Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:33

From version < 133.1 >
edited by Matthew Moorhead
on 2017/01/02 19:55
To version < 165.1 >
edited by Matthew Moorhead
on 2017/04/29 01:40
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[18]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,4 +1,0 @@
1 -1. Education
2 -2. Fairness
3 -3. Skills
4 -4. Ground
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-02 19:52:37.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Brian Devine
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Brookfield East TG
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -19
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Octas
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Appleton East Moorhead Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -0- No Condo Pls
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge
Caselist.CitesClass[20]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2017-01-02 19:55:14.509
1 +2017-01-02 19:55:14.0
Caselist.RoundClass[18]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -17
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-02 19:51:50.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Kimberly Herrera
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Whitefish Bay RD
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -West Bend
Caselist.RoundClass[19]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -18
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-02 19:52:35.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Brian Devine
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Brookfield East TG
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Octas
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge
Caselist.RoundClass[21]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +20
Caselist.CitesClass[22]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,6 @@
1 +Interp: debaters not run more than one conditional advocacy
2 +
3 +1. Education
4 +2. Fairness
5 +3. Ground
6 +4. Skills
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-17 00:03:10.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Brian Devine
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Brookfield East TG
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +23
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Octas
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Appleton East Moorhead Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +0- no condo pls
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge
Caselist.CitesClass[23]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,84 @@
1 +The role of the ballot is to vote for the best political strategy for liberation of the oppressed and that creates the best framework for education
2 +Giroux 10
3 +Henry Giroux. “Rethinking Education As The Practice of Freedom: Paulo Freire and the Promise of Critical Pedagogy.” Truthout. January 3rd, 2010. http://archive.truthout.org/10309_Giroux_Freire
4 +a) Paulo was a cosmopolitan intellectual, who never overlooked the details in everyday life and
5 +b) AND
6 +c) we are unlikely to get the truth since we aren’t considering all perspectives.
7 +
8 +This requires a change in the way education itself is conceived. The education system is dominated by Neoliberal ideology, which has been indoctrinated through public education Hyslop 12
9 +Hyslop-Margison, Emery. "Post Neo-Liberalism And The Humanities: What The Repressive State Apparatus Means For Universities." Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 2012.
10 +The discourse that dominates current public education policy development suggests that neo-liberal logic
11 +AND
12 +and political studies, might be eliminated through a lack of public funding.
13 +
14 +The ideology created in public education celebrates neoliberalism, while professors breaking down oppressive structures are fired by powerful lobbyist groups, a democratized version of free speech is key to breaking down oppression Khan 15
15 +http://www.anarchistagency.com/commentary/masking-oppression-as-free-speech-an-anarchist-take/ “MASKING OPPRESSION AS “FREE SPEECH”: AN ANARCHIST TAKE”; October 28, 2015 Tariq Khan
16 +Last year the American Indian Studies Program at the University of Illinois, Urbana-
17 +AND
18 +go unchecked under the guise of a disingenuous notion of “free speech.”
19 +
20 +Neoliberalist public education is only being used as a tool to destroy education and eliminate critical ideas Hyslop 12
21 +Hyslop-Margison, Emery. "Post Neo-Liberalism And The Humanities: What The Repressive State Apparatus Means For Universities." Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 2012.
22 +We believe the importance of public discursive spaces to democratic society and the current threats
23 +AND
24 +the pressure to say something false or hasty” (p. 51).
25 +
26 +The attack on the university has led to the government restricting the free flow of scholarly ideas, using the war on terror to justify the denial of intellectual’s visa’s and destroying any critical thought Giroux 06
27 +“Henry A. Giroux” “Fall 2006 “Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy; pp. 1-42 | 10.1353/lit.2006.0051
28 +In light if this authoritarian agenda, the Bush administration has made it difficult for
29 +AND
30 +restricting open inquiry, critical knowledge, and dissent in the United States.
31 +
32 +Part 2 is Solvency
33 +
34 +Plan Text: Public Colleges and Universities ought to critically interrogate educational perspectives to respect the constitutional rights for free speech to help oppressed fringes of society
35 +
36 +Critical Pedagogy is necessary for educators to break down oppressive structures throughout society, it is the imperative of educators to endorse a critical pedagogy Giroux 06
37 +“Henry A. Giroux” “Fall 2006 “Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy; pp. 1-42 | 10.1353/lit.2006.0051
38 +While most defenders of the university as a democratic public sphere rightly argue that the
39 +AND
40 +now at risk in the latest and most dangerous attack on higher education.
41 +
42 +The purpose of the university is to challenge student’s worldview, not inoculate current ideologies Giroux 06
43 +“Henry A. Giroux” “Fall 2006 “Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy; pp. 1-42 | 10.1353/lit.2006.0051
44 +What is disturbing about these instances is that aggrieved students and their sympathizers appear entirely
45 +AND
46 +Politcal Correctness is a tool used right win pundits to suppress oppressed people’s voices
47 +
48 +The assault of right wing organization on freedom in the academy epistemologically corrupt knowledge and perpetuate oppressive norms, we need to endorse a different form of education to fix the assault on higher education Giroux 06
49 +“Henry A. Giroux” “Fall 2006 “Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy; pp. 1-42 | 10.1353/lit.2006.0051
50 +One gets the sense that conservative educators from Lynne Cheney to Ann D. Neal
51 +AND
52 +one of the very few remaining democratic public spheres in the United States today
53 +
54 +Today ideas of political correctness are used as a tool used right win pundits to suppress oppressed people’s voices Bryant Williams et al 16
55 +Bryant William Sculos and Sean Noah Walsh (2016): The Counterrevolutionary Campus: Herbert Marcuse and the Suppression of Student Protest Movements, New Political Science, DOI: 10.1080/07393148.2016.1228580
56 +Besides the hypocritical critiques from right-wing pundits and presidential candidates, what the
57 +AND
58 +are threatened to be silenced, and silenced as university or state policy.
59 +
60 +Balance is a flawed concept that is used to censor liberal ideas Giroux 06
61 +“Henry A. Giroux” “Fall 2006 “Academic Freedom Under Fire: The Case for Critical Pedagogy; pp. 1-42 | 10.1353/lit.2006.0051
62 +As Stanley Fish has argued, balance is a flawed concept and should be understood
63 +AND
64 +interlocutors presume that liberal academics are to be equated with an evil menace.
65 +
66 +Part 3 is the Underview
67 +
68 +Aff gets RVIs on I meets and counter-interps because
69 +(a) 1AR timeskew means I can’t cover theory and still have a fair shot on substance.
70 +(b) no risk theory would give neg a free source of no risk offense which allows him to moot the AC.
71 +2. 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.
72 +Kritik without real solutions is doomed to fail, we need to start building real solutions to the problem, liberating against oppression requires material change in ideological spaces Bryan William et al 16
73 +Bryant William Sculos and Sean Noah Walsh (2016): The Counterrevolutionary Campus: Herbert Marcuse and the Suppression of Student Protest Movements, New Political Science, DOI: 10.1080/07393148.2016.1228580
74 +Importantly, we must not limit ourselves to merely critiquing existing oppressions, or just
75 +AND
76 +embodied that impetus here and shown it to be more relevant than ever.
77 +
78 +Higher educational facilities destroy environmental policy discussion Khan 16
79 +Kahn, Richard. "Operation Get Fired: A Chronicle Of The Academic Repression Of Radical
80 +Environmentalist And Animal R." Antioch University. November 2016.
81 +http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.492.988andrep=rep1andtype=pdf
82 +In closing this section, attention must be paid to the manner in which higher
83 +AND
84 +which works in ways that serve to damage academia’s intellectual and civic mission.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-17 00:07:20.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Josh You
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +La Canada AZ
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +24
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Appleton East Moorhead Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB- Pedagogy AC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Blake
Caselist.CitesClass[24]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,58 @@
1 +Part 1 is Neoliberalism
2 +
3 +In the status quo Neoliberalism has led to the rise of Trump and destroyed critical thought, destroying culture and making ethical calculations impossible leading to the militarization of society, action now is key to breaking down this structure Giroux 16
4 +Henry A Giroux; "Donald Trump and the Plague of Atomization in a Neoliberal Age"; August 8th 2016; (www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37133-donald-trump-and-the-plague-of-atomization-in-a- neoliberal-age)
5 +
6 +This week, Donald Trump lowered the bar even further by attacking the Muslim parents of US Army Captain Humayan Khan, who was killed in 2004 by a suicide bomber while he was trying to save the lives of the men in his unit. This stunt was just the latest example of his chillingly successful media strategy, which is based not on changing consciousness but on freezing it within a flood of shocks, sensations and simplistic views. It was of a piece with Trump's past provocations, such as his assertion that Mexicans who illegally entered the country are rapists and drug dealers, his effort to defame Fox News host Megyn Kelly by referring to her menstrual cycle, and his questioning of the heroism and bravery of former prisoner-of-war Senator John McCain. This media strategy only succeeds due to the deep cultural and political effects of neoliberalism in our society ~-~- effects that include widespread atomization and depoliticization. For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016." I have recently returned to reading Leo Lowenthal, particularly his insightful essay, "Terror's Atomization of Man," first published in the January 1, 1946 issue of Commentary and reprinted in his book, False Prophets: Studies in Authoritarianism. He writes about the atomization of human beings under a state of fear that approximates a kind of updated fascist terror. What he understood with great insight, even in 1946, is that democracy cannot exist without the educational, political and formative cultures and institutions that make it possible. He observed that atomized individuals are not only prone to the forces of depoliticization but also to the false swindle and spirit of demagogues, to discourses of hate, and to appeals that demonize and objectify the Other. Lowenthal is helpful in illuminating the relationship between the underlying isolation individuals feel in an age of precarity, uncertainty and disposability and the dark shadows of authoritarianism threatening to overcome the United States. Within this new historical conjuncture, finance capital rules, producing extremes of wealth for the 1 percent, promoting cuts to government services, and defunding investments in public goods, such as public and higher education, in order to offset tax reductions for the ultra-rich and big corporations. Meanwhile millions are plunged into either the end-station of poverty or become part of the mass incarceration state. Mass fear is normalized as violence increasingly becomes the default logic for handling social problems. In an age where everything is for sale, ethical accountability is rendered a liability and the vocabulary of empathy is viewed as a weakness, reinforced by the view that individual happiness and its endless search for instant gratification is more important than supporting the public good and embracing an obligation to care for others. Americans are now pitted against each other as neoliberalism puts a premium on competitive cage-like relations that degrade collaboration and the public spheres that support it. To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here. Within neoliberal ideology, an emphasis on competition in every sphere of life promotes a winner-take-all ethos that finds its ultimate expression in the assertion that fairness has no place in a society dominated by winners and losers. As William Davies points out, competition in a market-driven social order allows a small group of winners to emerge while at the same time sorting out and condemning the vast majority of institutions, organizations and individuals "to the status of losers." As has been made clear in the much publicized language of Donald Trump, both as a reality TV host of "The Apprentice" and as a presidential candidate, calling someone a "loser" has little to do with them losing in the more general sense of the term. On the contrary, in a culture that trades in cruelty and divorces politics from matters of ethics and social responsibility, "loser" is now elevated to a pejorative insult that humiliates and justifies not only symbolic violence, but also (as Trump has made clear in many of his rallies) real acts of violence waged against his critics, such as members of the Movement for Black Lives. As Greg Elmer and Paula Todd observe, "to lose is possible, but to be a 'loser' is the ultimate humiliation that justifies taking extreme, even immoral measures." They write: We argue that the Trumpesque "loser" serves as a potent new political symbol, a caricature that Trump has previously deployed in his television and business careers to sidestep complex social issues and justify winning at all costs. As the commercial for his 1980s board game "Trump" enthused, "It's not whether you win or lose, but whether you win!" Indeed, in Trump's world, for some to win many more must lose, which helps explain the breath-taking embrace by some of his racist, xenophobic, and misogynist communication strategy. The more losers ~-~- delineated by Trump based on every form of "otherism" ~-~- the better the odds of victory. Atomization fueled by a fervor for unbridled individualism produces a pathological disdain for community, public values and the public good. As democratic pressures are weakened, authoritarian societies resort to fear, so as to ward off any room for ideals, visions and hope. Efforts to keep this room open are made all the more difficult by the ethically tranquilizing presence of a celebrity and commodity culture that works to depoliticize people. The realms of the political and the social imagination wither as shared responsibilities and obligations give way to an individualized society that elevates selfishness, avarice and militaristic modes of competition as its highest organizing principles. Under such circumstances, the foundations for stability are being destroyed, with jobs being shipped overseas, social provisions destroyed, the social state hollowed out, public servants and workers under a relentless attack, students burdened with the rise of a neoliberal debt machine, and many groups considered disposable. At the same time, these