Changes for page Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 3 added, 17 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[27]
- Caselist.CitesClass[28]
- Caselist.CitesClass[31]
- Caselist.CitesClass[32]
- Caselist.CitesClass[33]
- Caselist.CitesClass[34]
- Caselist.CitesClass[35]
- Caselist.CitesClass[36]
- Caselist.CitesClass[37]
- Caselist.CitesClass[38]
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
- Caselist.RoundClass[16]
- Caselist.RoundClass[17]
- Caselist.RoundClass[18]
- Caselist.RoundClass[19]
- Caselist.RoundClass[20]
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
- Caselist.RoundClass[22]
- Caselist.CitesClass[21]
- Caselist.CitesClass[22]
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[27]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-10-10 23:51:22.0 1 +2016-10-10 23:51:22.704
- Caselist.CitesClass[28]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,16 +1,0 @@ 1 -Shinzo Abe pushing for constitutional revision of Article 9 – just shy of PC required 2 -Walters 7/26 (Riley Electoral Win for Japanese Prime Minister Draws International Concern Providence Mag 7/26/16 https://providencemag.com/2016/07/electoral-win-japanese-prime-minister-draws-international-concern/ Acc 9/1/16) CW 3 -As the longest serving Prime Minster in a decade, Shinzo Abe has pushed a platform of social, economic, and strategic issues meant to spur Japan’s economy and raise its profile in the world community. Of particular concern to Japan’s neighbors is whether PM Abe will revise Japan’s 70-year-old constitution to allow for greater strategic engagement by Japan’s Self-Defense Forces and ease the Diet’s ability to make constitutional revisions. Article 96 of Japan’s constitution stipulates that amendments to the constitution can be enacted only with the affirmation of a two-thirds majority in both Houses of the Diet, followed by a majority vote by the general populace. Currently the LDP and Komeito hold more than two-thirds (326 of 475) of the seats in the Lower House. However, following elections on July 10 they remain shy of the mark in the Upper House, holding only 146 of the 162 seats needed for a two-thirds majority. To secure the necessary super majority there, Prime Minister Abe would need to attract votes from other smaller parties less enthusiastic about constitutional revision, as well as convince a citizenry wary of constitutional revision. Getting all the necessary votes and the public on the side of constitutional revision may require more political capital than the LDP is willing to spend. The public is divided on the topic of constitutional revision and expressed only faint interest in even debating the issue. Economic issues still remain the public’s top concern. 4 - 5 -Nuclear phase-out extremely popular 6 -Kingston 13 (Jeff Will the real Shinzo Abe emerge after Diet success? CNN 23 July 2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/23/opinion/japan-real-abe-kingston/index.html Acc 9/1/16) CW 7 -Abe also faces stiff public opposition over his plans to restart the nation's idled nuclear reactors. He is seen to be in the "nuclear village's" pocket, the vested interests in business and bureaucratic circles that advocate nuclear energy. But some 70 of the Japanese public favors phasing out nuclear power because of lingering safety concerns; 150,000 people remain displaced by the three reactor meltdowns in 2011. Moreover, TEPCO's ongoing clean-up at the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant has been marred by a series of screw-ups worthy of the Keystone cops and there are concerns that new safety guidelines may be trumped by political expediency. 8 -Methodology: The survey was conducted in 24 countries: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States of America. An international sample of 18,787 adults aged 18-64 were interviewed between May 6 and May 21, 2011 via the Ipsos Online Panel system. Approximately 1000+ individuals participated in each country with the exception of Argentina, Indonesia, Mexico, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Sweden, Russia and Turkey, where each have a sample 500+. Weighting was then employed to balance demographics and ensure that the sample’s composition reflected that of the adult population according to the most recent country Census data and to provide results intended to approximate the sample universe. A survey with an unweighted probability sample of this size and a 100 response rate would have an estimated margin of error of +/-3.1 percentage points for a sample of 1,000 and an estimated margin of error of +/- 4.5 percentage points for a sample of 500 9 - 10 -Constitution revision causes explosive East Asian arms race 11 -Siegel 07 (Michael T. Questioning the Rationale for Changing Japan’s Peace Constitution Asia-Pacific Geopolitics: Hegemony Vs. Human Security ed. Joseph A. Camilleri pp. 75-92 1/1/07 Google Books Acc 9/1/16) CW 12 -For almost sixty years, Japan has been protected from the security dilemma by the peace Constitution. Under the present Constitution, no Japanese government could carry out a belligerent act against another country. This has given Japan the opportunity to build up a very strong military without that constituting a direct threat to other countries. This is not to say that neighbouring countries do not watch Japan cautiously. But as long as Japan ’s Constitution is unchanged, Japan’s military strength will not constitute a direct threat. This may have resulted in there being little awareness in Japan of the risks involved. While it is frequently mentioned that constitutional revision runs the risk of creating tensions in Asia, there has been little systemic and explicit discussion of the security dilemma in the mainstream press or in the public pronouncements of politicians in regard to the issue of constitutional revision. Japan currently has one of the highest levels of military spending in the world (842 billion in constant 2003 US dollars in 2004 according to SIPRI,32 or almost $46 billion according to the CIA World Factboolt.33 thereby ranking fourth in the world according to SIPRI or third according to the CIA). If Article 9 is changed, if Japan becomes a country capable of military action overseas, then Japan’s military potential will immediately come to constitute a threat to its neighbours of vastly different proportions than it does now. For the security and stability of the region. a change in Article 9 would constitute the equivalent of an instantaneous arms build-up of enormous proportions. An Agence France-Presse report on interviews conducted with security experts in Japan after one of the reports of the Prime Minister ‘5 Council on Security and Defense Capabilities concluded that ‘Japanese moves to overhaul its “defense- only” security policy that could enable it to launch pre-emptive strikes on foreign missile bases will trigger a wave of unease across Asia’ adding that ‘Any suggestions that Japan is taking a higher military profile have unnerved China and other Asian countries that were invaded by Japan during World War 11’“ If Japan’s Constitution is changed, that in itself is likely to start an arms race in the region - with all the risks that that entails. 13 - 14 -East Asian arms race triggers global annihilation. Ogura and Oh 97 15 - Toshimaru Ogura and Ingyu Oh are professors of economics, April, “Nuclear clouds over the Korean peninsula and Japan,” 1997Accessed July 10, 2008 via Lexis-Nexis (Monthly Review) 16 -North Korea, South Korea, and Japan have achieved quasi- or virtual nuclear armament. Although these countries do not produce or possess actual bombs, they possess sufficient technological know-how to possess one or several nuclear arsenals. Thus, virtual armament creates a new nightmare in this region - nuclear annihilation. Given the concentration of economic affluence and military power in this region and its growing importance to the world system, any hot conflict among these countries would threaten to escalate into a global conflagration. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-10 23:55:01.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Fife, Chapman, Walton - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Servite PA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -14 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SEPTOCT - Japan Politics DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Voices
- Caselist.CitesClass[31]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,12 +1,0 @@ 1 -Pluralism exists – only acknowledging diverse circumstances between states creates tribal homogeneity – turns case since not recognizing particulars justifies violence to certain groups 2 -Young 94 - Professor Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Crawford Ethnic Diversity and Public Policy: An Overview occasional paper no. 8 world summit for social development 11/1/94 UNRISD http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpAuxPages)/E543236D2B275A5B80256B6400502008/$file/OPWSSD8.pdf Acc 9/10/16) CW 3 -Some fundamental postulates which shape this analysis require statement. The most basic premise — which few believed in 1950 but most would concede today — is that cultural pluralism is an enduring attribute of contemporary political societies. When closely inspected, the overwhelming majority of the nation states in our global community reveal significant internal cleavages based upon ethnicity, race or religion. The significance of these differences in the social and political process varies widely, as does the degree of saliency, intensity and politization of communal segments, both within and between states. But there is no longer any justification for clinging to the belief that the array of processes commonly labelled “modernization” (expanding networks and media of communication, urbanization, rising educational and literacy levels, increasing complexity of economic activity and social structuration) lead ineluctably to deepening levels of attachment to the “nation” defined by the state of residence, or the erosion of cultural solidarities of ethnos, race or religion separate from the nation state unit. Rather the reverse seems the normal pattern; social change tends to produce stronger communal identities. In addition, the cultural segments themselves are subject to evolution and change in the crucible of social process and political competition. At the same time, identities are usually multiple and layered; subnational affective ties are not necessarily in conflict with the state-defined nation (though they may be). Thus, “nation building” may partly succeed while communal cleavages deepen. A normative premise of this paper is that cultural diversity requires acknowledgement rather than judgement; the presumption that the healthy endstate equilibrium for the nation state is homogeneity must be dethroned. The spectacles of ethnic cleansing in the contemporary world suggest the deep moral flaw to the premise of homogenization. But no endorsement is intended for the contrary proposition that states have an obligation to promote and enforce difference. Rather the presumption is that cultural pluralism is a natural attribute of a political society. Over time, an integrated national culture may take form; Eugen Weber brilliantly delineates this process in the case of France.5 States naturally seek to earn the loyalty of their citizenry. But this need not — and in the contemporary world cannot — be done by coercive fiat. 4 - 5 -Alternative: aff country will prohibit nuclear power except in cases where the indigenous groups affected desire that nuclear power production 6 -Some indigenous groups see waste facilities as good. To clarify, my argument is not that all groups should do this, but they need the option- the aff denies that. Grover et al 92 7 -Gover et al, Kevin, and Jana L. Walker (Native American Attorneys at Gover, Stetson and Williams). "Escaping Environmental Paternalism: One Tribe's Approach to Developing a Commercial Waste Disposal Project in Indian Country." University of Colorado Law Review 63 (1992): 933. 