Changes for page Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg
Summary
-
Objects (2 modified, 3 added, 22 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.CitesClass[39]
- Caselist.CitesClass[40]
- Caselist.CitesClass[41]
- 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.RoundClass[23]
- Caselist.RoundClass[24]
- 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 23:42:22.0 - 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.CitesClass[39]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,18 +1,0 @@ 1 -The endpoint of the 1AC is the antiblack status quo – blackness is defined in terms of an ontological structural antagonism with white civil society that is reproduced by any attempt to use existing ideas 2 -Warren 13 3 - 4 -Calvin Warren, Onticide: Toward an Afro-pessimistic Queer Theory" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Studies Association Annual Meeting, 2013. 5 -We could suggest that the term “black queer” dramatizes the fundamental tension in humanism itself, especially contemporary iterations of it: how to eradicate the violence that limits human potential, and expand the category of the human, when the violence rejected is absolutely necessary for the human to exist as such. In other words, humanism is caught in an ethical dilemma, or double-bind. The “emancipatory meditations” against the violence that produces contingent experiences of unfreedom for humans also provides the grounding for the category of the human around which these meditations mobilize. The “human” is a repository of violent practices and technologies that has crystalized over time. The ethical impulse is to resolve the tension within humanism, to wrest the “human” from the historical violence upon which it is founded. This ethical enterprise inevitably fails, for in the end, the human is nothing more than this very violence, rendering violence and the human mutually constitutive and coterminous. The experience of unfreedom (suffering) is the outcome of this violence. Making this suffering legible is the ethical drive of humanist thinking and the objective of a politics invested in “freedom.” Violence, humanity, unfreedom, and freedom constitute an unending cycle of desire, deferral, and despair. This cycle of violence captures the tension in humanism that much of contemporary theory either attempts to resolve (Ethics) or wishes to abandon (divesture). The violence that constitutes the human and produces suffering is sustained through an ontological antagonism. The boundaries of the human are shored-up by this antagonism and without it, the human, and the world within which it lives, would cease to exist. The non-ontology of blackness secures the boundaries of the human; it delimits the coordinates of the human. Blackness is an exclusion that enables ontology. In its exclusion from the realm of ontology, blackness is un-thinkable, innominate, and paradoxical. In essence, blackness exists to not exist—it embodies the most perplexing paradox that sustains ontology (or in psychoanalytic terms it is the Real of ontology). The field of Ethics, then, conceals a dirty secret: the ontological ground upon which it is situated is unethical. Ethics subverts itself, but it can only exist through this very subversion. All ethical discourses organized around the elimination of suffering or the experiences of freedom are imbricated in this unethicality. Blackness is both the life and death of humanism and its ethics, and for this reason, it lacks a legible grammar to articulate this dread. It is an incomprehensible suffering, or an unending injury not understood as legitimate injury. To take matters further, there would be no human suffering without the prior exclusion of blackness, but there would also be no world or human without this exclusion either. It is an unresolvable antagonism. banal, diurnal, and quotidian, as it sustains the very field of existence. 6 - 7 -Rhetoric of Humanist reform like “constitutional rights” and “free speech” is parasitic on Blackness, reject the affective call for action by the affirmative in favor of abstraction that actually confronts the structural antagonisms characterizing Blackness. 8 -Wilderson, ’10 2010, Frank B. Wilderson is an Associate Professor of African-American Studies at UC Irvine and has a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley, “Red, White and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms,” | SP 9 -In the Introduction and the preceding chapter, we have seen how the aporia between Black being and political ontology has existed since Arab and European enslavement of Africans, and how the need to craft an ensemble of questions through which to arrive at an unflinching paradigmatic analysis of political ontology is repeatedly thwarted in its attempts to find a language that can express the violence of slave-making, a violence that is both structural and performative. Humanist discourse, the discourse whose epistemological machinations provide our conceptual frameworks for thinking political ontology, is diverse and contrary. But for all its diversity and contrariness it is sutured by an implicit rhetorical consensus that violence accrues to the Human body as a result of transgressions, whether real or imagined, within the Symbolic Order. That is to say, Humanist discourse can only think a subject’s relation to violence as a contingency and not as a matrix that positions