acts of permanent repression are coupled with new configurations of power and militarization normalized by a neoliberal regime in which an ideology of mercilessness has become normalized; under such conditions, one dispenses with any notion of compassion and holds others responsible for problems they face, problems over which they have no control. In this case, shared responsibilities and hopes have been replaced by the isolating logic of individual responsibility, a false notion of resiliency, and a growing resentment toward those viewed as strangers. We live in an age of death-dealing loneliness, isolation and militarized atomization. If you believe the popular press, loneliness is reaching epidemic proportions in advanced industrial societies. A few indices include the climbing suicide rate of adolescent girls; the rising deaths of working-class, less-educated white men; and the growing drug overdose crises raging across small towns and cities throughout America. Meanwhile, many people often interact more with their cell phones, tablets and computers than they do with embodied subjects. Disembodiment in this view is at the heart of a deeply alienating neoliberal society in which people shun in-person relationships for virtual ones. In this view, the warm glow of the computer screen can produce and reinforce a new type of alienation, isolation and sense of loneliness. At the same time, it is important to note that in some cases digital technologies have also enabled young people who are hyper-connected to their peers online to increase their face-to-face time by coordinating spontaneous meetups, in addition to staying connected with each other near-constantly virtually. How this dialectic plays out will in part be determined by the degree to which young people can be educated to embrace modes of agency in which a connection to other human beings, however diverse, becomes central to their understanding of the value of creating bonds of sociality. Needless to say, however, blaming the internet itself ~-~- which has also helped forge connections, and has facilitated movement-building and much wider accessibility of information ~-~- is too easy. We live in a society in which notions of dependence, compassion, mutuality, care for the other and sociality are undermined by a neoliberal ethic in which self-interest and greed become the organizing principles of one's life and a survival-of-the fittest ethic breeds a culture that at best promotes an indifference to the plight of others and at worst, a disdain for the less fortunate and support for a widespread culture of cruelty. Isolated individuals do not make up a healthy democratic society. New Forms of Alienation and Isolation A more theoretical language produced by Marx talked about alienation as a separation from the fruits of one's labor. While that is certainly truer than ever, the separation and isolation now is more extensive and governs the entirety of social life in a consumer-based society run by the demands of commerce and the financialization of everything. Isolation, privatization and the cold logic of instrumental rationality have created a new kind of social formation and social order in which it becomes difficult to form communal bonds, deep connections, a sense of intimacy, and long term commitments. Neoliberalism fosters the viewing of pain and suffering as entertainment, warfare a permanent state of existence, and militarism as the most powerful force shaping masculinity. Politics has taken an exit from ethics and thus the issue of social costs is divorced from any form of intervention in the world. For example, under neoliberalism, economic activity is removed from its ethical and social consequences and takes a flight from any type of moral consideration. This is the ideological metrics of political zombies. The key word here is atomization, and it is the defining feature of neoliberal societies and the scourge of democracy. At the heart of any type of politics wishing to challenge this flight into authoritarianism is not merely the recognition of economic structures of domination, but something more profound ~-~- a politics which points to the construction of particular identities, values, social relations, or more broadly, agency itself. Central to such a recognition is the fact that politics cannot exist without people investing something of themselves in the discourses, images and representations that come at them daily. Rather than suffering alone, lured into the frenzy of hateful emotion, individuals need to be able to identify ~-~- see themselves and their daily lives ~-~- within progressive critiques of existing forms of domination and how they might address such issues not individually but collectively. This is a particularly difficult challenge today because the menace of atomization is reinforced daily not only by a coordinated neoliberal assault against any viable notion of the social but also by an authoritarian and finance-based culture that couples a rigid notion of privatization with a flight from any sense of social and moral responsibility. The culture apparatuses controlled by the 1 percent, including the mainstream media and entertainment industries, are the most powerful educational forces in society and they have become disimagination machines ~-~- apparatuses of misrecognition and brutality. Collective agency is now atomized, devoid of any viable embrace of the social. Under such circumstances, domination does not merely repress through its apparatuses of terror and violence, but also ~-~- as Pierre Bourdieu argues ~-~- through the intellectual and pedagogical, which "lie on the side of belief and persuasion." Too many people on the left have defaulted on this enormous responsibility for recognizing the educative nature of politics and the need for appropriating the tools, if not weapons, provided by the symbolic and pedagogical for challenging this form of domination, working
7 +
8 +
9 +Neoliberalism shapes any other moral framework, achieving morality is impossible if we do not address neoliberalism
10 +Thus, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater best who resists neoliberalism to reclaim higher education
11 +Prefer my FW because any other ethical criteria refuses to question the power relations in society destroying education
12 +Giroux 13 (Henry, American scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy, “Public Intellectuals Against the Neoliberal University,” 29 October 2013, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19654-public-intellectuals-against-the-neoliberal-university)//
13 +
14 +Increasingly, as universities are shaped by an audit culture, the call to be objective and impartial, whatever one's intentions, can easily echo what George Orwell called the official truth or the establishment point of view. Lacking a self-consciously democratic political focus, teachers are often reduced, or reduce themselves, to the role of a technician or functionary engaged in formalistic rituals, unconcerned with the disturbing and urgent problems that confront the larger society or the consequences of one's pedagogical practices and research undertakings. Hiding behind appeals to balance and objectivity, too many scholars refuse to recognize that being committed to something does not cancel out what C. Wright Mills once called hard thinking. Teaching needs to be rigorous, self-reflective, and committed not to the dead zone of instrumental rationality but to the practice of freedom, to a critical sensibility capable of advancing the parameters of knowledge, addressing crucial social issues, and connecting private troubles and public issues. In opposition to the instrumental model of teaching, with its conceit of political neutrality and its fetishization of measurement, I argue that academics should combine the mutually interdependent roles of critical educator and active citizen. This requires finding ways to connect the practice of classroom teaching with important social problems and the operation of power in the larger society while providing the conditions for students to view themselves as critical agents capable of making those who exercise authority and power answerable for their actions. Higher education cannot be decoupled from what Jacques Derrida calls a democracy to come, that is, a democracy that must always "be open to the possibility of being contested, of contesting itself, of criticizing and indefinitely improving itself."33 Within this project of possibility and impossibility, critical pedagogy must be understood as a deliberately informed and purposeful political and moral practice, as opposed to one that is either doctrinaire, instrumentalized or both. Moreover, a critical pedagogy should also gain part of its momentum in higher education among students who will go back to the schools, churches, synagogues and workplaces to produce new ideas, concepts and critical ways of understanding the world in which young people and adults live. This is a notion of intellectual practice and responsibility that refuses the professional neutrality and privileged isolation of the academy. It also affirms a broader vision of learning that links knowledge to the power of self-definition and to the capacities of students to expand the scope of democratic freedoms, particularly those that address the crisis of education, politics, and the social as part and parcel of the crisis of democracy itself. In order for critical pedagogy, dialogue and thought to have real effects, they must advocate that all citizens, old and young, are equally entitled, if not equally empowered, to shape the society in which they live. This is a commitment we heard articulated by the brave students who fought tuition hikes and the destruction of civil liberties and social provisions in Quebec and to a lesser degree in the Occupy Wall Street movement. If educators are to function as public intellectuals, they need to listen to young people who are producing a new language in order to talk about inequality and power relations, attempting to create alternative democratic public spaces, rethinking the very nature of politics, and asking serious questions about what democracy is and why it no longer exists in many neoliberal societies. These young people who are protesting the 1 recognize that they have been written out of the discourses of justice, equality and democracy and are not only resisting how neoliberalism has made them expendable, they are arguing for a collective future very different from the one that is on display in the current political and economic systems in which they feel trapped. These brave youth are insisting that the relationship between knowledge and power can be emancipatory, that their histories and experiences matter, and that what they say and do counts in their struggle to unlearn dominating privileges, productively reconstruct their relations with others, and transform, when necessary, the world around them
15 +
16 +Current norms use free speech zones to justify the repression of free speech, the law justifies this oppression, claiming that civil disobedience is an act of terrorism. Mitchell 03
17 +Don Mitchell, Distinguished Professor of Geography at Syracuse’s Maxwell School: 2003 (“The Liberalization of Free Speech: Or, How Protest in Public Space is Silenced” Stanford Agora Vol. 4 p.43-45 Available at agora.stanford.edu/agora/volume4/articles/mitchell/mitchell.pdf Accessed on 12/11/16)
18 +
19 +As the preceding argument has indicated, the liberalization of free speech has not always been progressive. And it has not been progressive in both senses of the term. It has not marched steadily forward, uninterrupted, towards the shining light of freedom, to become ever more liberal, ever more just. Rather, to the degree it has been liberalized, this has occurred in fits and starts, with frequent steps backwards or to the side rather than forward. Like any social history, that is, the history of free speech is not a linear one of ever-expanding enlightenment; like any social history it is a history of ongoing struggle. Nor has it been progressive in the sense of necessarily more just, as a close focus on the geography of speech makes clear. Geographical analysis has shown that what sometimes appears as a progressive reinforcement of a right to speech and assembly is really (or is also) in fact a means towards its suppression.169 Nonetheless, whatever rights have been won, have been won through struggle and often not by following the law, but by breaking it. Civil disobedience, by labor activists and other picketers, by civil rights marchers, by anti-war protesters, and by Free Speech activists (as with the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley in the sixties), has forced often illiberal theories of speech and assembly to be reconsidered. But against these struggles has to be set a history of governmental recidivism: the Palmer raids and Red Scare of 1919-1920, the Smith Act of 1940, the McCarthy era, and the antics of COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 1970s, are just a few of the more well-known moments of repression, often cloaked in law and justified as urgent “legitimate state interests” at a time when serious challenges were being made to the “established order” or when other exigent factors induced panic within the government and the public at large. The history of speech and assembly, that is, can be told as an on-going struggle against recurring illiberalism. We are, most likely, now reentering an illiberal phase, and if I am right that civil disobedience has always been necessary to winning and securing rights to assembly and speech, there is a great deal to be deeply concerned about. For the closing off of space to protest has made civil disobedience all the more necessary right at the moment when new laws make civil disobedience not just illegal, but potentially terroristic. The witch’s brew of Supreme Court spatial regulation of speech and assembly and new antiterrorism laws portends deep trouble for those of us who think we have a duty as well as a right to transform our government when we think it is in the wrong, a duty and a right for which street protest is sometimes the only resource. Within six weeks of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress had passed, and the President signed into law, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act).170 Among its many provisions, the Act defines as domestic terrorism, and therefore covered under the Act, “acts dangerous to human life that are in violation of the criminal laws,” if they “appear to be intended … to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” and if they “occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”171 As Nancy Chang argues: Acts of civil disobedience that take place in the United States necessarily meet three of the five elements in the definition of domestic terrorism: they constitute a “violation of the criminal laws,” they are “intended … to influence the policy of a government,” and they “occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Many acts of civil disobedience, including the blocking of streets and points of egress by nonviolent means during a demonstration or sit-in, could be construed as “acts dangerous to human life” that appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government “by intimidation or coercion,” which case they would meet the crimes remaining elements…. As a result, protest activities that previously would most likely have ended with a charge of disorderly conduct under a local ordinance can now lead to federal prosecution and conviction for terrorism.172 As the space for protest has become more and more tightly zoned, the likelihood that laws will be broken in the course of a demonstration – a demonstration seeking to “influence a policy of government” – increases. And, of course, the very reason for engaging in a demonstration is to coerce, even if it is not to directly “intimidate.” One should not be sanguine about the “or” placed between intimidate and coerce. It means just what it says: coercion or intimidation will be enough for prosecution.173 Now even civil disobedience can be construed as an act of terrorism. The intersection of the new repressive state apparatus being constructed in the wake of September 11 with nearly a century of speech and assembly “liberalization” portends a frightening new era in the history of speech and assembly in America. We may soon come to long for those days when protest in public space was only silenced through the strategic geography of the public forum doctrine.
