Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[56]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[50]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[56]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-04-30 02:46:25.99
	1	+2017-04-30 02:46:25.0

Caselist.CitesClass[50]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,44 @@
	1	+=1AC Standard Version=
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+==Part 1 is the standard ==
	5	+Ideal theory strips away questions of particularities and isolates a universal feature of agents. This normalizes a single experience and epistemologically skews ethical theorizing.
	6	+Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
	7	+The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or androcentrism, or white normativity—is that all theorizing, both moral and nonmoral, takes place in an intellectual realm dominated by concepts, assumptions, norms, values, and framing perspectives that reflect the experience and group interests of the privileged group (whether the bourgeoisie, or men, or whites). So a simple empiricism will not work as a cognitive strategy; one has to be self-conscious about the concepts that "spontaneously" occur to one, since many of these concepts will not arise naturally but as the result of social structures and hegemonic ideational patterns. In particular, it will often be the case that dominant concepts will obscure certain crucial realities, blocking them from sight, or naturalizing them, while on the other hand, concepts necessary for accurately mapping these realities will be absent. Whether in terms of concepts of the self, or of humans in general, or in the cartography of the social, it will be necessary to scrutinize the dominant conceptual tools and the way the boundaries are drawn. This is, of course, the burden of standpoint theory—that certain realities tend to be more visible from the perspective of the subordinated than the privileged (Harding 2003). The thesis can be put in a strong and implausible form, but weaker versions do have considerable plausibility, as illustrated by the simple fact that for the most part the crucial conceptual innovation necessary to map nonideal realities has not come from the dominant group. In its ignoring of oppression, ideal theory also ignores the consequences of oppression. If societies are not oppressive, or if in modeling them we can abstract away from oppression and assume moral cognizers of roughly equal skill, then the paradigmatic moral agent can be featureless. No theory is required about the particular group-based obstacles that may block the vision of a particular group. By contrast, nonideal theory recognizes that people will typically be cognitively affected by their social location, so that on both the macro and the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading.
	8	+Non-ideal theory necessitates consequentialism since instead of following rules that assume an already equal playing field; we take steps to correct material injustice.
	9	+Thus the standard is minimizing oppression.
	10	+
	11	+
	12	+==Part 2 is Advocacy ==
	13	+Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech that is used to advocate for animals.
	14	+
	15	+
	16	+==Part 3 is Offense==
	17	+Universities are cracking down on animal advocacy- faculty are fired for dissenting and students activists are silenced. Multiple empirical examples prove.
	18	+**Kahn 10** ~~Kahn, Richard, anarchist educator whose primary interests are in researching the history of social movements as pedagogically generative forces in society, and in critically challenging the role dominant institutions play in blocking the realization of greater planetary freedom, peace, and happiness, "Operation get fired: A chronicle of the academic repression of radical environmentalist and animal rights advocate-scholars." Academic repression: Reflections from the academic industrial complex (2010): 200-215, http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/90383/operationgetfired-kahn.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3AandExpires=1488872701andSignature=rIrpnSTWSguRU2BKYE1qktPrIpCk3Dandresponse-content-disposition=inline3B20filename3DOperation_Get_Fired_A_Chronicle_of_the_A.pdf~~ JW
	19	+Cases of University Repression of Radical Environmentalist and Animal Rights AdvocateScholars As evident in the case of Steven Best, the bureaucratic nature of higher education often makes it difficult to prove where clear repression has occurred and who within a labyrinthine administrative system is calling the shots. Still, in the instance of radical environmentalist and animal rights advocate scholars I think there are some contemporary examples of faculty, student, and organizational removal that warrant concern and are representative of the general tenure of what is taking place today within the academy. As Ward Churchill's suspension and firing from the University of Colorado at Boulder grabbed headlines in 2005, the university's concurrent removal of Adrienne Anderson – an Environmental Studies faculty member since 1992 who was also known to be one of the nation's top environmental whistleblowers – took place much more quietly but no less importantly. Anderson has been likened to Erin Brockovich and Karen Silkwood for her work in the university and as the Western Director of the National Toxics Campaign, in which she has assisted labor unions and poor communities in holding corporate polluters like Rockwell International, Martin-Marietta, and ASARCO Metals (as well as corrupt government officials) accountable for their toxic misdeeds against people. An activist professor who brought her struggle for environmental justice into the classroom, a major goal of her pedagogy was to teach students how to file FOIA and Open Records requests in pursuit of uncovering the social and environmental damage done by government and industry. Her particular pet project was to have students investigate the Lowry Coalition, a collection of some 150 companies uncovered by Anderson who spent years dumping unregulated waste into a Denver metro-area landfill and then worked to cover up the presence of radioactive materials found therein, as the landfill sludge was greenlighted for use as agricultural fertilizer. Anderson filed suit on this matter in 1997 and winningly argued that the Coalition's activities posed significant threats to the public health on numerous levels. Strongly championed by her students and having received nothing short of exceptional job reviews over the course of her teaching career (despite constant friction by certain university forces), Anderson suddenly found that her department had closed her classes without warning in 2005. While she alone had developed and taught a mandatory course for the major, being untenured and without opportunities to teach, the university happily declared Anderson expendable. Those familiar with her story, though, quickly pointed out that many of the companies in the Lowry Coalition are significant university investors. One – Scripps-Howard, the media monopoly in the Denver-area – also funds a faculty member in her department, who the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) alleges worked to undermine Anderson's reputation with other faculty, as well as to dismantle her appeal for rehiring by leaking confidential and false information about her and her work. 7 As the AAUP statement makes clear, what occurred to Anderson has broad significance and should be properly seen as part and parcel of a current rightwing attempt to use the University of Colorado as a test case for imposing a corporatist model of education that weakens tenure, faculty governance and due process, as well as academic freedom generally. But it also reveals how the academy can work to suppress crucial environmental research and willingly jeopardize sectors of society in order to protect powerful allied interests. Such repression is aimed not only at professors, students also are under unprecedented attack from university administrations, such as happened to Valdosta State University, T. Hayden Barnes. Barnes was expelled in October of 2007 by Valdosta State President Ronald M. Zaccari for publicly protesting Zaccari's decision to spend $30 million dollars of student fees on constructing an environmentally hazardous set of parking garages. Having learned of the decision from the school newspaper earlier in March, Barnes posted flyers around campus detailing sustainable alternatives and listed the contact information for Zaccari and the Georgia university system Board of Regents should anyone want to send opinions regarding the project (something he did himself). Four days later members of Students Against Violating the Environment contacted Barnes to let him know that Zaccari was angry, and in response Barnes removed the flyers. However, he was hardly finished campaigning and, over the next month, he posted a collage lampooning the parking garage project to his Facebook page, wrote a letter to the editor of the student paper critiquing the proposed garages, and then wrote Zaccari himself to request an exemption from paying the mandatory student fee that was to be contributed toward the construction project. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which ultimately took up his case, on May 7 Barnes found a note from Zaccari slipped under his dormitory door which read "as a result of recent activities directed towards me by you, included ~~sic~~ but not limited to the attached threatening document ~~the Facebook collage~~, you are considered to present a clear and present danger to this campus".8 While lawsuits filed by FIRE and Barnes resulted in Zaccari announcing his early retirement and the Board of Regents overturning Barnes's expulsion, Valdosta State remains notorious for officially quarantining expressed free speech on its 168-acre campus to a small stage area that must be reserved two days in advance and can only be used two hours each afternoon.9 Alarmingly, the university is not unique in this practice. Although the University of California system is not amongst those with designated public free speech zones for political expression, it has moved to enforce a ban on a wave of ongoing protests by both legal and extra-legal animal rights groups against primate vivisection practices taking place on some of its campuses. Though framed as a defense of faculty research and an attempt to preserve academic freedom from direct action militants who targeted the property of specific vivisectors in recent years, flagship campuses like UCLA, UC Berkeley, and UC Santa Cruz are actually involved in deploying repressive tolerance. UCLA, in particular, is considered to play a leading role in developing national academic security strategies. As a member of the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board, working in concert with the FBI and other agencies after a supposed ALF hit on a researcher's home in 2006, UCLA has moved to check animal advocacy on campus by barring student activists from entering university buildings during demonstrations, by coordinating information about student groups with law enforcement, and by increasing its powers of surveillance generally. Moreover, it has sought and won court injunctions against the websites of legal organizations such as the UCLA Primate Freedom Project (founded by a UCLA student), and has suppressed the public speech rights of numerous individuals. Such anti-activist actions as the university are engaged in are now promoted as "Best Practices for Protecting Researchers and Research" by the Society for Neuroscience (Murr, 2008). The demented idea of standardizing protocols which serve to make animals as vulnerable as possible to the unnecessary needles and knives of vivisectors reveals the manner in which corporate science and the security State have come together to set higher education policy, with UCLA presently serving as the principal model for other academic institutions to redraft their policies in similar fashion. While other academic institutions such as the University of Utah have similarly worked with government officials to legislate the criminalization of protests within 100 feet of faculty residences, recent legislation crafted by the UC system related to its lawsuit against animal rights activists has moved beyond the anti-democratic and into the realm of the unconstitutional. Specifically, the measure AB2296, submitted by Assemblyman Gene Mullin (D-San Mateo), was created to forbid political activities targeting corporate researchers on campus; with its initial aim being "to restrict public access to information about academics who do animal research and to make it illegal to post personal information about them online" (Krupnick, 2008), such as their names, addresses and photographs. Although the bill's language was scaled back slightly when passed into law in October, 2008, it is revealing that as originally drafted it attempted to exempt requests about university research from public records requests, In other words, those in charge of the UC system unabashedly sought to create a non-transparent situation for university research in which it would be legally impossible to have civic oversight over the public university system's work. While the immediate aim may have been to block the names of laboratory vivisectors from animal advocates, this legislation would have also shielded all manner of military, biotech, and other forms of ethically dubious experimentation from public inquiry. The University of California's repression of animal rights activists and student groups is therefore an affront that should concern all people, and it is crucial that it be challenged appropriately as such repression serves not only to blunt moral progress but the realization of a more democratic science of the people in the process.
	20	+Students are censored from promoting veganism on college campus, even when it's constitutionally protected.
	21	+Rivera 15, Carla, Contact Reporter, Student says Cal Poly Pomona is trying to silence his vegan campaign, 2015, http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-college-speech-20150513-story.html
	22	+Cal Poly Pomona student Nicolas Tomas never thought handing out leaflets promoting a vegan diet would become so controversial. But when college administrators moved to restrict his activities, Tomas sued the university. His case became a flashpoint in the debate over how far universities should go to promote tolerance and civility on their increasingly diverse campuses — and whether some of those policies unfairly restrict constitutionally protected free speech.
	23	+Studies prove that exposure to animal advocacy on college campuses changes hearts and minds-that saves thousands of animal lives.
	24	+Cooney 13, Nick, The Powerful Impact of College Leafleting (Part 1), 2013, https://ccc.farmsanctuary.org/the-powerful-impact-of-college-leafleting-part-1/
	25	+Leafleting — passing out information about factory farming and vegan eating — is one of the most common ways that animal advocates promote vegan eating in the United States. The group Vegan Outreach, which pioneered and popularized vegan leafleting, passed out almost 3 million leaflets last year, and other groups chipped in millions more. Compassionate Communities volunteers have been distributing our Something Better leaflet, which shares the Farm Sanctuary experience, the realities of factory farming, and info on meat-free eating, to hundreds of thousands of people. But just how effective is leafleting? How many readers actually change their diet, and how many animals are spared a lifetime of misery? Should volunteers prioritize leafleting over other forms of animal advocacy? For the first time ever, we have answers to those questions! In the fall of 2012, Compassionate Communities teamed up with The Humane League to measure the true impact of leafleting on a college campus. How It Was Done Early in the fall semester, staffers from The Humane League visited the main campuses of two large state schools on the East Coast, the University of Delaware and the University of Maryland. They distributed thousands of leaflets outside the dining halls of each school. The leaflets distributed were an equal mixture of Farm Sanctuary's Something Better leaflet and Vegan Outreach's popular Compassionate Choices leaflet. About two months later, they returned to campus with surveys to see how much students' diets had changed. They stood outside the dining halls and asked students passing by if they would take a survey. Students did not know what the survey was about prior to stopping and agreeing to take the survey. After agreeing, only those who actually received a leaflet earlier that semester were allowed to take the survey. Nearly 500 surveys were completed. Key Results Quite simply, the results were phenomenal. About 1 out of every 50 students who received a leaflet indicated they became vegetarian or pescatarian as a result. Just as importantly, 7 of students (1 in 14) said they now eat "a lot less" chicken, a lot fewer eggs, and a lot less dairy as a result of getting the leaflet. 6 eat a lot less fish, and 12 eat a lot less red meat. Furthermore, about 1 in 5 students said they shared the leaflet with someone else who then began to eat less meat. What does all this mean for animals? After accounting for social desirability bias (people over reporting changes in their diet), the results suggest that for every 100 leaflets you distribute on a college campus, you'll spare, by a conservative calculation, a minimum of 50 animals a year a lifetime of misery. That's one animal spared for every two leaflets you distribute! And that's just in the first year. The number of farm animals spared grows much larger once you factor in the number of years that people maintain their diet. It also grows larger once you count the ripple effects of people persuading their friends and family to change. And we haven't even begun to count the many hundreds of wild fish who will also be spared. The bottom line is this: With each hour you spend leafleting on a college campus, you will truly spare hundreds of farm animals from a lifetime of daily misery. The data is in. The facts are there. College leafleting is an absurdly effective activity for individuals and for organizations who want to make their community a more compassionate one.
	26	+This outweighs a. Outweighs on scope- If an hour saves hundreds of animals- then the plan as a whole across all colleges all year should save billions if not trillions of animal lives annually. b. Factory farms are hell on earth- tens of billions of sentient beings are killed and tortured every year. As long as there is a demand for meat- the slaughterhouse will exist. Harai 15, Yuval Noah, Industrial farming is one of the worst crimes in history, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/sep/25/industrial-farming-one-worst-crimes-history-ethical-question
	27	+The fate of industrially farmed animals is one of the most pressing ethical questions of our time. Tens of billions of sentient beings, each with complex sensations and emotions, live and die on a production line, Animals are the main victims of history, and the treatment of domesticated animals in industrial farms is perhaps the worst crime in history. The march of human progress is strewn with dead animals. Even tens of thousands of years ago, our stone age ancestors were already responsible for a series of ecological disasters. When the first humans reached Australia about 45,000 years ago, they quickly drove to extinction 90 of its large animals. This was the first significant impact that Homo sapiens had on the planet's ecosystem. It was not the last. About 15,000 years ago, humans colonised America, wiping out in the process about 75 of its large mammals. Numerous other species disappeared from Africa, from Eurasia and from the myriad islands around their coasts. The archaeological record of country after country tells the same sad story. The tragedy opens with a scene showing a rich and varied population of large animals, without any trace of Homo sapiens. In scene two, humans appear, evidenced by a fossilised bone, a spear point, or perhaps a campfire. Scene three quickly follows, in which men and women occupy centre-stage and most large animals, along with many smaller ones, have gone. Altogether, sapiens drove to extinction about 50 of all the large terrestrial mammals of the planet before they planted the first wheat field, shaped the first metal tool, wrote the first text or struck the first coin. The next major landmark in human-animal relations was the agricultural revolution: the process by which we turned from nomadic hunter-gatherers into farmers living in permanent settlements. It involved the appearance of a completely new life-form on Earth: domesticated animals. Initially, this development might seem to have been of minor importance, as humans only managed to domesticate fewer than 20 species of mammals and birds, compared with the countless thousands of species that remained "wild". Yet, with the passing of the centuries, this novel life-form became the norm. Today, more than 90 of all large animals are domesticated ("large" denotes animals that weigh at least a few kilograms). Consider the chicken, for example. Ten thousand years ago, it was a rare bird that was confined to small niches of South Asia. Today, billions of chickens live on almost every continent and island, bar Antarctica. The domesticated chicken is probably the most widespread bird in the annals of planet Earth. If you measure success in terms of numbers, chickens, cows and pigs are the most successful animals ever. Alas, domesticated species paid for their unparalleled collective success with unprecedented individual suffering. The animal kingdom has known many types of pain and misery for millions of years. Yet the agricultural revolution created completely new kinds of suffering, ones that only worsened with the passing of the generations. At first sight, domesticated animals may seem much better off than their wild cousins and ancestors. Wild buffaloes spend their days searching for food, water and shelter, and are constantly threatened by lions, parasites, floods and droughts. Domesticated cattle, by contrast, enjoy care and protection from humans. People provide cows and calves with food, water and shelter, they treat their diseases, and protect them from predators and natural disasters. True, most cows and calves sooner or later find themselves in the slaughterhouse. Yet does that make their fate any worse than that of wild buffaloes? Is it better to be devoured by a lion than slaughtered by a man? Are crocodile teeth kinder than steel blades? What makes the existence of domesticated farm animals particularly cruel is not just the way in which they die but above all how they live. Two competing factors have shaped the living conditions of farm animals: on the one hand, humans want meat, milk, eggs, leather, animal muscle-power and amusement; on the other, humans have to ensure the long-term survival and reproduction of farm animals. Theoretically, this should protect animals from extreme cruelty. If a farmer milks his cow without providing her with food and water, milk production will dwindle, and the cow herself will quickly die. Unfortunately, humans can cause tremendous