Iranian proliferation triggers an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran  Robert Farley, 1-23-2020, “Would Israel Use Nuclear Weapons To Finish Iran, Once And For All?,” National Interest, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/would-israel-use-nuclear-weapons-finish-iran-once-and-all-116636 If a hostile power (let’s say Iran, for sake of discussion) appeared to be on the verge of mating nuclear devices with the systems needed to deliver them, Israel might well consider a preventive nuclear attack. In the case of Iran, we can

This consolidates all of the case list information from the  Blake & Strake Jesuit tournaments.  

Standardized tests biased against minorities and discourage application to top universities Beth Hawkins, August 19, 2019, http://laschoolreport.com/big-promises-big-data-is-the-sats-new-environmental-context-score-a-tool-to-personalize-college-admissions-or-another-impersonal-data-point/, Big promises, big data: Is the SAT’s new ‘environmental context’ score a tool to personalize college admissions, or another impersonal data point? Alas, it hasn’t worked out that way. Among students who took the ACT between 2014 and 2018, just 11 percent of African Americans met at least three college-ready benchmarks. Twenty-four percent

Free registration required to read In order to establish that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the harms, Pro teams need to establish offensive reasons why GM foods are good and make defensive arguments against the Con claims that GM foods are bad. The benefits of Genetically Modified Foods I will start with the discussion of the offensive arguments – the benefits of the GMOs – and then address the

Introduction In order to win that the harms of GM foods (GMF) outweigh the benefits, Con teams will need to be able to win that GMOs are not advantageous (or at least minimize the advantages) and still win that the harms of GM foods outweigh the benefits. This essay will be divided into three parts. In the first part, I will discuss how to answer the arguments in favor of

Answering Other Arguments Majority of Scientists Good Pro teams will argue that a majority of scientists support GM foods. Good Con teams will need to be able to counter this. I suggest a few arguments. One, the majority of scientists are bought of by the GM foods industry. David H. Freedman, 2013, August 20, Freedman has been covering science, business and technology for 30 years. His most recent book, Wrong,

ARGUMENT OUTLINE   Affirmative   Advantages –   Climate change — all impacts, including ethical obligations to reduce climate change   General environmental harms to coal production General environmental harms to oil production   Coal mining destroys the environment   Environmental racism/environmental justice   Natural resource conflicts   High deficits bad   Renewables good, including economic benefits   Nuclear power good   Objectivism/libertarianism — government subsidies bad   Free trade

421 page initial file — General On creating the conditions for nuclear disarmament (2019) Related: Should the US expand and modernize its nuclear arsenal? The Millennials’ Nuclear Weapons Dilemma (2019).  When survival demands one to be unflinchingly red in tooth and claw, the logic of brutality prevails. This persuasive fact compels the development of weapons of mass destruction — nuclear, chemical, biological, etc. No religion, peace evangelist, nor holy man