20 +
21 +This ideology criminalizes free speech when it becomes effective destroying the possibility of discourse to fight against neoliberalism Mitchell 03
22 +Don Mitchell, Distinguished Professor of Geography at Syracuse’s Maxwell School: 2003 (“The Liberalization of Free Speech: Or, How Protest in Public Space is Silenced” Stanford Agora Vol. 4 p.9-14 Available at agora.stanford.edu/agora/volume4/articles/mitchell/mitchell.pdf Accessed on 12/11/16)
23 +
24 +There is an additional result of Holmes’s declaration about the value of speech in Abrams. Whereas the First Amendment is silent on why speech is to be protected from Congressional interference,44 Holmes makes it clear that the protection of speech serves a particular purpose: improving the state.45 Indeed, he quickly admits that speech likely to harm the state can be outlawed.46 And neither he nor the Court ever moved away from the “clear and present danger” test of Schenck.47 Speech, Holmes argues, is a good insofar as it helps promote and protect the “truth” of the state.48 There is a large amount of room allowed here for criticism of the state, but it can still be quieted by anything that can reasonably construed as a “legitimate state interest” (like protecting the property rights of a company subject to a strike).49 According to the Gitlow Court (if not Holmes, who did not see in Gitlow’s pamphlet enough of a clear and present danger), any speech that “endangers the foundations of organized government and threatens its overthrow by unlawful means” can be banned.50 Note here that speech does not have to advocate the overthrow of government; rather, it can be banned if through its persuasiveness others might seek to overthrow the government.51 On such grounds all manner of manifestos, and many types of street speaking, may be banned. And more broadly, as evidenced in picketing cases like American Steel Foundries, a similar prohibition may be placed on speech that, again through its persuasiveness (e.g. as to the unjustness of some practice or event) rather than through direct exhortation, may incite people to violence. Of course, speech (and its sister right, assembly), must take place somewhere and it must implicate some set of spatial relations, some regime of control over access to places to speak and places to listen.52 Consequently, the limits to speech, or more accurately the means of limiting speech, become increasingly geographic beginning in utopian. 13
25 +1939 in the case Hague v. CIO, when the Supreme Court finally recognized that public spaces like streets and parks were necessary not only to speech itself but to political organizing.53 The problem is not always exactly what is said, but where it is said. At issue in Hague was whether the rights to speech and assembly extends to the use of the streets and other public places for political purposes, and in what ways that use could be regulated. The Court based its decision in a language of common law, arguing that “wherever the title of the streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.”54 But whatever the roots for such a claim may be in common law, it hardly stands historical scrutiny in the United States, where the violent repression of street politics has always been as much a feature of urban life as its promotion.55 That makes Hague v. CIO a landmark decision: it states clearly for the first time that “the use of the streets and parks for the communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all … but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.”56 At the same time, the Court made it clear that protected speech in public spaces was always to be “exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order….”57 The question, then, became one of finding the ways to regulate speech (and associated conduct) such that order – and even “general comfort” – was always maintained. The answers to that question were spatial. They were based on a regulation of urban geography in the name of both “good order” and “general comfort” and of the rights to speech and assembly. Speech rights needed to be balanced against other interests and desires. But order and comfort, it ought to go without saying, suggest a much lower threshold than does “clear and present danger.” While recognizing in a new way a fundamental right to speech and assembly, that is, the Hague court in fact found a language to severely limit that right, and perhaps even to limit it more effectively than had heretofore been possible. To put this another way (and as I will argue more fully below), the new spatial order of speech and assembly that the Court began constructing in Hague allowed for the full flowering of a truly liberal speech regime: a regime for which we are all, in fact, the poorer.
26 +
27 +The silencing of free speech has spread through education, which has been coopted by neoliberalism, protests and free speech are key to democratize education, Chile proves Williams 15
28 +Jo Williams (Lecturer, College of Education at Victoria University), "Remaking education from below: the Chilean student movement as public pedagogy," Australian Journal of Adult Learning, November 2015
29 +
30 +More than ever the crisis of schooling represents, at large, the crisis of democracy itself and any attempt to understand the attack on public schooling and higher education cannot be separated from the wider assault on all forms of public life not driven by the logic of the market (Giroux, 2003:7) “Fin al lucro en educación, nuestros sueños no les pertenecen” (end profit making in education, nobody owns our dreams 1 ) (slogan of the Chilean student movement, inspired by the French student uprisings of May-June 1968) Over the past four decades, as the economic and ideological depravity of neoliberal policy and its market-driven logic (D. W. Hursh and Henderson, 2011) has been brought to bear on every aspect of education, the very concept of ‘public’ has been negated. Characteristics such as user-pays, competition, assaults on teachers, and mass standardised-testing and rankings, are among the features of a schooling, which is now very much seen as a private rather than public good (Giroux, 2003). The question of public education as a democratic force for the radical transformation of a violently unjust society seems rarely if ever asked, and a dangerous co-option and weakening of the language and practice of progressive pedagogy has occurred to the extent that notions of inclusion and success are increasingly limited to narrowly conceived individualist and competitive measures of market advantage. As Giroux notes “the forces of neo-liberalism dissolve public issues into utterly privatised and individualistic concerns (2004:62), and despite ongoing official rhetoric “the only form of citizenship increasingly being offered to young people is consumerism” (2003:7). Neoliberal education sees students and young people as passive consumers, the emphasis of schooling on learning how to be governed rather than how to govern (Giroux, 2003:7). In such a context the space for a public pedagogy, based on challenging the hegemony of neoliberal ideology and aligned with collective resistance, appears limited at best. And yet, every day people, teachers, students and communities do engage in political struggle, enacting pedagogies that seek to unveil rather than continue to mask the political structures and organisation that ensures power remains in the hands of the few, and at the service of the few, at the expense of the rest of us. Giroux characterises public pedagogies as defined by hope, struggle and a politicisation of the education process. He argues for …a politics of resistance that extends beyond the classroom as part of a broader struggle to challenge those forces of neo-liberalism that currently wage war against all collective structures capable of defending vital social institutions as a public good (Giroux, 2003:14). Central to Giroux’s argument is the need for critical educators to look to, value, and engage in and with social movements as they emerge and develop as sites of resistance. To …take sides, speak out, and engage in the hard work of debunking corporate culture’s assault on teaching and learning, orient their teaching for social change, connect learning to public life and link knowledge to the operations of power (Giroux, 2004:77). He argues that “progressive education in an age of rampant neoliberalism requires an expanded notion of the public, pedagogy, solidarity, and democratic struggle” (Giroux, 2003:13), and that moreover, educators need to work against a “politics of certainty” and instead develop and engage in pedagogical practice that problematises the world and fosters a sense of collective resistance and hope (2003:14). A neoliberal vision of the ‘good citizen’ and ‘good student’ presumes passivity, acceptance of the status quo and an individualistic disposition. Critical pedagogues must seek out and embrace opportunities to support and celebrate collective political action, not only because it develops a sense of social and political agency but also because it constitutes a powerful basis for authentic learning and active and critical citizenship in an unjust world (Freire, 1970). The Chilean student movement stands as one such example of challenging and inspiring counter-practice and a reclaiming of pedagogy as political and public. For ten years students have filled Chile’s streets, occupied their schools and universities, and organised conferences, public Remaking education from below: the Chilean student movement as public pedagogy 499 meetings, political stunts, creative actions and protests. Students and young people have been at the centre of the largest and most sustained political action seen in Chile since the democratic movement of the 80s, which eventually forced out the Pinochet dictatorship. Despite global trends in the opposite direction, the Chilean students have fundamentally influenced a nationwide education reform program constituting significant changes to the existing system which has been described as an extreme example of market-driven policy (Valenzuela, Bellei, and Ríos, 2014:220). Most importantly, they have forced and led a nationwide dialogue on the question of education and social justice in Chile and an interrogation of the current, grossly inequitable and elitist model (Falabella, 2008). This article begins by reviewing the experiences of the Chilean student movement to date and offering a brief explanation of the historical development of the education system it seeks to dismantle. It then considers the movement as an example of public pedagogies, concluding with a discussion of how it might inform notions of radical educational practice and a return of the student and pedagogue as authentic and critical subjects.