8 -The second and more controversial issue facing tribes involves the use of reservation lands as sites for commercial solid and hazardous waste disposal facilities. Looking at the waste industry as a form of economic development, in many respects it can be a good match for tribal communities. The industry is usually willing to pay the costs of developing new projects without requiring a tribe to put any cash up front. Since most tribes just do not have the money to independently fund large-scale economic development, this makes the industry attractive to Indian communities desperate for development. The waste industry needs isolation and an abundance of land, and, again, because of the overall lack of tribal economic development, undeveloped land is a resource that many tribes have. The waste industry also provides numerous opportunities for unskilled and semi-skilled workers, including training in the construction and environmental compliance fields. On most reservations, unemployment is extremely high and opportunities for training Indians very limited. Finally, the waste industry is and must be recognized as an indispensable and legitimate part of the services sector of the economy, and as such, can be an extremely profitable form of development for tribes. All of this means that, under certain circumstances, a solid or hazardous waste disposal project may represent a viable and appropriate form of industrial development for some tribes and can provide extraordinary opportunities for economic development on some reservations. It is not appropriate for every community, and we certainly are not urging tribes to site waste facilities on their reservations. Each tribe must decide for itself if it is interested in such development. Our intent is merely to put things in a more honest perspective and to describe one process that, when and if a tribe seriously considers a commercial waste proposal, it can use to evaluate the proposal effectively and, if it's feasible, plan for its development. 9 - 10 -Political self-determination solves root cause – key to tribal status, culture, and resistance to colonialism. Turns case because a) ruse of solvency b) white settlers making policies for them is what ultimately causes colonialism impacts 11 -Moore 02 (Margaret The Right of Indigenous Peoples to Collective Self-Determination 3/22-27/2002 ECPR Joint Sessions Universita di Torino, Turin https://ecpr.eu/Events/PaperDetails.aspx?PaperID=14599andEventID=47 Acc 9/11/16) CW 12 -By ignoring the historical and territorial nature of most indigenous peoples= claims to be self-determining, this argument fails to connect indigenous memory with the institutions of political autonomy justified under this argument. This is not a purely symbolic issue: on the contrary, the way that indigenous peoples are described Bas a sub-set of national minorities - - has a strong bearing on the structure of the argument. Indeed, the argument seems to apply better to the claims of national minorities than indigenous peoples. To see this, consider Kymlicka=s description of a societal culture=, which is his term for the kind of cultural structure that is closely linked with the exercise of autonomy. A Asocietal culture@ is defined as a culture Awhose practices and institutions cover the full range of human activities, encompassing both public and private lives.@15 He elaborates that a societal culture Aprovides its members with meaningful ways of life across the full range of human activities, including social, educational, religious, recreational and economic life, encompassing both public and private space. These cultures tend to be territorially concentrated and based on a shared language...and are institutionally embodied B in schools, media, economy, government, etc.@16 To create, and maintain, a societal culture is, Kymlicka correctly says, an Aimmensely ambitious and arduous project.@17 National minorities like the Québécois, the Scots, Basques, Catalans and others can plausibly be said to have a societal culture=, but many indigenous peoples do not have, and cannot reasonably aspire to, a full societal culture, which encompasses all aspects of life. This is because their original culture has been persecuted and degraded, mainly through the policies of the white settler societies among whom they live. It would require a major transformation in the conditions of their existence to be able to reasonably aspire to such an encompassing culture. To be fair, Kymlicka does not deploy the concept of societal culture to rule indigenous people from his argument for self-government Bin fact, he suggests that claims of equality dictate that self government should be extended to them B but it is not clear, first, that the linkage between autonomy and societal culture, which is crucial to the argument, applies in their case; and, second, why the equality argument is not deployed to grant self-governing rights to other small cultural groups. For this reason, many proponents of indigenous rights think that it is necessary to consider, as the equality-culture-autonomy argument does not, the historical nature of indigenous marginalization and the injustice attached to their continuing inequality and deprivation. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-15 16:19:12.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Paramo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -16 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SEPTOCT- Pluralism PIC - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marks
- Caselist.CitesClass[32]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,19 +1,0 @@ 1 -The aff’s Derridean spectrality mystifies over the materiality of oppression and turns labor into a nondialectical trope 2 -Tumino, 14 3 -(Stephen Tumino, professor in the English department at Kingsborough Community College. “"Theory Too Becomes A Material Force": Militant Materialism or Messianic Matterism?” http://redcritique.org/WinterSpring2014/militantmaterialismordmessianicmatterism.htm) Henge 4 -1. Currently a "material turn" is underway in the humanities away from the dogma of textual immanence and the "materiality of the signifier" (De Man) in the attempt to address the growing inequalities forming in the aftermath of the crisis of global capitalism. And yet, what is taken to be "material" in the new materialisms—whether it be Derrida's "wholly other," or Deleuze's vitalist "immanence," Hardt and Negri's "multitude," or Zizek's "materiality of ideology," Haraway's "affective consubstantiality," or the "autonomy of the nonhuman" (Massumi) and, the "vibrant" (Bennett) "agency of matter" (Bolt, Iovino, Oppermann)—conforms to Derrida's call for a "materiality without materialism and even perhaps without matter" ("Typewriter Ribbon" 281), that is, the material as that which "exceeds" and "resists" the conceptual. What is material for Derrida is the priority of alterity within iteration that displaces explanation of the actual. Derrida makes "matter" and the undoing of "materiality" in its general sense as movement of the "outside" independent of the subject the focus of any inquiry on materialism. It is of course this role of matter as a spectral agency that disrupts and eludes the subject that resonates with the newly dominant formations of posthumanist theory for which, as Gerda Roelvink puts it, "the assertion that the human species is the dominant force shaping our world... fits all too easily with the modernist assumption of human mastery over nature... which has brought about our environmental crisis" (53).1 However, this posthumanist view of the material as exceeding conceptual mastery is put in question by historical materialist thinkers who read the deconstruction of materialism as a form of "matterism" (Ebert). Matterism ultimately treats matter as that which resists human thinking and control and which, in effect, ends up substituting pan-physicalism for the analysis of the historical conditions shaping the human and nonhuman world under capitalism. For historical materialism, materialism is not matterism; it is not the primacy of matter that is at issue (undoing matter as Derrida does simply confirms its primacy, it does not suspend it). Materialism, on the contrary, is, as Fredric Jameson explains, "the ultimate determination by the mode of production" (The Political Unconscious 45). On such a basis the ethical aura that the spectral agency of the inhuman other has taken on in the posthumanities represents a reification of class interests that benefits the ruling class by occulting the exploitation of labor that is central to capitalism. My argument here is that the classical Marxist theory of the material as the movement of the mode of production has been entirely abandoned in the dominant cultural theory not only because the explanatory knowledge it provides exposes the relations of exploitation on which disaster capitalism depends, but because it reveals these relations to be in the end only transformable by the agency of labor rather than a change in values or a new ethics. Taking the centrality of Derrida's undoing of materiality as my starting point, I will focus on the question of the materiality of the new materialism in cultural theory, paying especially close attention to the claim offered by Pheng Cheah that Derrida's "nondialectical materialism" offers a more "fundamental" (73) and "systemic" (72) understanding of materialism than "Marx's understanding of material existence" (71) as shaped by labor, which for Marx is the life activity of the human species. According to Cheah, because Marx's dialectical materialism is premised on "labor as a process... whereby given reality... is negated" (71) and "the radical transformation of existing social relations" (71) effected, it exhibits the "subordination of potentiality to actuality" (79) typical of humanism which always conceives matter as "negated through the imposition of a purposive form" (71). Conversely, because Derrida's "nondialectical materialism" makes the material a "weak messianic force" (80) that "resists... any purposive or end oriented action... based on rational calculations" (81) it represents a new, more fundamental form of materialism, according to Cheah. At stake in Cheah's opposition of nondialectical to dialectical materialism therefore is the question of the radical today: Is "radical," as according to Marx, to "grasp things by the root" by placing them within "the ensemble of the social relations" (what Lenin called "militant materialism"2)? Or is radical now, as according to Derrida, "a materialism without substance: a materialism of the khôra for a despairing 'messianism'" (Specters of Marx 168-9)—that is, a messianic materialism that mystifies the social as a chaotic flux of cause-less arrivals and spectral events that undoes the positive and reliable knowledge of the class totality that workers need for their emancipation from capitalist exploitation? The interest of Cheah's essay ("Nondialectical Materialism") is in part due to its inclusion in the recent New Materialisms anthology, a text which is symptomatic of the current "turn to materialism" more generally. Its inclusion there would seem to call into question the claim made by the books' editors in the introduction that the "textual approaches associated with the cultural turn are increasingly being deemed inadequate for understanding contemporary society" (Coole and Frost 3) because of their failure in "thinking about matter, materiality, and politics" as shaped by the "contemporary... global political economy" (6). After all, Cheah claims in this essay that Derrida's "figure of the text in general" (73) represents the most "fundamental" (73) and "systemic" (72) understanding