suffering to farm animals in other ways, even while ensuring their survival and reproduction. The root of the problem is that domesticated animals have inherited from their wild ancestors many physical, emotional and social needs that are redundant in farms. Farmers routinely ignore these needs without paying any economic price. They lock animals in tiny cages, mutilate their horns and tails, separate mothers from offspring, and selectively breed monstrosities. The animals suffer greatly, yet they live on and multiply. Doesn't that contradict the most basic principles of Darwinian evolution? The theory of evolution maintains that all instincts and drives have evolved in the interest of survival and reproduction. If so, doesn't the continuous reproduction of farm animals prove that all their real needs are met? How can a cow have a "need" that is not really essential for survival and reproduction? It is certainly true that all instincts and drives evolved in order to meet the evolutionary pressures of survival and reproduction. When these pressures disappear, however, the instincts and drives they had shaped do not evaporate instantly. Even if they are no longer instrumental for survival and reproduction, they continue to mould the subjective experiences of the animal. The physical, emotional and social needs of present-day cows, dogs and humans don't reflect their current conditions but rather the evolutionary pressures their ancestors encountered tens of thousands of years ago. Why do modern people love sweets so much? Not because in the early 21st century we must gorge on ice cream and chocolate in order to survive. Rather, it is because if our stone age ancestors came across sweet, ripened fruits, the most sensible thing to do was to eat as many of them as they could as quickly as possible. Why do young men drive recklessly, get involved in violent rows, and hack confidential internet sites? Because they are obeying ancient genetic decrees. Seventy thousand years ago, a young hunter who risked his life chasing a mammoth outshone all his competitors and won the hand of the local beauty – and we are now stuck with his macho genes. Exactly the same evolutionary logic shapes the life of cows and calves in our industrial farms. Ancient wild cattle were social animals. In order to survive and reproduce, they needed to communicate, cooperate and compete effectively. Like all social mammals, wild cattle learned the necessary social skills through play. Puppies, kittens, calves and children all love to play because evolution implanted this urge in them. In the wild, they needed to play. If they didn't, they would not learn the social skills vital for survival and reproduction. If a kitten or calf was born with some rare mutation that made them indifferent to play, they were unlikely to survive or reproduce, just as they would not exist in the first place if their ancestors hadn't acquired those skills. Similarly, evolution implanted in puppies, kittens, calves and children an overwhelming desire to bond with their mothers. A chance mutation weakening the mother-infant bond was a death sentence. What happens when farmers now take a young calf, separate her from her mother, put her in a tiny cage, vaccinate her against various diseases, provide her with food and water, and then, when she is old enough, artificially inseminate her with bull sperm? From an objective perspective, this calf no longer needs either maternal bonding or playmates in order to survive and reproduce. All her needs are being taken care of by her human masters. But from a subjective perspective, the calf still feels a strong urge to bond with her mother and to play with other calves. If these urges are not fulfilled, the calf suffers greatly. This is the basic lesson of evolutionary psychology: a need shaped thousands of generations ago continues to be felt subjectively even if it is no longer necessary for survival and reproduction in the present. Tragically, the agricultural revolution gave humans the power to ensure the survival and reproduction of domesticated animals while ignoring their subjective needs. In consequence, domesticated animals are collectively the most successful animals in the world, and at the same time they are individually the most miserable animals that have ever existed. The situation has only worsened over the last few centuries, during which time traditional agriculture gave way to industrial farming. In traditional societies such as ancient Egypt, the Roman empire or medieval China, humans had a very partial understanding of biochemistry, genetics, zoology and epidemiology. Consequently, their manipulative powers were limited. In medieval villages, chickens ran free between the houses, pecked seeds and worms from the garbage heap, and built nests in the barn. If an ambitious peasant tried to lock 1,000 chickens inside a crowded coop, a deadly bird-flu epidemic would probably have resulted, wiping out all the chickens, as well as many