31 +
32 +
33 +
34 +Neoliberal globalization is the root of cause of poverty, exploitation, environmental degradation, and violence; the only solution is to eradicate neoliberalism
35 +Szentes, Professor Emeritus of the Corvinus University of Budapest and member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 2008
36 +(Tamas, “Globalisation and prospects of the world society,” CENTRAL EUROPEAN POLITICAL SCIENCE, Vol. 9, pp 1-3, http://cepsr.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ATT81762.pdf#page=9)//
37 +
38 +It’ s a common place thathuman society can survive and develop only in a lasting real peace. Without peace countries cannot develop. Althoughsince 1945 there has been no world war, but • numerous local wars took place, • terrorism has spread all over the world, undermining security even in the most developed and powerful countries, • arms race and militarisation have not ended with the collapse of the Soviet bloc,but escalated and continued, extending also to weapons of mass destruction and misusing enormous resources badly needed for development, •many “invisible wars”1 are suffered by the poor and oppressed people, manifested in mass misery, poverty, unemployment, homelessness, starvation and malnutrition, epidemics and poor health conditions, exploitation and oppression,racial and other discrimination, physical terror, organised injustice, disguised forms of violence, the denial or regular infringement of the democratic rights of citizens, women, youth, ethnic or religious minorities, etc., and last but not least, in the degradation of human environment,which means that • the “war against Nature”, i.e. the disturbance of ecological balance, wasteful management of natural resources, and large-scale pollution of our environment, is still going on, causing also losses and fatal dangers for human life. Behind global terrorism and “invisible wars”we find striking international and intra- society inequities and distorted development patterns2, which tend to generate social as well as international tensions,thus paving the way for unrest and “visible” wars. It is a commonplace now that peace is not merely the absence of war.The prerequisites of a lasting peace between and within societies involvenot only - though, of course, necessarily -demilitarisation, but also a systematic and gradualelimination of the roots of violence, of the causes of “invisible wars”, of thestructural and institutional bases of large-scale internationaland intra-society inequalities, exploitation and oppression. Peace requires a process of social and national emancipation, a progressive, democratic transformation of societies and the world bringing about equal rights and opportunities for all people, sovereign participation and mutually advantageous co-operation among nations. It further requires a pluralistic democracy on global level with an appropriate system of proportional representation of the world society, articulation of diverse interests and their peaceful reconciliation, by non-violent conflict management, and thus also a global governance with a really global institutional system. Under the contemporary conditions of accelerating globalisation and deepening global interdependencies in our world, peace is indivisible in both time and space. It cannot exist if reduced to a period only after or before war, and cannot be safeguarded in one part of the world when some others suffer visible or invisible wars.Thus, peace requires, indeed, a new, demilitarised and democratic world order, which can provide equal opportunities for sustainable development. “Sustainabilityof development” (both on national and world level)is often interpretedasan issue of environmental protection only and reduced to the need for preserving the ecological balance and delivering the next generationsnot a destroyed Nature with over- exhausted resources and polluted environment.However, no ecological balance can be ensured, unless the deep international development gap and intra-society inequalities are substantially reduced. Owing to global interdependencies there may exist hardly any “zero-sum-games”, in which one can gain at the expense of others, but, instead, the “negative-sum-games” tend to predominate, in which everybody must suffer, later or sooner, directly or indirectly, losses. Therefore, the actual question is not about “sustainability of development” but rather about the “sustainability of human life”, i.e. survival of mankind – because of ecological imbalance and globalised terrorism. When Professor Louk de la Rive Box was the president of EADI, one day we had an exchange of views on the state and future of development studies. We agreed that development studies are not any more restricted to the case of underdeveloped countries, as the developed ones (as well as the former “socialist” countries) are also facing development problems, such as those of structural and institutional (and even system-) transformation, requirements of changes in development patterns, and concerns about natural environment.While all these are true, today I would dare say that besides (or even instead of) “development studies” we must speak about and make “survival studies”.While the monetary, financial, and debt crises are cyclical,we live in an almost permanent crisis of the world society, which is multidimensional in nature, involving not only economic but also socio-psychological, behavioural, cultural and political aspects. The narrow-minded, election-oriented, selfish behaviour motivated by thirst for power and wealth, which still characterise the political leadership almost all over the world, paves the way for the final, last catastrophe.Under the circumstances provided by rapidly progressing science and technological revolutions, human society cannot survive unless such profound intra-society and international inequalities prevailing today are soon eliminated. Like a single spacecraft,the Earth can no longer afford to have a 'crew' divided into two parts: the rich, privileged, well- fed, well-educated, on the one hand, and the poor, deprived, starving, sick and uneducated, on the other. Dangerous 'zero-sum-games' (which mostly prove to be “negative-sum-games”) can hardly be played any more by visible or invisible wars in the world society.Because of global interdependencies, the apparent winner becomes also a loser. The real choice for the world society is between negative- and positive-sum-games:i.e. between, on the one hand, continuation of visible and “invisible wars”, as long as this is possible at all, and, on the other, transformation of the world order by demilitarisation and democratization.No ideological or terminological camouflage can conceal this real dilemma any more, which is to be faced not in the distant future, by the next generations, but in the coming years, because of global terrorism soon having nuclear and other mass destructive weapons, and also due to irreversible changes in natural environment. It is, of course, far easier to outline the normative principles of a peaceful democratic social and world order than to state the ways and means of how to achieve it. The causes of inequalities on local, national, regional and world levels are often interlinked.Dominance and exploitation relations go across country boundaries; oppressors are supporting each other and oppressing other oppressors. Societies that exploit others can hardly stay free of exploitation, themselves. Nations that hinder others in democratic transformation can hardly live in democracy. Monopolies induce also others to monopolise. Narrow, selfish interests generate narrow, selfish interest. Discrimination gives birth to discrimination. And so on... The “national societies” of the contemporary world show a great many differences, stemming partly from their own past, partly from their recent transformation.Differences appear not only in the level of economic and technological development and the related world-economic position (as between the “North” and the ”South”)or in respect of the socio- economic system and the related political regime(as in the past between the “East” and the “West”), but also within these groups of countries in terms of natural endowment, geographical and demographic dimensions, historical traditions, cultures, mechanism of management and governance, policy of leadership, etc.At the same time, all societies are subject to the increasing effect of each other and to the impact of globalisation.
39 +
40 +Part 2 is Solvency
41 +
42 +Thus the plan –Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech to free speech zones
43 +
44 +Free speech zones destroy students discourse and should be prohibited Hudson 16
45 +(David L. Hudson Jr. is a First Amendment expert and law professor who serves as First Amendment Ombudsman for the Newseum Institute’s First Amendment Center. He contributes research and commentary, provides analysis and information to news media. He is an author, co-author or co-editor of more than 40 books, including Let The Students Speak: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools (Beacon Press, 2011), The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (CQ Press, 2008) (one of three co-editors), The Rehnquist Court: Understanding Its Impact and Legacy (Praeger, 2006), and The Handy Supreme Court Answer Book (Visible Ink Press, 2008). He has written several books devoted to student-speech issues and others areas of student rights. He writes regularly for the ABA Journal and the American Bar Association’s Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases. He has served as a senior law clerk at the Tennessee Supreme Court, and teaches First Amendment and Professional Responsibility classes at Vanderbilt Law School and various classes at the Nashville School of Law), "How Campus Policies Limit Free Speech," Huffington Post, 6/1/2016
46 +
47 +Restricting where students can have free speech. In addition, many colleges and universities have free speech zones. Under these policies, people can speak at places of higher learning in only certain, specific locations or zones. While there are remnants of these policies from the 1960s, they grew in number in the late 1990s and early 2000s as a way for administrators to deal with controversial expression. These policies may have a seductive appeal for administrators, as they claim to advance the cause of free speech. But, free speech zones often limit speech by relegating expression to just a few locations. For example, some colleges began by having only two or three free speech zones on campus. The idea of zoning speech is not unique to colleges and universities. Government officials have sought to diminish the impact of different types of expression by zoning adult-oriented expression, antiabortion protestors and political demonstrators outside political conventions. In a particularly egregious example, a student at Modesto Junior College in California named Robert Van Tuinen was prohibited from handing out copies of the United States Constitution on September 17, 2013 - the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Van Tuinen was informed that he could get permission to distribute the Constitution if he preregistered for time in the “free speech zone.” But later, Van Tuinen was told by an administrator that he would have to wait, possibly until the next month. In the words of First Amendment expert Charles Haynes, “the entire campus should be a free speech zone.” In other words, the default position of school administrators should be to allow speech, not limit it. Zoning speech is troubling, particularly when it reduces the overall amount of speech on campus. And many free speech experts view the idea of a free speech zone as “moronic and oxymoronic.” College or university campuses should be a place where free speech not only survives but thrives.
48 +
49 +
50 +Student protest oppose the neoliberal structures in education, translating theory into concrete solutions Delgado and Ross 16
51 +Sandra Delgado (doctoral student in curriculum studies at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada) and E. Wayne Ross (Professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada), "Students in Revolt: The Pedagogical Potential of Student Collective Action in the Age of the Corporate University" 2016 (published on Academia.edu)
52 +
53 +As students’ collective actions keep gaining more political relevance, student and university movements also establish themselves as spaces of counter-hegemony (Sotiris, 2014). Students are constantly opening new possibilities to displace and resist the commodification of education offered by mainstream educational institutions. As Sotiris (2014) convincingly argues, movements within the university have not only the potential to subvert educational reforms, but in addition, they have become “strategic nodes” for the transformation of the processes and practices in higher education, and most importantly for the constant re-imagination and the recreation of “new forms of subaltern counter-hegemony” (p. 1). The strategic importance of university and college based moments lays precisely in the role that higher education plays in contemporary societies, namely their role in “the development of new technologies, new forms of production and for the articulation of discourses and theories on contemporary issues and their role in the reproduction of state and business personnel.” (p.8) Universities and colleges therefore, have a crucial contribution in “the development of class strategies (both dominant and subaltern), in the production of subjectivities, (and) in the transformation of collective practices” (p.8) The main objective of this paper is to examine how contemporary student movements are disrupting, opposing and displacing entrenched oppressive and dehumanizing reforms, practices and frames in today’s corporate academia. This work is divided in four sections. The first is an introduction to student movements and an overview of how student political action has been approached and researched. The second and third sections take a closer look at the repertoires of contention used by contemporary student movements and propose a framework based on radical praxis that allows us to better understand the pedagogical potential of student disruptive action. The last section contains a series of examples of students’ repertoires or tactics of contention that exemplifies the pedagogical potential of student social and political action. An Overview of Student Movements Generally speaking, students are well positioned as political actors. They have been actively involved in the politics of education since the beginnings of the university, but more broadly, students have played a significant role in defining social, cultural and political environments around the world (Altbach, 1966; Boren, 2001). The contributions and influences of students and student movements to revolutionary efforts and political movements beyond the university context are undeniable. One example is the role that students have played in the leadership and membership of the political left (e.g. students’ role in the Movimiento 26 de Julio - M-26-7 in Cuba during the 50’s and in the formation of The New Left in the United States, among others). Similarly, several political and social movements have either established alliances with student organizations or created their own chapters on campuses to recruit new members, mobilize their agendas in education and foster earlier student’s involvement in politics2 (Altbach, 1966; Lipset, 1969). Students are often considered to be “catalysts” of political and social action or “barometers” of the social unrest and political tension accumulated in society (Barker, 2008). Throughout history student movements have had a diverse and sometimes contradictory range of political commitments. Usually, student organizations and movements find grounding and inspiration in Anarchism and Marxism, however it is also common to see movements leaning towards liberal and conservative approaches. Hence, student political action has not always been aligned with social movements or organizations from the political left. In various moments in history students have joined or been linked to rightist movements, reactionary organizations and conservative parties (Altbach, 1966; Barker, 2008). Students, unlike workers, come from different social classes and seemly different cultural backgrounds. As a particularly diverse social group, students are distinguished for being heterogeneous and pluralists in their values, interests and commitments (Boren, 2001). Such diversity has been a constant challenge for maintaining unity, which has been particularly problematic in cases of national or transnational student organizations (Prusinowska, Kowzan, and Zielińska, 2012; Somma, 2012). To clarify, social classes are defined by the specific relationship that people have with the means of production. In the case of students, they are not a social class by themselves, but a social layer or social group that is identifiable by their common function in society (Stedman, 1969). The main or central aspect that unites student is the transitory social condition of being a student. In other words, students are a social group who have a common function, role in society or social objective, which is “to study” something (Lewis, 2013; Simons and Masschelein, 2009). Student movements can be understood as a form of social movement (LuesherMamashela, 2015). They have an internal organization that varies from traditionally hierarchical structures, organizational schemes based on representative democracy with charismatic leadership, to horizontal forms of decision-making (Altbach, 1966; Lipset, 1969). As many other movements, student movements have standing claims, organize different type of actions, tactics or repertoires of contention, 3 and they advocate for political, social or/and educational agendas, programs or pleas.
