because it deals with how philosophy is actually applied to the real world, i.e. as a guide for action instead of a pointless thought experiment.
Therefore, affirming the topic is equivalent to endorsing it as an advocacy.
Finally, the neg must defend one unconditional advocacy. Conditionality is bad because it makes the neg a moving target which kills 1AR strategy. He’ll kick it if I cover it and extend it if I undercover it, meaning I have no strategic options. Also, it’s unreciprocal because I can’t kick the AC.
Share with your friends: