Copyright 2019 by Champion Briefs, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher. The Evidence Standard Jan/Feb 2020 The Evidence Standard Speech and Debate provides a meaningful and educational experience to all who are involved. We, as educators in the community, believe that it is our responsibility to provide resources that uphold the foundation of the Speech and Debate activity. Champion Briefs, its employees, managers, and associates take an oath to uphold the following Evidence Standard: 1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information. 2. We will never knowingly distribute information that has been proven to be inaccurate, even if the source of the information is legitimate. 3. We will actively fight the dissemination of false information and will provide the community with clarity if we learn that a third-party has attempted to commit deception. 4. We will never knowingly support or distribute studies, news articles, or other materials that use inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point. 5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of information that we distribute. 6. We will actively contribute to students’ understanding of the world by using evidence from a multitude of perspectives and schools of thought. 7. We will, within our power, assist the community as a whole in its mission to achieve the goals and vision of this activity. These seven statements, while simple, represent the complex notion of what it means to advance students’ understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators. Champion Briefs 5 Letter from the Editor Jan/Feb 2020 Letter from the Editor Thank you for your continued support and readership. The 2019-2020 debate season has rolled into the new year with a new topic: “Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenal.” Our latest topic brief looks at an issue that has been debated since the invention of nuclear technologies and especially since the first use of nuclear weapons in 1945. We tried to take a balanced approach to this very broad topic so that the brief could be used by all types of debaters. Our writers researched arguments ranging from traditional ethical philosophy based frameworks, util based policy style ones, and more progressive and critical arguments. We’re now going into the heart of the competitive debate season. There are major national tournaments coming up and local circuits are beginning to host their state and national qualifier tournaments. This is now the time to double down and put in some hard work. Many of your most meaningful tournaments will be coming in the months ahead. Everyone should look at the new year as a new season where your record is blank. Past successes or failures will not matter in the new year; only your attitude and desire to improve will help you succeed in the rounds coming in the near future. Good luck and Happy New Year! Daniel Shatzkin Editor-in-Chief Champion Briefs 6 Table of Contents Jan/Feb 2020 Table of Contents The Evidence Standard ........................................................................................ 5 Letter from the Editor ......................................................................................... 6 Table of Contents .................................................................................................. 7 Topic Analyses ...................................................................................................... 16 Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek ......................................................................................... 17 Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin ............................................................................................. 26 Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher ............................................................................................ 33 Topic Analysis by Shankar Krishnan .......................................................................................... 42 Affirmative Cases with Negative Responses ................................................ 50 Aff: Kant AC ................................................................................................................ 51 Consequentialism is inadequate for evaluating the ethics of nuclear weapons. ................................................... 52 Even a single nuclear blast poses a humanitarian disaster. ................................................................................... 53 Nuclear weapons rob their victims of humanity, treating them as mere means. .................................................. 54 Nuclear deterrence is a social institution, and it must be judged according to whether it produces systematic injustices. ................................................................................................................................................................ 55 Nuclear deterrence is a form of hostage-taking, which is inherently wrong because it violates the consent of innocent third parties. ............................................................................................................................................ 56 Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate---the vast majority of people who get harmed are innocent, and the military's traditional rules for distinction are thrown out the window. ................................................................. 57 Nuclear deterrence imposes a substantial risk of harm on non-consenting third parties, even if deterrence never fails. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 58 The question of hypothetical consent matters---while some activities, like driving, impose risks on third-parties, people would consent to that practice, yet no one would assent to being demolished in a nuclear explosion. ... 59 Even if nuclear deterrence isn't literal hostage holding, the constraints on liberty and production of trauma are still significant. ........................................................................................................................................................ 60 Merely threatening military targets is also immoral because of the enormous fallout that kills innocent people. ................................................................................................................................................................................ 61 Conventional deterrence solves the disads and avoids systematic, nonconsequentialist rule violations. ............ 62 Nuclear deterrence violates Kantian ideals of universality and doesn’t hold up having a moral intent. ............... 63 Credible nuclear deterrence is contingent on the intention to genuinely use nuclear weapons, so it's more than just a bluff. .............................................................................................................................................................. 64 The idea that deterrence is good because it stops *us* from using nuclear weapons is ridiculous, and eliminating arsenals is the surest way to ensure we never use them. ................................................................... 65 Nuclear deterrence is immoral because it deliberately risks the murder of millions of people. Consequences matter, but deontologically speaking the wrongness of deterrence resides in the action itself, and not merely its consequences. ........................................................................................................................................................ 66 Champion Briefs 7 Table of Contents Jan/Feb 2020 A/2: Kant AC .............................................................................................................. 68 Limited uses of nuclear deterrence are just---a maxim permitting low-yield nukes against military targets can be universalized. Threatening massive loss of life is impermissible, and the negative can agree on that point. ....... 68 Even though bluffing is deceptive, Kant agrees that lying is permitted if it diverts an aggressor. ......................... 70 Kantian 'nonideal theory' permits limited nuclear threats that are proportionate to an initial act of aggression. Deterrence does not require threatening mass destruction against human dignity. ............................................ 71 Maxims of nuclear ethics acknowledge the value of self-defense while minimizing harms to the innocent, and reducing long-term reliance on nuclear weapons. This is possible without elimination. ...................................... 72 If nuclear deterrence is limited to military targets, the problem of wrongful intentions does not apply. ............. 73 Nuclear deterrence is far less bad than actually using nukes, and this is because consequences should matter to some extent. ........................................................................................................................................................... 74 Nuclear deterrence will save millions of lives. States have a duty to pursue it. ..................................................... 75