54 +
55 +Student protest combats racial inequality by sparking national dialogue leading to cultural movements Curwen 15
56 +Thomas Curwen, Jason Song and Larry Gordon (reporters), "What's different about the latest wave of college activism," LA Times, 11/18/2015
57 +
58 +Although some of the strategies may seem familiar, it is the speed and the urgency of today's protests that are different. "What is unique about these issues is how social media has changed the way protests take place on college campuses," said Tyrone Howard, associate dean of equity, diversity and inclusion at UCLA. "A protest goes viral in no time flat. With Instagram and Twitter, you're in an immediate news cycle. This was not how it was 20 or 30 years ago." Howard also believes that the effectiveness of the actions at the University of Missouri has encouraged students on other campuses to raise their voices. "A president stepping down is a huge step," he said. "Students elsewhere have to wonder, 'Wow, if that can happen there, why can't we bring out our issues to the forefront as well?'" Shaun R. Harper, executive director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education, agrees. The resignation of two top Missouri administrators, Harper said, showed students and athletes around the country that they have power they may not have realized before. The protests show "we're all together and we have the power to make the change we deserve," said Lindsay Opoku-Acheampong, a senior studying biology at Occidental. "It's affirming," said Dalin Celamy, also a senior at the college. "It lets us know we're not crazy; it's happening to people who are just like you all over the country." Celamy, along with other students, not only watched the unfolding protests across the country, but also looked to earlier protests, including an occupation of an administrative building at Occidental in 1968. Echoes of the 1960s in today's actions are clear, said Robert Cohen, a history professor at New York University and author of "Freedom's Orator," a biography of Mario Savio, who led the Free Speech Movement at UC Berkeley in the 1960s. "The tactical dynamism of these nonviolent protests and the public criticism of them are in important ways reminiscent of the 1960s," Cohen said. "Today's protests, like those in the '60s, are memorable because they have been effective in pushing for change and sparking dialogue as well as polarization." Although the targets of these protests are the blatant and subtle forms of racism and inequity that affect the students' lives, the message of the protests resonates with the recent incidents of intolerance and racial inequity on the streets of America. There is a reason for this, Howard said. Campuses are microcosms of society, he said, and are often comparable in terms of representation and opportunity. "So there is a similar fight for more representation, acceptance and inclusion." The dynamic can create a complicated and sensitive social order for students of color to negotiate. "Latino and African American students are often under the belief if they leave their community and go to colleges, that it will be better," Howard said. "They believe it will be an upgrade over the challenges that they saw in underserved and understaffed schools. But if the colleges and universities are the same as those schools, then there is disappointment and frustration." In addition, Howard said, when these students leave their community to go to a university, they often feel conflicted. "So when injustice comes up," he said, "they are quick to respond because it is what they saw in their community. On some level, it is their chance to let their parents and peers know that they have not forgotten the struggle in the community." On campuses and off, Harper, of the University of Pennsylvania center, finds a rising sense of impatience among African Americans about social change. "As a black person, I think black people are just fed up. It's time out for ignoring these issues," he said. While protests in the 1960s helped create specific safeguards for universities today, such as Title IX, guaranteeing equal access for all students to any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, a gap has widened over the years between students and administrators over perceptions of bias. Institutions often valued for their support of free speech find themselves wrestling with the prospect of limiting free speech, but to focus on what is or isn't politically correct avoids the more important issue, Cohen said: whether campuses are diverse enough or how to reduce racism. Occidental student Raihana Haynes-Venerable has heard criticism that modern students are too sensitive, but she argues that subtle forms of discrimination still have a profound effect. She pointed to women making less than men and fewer minorities getting jobs as examples. "This is the new form of racism," she said.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-24 14:05:18.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Vrana, Snyder, Broomfield
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Sheboygan North RW
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +25
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Semis
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Appleton East Moorhead Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +JANFEB- Neolib AC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NFL Quals
Caselist.CitesClass[25]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,50 @@
1 +Interp: The affirmative/negative must defend the resolution and/or a hypothetical implementation of a plan by the United States Federal Government
2 +
3 +“Resolved” proves the framework for the resolution is to enact a policy.
4 +Words and Phrases 64 Permanent Edition
5 +Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,” which is defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”.
6 +“United States Federal Government should” means the debate is solely about the outcome of a policy established by governmental means
7 +Ericson, 03 (Jon M., Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts – California Polytechnic U., et al., The Debater’s Guide, Third Edition, p. 4)
8 +The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains certain key elements, although they have slightly different functions from comparable elements of value-oriented propositions. 1. An agent doing the acting ~-~--“The United States” in “The United States should adopt a policy of free trade.” Like the object of evaluation in a proposition of value, the agent is the subject of the sentence. 2. The verb should—the first part of a verb phrase that urges action. 3. An action verb to follow should in the should-verb combination. For example, should adopt here means to put a program or policy into action though governmental means. 4. A specification of directions or a limitation of the action desired. The phrase free trade, for example, gives direction and limits to the topic, which would, for example, eliminate consideration of increasing tariffs, discussing diplomatic recognition, or discussing interstate commerce. Propositions of policy deal with future action. Nothing has yet occurred. The entire debate is about whether something ought to occur. What you agree to do, then, when you accept the affirmative side in such a debate is to offer sufficient and compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose.
9 +Violation: insert violation
10 +B. Reasons to Prefer:
11 +
12 +1 – Predictable ground
13 +A. Predictability: There is no predictable framework provided by a critical 1AC – they’re not tied to a stable advocacy so when we try to stick them to one they shift – they can take infinite unpredictable, non-falsifiable, totalizing, and personal claims
14 +B. Stable Link Ground: The aff can claim their “discourse” outweighs disads, counterplans, and case arguments by clarifying their advocacies throughout the round, skewing the 1NC and killing clash—in their version of debate, you’ll only hear core generics.
15 +C. Limits are key – infinite political theories exist, artificial limits are key
16 +Lutz 2k (Donald S. Professor of Polisci at Houston, Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 39-40)JFS
17 +Aristotle notes in the Politics that political theory simultaneously proceeds at three levels—discourse about the ideal, about the best possible in the real world, and about existing political systems.4 Put another way, comprehensive political theory must ask several different kinds of questions that are linked, yet distinguishable. In order to understand the interlocking set of questions that political theory can ask, imagine a continuum stretching from left to right. At the end, to the right, is an ideal form of government, a perfectly wrought construct produced by the imagination. At the other end is the perfect dystopia, the most perfectly wretched system that the human imagination can produce. Stretching between these two extremes is an infinite set of possibilities, merging into one another, that describe the logical possibilities created by the characteristics defining the end points. For example, a political system defined primarily by equality would have a perfectly inegalitarian system described at the other end, and the possible states of being between them would vary primarily in the extent to which they embodied equality. An ideal defined primarily by liberty would create a different set of possibilities between the extremes. Of course, visions of the ideal often are inevitably more complex than these single-value examples indicate, but it is also true that in order to imagine an ideal state of affairs a kind of simplification is almost always required since normal states of affairs invariably present themselves to human consciousness as complicated, opaque, and to a significant extent indeterminate. A non-ironic reading of Plato's Republic leads one to conclude that the creation of these visions of the ideal characterizes political philosophy. This is not the case. Any person can generate a vision of the ideal. One job of political philosophy is to ask the question "Is this ideal worth pursuing?" Before the question can be pursued, however, the ideal state of affairs must be clarified, especially with respect to conceptual precision and the logical relationship between the propositions that describe the ideal. This pre-theoretical analysis raises the vision of the ideal from the mundane to a level where true philosophical analysis, and the careful comparison with existing systems can proceed fruitfully. The process of pre-theoretical analysis, probably because it works on clarifying ideas that most capture the human imagination, too often looks to some like the entire enterprise of political philosophy.5 However, the value of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's concept of the General Will, for example, lies not in its formal logical implications, nor in its compelling hold on the imagination, but on the power and clarity it lends to an analysis and comparison of actual political systems.
18 +D. Impacts: Ground is key to fairness – it keeps the playing field level - without ground, there’s no room for teams to compete, judges are forced to vote on discussion rather than debate.
19 +E. Predictable ground is the strongest internal link to clash, and a lack of clash leads to exclusion and alienation.
20 +Tonn ’05 (Mari Boor, Professor of Communication – University of Maryland, “Taking Conversation, Dialogue, and Therapy Public”, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Vol. 8, Issue 3, Fall)
21 +
22 +Perhaps the most conspicuous effort at replacing public debate with therapeutic dialogue was President Clinton's Conversation on Race, launched in mid-1997. Controversial from its inception for its ideological bent, the initiative met further widespread criticism for its encounter-group approaches to racial stratification and strife, critiques echoing previously articulated concerns- my own among them6-that certain dangers lurk in employing private or social communication modes for public problem-solving.7 Since then, others have joined in contesting the treating of public problems with narrative and psychological approaches, which-in the name of promoting civility, cooperation, personal empowerment, and socially constructed or idiosyncratic truths-actually work to contain dissent, locate systemic social problems solely within individual neurosis, and otherwise fortify hegemony.8 Particularly noteworthy is Michael Schudson's challenge to the utopian equating of "conversation" with the "soul of democracy." Schudson points to pivotal differences in the goals and architecture of conversational and democratic deliberative processes. To him, political (or democratic) conversation is a contradiction in terms. Political deliberation entails a clear instrumental purpose, ideally remaining ever mindful of its implications beyond an individual case. Marked by disagreement-even pain-democratic deliberation contains transparent prescribed procedures governing participation and decision making so as to protect the timid or otherwise weak. In such processes, written records chronicle the interactional journey toward resolution, and in the case of writing law especially, provide accessible justification for decisions rendered. In sharp contrast, conversation is often "small talk" exchanged among family, friends, or candidates for intimacy, unbridled by set agendas, and prone to egocentric rather than altruistic goals. Subject only to unstated "rules" such as turn-taking and politeness, conversation tends to advantage the gregarious or articulate over the shy or slight of tongue.9 The events of 9/11, the onset of war with Afghanistan and Iraq, and the subsequent failure to locate Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have resuscitated some faith in debate, argument, warrant, and facts as crucial to the public sphere. Still, the romance with public conversation persists. As examples among communication scholars, Karlyn Kohrs Campbell's 2001 Carroll C. Arnold Distinguished Lecture treated what she termed "the rhetoric of conversation" as a means to "manage controversy" and empower non-dominant voices10; multiple essays in a 2002 special issue of Rhetoric and Public Affairs on deliberative democracy couch a deliberative democratic ideal in dialogic terms11; and the 2005 Southern States Communication Convention featured family therapist Sallyann Roth, founding member and trainer of the Public Conversations Project, as keynote speaker.12 Representative of the dialogic turn in deliberative democracy scholarship is Gerard A. Hauser and Chantal Benoit-Barne's critique of the traditional procedural, reasoning model of public problem solving: "A deliberative model of democracy . . . construes democracy in terms of participation in the ongoing conversation about how we shall act and interact-our political relations" and "Civil society redirects our attention to the language of social dialogue on which our understanding of political interests and possibility rests."13 And on the political front, British Prime Minister Tony Blair-facing declining poll numbers and mounting criticism of his indifference to public opinion on issues ranging from the Iraq war to steep tuition hike proposals-launched The Big Conversation on November 28, 2003. Trumpeted as "as way of enriching the Labour Party's policy making process by listening to the British public about their priorities," the initiative includes an interactive government website and community meetings ostensibly designed to solicit citizens' voices on public issues.14 In their own way, each treatment of public conversation positions it as a democratic good, a mode that heals divisions and carves out spaces wherein ordinary voices can be heard. In certain ways, Schudson's initial reluctance to dismiss public conversation echoes my own early reservations, given the ideals of egalitarianism, empowerment, and mutual respect conversational advocates champion. Still, in the spirit of the dialectic ostensibly underlying dialogic premises, this essay argues that various negative consequences can result from transporting conversational and therapeutic paradigms into public problem solving. In what follows, I extend Schudson's critique of a conversational model for democracy in two ways: First, whereas Schudson primarily offers a theoretical analysis, I interrogate public conversation as a praxis in a variety of venues, illustrating how public "conversation" and "dialogue" have been coopted to silence rather than empower marginalized or dissenting voices. In practice, public conversation easily can emulate what feminist political scientist Jo Freeman termed "the tyranny of structurelessness" in her classic 1970 critique of consciousness- raising groups in the women's liberation movement,15 as well as the key traits Irving L. Janis ascribes to "groupthink."16 Thus, contrary to its promotion as a means to neutralize hierarchy and exclusion in the public sphere, public conversation can and has accomplished the reverse. When such moves are rendered transparent, public conversation and dialogue, I contend, risk increasing rather than diminishing political cynicism and alienation. Continues… This widespread recognition that access to public deliberative processes and the ballot is a baseline of any genuine democracy points to the most curious irony of the conversation movement: portions of its constituency. Numbering among the most fervid dialogic loyalists have been some feminists and multiculturalists who represent groups historically denied both the right to speak in public and the ballot. Oddly, some feminists who championed the slogan "The Personal Is Political" to emphasize ways relational power can oppress tend to ignore similar dangers lurking in the appropriation of conversation and dialogue in public deliberation. Yet the conversational model's emphasis on empowerment through intimacy can duplicate the power networks that traditionally excluded females and nonwhites and gave rise to numerous, sometimes necessarily uncivil, demands for democratic inclusion. Formalized participation structures in deliberative processes obviously cannot ensure the elimination of relational power blocs, but, as Freeman pointed out, the absence of formal rules leaves relational power unchecked and potentially capricious. Moreover, the privileging of the self, personal experiences, and individual perspectives of reality intrinsic in the conversational paradigm mirrors justifications once used by dominant groups who used their own lives, beliefs, and interests as templates for hegemonic social premises to oppress women, the lower class, and people of color. Paradigms infused with the therapeutic language of emotional healing and coping likewise flirt with the type of psychological diagnoses once ascribed to disaffected women. But as Betty Friedan's landmark 1963 The Feminist Mystique argued, the cure for female alienation was neither tranquilizers nor attitude adjustments fostered through psychotherapy but, rather, unrestricted opportunities.102
23 +
24 +
25 +2- Methodology
26 +
27 +A.The structure of the debate forum is a prior question that must be resolved first – it is a pre-condition for debate to occur
28 +Shively, 2k (Assistant Prof Political Science at Texas AandM, Ruth Lessl, Partisan Politics and Political Theory, p. 181-2)JFS
29 +
30 +The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. The ambiguists must say "no" to-they must reject and limit-some ideas and actions. In what follows, we will also find that they must say "yes" to some things. In particular, they must say "yes" to the idea of rational persuasion. This means, first, that they must recognize the role of agreement in political contest, or the basic accord that is necessary to discord. The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common one. The mistake is in thinking that agreement marks the end of contest-that consensus kills debate. But this is true only if the agreement is perfect-if there is nothing at all left to question or contest. In most cases, however, our agreements are highly imperfect. We agree on some matters but not on others, on generalities but not on specifics, on principles but not on their applications, and so on. And this kind of limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate. As John Courtney Murray writes: We hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about them. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There can be no argument except on the premise, and within a context, of agreement. (Murray 1960, 10) In other words, we cannot argue about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or good argument. At the very least, we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. For instance, one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. One cannot successfully stage a sit-in if one's target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. In other words, contest is meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or communication about what is being contested. Resisters, demonstrators, and debaters must have some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of their disagreements. The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a demonstrator's audience must know what is being resisted. In short, the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. In other words, contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony.