of materialism to date and argues against the transformative force of labor or indeed any concept of the material as a force of negation that might lead to theory becoming a guide for social praxis. Certainly, Cheah is quick to distance his defense of Derrida's textual materialism from the taint of De Manian "literariness," arguing that it is a "mistake" to take the "materialist understanding of text as... a self-interiority without an outside" (73). Rather, he understands the textual in Derrida's writings to be a defense of materialism as a "philosophy of the outside" (73) opposed to all "metaphysics" that deny the "force of materiality," which he takes to be "a limitless weave of forces or an endless process or movement of referral" (73) instantiated by our "contemporary technomediated reality" (78). And yet the equation of the material with the virtual real shows that what Cheah takes to be material is not the "outside" (the class structure) but rather the "inside" (the cultural superstructure). What is material on this view is how techno-culture reveals the power of a virtually "inappropriable other" over the actual such as to normalize an "experience of an incalculable justice that escapes all rule" (80), or, in other words, a sense of "urgency" that "forces us to act" (80) without reason. For Cheah, the "force of materiality" is "nothing other than the constitutive exposure of (the subject of) power to the other" (81), which, citing Derrida (Politics of Friendship, 68-9), means "the absolute other in me... that decides on me in me" (80). In other words, the material is an opacity that defies understanding, as in Kant's view of the noumenal thing-in-itself which can only be known at the level of its phenomenal effects in consciousness; however, in Cheah's view, rather than being made available to reason as in Enlightenment thought it can only be experienced from within as an emotional plenitude that eludes analysis or explanation and consequently makes individuals feel weak and vulnerable. Not only does this translate the use of technology under capitalism to increase the rate of accumulation of surplus value into the force of technology itself, to which the subject must learn to willingly submit herself. It also turns the material into the intensity of feeling (weak in the face of an overwhelming and anonymous power) rather than the determination of the cause of this feeling of disempowerment in the social totality. This is significant for two reasons. On the one hand, by treating technology as both inappropriable and as that which forces humans to act (on their beliefs), Cheah of course re-situates the technological non-human not as passive and inert relative to the human but as possessing its own agency and ability to act on and control humans. On the other hand, such an experience with the nonhuman on the part of the human is equated with an unthinking compulsion that is usually disavowed in humanist thought as proper only to animals and machines. It is the sheer affirmation of such an experience of impersonal power that is taken to be the limit of the material in posthumanist discourses and made to seem inherently ethical. Despite differences of idiom, this is the dominant presupposition underlying all of the new materialisms today, which privilege, in the words of Jane Bennett, the material as "an excess that escapes quantification, prediction and control" (Khan 46) and who claim this as the basis of ethical action because it reveals the co-dependency of the human with the non-human and inhuman. What is elided, however, by this affirmative matterism which contests the domination over nature is the question of the function of the ethical to obscure and thus maintain the systemic class inequality inscribed in the daily exploitation of labor, which is what in the end alone explains the capitalist mis-use of nature for profit. It turns out that what Cheah means by "nondialectical materialism" is a kind of technological determinism in which technology functions not as the social mediation between humans and the natural world under specific historical conditions (class relations) but, rather, aesthetically, as what inscribes bodies with moving experiences that he maintains are to be always ethically affirmed so as to change "the very idea of political organization" (89), especially "in terms of creative labor qua negativity... embodied in the proletariat as a sociohistorical subject" (89). Marx's dialectical materialism of course requires that the apparent singularities of our experience, what Marx calls the "imagined concrete" (Grundrisse 100), be conceptually grasped as "the concentration of many determinations, hence unity of the diverse" (101) so as not to be deceived by such appearances into assuming a "chaotic conception of the whole" (100). Cheah, following Derrida, argues for "overturning organization as... the central principle of dialectical materialism" (87), because of how it assumes that "the dynamism of matter comes from the activity or process of... ordering things through... relations of interdependence such that they become parts or members of... an integrated or systemic totality" (87). In Derrida's terms, the overturning of "organization" (and therefore dialectical materialism) requires deconstruction of the binary of "organic and... inorganic" ("Typewriter Ribbon" 278) as they represent for him the "two predicates that are most often attributed without hesitation to matter or to the material body" ("Typewriter Ribbon" 278) that "carry an obvious reference... to the possibility of an internal principle that is proper and totalizing" of both, which is "precisely, organization" (278). It is in order to undo the totality of dialectical materialism—which explains why because of the organization of labor under capitalism the proletariat represents a revolutionary class—that Derrida has argued for the necessity of a "machinistic materiality without materialism and even perhaps without matter" or a "new figure of the machine" in which the binary of the organic and inorganic is dehierarchized such that technology will no longer be thought as tools impassively receiving commands in a "state of anesthesia... without affect or auto-affection, like an indifferent automaton" ("Typewriter Ribbon" 277) but would rather "articulate... events of a kind that ought to resist any mechanization, any economy of the machine, namely... acts of... faith" (292). Cheah clarifies that what is at stake in Derrida's call for "a certain materiality, which is not necessarily a corporeality but a certain technicity" "Typewriter Ribbon" 136 (77) is the kind of "creative appropriation" (89) of technology found in the writings of Hardt and Negri, which attempt to construct "a sociohistorical subject that replaces the proletariat in contemporary globalization" (89). For Cheah this is the subject open to the "experience of an incalculable justice that escapes all rule" (80) which acts as a "weak messianic force" in individuals that defies "any purposive or end-oriented action...based on rational calculations or the projection of an ideal end" (81)—such as the end of class exploitation and the emancipation of the proletariat. The subject is thus reified from its insertion in class relations and taken to be a ghost in the machine or a body without organs that spontaneously resists explanation in terms of a causal material outside. In short, it is the subject as imagined in bourgeois ideology that is required to naturalize the exploitation of the workers as a voluntary act rather than the necessary consequence of the means of production being owned as private property. Cheah rejects Marx's dialectical materialism premised on the agency of labor by turning labor into a nondialectical trope for "the vital body of the organism" (71) whose agency consists in the negation of matter through "the imposition of purposive form" (71). Implicit here of course is the familiar (De Manian) poststructuralist critique of romantic organicism—an argument which is used to reject such Marxist categories as labor and class for being essentialist and homogenizing, so as to oppose Marxism on epistemological grounds as a "metaphysical... humanism of the hand" (de Fontenay 48, 49), for instance. But the point I want to emphasize here is that labor for Marx is not a "thing," such as the body or the physical activity of individuals. Although Marx makes labor the "essence of man" (Theses on Feuerbach 619) he clarifies that this is not in the sense of "an abstraction inherent in each single individual" (619), as the purposive actor found in Aristotle's writings for example, or the conception of "society as the subject" (The German Ideology 59) found in Hegel, for instance 3. For Marx, labor is "the ensemble of social relations" (619). It is this that distinguishes humans from animals: Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence... This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the reproduction of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production. (The German Ideology 37) Marx contrasts labor with both the purposive concrete activity of individuals (what he calls "work"), the homo-economicus of bourgeois political economy, as well as the animal life-activity required by all species for their immediate physical survival. Cheah's failure to understand Marx's labor theory, which attributes to Marx the very bourgeois ideology he in fact opposes, is not simply a cognitive failure on his part, however, because it represents a mystification of labor as physical "work" that is typical of "the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities" (Marx Capital 164) that Marx's labor theory critiques so as to produce a materialist understanding of the social totality. The fetish of the vital body that negates matter that Cheah attributes to Marx is in actuality the object of Marx's critique of bourgeois political economy, which, as he demonstrates, fails in theory to get beyond the limits imposed by the capitalist mode of production in practice. The fetish of labor as concrete physical work in bourgeois theory is an ideological reflection of the actual reduction of the life-activity of human beings to animal life activity undertaken for mere survival (wage-labor). Marx of course recognizes that, "the life of the species, both in man and in animals, consists physically in the fact that man (like the animal) lives on organic nature" (Economic Manuscripts 67). This physical life-activity or reproductive activity is what for Marx defines a "species-being". The difference between the life-activity of the human species (labor) from that of other animals, however, is that it produces a surplus over and above what is required for immediate physical existence and in the process transforms the environment, and thereby, not only transforms humanity but also all life on Earth. It is this all-round transformative life activity of the human species that Marx calls "labor" in distinction to "work". Finally, it is because of labor that humans can in turn be distinguished from other animals by their "consciousness": The animal is immediately one with its life activity. It does not distinguish itself from it. It is its life activity. Man makes his life activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness. He has conscious life activity. It is not a determination with which he directly merges. Conscious life activity distinguishes man immediately from animal life activity. (Economic Manuscripts 68) The "wholly other" that arises out of techno-mediated culture which Cheah thinks constitutes an ethical subjectivity in the daily that disrupts Marx's theory of labor as an organizational basis for social change is simply a mystification of the way human life-activity is dominated by capital and undertaken merely to profit a few over meeting people's all-round needs, including the need to live in a safe and healthy environment. In this way, by only seeing in labor the alienated capitalist form of it (work), Cheah naturalizes the exploitation of labor at the center of capitalism. In doing so he cannot accept the dialectical self-negation of the working class as a class-in-itself—that is required to submit to being exploited in order to live—into a revolutionary class-for-itself—that must of material necessity become conscious of its alienation from its own life-activity and thereby undertakes to emancipate itself from the regime of wage-labor. He therefore mystifies agency as a mysterious movement of the "wholly other" and thus helps maintain bourgeois rule. 5 -THE DETERMINISM OF CAPITAL IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTRUMENTALIZATION OF ALL LIFE—IT IS THIS LOGIC THAT MOBILIZES AND ALLOWS FOR THE OPPRESSIONS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE 1AC 6 -DYER-WITHERFORD (professor of Library and Info. Sciences at the U of Western Ontario) 1999 7 -Nick. Cyber Marx: Cycles and Circuits of Struggle in High Technology Capitalism. 