the subject. Put another way, Humanism has no theory of the slave because it imagines a subject who has been either alienated in language (Lacan) and/or alienated from his/her cartographic and temporal capacities (Marx). It cannot imagine an object who has been positioned by gratuitous violence and who has no cartographic and temporal capacities to lose—a sentient being for whom recognition and incorporation is impossible. In short, political ontology, as imagined through Humanism, can only produce discourse that has as its foundation alienation and exploitation as a grammar of suffering, when what is needed (for the Black, who is always already a slave) is an ensemble of ontological questions that has as its foundation accumulation and fungibility as a grammar of suffering (Hartman). Red, White, and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms 2 The violence of the Middle Passage and the slave estate (Spillers), technologies of accumulation and fungibility, recompose and reenact their horrors upon each succeeding generation of Blacks. This violence is both gratuitous, that is, it is not contingent upon transgressions against the hegemony of civil society; and structural, in that it positions Blacks ontologically outside of humanity and civil society. Simultaneously, it renders the ontological status of humanity (life itself) wholly dependent on civil society’s repetition compulsion: the frenzied and fragmented machinations through which civil society reenacts gratuitous violence upon the Black—that civil society might know itself as the domain of humans— generation after generation. Again, we need a new language of abstraction to explain this horror. The explanatory power of Humanist discourse is bankrupt in the face of the Black. It is inadequate and inessential to, as well as parasitic on, the ensemble of questions which the dead but sentient thing, the Black, struggles to articulate in a world of living subjects. 10 - 11 -Free speech does not exist for black people~-~- Blackness is an identity without ontology- The 1AC believes that black people, even with free speech, can just talk and somehow produce revolutionary change – this is metaphysically denied 12 -Wilderson 10 (Frank B. Wilderson III is Associate Professor of African American Studies and Drama at the University of California, Irvine. He is the author of Incognegro: A Memoir of Exile and Apartheid, winner of the Hurston/Wright Legacy Award and the American Book Award. He is also the recipient of a Literature Fellowship from the National Endowment for the Arts.) Red, White and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms. Durham, NC. Duke U Press. 2010. DOA: 12/25/16 13 -The difficulty of a writing a book which seeks to uncover Red, Back, and White socially engaged feature films as aesthetic accompaniments to grammars of suffering, predicated on the subject positions of the “Savage” and the Slave is that today’s intellectual protocols are not informed by Fanon’s insistence that “ontology—once it is finally admitted as leaving existence by the wayside—does not permit us to understand the being of the black man sic” (Black Skin, White Masks 110). In sharp contrast to the late 60s and early 70s, we now live in a political, academic, and cinematic milieu which stresses “diversity,” “unity,” “civic participation,” “hybridity,” “access,” and “contribution.” The radical fringe of political discourse amounts to little more than a passionate dream of civic reform and social stability. The distance between the protester and the police has narrowed considerably. The effect of this upon the academy is that intellectual protocols tend to privilege two of the three domains of subjectivity, namely preconscious interests (as evidenced in the work of social science around “political unity,” “social attitudes,” “civic participation,” and “diversity,”) and unconscious identification (as evidenced in the humanities’ postmodern regimes of “diversity,” “hybridity,” and “relative rather than “master” narratives”). Since the 1980s, intellectual protocols aligned with structural positionality (except in the work of die-hard Marxists) have been kicked to the curb. That is to say, it is hardly fashionable anymore to think the vagaries of power through the generic positions within a structure of power relations— such as man/woman, worker/boss. Instead, the academy’s ensembles of questions are fixated on specific and “unique” experience of the myriad identities that make up those structural positions. This would fine if the work led us back to a critique of the paradigm; but most of it does not. Again, the upshot of this is that the intellectual protocols now in play, and the composite effect of cinematic and political discourse since the 1980s, tend to hide rather than make explicit the grammar of suffering which underwrites the US and its foundational antagonisms. This state of affairs exacerbates—or, more precisely, mystifies and veils—the ontological death of the Slave and the “Savage” because (as in the 1950s) cinematic, political, and intellectual discourse of the current milieu resists being sanctioned and authorized by the irreconcilable demands of Indigenism and Blackness—academic enquiry is thus no more effective in pursuing a revolutionary critique than the legislative antics of the loyal opposition. This is how Left-leaning scholars help civil society recuperate and maintain stability. But this stability is a state of emergency for Indians and Blacks. 