31 +
32 +B. Turns the case- A lack of structure prevents their message from being heard in the long term - only the majority can be heard if there are no rules. That’s Tonn ’05. The discussion of the K in this debate is outweighed by the elimination of that discussion from any meaningful spheres
33 +
34 +C. Switch-side debate - You should evaluate this debate in the framework of switch-side analysis—following the rules and debating correctly is critical to effective space efforts and empathy.
35 +HUNTLEY et al 2010 (Wade L. Huntley, US Naval Postgraduate School; Joseph G. Bock, Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies; Miranda Weingartner, Weingartner Consulting; “Planning the unplannable: Scenarios on the future of space,” Space Policy 26)
36 +
37 +As anticipated, one important merit of the process was that it generated constructive dialogue around complex issues. Common themes emerged even though participants came from diverse professional backgrounds. Thus there was a strong desire to continue the dialogue generated by the workshop, both to adjust for ongoing events and to examine some of the findings in more depth. Areas of potentially deeper analysis include specific turning points (such as those where conflict emerged), the implications of increasing the commercialization of space, and a breakdown of the involvement and interests of the various actors (states, institutions, non-state actors). The goal would be to project common elements likely to be in a family of international instruments cutting across public, private and communal sectors, or to identify codes of conduct. Workshop participants did note that most were from North America, and that different sets of assumptions and conclusions may have emerged if the process was held with Chinese, Indian or European participants. This observation reinforced the conveners’ pre-existing judgment: because successful scenario building depends upon the ‘‘friction’’ of diverse knowledge and outlooks, international participation would be vital to the success of more extensive exercises. Moreover, scenario analysis can also be an ideal vehicle for broaching sensitive topics in an international dialogue. Because the process is designed to identify shared critical uncertainties and focus on longer-term challenges, it is ideally suited to provide a forum wherein participants divided by contentious near-term issues can find a common basis for engagement. Thus, scenario-building exercises can yield community-building benefits independent of their substantive results. In this vein, the process can also help generate ‘‘buy-in’’ among divided parties with very different interests to the minimal objective of identifying a shared set of long-term future concerns (as the Mont Fleur experience shows). It is not necessary for participants to possess, at the outset, common core values. It is sufficient that there be agreement on common process values within the exercise, the most important being commitment to the goals of the exercise and a willingness to think about matters imaginatively. Participants do not need to leave their opinions at the door e indeed, the ‘‘friction’’ of that diverse input is vital to the success of the process. They need only be ready and able also to view things from others’ points of view.
38 +
39 +D. The 1AC movement away from conventional politics dooms their movement and recreates the worst forms of oppression
40 +McClean in 1
41 +David E. McClean, 2001, “The Cultural Left and the Limits of Social Hope,” Am. Phil. Conf., www.american-philosophy.org/archives/past_conference_programs/pc2001/Discussion20papers/david_mcclean.htm
42 +
43 +Yet for some reason, at least partially explicated in Richard Rorty's Achieving Our Country, a book that I think is long overdue, leftist critics continue to cite and refer to the eccentric and often a priori ruminations of people like those just mentioned, and a litany of others including Derrida, Deleuze, Lyotard, Jameson, and Lacan, who are to me hugely more irrelevant than Habermas in their narrative attempts to suggest policy prescriptions (when they actually do suggest them) aimed at curing the ills of homelessness, poverty, market greed, national belligerence and racism. I would like to suggest that it is time for American social critics who are enamored with this group, those who actually want to be relevant, to recognize that they have a disease, and a disease regarding which I myself must remember to stay faithful to my own twelve step program of recovery. The disease is the need for elaborate theoretical "remedies" wrapped in neological and multi-syllabic jargon. These elaborate theoretical remedies are more "interesting," to be sure, than the pragmatically settled questions about what shape democracy should take in various contexts, or whether private property should be protected by the state, or regarding our basic human nature (described, if not defined (heaven forbid!), in such statements as "We don't like to starve" and "We like to speak our minds without fear of death" and "We like to keep our children safe from poverty"). As Rorty puts it, "When one of today's academic leftists says that some topic has been 'inadequately theorized,' you can be pretty certain that he or she is going to drag in either philosophy of language, or Lacanian psychoanalysis, or some neo-Marxist version of economic determinism. . . . These futile attempts to philosophize one's way into political relevance are a symptom of what happens when a Left retreats from activism and adopts a spectatorial approach to the problems of its country. Disengagement from practice produces theoretical hallucinations"(italics mine).(1) Or as John Dewey put it in his The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy, "I believe that philosophy in America will be lost between chewing a historical cud long since reduced to woody fiber, or an apologetics for lost causes, . . . . or a scholastic, schematic formalism, unless it can somehow bring to consciousness America's own needs and its own implicit principle of successful action." Those who suffer or have suffered from this disease Rorty refers to as the Cultural Left, which left is juxtaposed to the Political Left that Rorty prefers and prefers for good reason. Another attribute of the Cultural Left is that its members fancy themselves pure culture critics who view the successes of America and the West, rather than some of the barbarous methods for achieving those successes, as mostly evil, and who view anything like national pride as equally evil even when that pride is tempered with the knowledge and admission of the nation's shortcomings. In other words, the Cultural Left, in this country, too often dismiss American society as beyond reform and redemption. And Rorty correctly argues that this is a disastrous conclusion, i.e. disastrous for the Cultural Left. I think it may also be disastrous for our social hopes, as I will explain. Leftist American culture critics might put their considerable talents to better use if they bury some of their cynicism about America's social and political prospects and help forge public and political possibilities in a spirit of determination to, indeed, achieve our country - the country of Jefferson and King; the country of John Dewey and Malcom X; the country of Franklin Roosevelt and Bayard Rustin, and of the later George Wallace and the later Barry Goldwater. To invoke the words of King, and with reference to the American society, the time is always ripe to seize the opportunity to help create the "beloved community," one woven with the thread of agape into a conceptually single yet diverse tapestry that shoots for nothing less than a true intra-American cosmopolitan ethos, one wherein both same sex unions and faith-based initiatives will be able to be part of the same social reality, one wherein business interests and the university are not seen as belonging to two separate galaxies but as part of the same answer to the threat of social and ethical nihilism. We who fancy ourselves philosophers would do well to create from within ourselves and from within our ranks a new kind of public intellectual who has both a hungry theoretical mind and who is yet capable of seeing the need to move past high theory to other important questions that are less bedazzling and "interesting" but more important to the prospect of our flourishing - questions such as "How is it possible to develop a citizenry that cherishes a certain hexis, one which prizes the character of the Samaritan on the road to Jericho almost more than any other?" or "How can we square the political dogma that undergirds the fantasy of a missile defense system with the need to treat America as but one member in a community of nations under a "law of peoples?"The new public philosopher might seek to understand labor law and military and trade theory and doctrine as much as theories of surplus value; the logic of international markets and trade agreements as much as critiques of commodification, and the politics of complexity as much as the politics of power (all of which can still be done from our arm chairs.) This means going down deep into the guts of our quotidian social institutions, into the grimy pragmatic details where intellectuals are loathe to dwell but where the officers and bureaucrats of those institutions take difficult and often unpleasant, imperfect decisions that affect other peoples' lives, and it means making honest attempts to truly understand how those institutions actually function in the actual world before howling for their overthrow commences. This might help keep us from being slapped down in debates by true policy pros who actually know what they are talking about but who lack awareness of the dogmatic assumptions from which they proceed, and who have not yet found a good reason to listen to jargon-riddled lectures from philosophers and culture critics with their snobish disrespect for the so-called "managerial class."
44 +
45 +E. We control external impacts – abandoning politics causes war, slavery, and authoritarianism
46 +Boggs 2k (CAROL BOGGS, PF POLITICAL SCIENCE – SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, 00, THE END OF POLITICS, 250-1)
47 +
48 +But it is a very deceptive and misleading minimalism. While Oakeshott debunks political mechanisms and rational planning, as either useless or dangerous, the actually existing power structure-replete with its own centralized state apparatus, institutional hierarchies, conscious designs, and indeed, rational plans-remains fully intact, insulated from the minimalist critique. In other words, ideologies and plans are perfectly acceptable for elites who preside over established governing systems, but not for ordinary citizens or groups anxious to challenge the status quo. Such one-sided minimalism gives carte blanche to elites who naturally desire as much space to maneuver as possible. The flight from “abstract principles” rules out ethical attacks on injustices that may pervade the status quo (slavery or imperialist wars, for example) insofar as those injustices might be seen as too deeply embedded in the social and institutional matrix of the time to be the target of oppositional political action. If politics is reduced to nothing other than a process of everyday muddling-through, then people are condemned to accept the harsh realities of an exploitative and authoritarian system, with no choice but to yield to the dictates of “conventional wisdom”. Systematic attempts to ameliorate oppressive conditions would, in Oakeshott’s view, turn into a political nightmare. A belief that totalitarianism might results from extreme attempts to put society in order is one thing; to argue that all politicized efforts to change the world are necessary doomed either to impotence or totalitarianism requires a completely different (and indefensible) set of premises. Oakeshott’s minimalism poses yet another, but still related, range of problems: the shrinkage of politics hardly suggests that corporate colonization, social hierarchies, or centralized state and military institutions will magically disappear from people’s lives. Far from it: the public space vacated by ordinary citizens, well informed and ready to fight for their interests, simply gives elites more room to consolidate their own power and privilege. Beyond that, the fragmentation and chaos of a Hobbesian civil society, not too far removed from the excessive individualism, social Darwinism and urban violence of the American landscape could open the door to a modern Leviathan intent on restoring order and unity in the face of social disintegration. Viewed in this light, the contemporary drift towards antipolitics might set the stage for a reassertion of politics in more authoritarian and reactionary guise-or it could simply end up reinforcing the dominant state-corporate system. In either case, the state would probably become what Hobbes anticipated: the embodiment of those universal, collective interests that had vanished from civil society.16 And either outcome would run counter to the facile antirationalism of Oakeshott’s Burkean muddling-through theories.