8 -For capitalism, the use of machines as organs of “will over nature” is an imperative. The great insight of the Frankfurt School—an insight subsequently improved and amplified by feminists and ecologists—was that capital’s dual project of dominating both humanity and nature was intimately tied to the cultivation of “instrumental reason” that systematically objectifies, reduces, quantifies and fragments the world for the purposes of technological control. Business’s systemic need to cheapen labor, cut the costs of raw materials, and expand consumer markets gives it an inherent bias toward the piling-up of technological power. This priority—enshrined in phrases such as “progress,” “efficiency,” “productivity,” “modernization,” and “growth”—assumes an automatism that is used to override any objection or alternative, regardless of the environmental and social consequences. Today, we witness global vistas of toxification, deforestation, desertification, dying oceans, disappearing ozone layers, and disintegrating immune systems, all interacting in ways that perhaps threaten the very existence of humanity and are undeniably inflicting social collapse, disease, and immiseration across the planet. The degree to which this project of mastery has backfired is all too obvious. 9 - 10 -Vote negative to endorse a structural historical analysis of the material conditions underlying nuclear energy 11 -METHOD IS THE FOREMOST POLITICAL QUESTION—GROUNDING SITES OF POLITICAL CONTESTATION OUTSIDE OF LABOR MERELY SERVE TO HUMANIZE CAPITAL AND PREVENT A TRANSITION TO A SOCIETY BEYOND OPPRESSION 12 -TUMINO (Prof. English @ Pitt) 2001 13 -Stephen, “What is Orthodox Marxism and Why it Matters Now More than Ever”, Red Critique, p. online //wyo-tjc 14 - Any effective political theory will have to do at least two things: it will have to offer an integrated understanding of social practices and, based on such an interrelated knowledge, offer a guideline for praxis. My main argument here is that among all contesting social theories now, only Orthodox Marxism has been able to produce an integrated knowledge of the existing social totality and provide lines of praxis that will lead to building a society free from necessity. But first I must clarify what I mean by Orthodox Marxism. Like all other modes and forms of political theory, the very theoretical identity of Orthodox Marxism is itself contested—not just from non-and anti-Marxists who question the very "real" (by which they mean the "practical" as under free-market criteria) existence of any kind of Marxism now but, perhaps more tellingly, from within the Marxist tradition itself. I will, therefore, first say what I regard to be the distinguishing marks of Orthodox Marxism and then outline a short polemical map of contestation over Orthodox Marxism within the Marxist theories now. I will end by arguing for its effectivity in bringing about a new society based not on human rights but on freedom from necessity. I will argue that to know contemporary society—and to be able to act on such knowledge—one has to first of all know what makes the existing social totality. I will argue that the dominant social totality is based on inequality—not just inequality of power but inequality of economic access (which then determines access to health care, education, housing, diet, transportation, . . . ). This systematic inequality cannot be explained by gender, race, sexuality, disability, ethnicity, or nationality. These are all secondary contradictions and are all determined by the fundamental contradiction of capitalism which is inscribed in the relation of capital and labor. All modes of Marxism now explain social inequalities primarily on the basis of these secondary contradictions and in doing so—and this is my main argument—legitimate capitalism. Why? Because such arguments authorize capitalism without gender, race, discrimination and thus accept economic inequality as an integral part of human societies. They accept a sunny capitalism—a capitalism beyond capitalism. Such a society, based on cultural equality but economic inequality, has always been the not-so-hidden agenda of the bourgeois left—whether it has been called "new left," "postmarxism," or "radical democracy." This is, by the way, the main reason for its popularity in the culture industry—from the academy (Jameson, Harvey, Haraway, Butler,. . . ) to daily politics (Michael Harrington, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson,. . . ) to. . . . For all, capitalism is here to stay and the best that can be done is to make its cruelties more tolerable, more humane. This humanization (not eradication) of capitalism is the sole goal of ALL contemporary lefts (marxism, feminism, anti-racism, queeries, . . . ). Such an understanding of social inequality is based on the fundamental understanding that the source of wealth is human knowledge and not human labor. That is, wealth is produced by the human mind and is thus free from the actual objective conditions that shape the historical relations of labor and capital. Only Orthodox Marxism recognizes the historicity of labor and its primacy as the source of all human wealth. In this paper I argue that any emancipatory theory has to be founded on recognition of the priority of Marx's labor theory of value and not repeat the technological determinism of corporate theory ("knowledge work") that masquerades as social theory. 15 - 16 -Hauntology treats revolution as spectral and not material~-~--even if that’s useful in the abstract, it’s inaccessible to the masses~-~--means they abjure universal revolution against class 17 -Miller, ND 18 -(Nchamah Miller. “Hauntology and History in Jacques Derrida’s Spectres of Marx” http://www.nodo50.org/cubasigloXXI/taller/miller_100304.pdf) Henge 19 -Derrida is intent on deconstructing the dichotomy of bourgeois and proletariat class relations and what he considers its limiting essentializing discourse. However, Derrida does not give us an alternative vantage point for critical analysis (apart from stating that there are ghosts and spectres all over the place) through a new political articulation for social disparities produced by economic and political inequality. Instead Derrida implies a new antinomy – spectres and proletariat. I argue that if Marx had not articulated class antagonisms in the terms that he did, given the limitations of language which Derrida concedes, how else could he (Marx) have articulated this part of his radical social critique? The ghost of the bourgeois in the worker, spirit of the worker in the bourgeois? Why not their blood types as type “O” flows in both their veins? That cuts across all gender, racial, ethnic, age and disability borders, which the neutrality of spectralization effaces. The fact is that Marx detected the unemployed beggar (she or he, young or old, disabled or not) knows the difference, and, Marx given the prevalence of unemployed beggars, employed living in dire poverty, wanted to seek the socio-politicoeconomic causes of this phenomenon, not its spirits or spectres. In Derrida’s defence, he shares Marx’s commitment to a determined effort to question the world of appearances. Derrida questions the synchronicity of time and history; he has the benefit of being of a generation post the relativity of science55. His indeterminateness allows him to move anachronously and uncommitted, he can at any time plead the spectral ‘amendment.’ For Derrida everything is spectral because he argues nothing is fully present, unlike Marx who argues for emergence of presence and co-existence. . I conclude Marx clearly hopes the proletariat will progress from being a spectre to being a real revolutionary force, but this does not require that the proletariat must be fully present in Derrida’s metaphysical sense. Since Derrida’s future is ephemeral and evanescent he does not contemplate that the spectral can become a reality. It is precisely this contention that limits hauntology and hardly marks it as an over-determining category. Marx, on the other hand, contemplates co-existence and the emergence of new “spectres” to reinforce the real content of the revolution, as opposed to being withheld by the traps of old modes of thoughts and action. I believe the reason Marx rejects the synchronicity of a Hegelian essential section lies in the acuity of his perception of “relative autonomous practices” which develop unevenly, a-synchronically while overdetermining each other.56 I believe it more plausible to contemplate these overdeterminations of co-existents and emerging or diminishing forces as opposed to Derrida’s version of over-determination through spectralized absences. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-15 16:19:12.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Paramo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -16 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -SEPTOCT- Hauntology Cap K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marks
- Caselist.CitesClass[33]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,14 +1,0 @@ 1 -The Revolution is being televised and has begun to sacrifice all possibilities of freedom. We are left out in the open. Big brother has his eyes on the revolution the only way to succeed is to turn the TV. Recent events of the protests from Baltimore to Ferguson being televised show that being on the streets and out in the open are too dangerous we cannot tell our ideas and concepts to escape the gaze in public. 2 -Reject the aff’s call for free speech and protest. These calls of disruptions cannot be done out loud in the open inside of public spaces like colleges. A corrupted society will only use that information to co-opt and destroy radical political movements. There is no freedom over the intercom. 3 -Tuck and Yang ’14 (Tuck, E. and Yang, K.W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris and M. T. Winn (Eds.) Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 223-248). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.) 4 - Paula Gunn Allen (1998) notes that for many Indigenous peoples, “a person is expected to know no more than is necessary, sufficient and congruent with their spiritual and social place” (p. 56). To apply this idea to the production of social science research, we might think of this as a differentiation between what is made public and what is kept sacred. Not everything, or even most things, uncovered in a research process need to be reported in academic journals or settings. Contrasting Indigenous relationships to knowledge with settler relationships to knowledge, Gunn Allen remarks, In the white world, information is to be saved and analyzed at all costs. It is not seen as residing in the minds and molecules of human beings, but as—dare I say it?