I negate the resolution, resolved: loops on balance is ethical
Contention one: the egg market
The Insane Facts About Store-Bought Eggs
Bellomo 17 (Rheanna O'Neil Bellomo, 2017, accessed on 8-6-2020, Delish, "This Insane Fact About Store-Bought Eggs Is Going Viral",
https://www.delish.com/food-news/a45655/the-scary-thing-you-never-knew-about-grocery-store-eggs/)
Delish editors handpick every product we feature. We may earn commission from the links on this page. You
definitely had NO
IDEA how old your eggs are. Everyone has a little-known secret up their sleeve when it comes to grocery shopping—like timesaving tactics, coupon-clipping strategies, or meal planning systems to reduce waste. But
did you know that the eggs you're
picking up in the dairy aisle might be hiding a secret? For starters, they might not be as fresh
as you think, despite the carton's "best by" label. Here's what you need to know in order to
avoid some bad eggs. A recent post on Facebook that has gone viral shows eggs at the
grocery store that were more than 30 days old. And it would seem this "Fresh Eggs Daily"
page has a strong argument. After all, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that
all egg products are labeled with the following: product name, manufacturer's name, official
identification, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approval number, ingredients
statement, net weight statement, and nutrition information. . Yet there is no rule regarding
expiration dates. Unfortunately, with the exception of baby formula, the FDA does not
require food manufacturers to place "best before," "expired by," or "use by" dates on
products—it's solely up the individual company's discretion. However, an expiration date could be required by
individual states' laws so you should definitely keep checking it. Another voluntary label includes a number (1 through 365), marking which day
of the year the eggs were placed in their carton. That being said, as the University of Nebraska-Lincoln reports, the Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) clarifies that "you can still store fresh shell eggs in their cartons in the refrigerator for four to five weeks beyond this date. " Here's
how to accurately read all the codes on your carton of eggs to understand when they were packaged, how long they'll last, and what "Grade A"
actually means: Because temperature is one of the prime factors that control the growth of bacteria in food, both the FDA and USDA have
issued regulations for the safe handling, transport, and storage of eggs. "Many types of pathogens and spoilage bacteria are prevented from
multiplying in properly refrigerated foods that are not out of date," the FDA site says. That's why the USDA published a final rule requiring all
shell eggs packed for consumers to be stored and transported at 45 degrees F. Additionally, federal regulations also require eggs to be kept
under refrigeration at 45 degrees F or lower once they're delivered to retailers. So while they might have been sitting in cardboard or styrofoam
packages for a while, your eggs aren't necessarily unsafe to eat. And, after all of this, you still don't trust the egg company to do the math
between the Julian date and the "best by" date, then either break out the calculator or pick a different brand to buy. Follow Delish on
Instagram.
Contention two: Loops = ANCAP
Capitalism bad! Arm the proletariat
Daniel M, 5 (Daniel M., 4-4-2005, accessed on 8-6-2020, The Other Journal, "What is Wrong with Capitalism? The Problem with the
Problem with Capitalism - The Other Journal", https://theotherjournal.com/2005/04/04/what-is-wrong-with-capitalism-the-problem-with-theproblem-with-capitalism/)
April 4, 2005 “Why do you labor for that which does not satisfy?” Isaiah 55:2 The noted
Christian theologian Michael Novak has observed that “we are all capitalist now”[1] and as I
write these words an evangelical Christian is beginning his second term in what is arguably
the single most influential economic post in the world.[2] These facts should give us pause as
we consider the question, “what is the problem with capitalism?” For it is not at all clear that
capitalism and Christianity are at odds to any significant degree. Indeed, evangelical
Christians – precisely those Christians who most forthrightly proclaim their adherence to the
classic Christian faith – are some of the most fervent advocates of capitalism and its advance;
and even capitalism’s Christian detractors are finally capitalists. (Where do you shop? Where
was your shirt made?). Moreover, even capitalism’s Christian proponents readily admit that
capitalism is not without its problems. Whatever defense of capitalism’s virtues is proffered,
no one confuses capitalism with the Kingdom of God. This situation suggests that perhaps the
first problem confronted when confronting the problem of capitalism is the problem with the
problem with capitalism. What is the problem of the problem of capitalism? Capitalism’s Christian
advocates are pretty clear on what the problem is. It is the vested interest that the ethics establishment has in denigrating all things (North)
American, which it does by offering simplistic judgments on complex economic realities.[3] The problem is that theologians are out-of-date,
down-right medieval, when it comes to matters economic.[4] There is, no doubt, some truth to these sorts of claims. For example, how much of
our animus toward capital is really a self-serving maneuver to make a virtue of necessity? Academics and clergy and other professional religious
types, after all, are not typically found in the higher altitudes of the wage scale. And how many of us have taken the time to actually engage the
discipline of economics instead of simply dismissing it?[5] How many of us know, for example, the difference between absolute and
comparative advantage or that scarcity is finally a claim not so much about natural resources as it is about the psychological or desiring
constitution of the human being? In addition to these commonplace difficulties with Christian critiques of capitalism, there is another set of
difficulties that is rarely recognized. Specifically, Christian critiques of capitalism are hindered because the problem of capitalism is typically
posed empirically instead of confessionally, and it is posed empirically in a flawed manner. 1. What is Wrong with the Question “What is Wrong
with Capitalism?” Engage someone in a conversation about capitalism. Ask if it is good or bad, if it comports with Christian convictions or not.