14 -The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best deconstructs anti-blackness 15 - 16 -Thus the alternative is to embrace the demand of the slave - the end of civil society. Wilderson 02 17 -Frank Wilderson, The Prison Slave as Hegemony's (Silent) Scandal, resented at Imprisoned Intellectuals Conference Brown University, April 13th 2002. 18 -If we are to take Fanon at his word when he writes, Decolonization, which sets out to change the order of the world, is, obviously, a program of complete disorder (37) then we must accept the fact that no other body functions in the Imaginary, the Symbolic, or the Real so completely as a repository of complete disorder as the Black body. Blackness is the site of absolute dereliction at the level of the Real, for in its magnetizing of bullets the Black body functions as the map of gratuitous violence through which civil society is possible: namely, those other bodies for which violence is, or can be, contingent. Blackness is the site of absolute dereliction at the level of the Symbolic, for Blackness in America generates no categories for the chromosome of History, no data for the categories of Immigration or Sovereignty; it is an experience without analog a past, without a heritage. Blackness is the site of absolute dereliction at the level of the Imaginary for whoever says rape says Black, (Fanon) , whoever says prison says Black, and whoever says AIDS says Black (Sexton) the Negro is a phobogenic object (Fanon). Indeed and a phobogenic object and a past without a heritage and the map of gratuitous violence and a program of complete disorder. But whereas this realization is, and should be cause for alarm, it should not be cause for lament, or worse, disavowal not at least, for a true revolutionary, or for a truly revolutionary movement such as prison abolition. If a social movement is to be neither social democratic, nor Marxist, in terms of the structure of its political desire then it should grasp the invitation to assume the positionality of subjects of social death that present themselves; and, if we are to be honest with ourselves we must admit that the Negro has been inviting Whites, and as well as civil society’s junior partners, to the dance of social death for hundreds of years, but few have wanted to learn the steps. They have been, and remain today even in the most anti-racist movements, like the prison abolition movement invested elsewhere. This is not to say that all oppositional political desire today is pro-White, but it is to say that it is almost always anti-Black which is to say it will not dance with death. Black liberation, as a prospect, makes radicalism more dangerous to the U.S. Not because it raises the specter of some alternative polity (like socialism, or community control of existing resources) but because its condition of possibility as well as its gesture of resistance functions as a negative dialectic: a politics of refusal and a refusal to affirm, aprogram of complete disorder. One must embrace its disorder, its incoherence and allow oneself to be elaborated by it, if indeed one’s politics are to be underwritten by a desire to take this country down. If this is not the desire which underwrites one’s politics then through what strategy of legitimation is the word prison being linked to the word abolition? What are this movement’s lines of political accountability? There’s nothing foreign, frightening, or even unpracticed about the embrace of disorder and incoherence. The desire to be embraced, and elaborated, by disorder and incoherence is not anathema in and of itself: no one, for example, has ever been known to say gee-whiz, if only my orgasms would end a little sooner, or maybe not come at all. But few so-called radicals desire to be embraced, and elaborated, by the disorder and incoherence of Blackness and the state of political movements in America today is marked by this very Negrophobogenisis: gee-whiz, if only Black rage could be more coherent, or maybe not come at all. Perhaps there’s something more terrifying about the joy of Black, then there is about the joy of sex (unless one is talking sex with a Negro). Perhaps coalitions today prefer to remain in-orgasmic in the face of civil society with hegemony as a handy prophylactic, just in case. But if, through this stasis, or paralysis, they try to do the work of prison abolition that work will fail; because it is always work from a position of coherence (i.e. the worker) on behalf of a position of incoherence, the Black subject, or prison slave. In this way, social formations on the Left remain blind to the contradictions of coalitions between workers and slaves. They remain coalitions operating within the logic of civil society; and function less as revolutionary promises and more as crowding out scenarios of Black antagonisms they simply feed our frustration. Whereas the positionality of the worker be s/he a factory worker demanding a monetary wage or an immigrant or White woman demanding a social wage gestures toward the reconfiguration of civil society, the positionality of the Black subject be s/he a prison-slave or a prison-slave-in-waiting gestures toward the disconfiguration of civil society: from the coherence of civil society, the Black subject beckons with the incoherence of civil war. A civil war which reclaims Blackness not as a positive value, but as a politically enabling site, to quote Fanon, of absolute dereliction: a scandal which rends civil society asunder. Civil war, then, becomes that unthought, but never forgotten understudy of hegemony. A Black specter waiting in the wings, an endless antagonism that cannot be satisfied (via reform or reparation) but must nonetheless be pursued to the death. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-12 07:35:13.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Ho - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Law Magnet MG - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -23 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB- Wilderson K - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stanford