— transcendent. Civilization and its attendant virtues of freedom and primacy depend on the accessibility of millions of megabytes of data; no matter that the data has lost its meaning by virtue of loss of its human context . . . the white world has a different set of values from the Indigenous world, one which requires learning all and telling all in the interests of knowledge, objectivity, and freedom. This ethos and its obverse—a nearly neurotic distress in the presence of secrets and mystery—underlie much of modern American culture (p. 59) As social science researchers, there are stories that are entrusted to us, stories that are told to us because research is a human activity, and we make meaningful relationships with participants in our work. At times we come to individuals and communities with promises of proper procedure and confidentiality-anonymity in hand, and are told, “Oh, we’re not worried about that; we trust you!” Or, “You don’t need to tell us all that; we know you will do the right thing by us.” they continue There are also stories that we overhear, because when our research is going well, we are really in peoples’ lives. Though it is tempting, and though it would be easy to do so, these stories are not simply y/ours to take. In our work, we come across stories, vignettes, moments, turns of phrase, pauses, that would humiliate participants to share, or are too sensationalist to publish. Novice researchers in doctoral and master’s programs are often encouraged to do research on what or who is most available to them. People who are underrepresented in the academy by social location—race or ethnicity, indigeneity, class, gender, sexuality, or ability—frequently experience a pressure to become the n/ Native informant, and might begin to suspect that some members of the academy perceive them as a route of easy access to communities that have so far largely eluded researchers. Doctoral programs, dissertations, and the master’s thesis process tacitly encourage novice researchers to reach for low-hanging fruit. These are stories and data that require little effort—and what we know from years and years of academic colonialism is that it is easy to do research on people in pain. That kind of voyeurism practically writes itself. “Just get the dissertation or thesis finished,” novice researchers are told. The theorem of lowhanging fruit stands for pretenured faculty too: “Just publish, just produce; research in the way you want to after tenure, later.” This is how the academy reproduces its own irrepressible irresponsibility. Adding to the complexity, many of us also bring to our work in the academy our family and community legacies of having been researched. As the researched, we carry stories from grandmothers’ laps and breaths, from below deck, from on the run, from inside closets, from exclaves. We carry the proof of oppression on our backs, under our fingernails; and we carry the proof of our survivance (Vizenor, 2008) in our photo boxes, our calluses, our wombs, our dreams. These stories, too, are not always ours to give away, though they are sometimes the very us of us. It needs to be said that we are not arguing for silence. Stories are meant to be passed along appropriay, especially among loved ones, but not all of them as social science research. Although such knowledge is often a source of wisdom that informs the perspectives in our writing, we do not intend to share them as social science research. It is enough that we know them. 5 -The alternative is to maintain the movement is to keep mouths shut. When we keep the radical politics within the community we prevent white society from destroying our political movement. Vote negative to maintain the secrecy of the movement. 6 -Tuck and Yang ’14 (Tuck, E. and Yang, K.W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris and M. T. Winn (Eds.) Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities (pp. 223-248). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.) 77 7 -261There are three concurrent dimensions of refusal in Simpson’s analysis—in Simpson’s words, her ethnography “pivoted upon refusal(s)” (p. 73). The first dimension is engaged by the interviewee, who refuses to disclose further details: “I don’t know what you know, or what others know . . . no-one seems to know.” The second dimension is enacted by Simpson herself, who refuses to write on the personal pain and internal politics of citizenship. “No one seems to know” was laced through much of my informant’s discussion of C-31, and of his own predicament—which I knew he spoke of indirectly, because I knew his predicament. And I also knew everyone knew, because everyone knows everyone’s “predicament.” This was the collective “limit”—that of knowledge and thus who we could or would not claim. So it was very interesting to me that he would tell me that “he did not know” and “no one seems to know”—to me these utterances meant, “I know you know, and you know that I know I know . . . so let’s just not get into this.” Or, “let’s just not say.” So I did not say, and so I did not “get into it” with him, and I won’t get into it with my readers. What I am quiet about is his predicament and my predicament and the actual stuff (the math, the clans, the mess, the misrecognitions, the confusion and the clarity)—the calculus of our predicaments. (p. 77) The interviewee performs refusal by speaking in pointedly chosen phrases to indicate a shared/common knowledge, but also an unwillingness to say more, to demarcate the limits of what might be made public, or explicit. The second dimension of refusal is in the researcher’s (Simpson’s) accounting of the exchange, in which she installs limits on the intelligibility of what was at work, what was said and not said, for her readers. Simpson tells us, “In listening and shutting off the tape recorder, in situating each subject within their own shifting historical context of the present, these refusals speak volumes, because they tell us when to stop,” (p. 78). In short, researcher and researched refuse to fulfill the ethnographic want for a speaking subaltern. Both of these refusals reflect and constitute a third dimension—a more general anticoloniality and insistence of sovereignty by the Kahnawake Nation—and for many, a refusal to engage the logic of settler colonialism at all. 8 -Opacity is a necessary strategy to resolve the aff by interrupting the economy of knowledge that justifies violence against the colonized – the aff just reproduces violence and makes the infiltration they decry more likely 9 -Walker in 11 - Ph.D., The College of William and Mary, former Chair of the Department of Africana Studies at Brown University Corey. “How Does It Feel to be a Problem?': (Local) Knowledge, Human Interests, and The Ethics of Opacity” Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic World, 1(2) 10 -The ethics of opacity presents “more than an accusation regarding the actions and behavior of the oppressive cultures; it goes to the heart of the issue. It is an accusation regarding the world view, thought structures, theory of knowledge, and so on, of the oppressors. The accusation is not simply of bad acts but, more importantly, of bad faith and bad knowledge.”23 An ethics of opacity is thus defined by its critical orientation to liberation as articulated by and with the opaque ones. It is a critical intellectual posture that disrupts the dominant logic of coloniality/modernity in exploring the hidden and unknown, the repressed and submerged narratives, histories, and epistemologies – the sites of opacity that are the conditions of im/possibility of the contemporary world. Such an ethic is available because, as Long writes, “the strategies of obscuring these peoples and cultures within the taxonomies of the disciplines of anthropology as primitives or the classification of them as sociological pathologies is no longer possible” (211). The ethics of opacity helps to structure our ability “to effect the deconstruction of the mechanisms by means of which we continue to make opaque to ourselves, attributing the origin of our societies to imaginary beings, whether the ancestors, the gods, God, or evolution, and natural selection, the reality of our own agency with respect to the programming and reprogramming of our desires, our behaviors, our minds, ourselves, the I and the we.”24 Such a move has significant implications for “reimagining our forms of life” and opens up potentially emancipatory possibilities for a critical theory of knowledge in the interests of those on the underside of modernity (204). In a crucial sense, it is the emergence and existence of the opaque ones that conditions the im/possibility of the project of Enlightenment rationality. Long states, “As stepchildren of Western culture, the oppressed have affirmed and opposed the ideal of the Enlightenment and post- Enlightenment worlds. But in the midst of this ambiguity, for better or for worse, their experiences were rooted in the absurd meaning of their bodies, and it was for these bodies that they were regarded not only as valuable works but also as the locus of the ideologies that justified their enslavement . . . . The totalization of all the great ideals of Western universalization met with the factual symbol of these oppressed ones.”25 The infinite meaning and depth of the “factual symbol of these oppressed ones” is the location of ethics of opacity and in turn structures the relation to epistemology. Indeed, highlighting the relation of ethics and epistemology thus becomes a critical process that cannot be evaded. The disruption produced by the ethics of opacity suggests the primacy of method of procedure as opposed to the fundamental question of ontology for the project of critical theory in the interests of humanity.26 To this end, such an ethical imperative interrupts the imperial/colonial economy of knowledge that privileges a conceptualization of knowledge that conquers through a commitment to clarity of content and transparency of method. 11 - 12 -That means their discursive challenge within academic forums like debate is only absorbed and masked by power, turning higher education into a graveyard filled with the bodies of countless victims. 13 -Occupied UC Berkeley. “The Necrosocial: Civic Life, Social Death, and the UC.” Anti-Capital Projects. 11-18-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/the-necrosocial/ 14 -Totally managed death. A machine for administering death, for the proliferation of technologies of death. As elsewhere, things rule. Dead objects rule. In this sense, it matters little what face one puts on the university—whether Yudof or some other lackey. These are merely the personifications of the rule of the dead, the pools of investments, the buildings, the flows of materials into and out of the physical space of the university—each one the product of some exploitation—which seek to absorb more of our work, more tuition, more energy. The university is a machine which wants to grow, to accumulate, to expand, to absorb more and more of the living into its peculiar and perverse machinery: high-tech research centers, new stadiums and office complexes. And at this critical juncture the only way it can continue to grow is by more intense exploitation, higher tuition, austerity measures for the departments that fail to pass the test of ‘relevancy.’ But the ‘irrelevant’ departments also have their place. With their ‘pure’ motives of knowledge for its own sake, they perpetuate the blind inertia of meaning ostensibly detached from its social context. As the university cultivates its cozy relationship with capital, war and power, these discourses and research programs play their own role, co-opting and containing radical potential. And so we attend lecture after lecture about how ‘discourse’ produces ‘subjects,’ ignoring the most obvious fact that we ourselves are produced by this discourse about discourse which leaves us believing that it is only words which matter, words about words which matter. The university gladly permits the precautionary lectures on biopower; on the production of race and gender; on the reification and the fetishization of commodities. A taste of the poison serves well to inoculate us against any confrontational radicalism. And all the while power weaves the invisible nets which contain and neutralize all thought and action, that bind revolution inside books, lecture halls. There is no need to speak truth to power when power already speaks the truth. The university is a graveyard. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-17 17:08:18.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Steele - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brentwood JD - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -17 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB- Mouths Shut K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -CPS