Invariably, the conversation, or argument, will revolve around the issue of whether or not capitalism works. More specifically, the question will
turn – in endless circles of undoubtedly escalating rhetoric, if not tempers as well – on whether it aids the poor in escaping their poverty or
abets the forces that perpetrate and perpetuate that poverty. This is a straightforwardly empirical argument, even if empirical evidence is rarely
if ever able to settle such disputes. This empirical turn makes sense. It makes sense because there is near universal agreement among Christians
that concern for the poor and alleviating poverty is a proper task of the economic order. For example, advocates of capitalism and critics of
such movements as Latin American liberation theology, which displays a prominent concern for the poor coupled with a sharp critique of
capitalism, readily agree with liberationists that God is concerned for the poor, even especially concerned for their welfare. As Amy Sherman, a
Christian advocate of capitalism, notes, “For Christians, opting for the poor is not optional; it is a clear command of Christ.”[6]
Yet, the
empirical turn is flawed to the extent that it revolves solely around the question of whether
or not capitalism works. This is the case because it is rather obvious that capitalism works.
Indeed, one of the reasons it is lauded is precisely because it works as well as it does. This is
to say, no economic order to date has so obviously displayed such an enormous productive
capacity as has capitalism. Hence, the empirical question put to capitalism cannot be “does it
work?” The obvious answer is “yes.” Rather the empirical question should be “what work
does it do?” Rethinking the empirical question in these terms makes a significant difference
in how Christians might evaluate capitalism theologically, although that difference may not
be readily apparent. For instance, the difference made by posing the question of capitalism in terms of the work it does may not be
obvious when I argue that a problem with capitalism is not that it does not work, but rather that the work that it does is not the work we should
be doing with regard to caring for our neighbors and seeing to it that material things are produced and allocated in accord with their proper,
divinely ordained, universal destination (cf. John Paul II, Centesimus Annus). The
difference that this reframing of the
empirical question makes, however, begins to come into sharper focus when I argue that
even if I am wrong and capitalism’s chaplains are right, even if capitalism is actually on the
whole advancing the cause of the poor and alleviating unjust suffering, it would still be wrong
and rightly resisted. Why? Because capitalism is wrong not only on account of its failure to
aid the poor and needy, but also because of what it does succeed in doing, namely, deforming
human desire. As Augustine noted long ago, humans are created to desire God and the things
of God. Capitalism corrupts desire. Even if capitalism succeeds in reducing poverty, it is still wrong on account of its distortion of human
desiring and human relations. As Alasdair MacIntyre has noted, “although Christian indictments of capitalism have justly focused attention
upon the wrongs done to the poor and the exploited, Christianity has to view any social and economic order that treats being or becoming rich
as highly desirable as doing wrong to those who must not only accept its goals, but succeed in achieving them. . . .
Capitalism is bad
for those who succeed by its standards as well as for those who fail by them, something that
many preachers and theologians have failed to recognize.”[7] Capitalism is wrong not simply
because it fails to succor the impoverished, but also because where it succeeds it deforms
and corrupts human desire into an insatiable drive for more.