- Caselist.CitesClass[40]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,19 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tax cuts don’t pass now – Trump needs more to get Brady on his side. Blade 1-25 2 -Rachael Bade, 1-25-2017, "Trump’s team floats tax cuts that aren’t paid for," POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-tax-cuts-deficits-234143 VC 3 -Some Trump administration officials and Capitol Hill Republicans are discussing the possibility of passing sweeping tax cuts without offsetting revenue increases — an idea that threatens to balloon the deficit and undermine the GOP’s reputation as the party of fiscal discipline. A number of Trump advisers in recent weeks have privately questioned whether tax reform needs to be “revenue neutral,” according to multiple people familiar with early-stage tax reform discussions. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) personally reached out to administration officials to argue that tax cuts without corresponding offsets would spur faster economic growth, and conservative groups such as Club for Growth and Heritage Foundation second that idea, bolstering the argument in the eyes of the right. “I think the government should be smaller, and I’m for tax cuts and spending cuts that reduce the overall size of the government,” Paul told Politico in a short interview Tuesday. “Trump’s campaign tax cut was large and not ‘revenue-neutral.’ I support what Trump ran on.” But top Hill sources close to the high-stakes tax negotiations say such a proposal will go nowhere for several reasons: For one, it would pose huge practical complications, since any plan that increases the deficit would need significant Democratic support to clear the Senate, a heavy lift for Republicans. The idea could also exacerbate Republicans’ looming budget problem: Trump wants to cut taxes, hike military spending, fund a massive infrastructure package and build a border wall — proposals that all cost a lot of money. It’s unclear how Republicans would pay for these items without adding to the nearly $19 trillion debt. “I don’t think that anyone is a slave to budget neutrality, but when you look at how this is necessarily going to go down, you have to play with the system we have, which means we’re probably not going to get any Democrats,” said one person close to the discussions, who dismissed talk of tax reform not paying for itself as a nonstarter. Any push for such a plan is sure to meet stiff resistance from Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady, who have long insisted that any tax-cut must maintain the current revenue stream to the U.S. Treasury. Their plan even accounts for dynamic scoring, an assumption that, over the long run, tax reductions will grow the economy and therefore federal tax revenue. 4 - 5 -The plan is controlled by the federal government – even if universities are the actor, they do the aff because Trump told them to. Kolowich 16 6 -Steve Kolowich, 10-20-2016, "Trump Said He Would ‘End’ Political Correctness on Campuses. Could a President Do That?," Chronicle of Higher Education, http://www.chronicle.com/article/Trump-Said-He-Would-End-/238124 VC 7 -Speaking to college students last week in Columbus, Ohio, Donald J. Trump told conservative watchers of higher education something many of them might love to hear. "In the past few decades, political correctness — oh, what a terrible term — has transformed our institutions of higher education from ones that fostered spirited debate to a place of extreme censorship, where students are silenced for the smallest of things," said Mr. Trump. "You say a word somewhat differently, and all of a sudden you’re criticized — sometimes viciously," he continued. "We will end the political correctness and foster free and respectful dialogue." The Republican nominee did not elaborate on how he would use the presidency to "end" political correctness on campuses, and his campaign did not respond to an inquiry from The Chronicle. And Mr. Trump probably will not become president, according to the latest polls. Still, he is hardly the first Republican politician to criticize political correctness on campus, and his pledge to "end" that phenomenon raises the question of whether any president could keep that promise. "You can’t ‘end’ it, that would be ridiculous," said Peter Lawler, a professor of government at Berry College who has written critically about political correctness. "That’s not something that you could easily reduce to the four corners of a policy proposal, as they say," said Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Policy experts noted, however, that there are things a president