- Caselist.CitesClass[34]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,10 +1,0 @@ 1 -International law banned hate speech 2 -Matsuda 89 Mari J. Matsuda (Associate Professor of Law, University of Hawaii, the William S. Richardson School of Law), "Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story," Michigan Law Review, 1989 HW 3 -The international community ...of eliminating discrimination. 4 -US adherence to international law concerning hate speech is key to credibility in international human rights 5 -Cohen 15 Tanya Cohen, "It’s Time To Bring The Hammer Down On Hate Speech In The U.S." Thought Catalog, 5/1/2015 HW 6 -Recent scandals involving ...the world is. 7 - 8 -International credibility solves multiple scenarios for extinction and is the internal link intno militarism since it prevents conflicts and wars between countries. 9 -Nye and Armitage 07 10 -Soft power is ... will to fight. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-19 03:06:05.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xxx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brentwood WJ - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -18 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB- Ilaw DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -CPS
- Caselist.CitesClass[35]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,17 +1,0 @@ 1 --If the affirmative parametricizes the resolution and does not defend generic links to the whole resolution, then they must disclose the plan text of the aff they are reading on the NDCA case wiki at least half an hour before the round or when pairings come out. 2 --Debaters who claim the negative must defend the “converse” of the resolution must clarify, in the form of a text in the AC, a list of possible violations of the interp. 3 --the Affirmative must only include paradigmatic theory spikes in the AC, meaning reasons why theory is drop the arg/debater, competing interps/reasonability, and RVI’s, or meta theory arguments pertaining to the theory debate, not substance unless those spikes are disclosed at least 15 min before the round. 4 --All debate positions must only contain secular arguments, or arguments that are not warranted by religious beliefs, UNLESS the debater presenting the position receives consent from the audience, judge(s), and opponent before the round. 5 --aff should disclose bidirectional 1ar theory interps that they want the negative to meet 6 --rob's must have an explicit weighing text and must be disclosed at least 15 min before the round1. Clarify how we determine what a legitimate advocacy is and how offense links back to the role of the ballot, such as whether topicality constrains the aff advocacy or not. 7 -2. Every plank of the ROB must be warranted, just like the standard text for a normative ethical theory, and what area of debate must be warranted i.e. which assumptions we should accept and which we shouldn’t. 8 -3. Clarify what theoretical objections do and do not link to the aff, and whether or not the aff comes before theory. 9 -4. Describe how to weigh and compare between competing advocacies i.e. whether the role of the ballot is solely determined by the flow or another method of engagement. 10 --the affirmative must defend the specific implementation of a policy 11 --all 1AR interps that pertain to some action that must be taken by the negative in or out of round must be disclosed on the opponents wiki at least 15 min prior to the round. 12 --the affirmative must must disclose burden structure 13 --debaters may not read descriptive standards 14 -A. If a debater inserts brackets in their evidence in order to change one or more words, they must right before or after reading the evidence, during the speech, indicate orally that the evidence is bracketed by saying “This evidence is bracketed” or something to that extent. 15 -A. must disclose burden structure 16 -A. may not read descriptive standards 17 -A. must have an advocacy text which minimally specifies both the actors and the actions or mindsets which they are adopting as a solvency mechanism. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-10 05:08:22.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xx - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -20 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0-Read Me - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Loyola
- Caselist.CitesClass[36]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -If you want to get in touch with me or have a question about anything I have disclosed, message me on Facebook under my name or email me at nuravxyz@gmail.com - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-10 05:08:23.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xx - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -20 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0-Contact Info - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Loyola
- Caselist.CitesClass[37]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,29 +1,0 @@ 1 -Their view of “free speech” presumes the ability to speek freely which ignores the material realities of capitalism—that simply reintrenches dominant power structures 2 -Anarchist Library 15: The Anarchist Library. Collection of various political writers. All authors are on the website. “Not just free speech, but freedom itself.” A Critique of Civil Liberties. July 7, 2015. Published originally in the ninth issue ofRolling Thunder magazine; republished in the zine The Divorce of Thought from Deed: Social Conflict, White Supremacy, and Free Speech at UNC-Chapel Hill by the North Carolina Piece Corps. 3 - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/not-just-free-speech-but-freedom-itself. RW 4 - 5 -“Despite the radical roots of organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union that advocate for state protection of free expression, this form of civil liberties empties the defense of free speech of any radical content, implying that only the state can properly guarantee our ability to express ourselves freely and thus reinforcing the power of the state above the right to free speech itself.” Across the years, anarchists have defended freedom of speech. This is important in principle: in an anarchist vision of society, neither the state or any other entity should be able to determine what we can and cannot say. It’s also important in practice: as a revolutionary minority frequently targeted for repression, we’ve consistently had our speeches, newspapers, websites, and marches attacked.But Extreme right and fascist organizations have jumped onto the free speech bandwagon as well. In the US, Anti-Racist Action and similar groups have been largely effective in disrupting their events and organizing efforts. Consequently, fascists now increasingly rely on the state to protect them, claiming that racist, anti-immigrant, and anti-gay organizing constitutes a form of legally protected speech—and within the framework of the ACLU, it does. Fascist groups that are prevented from publishing their material in most other industrialized democracies by laws restricting hate speech frequently publish it in the United States, where no such laws exist, and distribute it worldwide from here. So in practice, state protection of the right to free expression aids fascist organizing. 6 - 7 -The very notion of a right to free speech is capitalist—things like the “marketplace of ideas” equate a monetary value to individual expression—that reifies biopolitical control of the state 8 -Anarchist Library 15: The Anarchist Library. Collection of various political writers. All authors are on the website. “Not just free speech, but freedom itself.” A Critique of Civil Liberties. July 7, 2015. Published originally in the ninth issue ofRolling Thunder magazine; republished in the zine The Divorce of Thought from Deed: Social Conflict, White Supremacy, and Free Speech at UNC-Chapel Hill by the North Carolina Piece Corps. 9 - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/not-just-free-speech-but-freedom-itself. RW 10 - 11 -In the US, where donations to political candidates legally constitute speech, the more money you have, the more “free speech” you can exercise. As the slogan goes, freedom isn’t free—and nowhere is that clearer than with speech. Contrary to the propaganda of democracy, ideas alone have no intrinsic force. Our capacity to act on our beliefs, not just to express them, determines how much power we have. In this sense, the “marketplace of ideas” metaphor is strikingly apt: you need capital to participate, and the more you have, the greater your ability to enact the ideas you buy into. Just as the success of a few entrepreneurs and superstars is held up as proof that the free market rewards hard work and ingenuity, the myth of the marketplace of ideas suggests that the capitalist system persists because everyone—billionaire and bellboy alike—agrees it is the best idea. 12 - 13 -Their reform within the current system reifies capitalism. 14 -Slavoj Zizek 2, professor of philosophy at the Institute for Sociology, Ljubljana, Revolution at the Gates, 2002, pg 167-172 15 -Indded, since the “normal” functioning of capitalism involves some kind of disavowal of the basic principle of its functioning (today’s model capitalist is someone who, after ruthlessly generating profit, then generously shares parts of it, giving large donations to churches, victims of ethnic or sexual abuse, etc., posing as a humanitarian), the ultimate act of transgression is to assert this principle directly, depriving it of its humanitarian mask. I am therefore tempted to reverse Marx’s Thesis 11: the first task today is precisely not to succumb to the temptation to act, to intervene directly and change things (which then inevitably ends in a cul-de-sac of debilitating impossibility: “What can we do against global capital?”), but to question the hegemonic ideological co-ordinates. In short, our historical moment is still that of Adorno: To the question “What should we do?” I can most often truly answer only with “I don’t know.” I can only try to analyse rigorously what there is. Here people reproach me: When you practise criticism, you are also obliged to say how one should make it better. To my mind, this is incontrovertibly a bourgeois preiudice. Many times in history it so happened that the very works which pursued purely theoretical goals transformed consciousness, and thereby also social reality. If, today, we follow a direct call to act, this act will not be performed in an empty space — it will be an act within the hegemonic ideological coordinates: those who “really want to do something to help people” get involved in (undoubtedly honourable) exploits like Mediecins sans frontieres, Greenpeace, feminist and anti-racist campaigns, which are all not only tolerated but even supported by the media, even if they seemingly encroach on economic territory (for example, denouncing and boycotting companies which do not respect ecological conditions, or use child labour) — they are tolerated and supported as long as they do not get too close to a certain limit. This kind of activity provides the perfect example of interpassivity: of doing things not in order to achieve something, but to prevent something from really happening, really changing. 