villagers. No priest, shaman or witch doctor could have prevented it. But once modern science had deciphered the secrets of birds, viruses and antibiotics, humans could begin to subject animals to extreme living conditions. With the help of vaccinations, medications, hormones, pesticides, central air-conditioning systems and automatic feeders, it is now possible to cram tens of thousands of chickens into tiny coops, and produce meat and eggs with unprecedented efficiency. The fate of animals in such industrial installations has become one of the most pressing ethical issues of our time, certainly in terms of the numbers involved. These days, most big animals live on industrial farms. We imagine that our planet is populated by lions, elephants, whales and penguins. That may be true of the National Geographic channel, Disney movies and children's fairytales, but it is no longer true of the real world. The world contains 40,000 lions but, by way of contrast, there are around 1 billion domesticated pigs; 500,000 elephants and 1.5 billion domesticated cows; 50 million penguins and 20 billion chickens. In 2009, there were 1.6 billion wild birds in Europe, counting all species together. That same year, the European meat and egg industry raised 1.9 billion chickens. Altogether, the domesticated animals of the world weigh about 700m tonnes, compared with 300m tonnes for humans, and fewer than 100m tonnes for large wild animals. This is why the fate of farm animals is not an ethical side issue. It concerns the majority of Earth's large creatures: tens of billions of sentient beings, each with a complex world of sensations and emotions, but which live and die on an industrial production line. Forty years ago, the moral philosopher Peter Singer published his canonical book Animal Liberation, which has done much to change people's minds on this issue. Singer claimed that industrial farming is responsible for more pain and misery than all the wars of history put together.The scientific study of animals has played a dismal role in this tragedy. The scientific community has used its growing knowledge of animals mainly to manipulate their lives more efficiently in the service of human industry. Yet this same knowledge has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that farm animals are sentient beings, with intricate social relations and sophisticated psychological patterns. They may not be as intelligent as us, but they certainly know pain, fear and loneliness. They too can suffer, and they too can be happy.
	28	+This means
	29	+vote aff on try or die- billions of animals are tortured right now because almost everyone on earth eats meat. There is literally no way for this to get worse for the animals.
	30	+The aff outweighs on scale- factory farms inflict torture worse than death.
	31	+Aff also fights human oppression- stops abuse of workers, global famine and climate change
	32	+Sareen 12, Anjali, Why Don't Vegans Care About People?, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anjali-sareen/vegan-lifestyle_b_1771404.html
	33	+Many people don't realize that the animal rights movement is not just about the animals; there's much to gain for humans, as well. Animal agriculture is among the most dangerous industries worldwide. One Green Planet notes that just in the U.S., OSHA reported the death of 9,003 farm workers from work-related injuries between 1992 and 2009. Injuries can include everything from chronic pain to cardiovascular illness and death. Many of the workers are undocumented, leading to a situation in which they are fearful of reporting their illness or injury and therefore do not receive adequate treatment. The quality of life for these workers is often dismal due to the incredible emotional toll that comes from working within a slaughterhouse. Human Rights Watch says that worker conditions in factory farms constitute "systematic human rights abuses." Aside from the direct impact on factory farm and slaughterhouse workers, animal agriculture is also inefficient from a world hunger perspective. According to a report done by the Humane Society entitled "The Impact of Industrialized Animal Agriculture On World Hunger," nearly 80 percent of the world's soybeans and up to 50 percent of the world's corn are fed to animals killed for meat instead of directly to humans. Because of this, the meat industry competes with humans for food. And it's not just food: Resources such as land and water are being wasted for the production of farmed animals. A meat-based diet uses up to 20 times more land than a vegan diet, contributes to deforestation and degrades the land it does use. Meat production also wastes water: Nearly 2,400 gallons of water go to produce one pound of meat, whereas only 25 gallons would be required to produce one pound of wheat. The statistics on meat production's impact on climate change are astounding, as well. According to the United Nations, the livestock sector contributes 18 percent globally to greenhouse gas emissions.