could do to mitigate the federal government’s role in shaping how colleges define and respond to the sort of criticism that Mr. Trump and many conservatives lament. A Change in Direction A president could start by reshuffling the priorities of the Education Department, and particularly the Office for Civil Rights — assuming that he does not move to eliminate the department entirely, as Mr. Trump and other Republicans have threatened to do. The Office for Civil Rights, which is responsible for making sure colleges that receive federal aid are following federal antidiscrimination laws, is obligated — no matter who is in charge — to consider complaints and investigate those in its jurisdiction. However, Mr. Trump might direct officials to focus their energies elsewhere and put resolving sexual and racial discrimination complaints on the back burner, according to Art Coleman, managing partner at the consulting firm EducationCounsel. If an administration were really averse to addressing complaints against individual campuses, said Mr. Coleman, the civil-rights office might narrow its interpretation of what kind of conduct crosses the line. That might involve circumventing years of statutory and case law, he said, but a Trump administration might enforce its own standards until a court compels it to do otherwise. "You could certainly see a play toward mischief there if one were so inclined," said Mr. Coleman, who worked at the Office for Civil Rights from 1993 to 2000. The president could also influence how the office uses its discretionary authority to conduct broad "compliance reviews," which officials can open even when no complaint has been filed, he added. "You could literally shut that down." The Obama administration has taken a proactive approach. In recent years the Education Department has aggressively sought to enforce federal antidiscrimination laws, investigating hundreds of colleges for potential violations of Title IX, the federal gender-equity law. Title IX has been on the books for four decades, and the department has been urging colleges to use a controversial standard of proof for campus cases since the mid-1990s. But colleges didn’t necessarily see investigating and resolving reports of sexual assault as crucial to their compliance until 2011, when the Obama administration reminded them they had to do it. That is a testament to the power of a presidential administration to influence campus policies from afar. So what if a Trump administration wanted to nudge it in the other direction? Some people would be satisfied to see the next president rein in the Office for Civil Rights on Title IX enforcement and let colleges handle their own business. "Ultimately, the responsibility lies with leaders on campus and duly elected and appointed trustees — not federal bureaucrats — to adopt policies that protect free speech and foster robust debate at the campus level," Michael B. Poliakoff, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, said through a spokesman. The Executive Option Another possibility is that Mr. Trump, who has denied a string of sexual-assault allegations against him and dismissed his own sexually aggressive remarks as "locker-room talk," would use the Education Department to hammer colleges that he believes are creating hostile environments for students and professors who feel, as he put it, "viciously" attacked or "silenced" by the P.C. police. "The Obama administration has set a precedent that you can use these really squishy executive maneuvers to tell colleges how to act," said Alexander Holt, an education-policy analyst at New America. The Education Department used a "Dear Colleague" letter, a guidance document not subject to notice and comment, to dictate federal rules on Title IX compliance, said Mr. Holt. Colleges had to comply to avoid risking costly investigations that might conclude with the federal government branding them as hostile environments for women. That tactic, he said, could hold appeal for Mr. Trump, who is known for his blunt-force litigiousness and admiration of political strongmen. "I could see a Trump administration going crazy on these ‘Dear Colleague’ letters," said Mr. Holt. Mr. Holt referred to "The Coddling of the American Mind," an essay by Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and Jonathan Haidt, a professor of ethical leadership at New York University’s school of business, which The Atlantic published last year. In that essay, the authors argued that the Education Department should apply a standard that defines peer-to-peer harassment as "a pattern of objectively offensive behavior by one student that interferes with another student’s access to education." 8 - 9 -The plan is super popular with the House Ways and Means committee – they view it as bipartisan and consider it important. Jagoda 16 10 -NAOMI JAGODA , 3-2-2016, "House Republican concerned about colleges stifling students' speech," http://thehill.com/policy/finance/271499-house-republican-concerned-about-colleges-stifling-students-speech VC 11 -The chairman of the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee expressed concern Wednesday that colleges are stifling students’ political speech because they are incorrectly worried that such speech could jeopardize the schools’ tax-exempt statuses. Through provisions in the tax code, “taxpayers give financial benefits to schools based on the educational value that they offer to our society,” Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) said at a hearing. “When colleges and universities suppress speech, however, we have to question whether that educational mission is really being fulfilled.” Roskam asked students, faculty and administrators who have had their speech suppressed to share their experiences with the committee by emailing campus.speech@mail.house.gov. Frances Hill, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law, said during the hearing that “students can do almost anything” without jeopardizing a college’s tax-exempt status. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is more likely to be concerned about university administrators engaging in political speech without making clear that they are not speaking on behalf of the school, she added. Catherine Sevcenko, director of litigation at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said that students are likely being censored because colleges are confused about IRS guidelines. “As long as the IRS guidance is ambiguous, censorship will win out every time,” she said, adding that lawmakers need to communicate to the IRS that there is an “urgent need for guidance.” Sevcenko also said the issue of censorship is a “bipartisan problem,” and students are being stifled for both liberal and conservative speech. Roskam told reporters after the hearing that he’s interested in looking to see if there’s something the IRS can do to make it clear that student expression won’t jeopardize colleges’ tax exemptions. “It seems like the letter of the law is clear, but for whatever reason, it’s not penetrating,” he said. Democrats on the panel argued the free speech issue does not fall under the committee's jurisdiction. They suggested that it would be a better use of the panel’s time to hold hearings about the effect of budget cuts on the IRS’s customer service and about identity thieves stealing taxpayer information. “Let me be clear. We have plenty of work do, and this is not it,” said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the subcommittee’s ranking member. Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) said the subcommittee is “searching for a problem where no problem exists.” But Roskam and other Republicans defended a hearing about colleges limiting students’ free expression. “To say that we don’t have a role here is disingenuous,” said Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.). 12 - 13 -The bill literally adds trillions of dollars to the deficit and tanks the economy – prefer our estimates since they include the tax cuts effect on the economy. Gleckman 1-19 14 -Howard Gleckman, 1-19-2017, "Memo To Steven Mnuchin: Trump's Tax Plan Would Add $7 Trillion To The Debt Over 10 Years," Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2017/01/19/memo-to-steven-mnuchin-trumps-tax-plan-would-add-7-trillion-to-the-debt-over-10-years/#389a686d623b VC 15 -At his Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing today, Steven Mnuchin, President-elect Trump’s choice to head the Treasury Department, seemed somewhat confused about the Tax Policy Center estimates of the total cost of Trump’s campaign tax plan. When asked whether a plan that would add $7 trillion to the debt over 10 years is “acceptable,” Mnuchin insisted that was not really TPC’s projection. To clarify: It is indeed TPC’s estimate of Trump’s most recent plan. And that analysis, which was done along with the Penn Wharton budget model, included the effects of the tax cut on economic growth (aka dynamic scoring). To be more precise, TPC estimated that Trump’s campaign tax plan would reduce federal revenues by $6.2 trillion over 10 years. Including added interest costs and macroeconomic effects, TPC figured it would boost the debt by at least $7 trillion over the first decade and $20.7 trillion over 20 years. These projections matter in part because Mnuchin said repeatedly today that the Trump tax plan would not add to the debt, after including economic effects. The problem: Unless the tax cuts are offset with spending reductions—which Trump has yet to specify—increased government borrowing would drive up interest rates. They in turn would wash away the economic benefits of the President-elect’s tax cuts. Indeed, the Penn Wharton and TPC models found that for the first decade, there is effectively no difference between the cost of the Trump tax cuts under traditional scoring or dynamic scoring. In the second 10 years, including the effects of a slowing economy would make the debt look even worse than under traditional scoring. 16 -Econ collapse leads to escalating instability and nuclear resource wars that perputaute the issues of capitalism and cause extinction. Harris and Burrows 09 17 -Harris and Burrows, 9 – *counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”, Washington Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf) 18 - 19 -Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 19:07:33.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tambe - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Loyola HF - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -24 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB- PTX DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal
- Caselist.CitesClass[41]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,0 @@ 1 -CP Text: The 50 State Legislatures should pass legislation to prohibit restrictions on constitutionally protected speech at universities and colleges. Kurtz et al 1-30 2 -STANLEY KURTZ, JAMES MANLEY, AND JONATHAN BUTCHER, CAMPUS FREE SPEECH: A LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL, 1-30-17, Goldwater Institute, https://goldwater-media.s3.amazonaws.com/cms_page_media/2017/1/30/_Campus20Free20Speech20Paper.pdf VC 3 -The Goldwater Institute has partnered with Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center to craft a model bill that will allow state legislatures to restore freedom of speech to our public university systems. As legislators introduce this bill across the country, a national debate on preserving campus free speech should influence both private colleges and the broader culture. In 2016, the Goldwater Institute helped design a policy protecting free speech on Arizona campuses.3 Under HB 2615, community colleges and universities cannot create “free speech zones” that relegate free expression to narrow areas of campus. Rather, there is a presumption in favor of free speech and tailored restrictions to address legitimate time, place, and manner concerns are the exception. The bill also “removes permissive language” in existing Arizona law that allows a “university or community college to restrict a student’s speech in a public forum.”4 The model legislation presented in this white paper is patterned on recommendations contained in three reports widely regarded as classic statements on campus free expression: Yale’s Woodward Report of 1974, the University of Chicago’s Kalven Report of 1967, and the University of Chicago’s Stone Report of 2015.5 The model bill offered herein is designed to change the balance of forces contributing to the current baleful national climate for campus free speech. Administrators generally feel pressured to placate demonstrators who interfere with the free expression of others, so as to move campus controversies as quickly as possible out of the public eye. Students who know they have little to fear in return for shouting down visiting speakers or interfering with public meetings feel free to protest in highly disruptive ways. In this atmosphere, students or faculty who disagree with current campus orthodoxies are left intimidated and uncertain of administrative support for their rights. Meanwhile, all students suffer for want of opportunities to hear the very best arguments on opposing sides of public questions. The model legislation offered here challenges this balance of forces in several ways. First, it creates an official university policy that strongly affirms the importance of free expression, while formally nullifying any existing restrictive speech codes. 4 - 5 -Free speech has reached a crisis point – legislation trickles down and affects colleges – means we solve the case and gain double solvency from private colleges. Kurtz 1/24 6 -Stanley Kurtz, 1-24-17, “Restoring Campus Free Speech”, National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444167/restoring-campus-free-speech VC 7 -For decades, freedom of speech on college campuses has been under siege from restrictive speech codes. In just the last few years, the slow erosion of support for campus free speech has reached a crisis-point, with the rise of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and a raft of speaker disinvitations. Student support for freedom of speech has never been weaker than it is right now. How can we restore and protect freedom of speech on our college campuses when many students have ceased to value or understand it, many faculty members have turned against it, and many administrators worry more about keeping their institutions off the front pages than about standing up for liberty? I believe the answer to this question lies in comprehensive state-level legislation designed to secure freedom of speech on the campuses of public state university systems. Not only are these systems tremendously important in and of themselves, but a national debate over such legislation is bound to have influence on the policies of private colleges and universities as well. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 19:07:33.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tambe - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Loyola HF - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -24 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook Venkatesh Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -JANFEB- States CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal
- 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]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -38 - 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.RoundClass[23]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -39 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-12 07:35:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Ho - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Law Magnet MG - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Stanford
- Caselist.RoundClass[24]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -40,41 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2017-02-18 19:07:31.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Tambe - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Loyola HF - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Cal
- 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