16 - 17 -That trades off with revolutionary politics—the state justifies a right to “say anything, so long as you don’t do anything” 18 - 19 -Anarchist Library 15: The Anarchist Library. Collection of various political writers. All authors are on the website. “Not just free speech, but freedom itself.” A Critique of Civil Liberties. July 7, 2015. Published originally in the ninth issue ofRolling Thunder magazine; republished in the zine The Divorce of Thought from Deed: Social Conflict, White Supremacy, and Free Speech at UNC-Chapel Hill by the North Carolina Piece Corps. 20 - https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/not-just-free-speech-but-freedom-itself. RW 21 - 22 -But what if, despite the skewed playing field, someone manages to say something that threatens to destabilize the power structure? If history is any indication, it swiftly turns out that freedom of expression is not such a sacrosanct right after all. In practice, we are permitted free speech only insofar as expressing our views changes nothing. The premise that speech alone cannot be harmful implies that speech is precisely that which is ineffectual: therefore anything effectual is not included among one’s rights. During World War I, the Espionage Act criminalized any attempt to “cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty” or to obstruct recruiting for the armed forces. President Woodrow Wilson urged the bill’s passage because he believed antiwar activity could undermine the US war effort. Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman were arrested under this law for printing anarchist literature that opposed the war. Likewise, the Anarchist Exclusion Act and the subsequent Immigration Act were used to deport or deny entry to any immigrant “who disbelieves in or who is opposed to all organized government.” Berkman, Goldman, and hundreds of other anarchists were deported under these acts. There are countless other examples showing that when speech can threaten the foundation of state power, even the most democratic government doesn’t hesitate to suppress it. Thus, when the state presents itself as the defender of free speech, we can be sure that this is because our rulers believe that allowing criticism will strengthen their position more than suppressing it could. Liberal philosopher and ACLU member Thomas Emerson saw that freedom of speech “can act as a kind of ‘safety valve’ to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution.” Therein lies the true purpose of the right to free speech in the US. 23 - 24 -1. Class focus must come first – it is the root cause of all oppression and turns case because it creates poverty and exploitation in the first place. Kovel 07, 25 -Kovel, Prof. of Social Studies @ Bard, 2007 Joel, “The Enemy of Nature”, p. 140- 26 -If, however, we ask the question of efficacy, that is, which split sets the others into motion, then priority would have to be given to class, for the plain reason that class relations entail the state as an instrument of enforcement and control, and it is the state that shapes and organizes the splits that appear in human ecosystems. Thus class is both logically and historically distinct from other forms of exclusion (hence we should not talk of "classism" to go along with "sexism" and "racism," and "species-ism"). This is, first of all, because class is an essentially man-made category, without root in even a mystified biology. We cannot, in other words, imagine a human world without gender distinctions - although we can imagine a world without domination by gender. But a world without class is eminently imaginable - indeed, such was the human world for the great majority of our species' time on earth, during all of which considerable fuss was made over gender. Historically, the difference arises because "class" signifies one side of a larger figure that includes a state apparatus whose conquests and regulations create races and shape gender relations. Thus there will be no true resolution of racism so long as class society stands, inasmuch as a racially oppressed society implies the activities of a class-defending state." Nor can gender inequality be legislated away so long as class society, with its state, demands the super-exploitation of woman's labor. Class society continually generates gender, racial, ethnic oppressions, and the like, which take on a life of their own, as well as profoundly affecting the concrete relations of class itself. It follows that class politics must be fought out in terms of all the active forms of social splitting. It is the management of these divisions that keeps state society functional. Thus though each person in a class society is reduced from what s/he can become, the varied reductions can be combined into the great stratified regimes of history - this one becoming a fierce warrior, that one a routine-loving clerk, another a submissive seamstress, and so on, until we reach today's personifications of capital and captains of industry. Yet no matter how functional a class society, the profundity of its ecological violence ensures a basic antagonism which drives history onward. History is the history of class society - because no matter how modified, so powerful a schism is bound to work itself through to the surface, provoke resistance (i.e. "class struggle"), and lead to the succession of powers. The relation of class can be mystified without end - only consider the extent to which religion exists for just this purpose, or watch a show glorifying the police on television - yet so long as we have any respect for human nature, we must recognize that so fundamental an antagonism as would steal the vital force of one person for the enrichment of another cannot be conjured away. The state is what steps forward to manage this conflict so that the ruling class gets its way without causing society to fly apart. It is the state's province to deal with class contradiction as it works itself out in numberless ways - to build its armies and use them in conquest (thereby reinforcing patriarchal and violent values), to codify property, to set forth laws to punish those who would transgress property relations, and to regulate contracts, and debts between individuals who play by the rules, to institutionalize police, courts and prisons to back up those laws, or to certify what is proper and right in the education of the young, or the marriage of the sexes, or establish the religions that justify God's ways to mere man, or to institutionalize science and education - in sum, to regulate and enforce the class structure, and to channel the flux of history in the direction of the elites. The state institutionalizes patriarchy as well as class, and hence maintains the societal ground for the gendered bifurcation of nature. Furthermore, inasmuch as the modern state is also a nation-state, it employs the attachment of a people to its land as a source of legitimation, and thus incorporates the history of nature into myths of wholeness and integrity. All aspects of the domination of nature are in fact woven into the fabric by means of which the state holds society together, from which it follows that to give coherence to this narrative and make a difference in it, we have to attend to the state and its ultimate dependence upon maintaining the class structure. All of this is to play a basic role in the unfolding of contemporary ecological struggles, as we discuss in the next section. 27 -The alternative is a radical rejection of capitalism. Rejecting capitalism is the first step—a refusal to believe in the system can topple empires. Monbiot 04, 28 -Monbiot, 04 (George Monbiot, Professor of Philosophy at Bristol and Professor of Politics at Keele. Author, columnist, and political activist. “Manifesto for a New World Order.” p. 249) 29 -It costs nothing to agree that something should be done; indeed people like us have been accepting this proposition for decades, and waiting for someone else to act on it. Constitutional change will begin only when we reach the more dangerous conclusion that 'I must act'. There have been many occasions over the past few years on which we have won the argument and lost the war. The campaigners who have exposed the injustices of the current global system often succeed in generating a widespread demand for change, and just as often discover that this demand has no outlet. Our opinions, in these circumstances, count for nothing until we act upon them. Until we present a direct constitutional challenge to its survival, or, through such measures as a threatened conditional default, alter the circumstances in which it operates, those who maintain the dictatorship of vested interests will read what we write and listen to what we say without the slightest sense of danger. In 16-19, after recoiling from the satisfaction he felt upon completing one of his revolutionary pamphlets, Gerrard Winstanley noted 'my mind was not at rest, because nothing was acted, and ... words and writings were all nothing. and must die, for action is the life of all, and if thou dost not act, thou dost nothing'. This manifesto, and all the publications like it, is worthless unless it provokes people to action. There are several reasons why we do not act. In most cases, the personal risk involved in the early stages of struggle outweighs the potential material benefit. Those who catalyse revolution are seldom the people who profit from it. In this struggle, most of us are not yet directly confronting armed force (though this may well change as we become effective), so the risks to which we expose ourselves and our families are, as yet, slighter than those encountered by other revolutionaries. Nor, of course, are the potential benefits of resistance as obvious, for those activists who live in the rich world, as the benefits of overthrowing Nazi occupation or deposing an indigenous tyrant, or breaking away from a formally constituted empire. While most of the people of the poor world have an acute need to change the circumstances which govern the way they live, the problems the protesters in rich nations contest belong to the second order of concern: we are not confronted by imminent starvation or death through waterborne disease, but by distant wars, economic instability, climate change and the exhaustion of resources; issues which seldom present immediate threats to our survival. But while the proposals in this manifesto offer little by way of material self-advancement to activists in the rich world, there is, in collective revolutionary action, something which appears to be missing from almost every other enterprise in modern secular life. It arises, I think, from the , intensity of the relationships forged in a collective purpose concentrated by adversity. It is the exultation which Christians call 'joy', but which, in the dry discourse of secular politics, has no recognized equivalent. It is the drug for which, once sampled, you will pay any price. All those with agency are confronted by a choice. We can use that agency to secure comfortable existence. We can for ourselves a safe and use our life, that one unrepeatable product of four billion years of serendipity and evolution, to earn a little more, to save a little more, to win the approval of our bosses and the envy of our neighbours. We can place upon our walls those tombstones which the living erect to themselves: the framed certificates of their acceptance into what Erich Fromm has called the 'necrophiliac' world of wealth and power. We can, quite rationally, subordinate our desire for liberty to our desire for security. Or we can use our