49 +Framework is a voter for the reasons above: fairness, limits, and education
50 +Topicality before advocacy – vote negative to say that you think they are not topical, not that you don’t believe in their project
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-24 15:30:52.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Erika Schneider
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Golda Meir KP
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +26
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Appleton East Moorhead Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +0- Performance Theory
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +CFL Quals
Caselist.CitesClass[26]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,66 @@
1 +Framing
2 +
3 +Plan Text: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power, including weapons
4 +
5 +The ROTB is to vote for the debater that best maximizes wellbeing
6 +
7 +First, the obligation of the state is to protect citizen’s interests—individual obligations aren’t applicable in the public sphere
8 +Goodin 95. Philosopher of Political Theory, Public Policy, and Applied Ethics. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1995. p. 26-7, 1-2-16
9 +The great adventure of utilitarianism as a guide to public conduct is that it avoids gratuitous sacrifices, it ensures as best we are able to ensure in the uncertain world of public policy-making that policies are sensitive to people’s interests or desires or preferences. The great failing of more deontology theories, applied to those realms, is that they fixate upon duties done for the sake of duty rather than for the sake of any good that is done by doing one’s duty. Perhaps it is permissible (perhaps it is even proper) for private individuals in the course of their personal affairs to fetishize duties done for their own sake. It would be a mistake for public officials to do likewise, not least because it is impossible. The fixation on motives makes absolutely no sense in the public realm, and might make precious little sense in the private one even, as Chapter 3 shows. The reason public action is required at all arises from the inability of uncoordinated individual action to achieve certain morally desirable ends. Individuals are rightly excused from pursuing those ends. The inability is real; the excuses, perfectly valid. But libertarians are right in their diagnosis, wrong in their prescription. That is the message of Chapter 2. The same thing that makes those excuses valid at the individual level – the same thing that relieves individuals of responsibility – makes it morally incumbent upon individuals to organize themselves into collective units that are capable of acting where they as isolated individuals are not. When they organize themselves into these collective units, those collective deliberations inevitably take place under very different circumstances and their conclusions inevitably take very different forms. Individuals are morally required to operate in that collective manner, in certain crucial respects. But they are practically circumscribed in how they can operate, in their collective mode. And those special constraints characterizing the public sphere of decision-making give rise to the special circumstances that make utilitarianism peculiarly apt for public policy-making, in ways set out more fully in Chapter 4. Government house utilitarianism thus understood is, I would argue, a uniquely defensible public philosophy.
10 +
11 +Second, questions of public policy should be judged through a consequentialist lens.
12 +Woller 97, A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, June 1997, pg. 10
13 +Appeals to a priori moral principles, such as environmental preservation, also often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical way sense, and since public policies inherently imply winners and losers, the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that the redistributive effects and value trade-offs implied by their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society. At the same time, deontologically based ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy. At best, a priori moral principles provide only general guidance to ethical dilemmas in public affairs and do not themselves suggest appropriate public policies, and at worst, they create a regimen of regulatory unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem or actually making it worse. For example, a moral obligation to preserve the environment by no means implies the best way, or any way for that matter, to do so, just as there is no a priori reason to believe that any policy that claims to preserve the environment will actually do so. Any number of policies might work, and others, although seemingly consistent with the moral principle, will fail utterly. That deontological principles are an inadequate basis for environmental policy is evident in the rather significant irony that most forms of deontologically based environmental laws and regulations tend to be implemented in a very utilitarian manner by street-level enforcement officials. Moreover, ignoring the relevant costs and benefits of environmental policy and their attendant incentive structures can, as alluded to above, actually work at cross purposes to environmental preservation. (There exists an extensive literature on this aspect of regulatory enforcement and the often perverse outcomes of regulatory policy. See, for example, Ackerman, 1981; Bartrip and Fenn, 1983; Hawkins, 1983, 1984; Hawkins and Thomas, 1984.) Even the most die-hard preservationist/deontologist would, I believe, be troubled by this outcome. The above points are perhaps best expressed by Richard Flathman, The number of values typically involved in public policy decisions, the broad categories which must be employed and above all, the scope and complexity of the consequences to be anticipated militate against reasoning so conclusively that they generate an imperative to institute a specific policy. It is seldom the case that only one policy will meet the criteria of the public interest (1958, p. 12). It therefore follows that in a democracy, policymakers have an ethical duty to establish a plausible link between policy alternatives and the problems they address, and the public must be reasonably assured that a policy will actually do something about an existing problem; this requires the means-end language and methodology of utilitarian ethics. Good intentions, lofty rhetoric, and moral piety are an insufficient.
14 +
15 +Advantage 1: Nuclear Colonialism
16 +
17 +The legacy of nuclear colonialism is a legacy of systematic exploitation, destroying native culture and land.
18 +Endres 09 Danielle Endres (2009) The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6:1, 39-60, DOI: 10.1080/14791420802632103
19 +Before attending to the rhetorical nature of nuclear colonialism, it is important to emphasize the scope and material effects of nuclear technologies on indigenous peoples and their lands. This is a history of systematic oppression and resistance, spanning from the 1940s to present. As the Indigenous Environmental Network writes, the nuclear industry has waged a war against our Indigenous peoples and Pacific Islanders that has poisoned our communities worldwide. For more than 50 years, the legacy of the nuclear chain, from exploration to the dumping of radioactive waste has been proven, through documentation, to be genocide and a deadly enemy of Indigenous peoples. ... United States federal law and nuclear policy has not protected Indigenous peoples, and in fact has been created to allow the nuclear industry to continue operations at the expense of our land, territory, health and traditional ways of life. ... This disproportionate toxic burden*called environmental racism*has culminated in the current attempts to dump much of the nation’s nuclear waste in the homelands of the Indigenous peoples of the Great Basin region of the United States.4 From an indigenous perspective, the material consequences of nuclear colonialism have affected the vitality of indigenous peoples. This can be seen clearly in both uranium mining and nuclear testing. Uranium mining is inextricably linked with indigenous peoples. According to LaDuke, ‘‘some 70 percent of the world’s uranium originates from Native Communities.’’5 Within the US, approximately 66 percent of the known uranium deposits are on reservation land, as much as 80 percent are on treaty-guaranteed land, and up to 90 percent of uranium mining and milling occurs on or adjacent to American Indian land.6 To support the federal government’s desire for nuclear weapons and power production, the Bureau of Indians Affairs (BIA) has worked in collusion with the Atomic Energy Commission and corporations such as Kerr-McGee and United Nuclear to negotiate leases with Navajo, Lakota and other nations for uranium mining and milling on their land between the 1950s to the present.7 BIAnegotiated leases are supported by the complex body of Indian Law, which I will demonstrate enables federal intrusion into American Indian lands and governmental affairs. These leases are heavily tilted in favor of the corporations so that American Indian nations received only about 3.4 percent of the market value of the uranium and low paid jobs.8 Uranium mining has also resulted in severe health and environmental legacies for affected American Indian people and their lands. From uranium mining on Navajo land, there have been at least 450 reported cancer deaths among Navajo mining employees.9 Even now, the legacy of over 1000 abandoned mines and uranium tailing piles is radioactive dust that continues to put people living near tailing piles at a high risk for lung cancer.10
20 +
21 +Nuclear power production disproportionately harms Native Americans because of their “land-linked” lifestyles
22 +Endres 09 Danielle Endres (2009) The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6:1, 39-60, DOI: 10.1080/14791420802632103
23 +The history of exploitation and resistance continues with nuclear weapons production. As nuclear engineer Arjun Makhijani argues, ‘‘all too often such damage has been done to ethnic minorities or on colonial lands or both. The main sites for testing nuclear weapons for every declared nuclear power are on tribal or minority lands.’’11 From 1951 to 1992, over 900 nuclear weapons tests were conducted on a Nevada test site which is actually land claimed by the Western Shoshone Tribe under the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. The late Western Shoshone spiritual leader Corbin Harney proclaimed Western Shoshone to be ‘‘the most nuclear bombed nation in the world.’’12 According to Western Shoshone Virginia Sanchez, indigenous people may have suffered more radiation exposure because of their land-linked lifestyle of ‘‘picking berries, hunting and gathering our traditional foods,’’ resulting in ‘‘major doses of radiation.’’13 Yet, the federal government and legal system have made only token gestures toward compensating victims of nuclear testing. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) has strict qualification guidelines that have excluded many downwinders from receiving compensation.14 In addition to the effects on human health from nuclear testing, there is also an environmental toll through contaminated soil and water, which could harm animal and plant life.15
24 +
25 +Official documents are illegitimate, written by colonizers to suppress the voices of Native Americans.
26 +Endres 09 Danielle Endres (2009) The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 6:1, 39-60, DOI: 10.1080/14791420802632103
27 +In addition to outlining a decision calculus that shifts the burden of proof in a way that makes it impossible to offer a counterargument that would outweigh the national interest, the site recommendation report also ignores American Indian arguments when it outlines and responds to the ‘‘principal arguments’’ against the site. The third strategy of nuclear colonialism explains how indigenous voices can be suppressed in official documents. In Sanchez, Stuckey and Morris’ conception, rhetorical exclusion is expressed through specific defining practices that label American Indians as threatening and already guilty.74 However, I argue that rhetorical exclusion can also be achieved through the strategic use of silence. Strategic silence acts as a form of rhetorical exclusion when silence is used by a group with power over another group as a way to exclude their voices or arguments. This way of defining strategic silence is different from Robin Clair’s notion of silence as an act of resistance by marginalized groups.75 It is also different from Barry Brummett’s articulation of strategic silence as an unexpected response that rhetorically calls attention to the silence.76 The Yucca Mountain case reveals that strategic silence can also be used to continue the silencing of an already silenced group by drawing attention away from the silence. This form of strategic silence works best when there is general lack of understanding among the public about the issue or group being silenced. For example, using strategic silence to exclude American Indian arguments against the Yucca Mountain site is enabled by the colonizer’s version of history that emphasizes that American Indians were defeated and have all been assimilated into ‘‘American’’ culture. As stated by Derek Buescher and Kent Ono, ‘‘contemporary culture masks the continuing lived history of people disenfranchised by colonialism by failing to acknowledge colonialism’s presence in the US today.’
28 +Advantage 2: Environment
29 +
30 +Nuclear power puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than all other energy sources today
31 +W.I.L.P.F. 7 Women’s International League of Peace and Freedom (), October 2007; WILPF is part of the international women’s peace organization established in 1915 to 'bring together women of different political beliefs and philosophies who are united in their determination to study, make known and help abolish the causes and the legitimization of war'. There are WILPF groups in 42 countries including the U.S.; http://www.wilpf.org.au/PDFs/Nuclear_Awareness_WILPF_2007.pdf
32 +Large amounts of electricity, petrol/diesel, and water are consumed in the mining and processing of uranium to generate nuclear fuel. Essentially a nuclear reactor is a very expensive way to boil water. The actual nuclear reactor may not produce any green house gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), but there are significant amounts of CO2 produced in the mining and transport of the ore to the reactor., e.g. Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs) using 729 million liters of water a day from the Artesian Basin. This water becomes radioactive and toxic. The problem of waste disposal from mining and processing as well as from the reactor is very large and so far unsolved. After the current expansion of BHP Billiton’s Olympic Dam (Roxby Downs), it is expected that 1 tonne of radioactive tailings will be produced every second, and 10 million tonnes of tailing are produced annually. It is stored at the mine but there are no long-term treatment and management plans for how to deal with this contaminated mining waste. There are no solutions for dealing with spent fuel rods and other high-level radioactive waste generated from the nuclear cycle.
33 +
34 +Drought will prevent nuclear power from working, water resources are already too scarce to waste.