Contention three: Loops hates small
schools
Smaller schools are better
Up 1963 (8-28-1963, accessed on 8-6-2020, Educationworld, "Are Smaller Schools Better Schools? | Education World",
https://www.educationworld.com/a_issues/issues108.shtml)
The results of two recent studies indicate that small schools may be the remedy for lots of
things that are wrong with public education especially for the nation's poor children. The
separate studies credit small schools with reducing the negative effects of poverty on student
achievement reducing student violence increasing parent involvement and making students
feel accountable for their behavior and grades. Educators have long known that poverty hurts
student achievement. Researchers Craig Howley of Ohio University and the Appalachia
Educational Laboratory and Robert Bickel of Marshall University set out to find out whether
smaller schools could reduce the negative effects of poverty on student achievement. In four
separate studies of seven states they repeatedly found that poor kids do better if they attend
a small school. In fact in the most recent four-state study the correlation between poverty
and low achievement was ten times stronger in larger schools than in smaller ones in all four
states. Howley and Bickel found that the benefit of smaller schools was particularly important
in the middle grades when children are most at risk of dropping out. The researchers initially evaluated
schools in California.
Howley then replicated the research in schools in West Virginia and Alaska. More recently
the Rural School and Community Trust a national nonprofit organization asked Bickel and Howley to study School Size Poverty and Student
Achievement in Montana Ohio Georgia and Texas. The study included 13600 urban suburban and rural schools in 2290 school districts. They
found that at least one-fourth of the schools serving moderate- to low-income communities in Texas one-third in Georgia and two-fifths in Ohio
are too large for students to achieve top performance.
In Montana among kids in grade 8 in larger districts the
power of poverty over achievement was 2.5 times greater than in smaller districts overall and
three times greater in elementary-only districts. "Everyone knows that there is a strong
association between social class and achievement and that this association works very much
to the disadvantage of economically disadvantaged students" Bickel told Education World.
"The California research however had the virtue of demonstrating that this disadvantage was
exaggerated as school size increased." Each time Bickel and Howley conducted another study
the results were very similar. "It's very unusual in education research to find this degree of
consistency" Bickel said. Howley and Bickel did not base their findings on a definition of what constitutes a large or small school
but looked at school size on a continuum. They found that poor students from relatively smaller schools outperform poor students from larger
schools. The researchers also found all students benefited from attending small schools regardless of the levels of community poverty. That was
especially true in Montana.
In fact groups of less-affluent students out-performed groups of more-
affluent students on standardized tests in the eighth grade if they attended a smaller school
"A common argument for making schools larger is expressed in terms of economics of scale:
Large schools save money" Bickel said. "Recently however using the Texas data set we have
found that 116 districts that have only one school for all grades have an expenditure per pupil
that averages about $389 lower than the more conventionally modern schools. These schools
tend to be small they have at least 13 grade levels from kindergarten to grade 12 and the
students are distributed more or less evenly across grade levels. "Hardly sounds like a
modern consolidated school" Bickel continued. "So perhaps cost in dollar terms is not a barrier to
making schools more equitable places." Another study also linked student achievement with small
schools. The two-year study Small Schools: Great Strides was conducted by Bank Street College of
Education and funded by the Joyce Foundation. A team of seven researchers took a close look at 150
small schools in Chicago many created as part of education reform that started in the city during the
past decade. The schools had enrollments between 200 to 400 students far below the national average
of 741 said Pat Wasley one of the principal co-investigators of the study. The researchers found that
student achievement was greater in the small schools than in the larger schools. Students parents
teachers and community volunteers reported greater satisfaction because they felt more
connected to one another Wasley told Education World. "Teacher satisfaction went way up!"
Wasley added. "[Teachers] thought teaching was more fun satisfying and that they were
more effective teachers that they could get the kids moving in a positive direction." Many
teachers told the researchers that teaching at a small school reminded them why they
became teachers in the first place. The report found that teachers expected more from their students because they knew
them better and cared about what happened to them; students acknowledged this to researchers. Teachers reported more collaboration with
colleagues and more-regular professional development activities at their schools. They also had greater contact with parents and understood
them as an important element in student success. Lack of parental involvement in schools is often a problem in poor communities. Like the
Howley and Bickel studies linking small schools to reducing the impact of poverty on student achievement the Chicago study also found the
connection. "Some of our schools in the study were among the most disadvantaged neighborhoods in Chicago" Wasley said. However the study
found that those students still outperformed their peers in large schools in many areas. "We actually do think that urban school districts should
create smaller schools because it's doing so much for the students" Wasley explained. "If we had our druthers we really would want to see large
schools the exception not the rule."
With the weight of a class war bearing down we urge you to vote neg, thank you