agency to change the world, and, in changing it, to change ourselves. We will die and be forgotten with no less certainty than those who sought to fend off death by enhancing their material presence on the earth, but we will live before we die through the extremes of feeling which comfort would deny us. I do not presume to lecture those who have little agency -among them the majority who live in the poor world on how to manage their lives. Over the past five years in many of the countries of the poor world -though this is seldom reported in the West - people have tried to change their circumstances through explosive demonstrations of grief, anger and hope. I have sought, with this manifesto, simply to enhance that hope, by demonstrating that there may be viable alternatives to the systems that subjugate them. But for most of the people of the rich world, and the more prosperous people of the poor world, revolution offers the possibility of freedom from the constraints we impose upon ourselves. Freedom is the ability to act upon our beliefs. It expands, therefore, with the scope of the action we are prepared to contemplate. If we know that we will never act, we have no freedom: we will, for the rest of our lives, do as we are told. Almost everyone has some sense that other people should be treated as she would wish to be. Almost everyone, in other words, has a notion of justice, and for most people this notion, however formulated, sits somewhere close to the heart of their system of beliefs. If we do not act upon this sense of justice, we do not act upon one of our primary beliefs, and our freedom is restricted accordingly. To be truly free, in other words, we must be prepared to contemplate revolution. Another reason why we do not act is that, from the days of our birth, we are immersed in the political situation into which we are born, and as a result we cannot imagine our way through it; we cannot envisage that it will ever come to an end. This is why imagination is the first qualification of the revolutionary. A revolutionary is someone who recognizes the contingency of power. What sustains coercive power is not force of arms, or even capital, but belief. When people cease to believe -to believe in it as they would believe in a god, in its omnipotence, its unassailability and its validity -and when they act upon that belief, an empire can collapse, almost overnight. Those who possess power will surrender it only when they see that the costs -physical or psychological –of retaining it are higher than the costs of losing it. There have been many occasions on which rulers possessed the means of suppressing revolt -the necessary tanks and planes or cannons and cavalry divisions -but chose not to deploy them, because they perceived that the personal effort of retaining power outweighed the effort of relinquishing it. One of the surprises of history is the tendency of some of the most inflexible rulers suddenly to give up, for no evident material reason. They give up because they are tired, so tired that they can no longer sustain the burning purpose required to retain power. They are tired because they have had to struggle against the unbelief of their people, to reassert, through a supreme psychological effort, the validity of their power. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 00:05:03.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Williams, Durrani - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Rowland-St Marks KO - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -21 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB- Cap K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -HWL RR
- Caselist.CitesClass[38]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,12 +1,0 @@ 1 -State cuts have led to a spike in tuition, harming the ability of low income and minority students to enter college. 2 -Mitchell et al 16 (Report published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; authors were Michael Mitchell (State Budget and Tax), Michael Leachman (State Budget and Tax), and Kathleen Masterson, “Funding Down, Tuition Up: State Cuts to Higher Education Threaten Quality and Affordability at Public Colleges”, http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up,) 3 -Years of cuts … and students of color. 4 -Financial aid is necessary to allow students to study full-time and is the only way low-income students can afford to enroll 5 -Johnson 14 (Hans Johnson – supported by the College Access Foundation of California and writing for the Public Policy Institute of California, “Making College Possible for Low-Income Students: Grant and Scholarship Aid in California”, http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1014HJR.pdf, pg. 20-24,) 6 -Students fail to … four-year college. 7 -Title IX forces colleges to either mandate speech codes that can be seen as harassment and violate the constitution or risk lose federal funding 8 -Richardson 16 Bradford Richardson (reporter) Washington Times Http, 5-1-2016, "Title IX ‘harassment’ order seen as free speech threat," Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/1/title-ix-harassment-order-seen-as-free-speech-thre/ 9 -Several free speech …of public institutions. 10 -Financial assistance benefits disadvantage students the most- they increase funds 11 -AAU 9 Association of American Universities, "MYTHS ABOUT COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENTS," January 2009 12 -MYTH: Universities are …waiving application fees. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 23:42:22.686 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Shackleford - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brentwood KR - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -22 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB- Title IX DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -HWL
- Caselist.RoundClass[13]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -23,24,25,26,27
- Caselist.RoundClass[14]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -28 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-10 23:54:59.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Fife, Chapman, Walton - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Servite PA - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Voices
- Caselist.RoundClass[16]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -31,32 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-15 16:18:25.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Paramo - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -x - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marks
- Caselist.RoundClass[17]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -33 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-17 17:08:17.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Steele - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brentwood JD - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -CPS
- Caselist.RoundClass[18]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -34 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-19 03:06:02.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xxx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brentwood WJ - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -CPS
- Caselist.RoundClass[19]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-10 05:07:43.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xx - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Loyola
- Caselist.RoundClass[20]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -35,36 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-10 05:08:21.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -xx - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Loyola
- Caselist.RoundClass[21]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -37 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 00:05:01.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Williams, Durrani - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Rowland-St Marks KO - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -HWL RR
- Caselist.RoundClass[22]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-01-14 23:42:21.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Shackleford - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Brentwood KR - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -HWL
- Caselist.CitesClass[21]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,13 @@ 1 +-If the affirmative parametricizes the resolution and does not defend generic links to the whole resolution, then they must disclose the plan text of the aff they are reading on the NDCA case wiki at least half an hour before the round or when pairings come out. 2 +-Debaters who claim the negative must defend the “converse” of the resolution must clarify, in the form of a text in the AC, a list of possible violations of the interp. 3 +-the Affirmative must only include paradigmatic theory spikes in the AC, meaning reasons why theory is drop the arg/debater, competing interps/reasonability, and RVI’s, or meta theory arguments pertaining to the theory debate, not substance. 4 +-All debate positions must only contain secular arguments, or arguments that are not warranted by religious beliefs, UNLESS the debater presenting the position receives consent from the audience, judge(s), and opponent before the round. 5 +-aff should disclose bidirectional 1ar theory interps that they want the negative to meet 6 +-rob's must have an explicit weighing text and must be disclosed at least 15 min before the round1. Clarify how we determine what a legitimate advocacy is and how offense links back to the role of the ballot, such as whether topicality constrains the aff advocacy or not. 7 +2. Every plank of the ROB must be warranted, just like the standard text for a normative ethical theory, and what area of debate must be warranted i.e. which assumptions we should accept and which we shouldn’t. 8 +3. Clarify what theoretical objections do and do not link to the aff, and whether or not the aff comes before theory. 9 +4. Describe how to weigh and compare between competing advocacies i.e. whether the role of the ballot is solely determined by the flow or another method of engagement. 10 +-the affirmative must defend the specific implementation of a policy 11 +-all 1AR interps that pertain to some action that must be taken by the negative in or out of round must be disclosed on the opponents wiki at least 15 min prior to the round. 12 +-the affirmative must must disclose burden structure 13 +-debaters may not read descriptive standards - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-10 00:48:09.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +xx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +xx - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +12 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0-Read Me - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Loyola
- Caselist.CitesClass[22]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +If you want to get in touch with me or have a question about anything I have disclosed, message me on Facebook under my name or email me at nuravxyz@gmail.com - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-10 00:48:09.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +xx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +xx - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +12 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0-Contact Info - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Loyola
- Caselist.RoundClass[12]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +21,22 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-10-10 00:48:07.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +xx - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +xx - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Loyola