35 +AP 8(“Drought Could Shut Down Nuclear Plants” MITCH WEISS, Jan 23, http://news.aol.com/story/_a/drought-could-shut-down-nuclear-plants/20080123164209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001)–
36 +Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate. Utility officials say such shutdowns probably wouldn't result in blackouts. But they could lead to shockingly higher electric bills for millions of Southerners, because the region's utilities may be forced to buy expensive replacement power from other energy companies, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer. "Water is the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. "You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants." He added: "This is becoming a crisis." Analysis of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants' turbines.
37 +
38 +Advantage 3: Economy
39 +
40 +Although current nuclear plants are expanding to meet current needs new reactors need to be built to meet future energy needs
41 +Fertel 4 (Marvin, Senior VP and chief Nuclear officer at Nuclear energy Institute, March 4,2004, http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/energysubcmtefertelextended)
42 +As our country prepares for the construction of new nuclear power plants, the U.S. industry has increased the productivity and efficiency of its existing 103 plants. The industry continues to uprate capacity at U.S. plants—the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized more than 2,000 megawatts (MW) of power uprates over the last three years, and another 2,000 MW are expected over the next several years. An uprate increases the output of the nuclear reactor and must be approved by the NRC to ensure that the plant can operate safely at the higher production level. Companies will invest in these power uprates as conditions in their local power markets justify.  In addition, energy companies are pursuing renewal of their operating licenses. This option allows today’s operating plants to extend their lives for 20 additional years—from 40 to 60 years. Just in the past 12 months, the NRC has approved renewed licenses for 13 reactors, bringing the total number of reactors extending their federal operating licenses to 23. An additional 33 reactors either have already filed their renewal applications, or indicated formally to NRC that they intend to do so. That represents over one-half of U.S. reactors. We expect virtually all our nuclear plants will renew their licenses—simply because it makes good economic sense to do so. With license renewal, our first plants will operate until the 2030s and our newest plants will run past 2050. As an industry, we’ve implemented systematic programs across the industry to manage the systems and components in these plants for their entire expected lifetime. And we’re making the capital investments necessary to allow 60 years of operation at sustained high levels of safety and reliability. Increasing electricity production at nuclear power plants is a key component of the president’s voluntary program to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy. In December 2002, NEI responded to President Bush’s challenge to the business community to develop voluntary initiatives that would reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of the U.S. economy. NEI indicated that the U.S. nuclear energy industry could increase its generating capability by the equivalent of 10,000 MW. NEI’s analysis showed that this would achieve approximately 20 percent of the president’s goal. The additional 10,000 MW would come from three sources: Power Uprates—5,000 to 6,500 MW of capacity additions between 2002 and 2012. Improved Capacity Factors—the equivalent of 3,000 to 5,000 MW of additional capacity in 2002-2012. Plant Restarts—refurbishing and restarting Tennessee Valley Authority’s Browns Ferry Unit 1 would add 1,250 MW. The nuclear energy industry has recorded substantial progress toward its goal. The NRC has approved 2,198 MW of uprates in the past several years. In addition, based on information from nuclear plant operators, the NRC expects applications for an additional 1,886 MW of uprates in the 2004-2008 period. 5 In addition, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is moving forward with refurbishment of Unit 1 of the Browns Ferry nuclear power plant. The TVA Board in May 2002 approved the refurbishment and restart, a $1.8-billion project that is expected to return the reactor to commercial operation in 2007. Browns Ferry Unit 1 is not a new construction reactor, but its comprehensive refurbishment and restart, when complete, will represent a significant accomplishment for the industry. With 5,334 MW of new capacity in prospect (4,084 megawatts of uprates and 1,250 MW at Browns Ferry Unit 1), the nuclear energy industry will be approximately halfway toward meeting its goal of expanding capacity by 10,000 megawatts by 2012. This represents substantial progress—the largest progress of any single industry—toward achievement of the president’s goal to reduce the GHG intensity of the U.S. economy by 18 percent by 2012. Obviously, there are limits on how much additional electricity output can be produced at the existing 103 nuclear power plants. Meeting the nation’s growing demand for electricity—which will require as much as 400,000 MW by 2025, depending on assumptions about electricity demand growth6 —will require construction of several new nuclear power plants in the years ahead.
43 +
44 +Nuclear power would be costly and crush the economy
45 +Rifkin 6 (Jeremy, founder and president of the Foundation of Economic Trends and the author of “The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth”, “Nuclear Energy: Still a bad idea”, Los Angeles Time, September 29, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0929-33.htm)
46 +First, nuclear power is unaffordable. With minimum price tags of $2 billion each, new-generation nuclear power plants are 50 more expensive than putting coal-fired power plants online, and they are far more expensive than new gas-fired power plants. The cost of doubling nuclear power's share of U.S. electricity generation — which currently produces 20 of our electricity — could exceeds half a trillion dollars. In a country facing record consumer and government debt, where is the money going to come from? Consumers would pay the price in terms of higher taxes to support government subsidies and higher electricity bills. Second, 60 years = our scientists still don't know how to safely transport, dispose of or store nuclear waste. Spent nuclear rods are piling up all over the world. In the United States, the federal government spent more than $8 billion and 20 years building what was supposed to be an airtight, underground burial tomb dug deep into Yucca Mountain in Nevada to hold radioactive material. The vault was designed to be leak-free for 10,000 years. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency concedes that the underground storage facility will leak. According to a study conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2001, known uranium resources could fail to meet demand, possibly as early as 2026. Of course, new deposits could be discovered, and it is possible that new technological breakthroughs could reduce uranium requirements, but that remains purely speculative.
47 +
48 +Advantage 4: Health
49 +
50 +Nuclear waste sites will inevitably create health problems for future generations.
51 +Brook 98 Daniel, “Environmental Genocide: Native Americans and Toxic Waste,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 1, Jan., pp. 105-113, http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3487423.pdf
52 +Unfortunately, it is a sad but true fact that virtually every landfill leaks, and every incinerator emits hundreds of toxic chemicals into the air, land and water" (Angel 1991, 3). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concedes that "even if the protective systems work according to plan, the landfills will eventually leak poisons into the environment" (ibid.). Therefore, even if these toxic waste sites are safe for the present generation-a rather dubious proposition at best-they will pose an increasingly greater health and safety risk for all future generations. Native people (and others) will eventually pay the costs of these toxic pollutants with their lives, "costs to which corporate executives are conveniently immune" (Parker 1983, 59). In this way, private corporations are able to externalize their costs onto the commons, thereby subsidizing their earnings at the expense of health, safety, and the environment.
53 +
54 +Radiation results in cancers and death.
55 +WNA 2 (“Radiation and Life”, http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ral.htm)
56 +It has been known for many years that large doses of ionising radiation, very much larger than background levels, can cause a measurable increase in cancers and leukemias ('cancer of the blood') after some years delay. It must also be assumed, because of experiments on plants and animals, that ionising radiation can also cause genetic mutations that affect future generations, although there has been no evidence of radiation-induced mutation in humans. At very high levels, radiation can cause sickness and death within weeks of exposure - see Table. The degree of damage caused by radiation depends on many factors - dose, dose rate, type of radiation, the part of the body exposed, age and health, for example. Embryos including the human fetus are particularly sensitive to radiation damage. But what are the chances of developing cancer from low doses of radiation? The prevailing assumption is that any dose of radiation, no matter how small, involves a possibility of risk to human health.
57 +
58 +Advantage 5: Nuclear Weapons
59 +
60 +Nuclear power would be an easy way to spread terrorism further in the Middle East.
61 +Rifkin 6 (Jeremy, founder and president of the Foundation of Economic Trends and the author of “The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the World Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth”, “Nuclear Energy: Still a bad idea”, Los Angeles Time, September 29, http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0929-33.htm)
62 +Fourth, building hundreds of nuclear power plants in an era of spreading Islamic terrorism seems insane. On the one hand the United States, the European Union and much of the world is frightened by the mere possibility that just one country — Iran — might use enriched uranium from its nuclear power plants for a nuclear bomb. On the other hand, many of the same governments are eager to spread nuclear power plants around the world, placing them in every nook and cranny of the planet. This means uranium and spent nuclear waste in transit everywhere and piling up in makeshift facilities, often close to heavily populated urban areas. Nuclear power plants are the ultimate soft target for terrorist attacks. On Nov. 8, 2005, the Australian government arrested 18 suspected Islamic terrorists who were allegedly plotting to blow up Australia's only nuclear power plant. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that more than half of the nuclear power plants in this country failed to prevent a simulated attack on their facilities. We should all be very.
63 +
64 +Proliferation is inevitable with nuclear power. This ultimately leads to full scale nuclear conflict.
65 +Digges 8 (Charles. Author at The Environmental Foundation Bellona, “Nuclear energy not an alternative for fight on Climate Change.” 10.01.2008.) http://www.bellona.org/position_papers/nonuke_bellonaposition
66 +The nuclear relationship between Russia and Iran is a prescient example of corporate or governmental greed running roughshod over nonproliferation concerns. By building a $1 billion reactor in Iran’s port of Bushehr, Russia opened a Pandora’s Box of nuclear technology for Iran, which has developed uranium enrichment to a level that puts it, by IAEA estimates, within two to 10 years of building a nuclear weapon. For its part, France is underwriting the construction of a nuclear power plant in Libya, and actively encourages nuclear development in the Middle East. The relationship between the basic infrastructure of the fuel cycle and the eventual development of nuclear weapons technology is a well-worn path. Quite simply, any nuclear fuel cycle facility such as a uranium enrichment facility or a reprocessing facility can be used, if built in sufficient sizes, to produce nuclear weapons. Where the worldwide nuclear fuel cycle to expand to the dimensions needed to even begin cutting CO2 emissions and meet energy needs, the development of nuclear weapons – the world’s single geopolitical doomsday devices - would be possible virtually everywhere. The corporate interests of spreading nuclear technology thereby put the most feared technologies in direct proximity to many nations who have established ties to terrorist organizations. Cheap energy then becomes inestimable loss of life and reconstruction costs when viewed in light of the ever more likely possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack, or even the heightened chances of a full blown nuclear war. With the global concerns about nuclear proliferation in places such as North Korea and Iran, development of nuclear power globally is untenable given the existence of perfectly acceptable, renewable and non-weapons usable energy technologies. And while certain very specific disarmament agreements – like the Cooperative Threat Reduction act between Russia and the United States have stemmed this spiral between the two Cold War foes, larger-scale treaties, like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are under constant challenge. Written with the aim of pressing its nuclear-armed signatories toward disarmament, while holding its non-nuclear armed nuclear energy producing nations to the agreement not to build nuclear weapons, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has been particularly
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-25 14:27:57.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +ur m0m
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Prolly some DnG kid
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +27
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Appleton East Moorhead Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +SEPOCT- Shitstorm v2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Practice Rounds
Caselist.RoundClass[23]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +22
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-17 00:03:08.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Brian Devine
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Brookfield East TG
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Octas
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@
1 +1AC- Race based militarism
2 +1NC- Cap K NC case w plan text court clog DA
3 +2NR- Cap K and court clog DA
4 +2AR- Condo
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Alexandra Hoechrel Challenge
Caselist.RoundClass[24]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +23
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-17 00:07:16.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Josh You
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +La Canada AZ
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@
1 +1AC- Pedagogy
2 +1NC- Race K Hate Speech CP IRLaw DA
3 +2NR- Hate Speech CP IRLaw DA
4 +2AR- Case
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Blake
Caselist.RoundClass[25]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +24
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-24 14:05:16.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Vrana, Snyder, Broomfield
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Sheboygan North RW
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Semis
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +NFL Quals
Caselist.RoundClass[26]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +25
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-01-24 15:30:50.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Erika Schneider
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Golda Meir KP
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +CFL Quals
Caselist.RoundClass[27]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +26
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-25 14:27:55.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +ur m0m
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Prolly some DnG kid
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Practice Rounds
Caselist.RoundClass[28]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2017-04-29 01:39:22.8
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Kimberly Herrera
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Whitefish Bay RD
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +West Bend

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)