| ... |
... |
@@ -1,30
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-K |
| 2 |
|
-The aff’s concept of obligation to the other generates a paradox of conflicting ethical duties from which the only way out is sacrifice – they justify the unjustifiable. |
| 3 |
|
-Derrida 92 (Jacques, director of studies at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Gift of Death, p.67-69 AK) |
| 4 |
|
-But isn't this … to every other. |
| 5 |
|
- |
| 6 |
|
-Refusing calculation authorizes massive violence in the name of “justice”. We must calculate with the incalculable. |
| 7 |
|
-Miller 8 (J. Hillis, Distinguished Research Professor at the University of California at Irvine, “Derrida's Politics of Autoimmunity,” Discourse, Volume 30, Numbers 1 and 2, Winter and Spring, Muse AK) |
| 8 |
|
-(3) The context of … out of all. |
| 9 |
|
- |
| 10 |
|
-Alt text: Vote neg to embrace a system of ethics predicated on contingency and calculation. |
| 11 |
|
-Derrida 2 (Jacques, director of studies at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, “Force of Law: The ‘Mystical Foundation of Authority,’” Acts of Religion, p. 257-8 AK) |
| 12 |
|
-This excess of …obscure or traditional. |
| 13 |
|
- |
| 14 |
|
-RoB |
| 15 |
|
- |
| 16 |
|
-Interp: The roll of the ballot is to evaluate the total justification for the Aff’s policy before weighing fiat level implications of said policy AND they CANNOT sever out of their justifications. |
| 17 |
|
- |
| 18 |
|
-1. |
| 19 |
|
- |
| 20 |
|
-2. Questioning the justifications for policy action is the only route away from a serial policy failure that refuses to realize how our assumptions and rationales influence the actions we propose |
| 21 |
|
-Dillon and Reid 2K – 1/3, Michael and Julian, professors of IR at the University of Lancaster, Alternatives: Social Transformation and Humane Governance |
| 22 |
|
-Policy domains reify … globally, is about. |
| 23 |
|
-3 |
| 24 |
|
- |
| 25 |
|
-4. |
| 26 |
|
-A. |
| 27 |
|
-B. |
| 28 |
|
-5. |
| 29 |
|
- |
| 30 |
|
-6. |