	34	+
	35	+
	36	+==Part 4 is Framing==
	37	+Role of the ballot is to endorse the debater that provides the best methodology to challenge anthropocentrism.
	38	+Educational spaces have routinely papered over the suffering and oppression of animals. As a judge, you have an obligation to reject this mode of thought.
	39	+Penderson 04, Helena Pederson, Goteborg University, (2004), the Journal of Futures Studies, (http://www.jfs.tku.edu.tw/8-4/A01.pdf)
	40	+The education discipline as we know it today recognises the importance of issues related to class, race, gender, and groups of human minorities, as well as the importance of addressing problems of unequal power relations with regard to these categories. Such approaches are undeniably crucial for the role of education today, but from a critical perspective it can also be argued that they have effects of polarisation and exclusion of yet another category from the education discourse - non-human animals.1 Although education researchers and practitioners are often quick to recognise the relevance and interests of various subordinated groups in society, the problems related to the situation of other species than our own have been largely ignored. This article challenges the current order of anthropocentrism, human-centredness in education, and explores the rationales for an alternative approach to values educational research and practice that is more inclusive in character.
	41	+This functions as a pre-fiat uniqueness claim for the aff's impacts. Other forms of oppression are also terrible, but the 1AC's discussion is uniquely key.
	42	+Speciesism is the original form of oppression, creating the groundwork to other forms of oppression. Other forms of oppression are equally terrible, but overall liberation strategies must include a fight against speciesism.
	43	+Best 07, Steven, Chair of Philosophy @ University of Texas – El Paso, Review of Charles Patterson's "The Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust", Journal for Critical Animal Studies, http://www.drstevebest.org/EternalTriblenka.pdf)
	44	+While a welcome advance over the anthropocentric conceit that only humans shape human actions, the environmental determinism approach typically fails to emphasize the crucial role that animals play in human history, as well as how the human exploitation of animals is a key cause of hierarchy, social conflict, and environmental breakdown. A core thesis of what I call "animal standpoint theory" is that animals have been key driving and shaping forces of human thought, psychology, moral and social life, and history overall. More specifically, animal standpoint theory argues that the oppression of human over human has deep roots in the oppression of human over animal. In this context, Charles Patterson's recent book, The Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, articulates the animal standpoint in a powerful form with revolutionary implications. The main argument of Eternal Treblinka is that the human domination of animals, such as it emerged some ten thousand years ago with the rise of agricultural society, was the first hierarchical domination and laid the groundwork for patriarchy, slavery, warfare, genocide, and other systems of violence and power. A key implication of Patterson's theory is that human liberation is implausible if disconnected from animal liberation, and thus humanism — a speciesist philosophy that constructs a hierarchal relationship privileging superior humans over inferior animals and reduces animals to resources for human use — collapses under the weight of its logical contradictions. Patterson lays out his complex holistic argument in three parts. In Part I, he demonstrates that animal exploitation and speciesism have direct and profound connections to slavery, colonialism, racism, and anti-Semitism. In Part II, he shows how these connections exist not only in the realm of ideology – as conceptual systems of justifying and underpinning domination and hierarchy – but also in systems of technology, such that the tools and techniques humans devised for the rationalized mass confinement and slaughter of animals were mobilized against human groups for the same ends. Finally, in the fascinating interviews and narratives of Part III, Patterson describes how personal experience with German Nazism prompted Jewish to take antithetical paths: whereas most retreated to an insular identity and dogmatic emphasis on the singularity of Nazi evil and its tragic experience, others recognized the profound similarities between how Nazis treated their human captives and how humanity as a whole treats other animals, an epiphany that led them to adopt vegetarianism, to become advocates for the animals, and develop a far broader and more inclusive ethic informed by universal compassion for all suffering and oppressed beings. The Origins of Hierarchy "As long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other" –Pythagoras It is little understood that the first form of oppression, domination, and hierarchy involves human domination over animals Patterson's thesis stands in bold contrast to the Marxist theory that the domination over nature is fundamental to the domination over other humans. It differs as well from the social ecology position of Murray Bookchin that domination over humans brings about alienation from the natural world, provokes hierarchical mindsets and institutions, and is the root of the long-standing western goal to "dominate" nature. In the case of Marxists, anarchists, and so many others, theorists typically don't even mention human domination of animals, let alone assign it causal primacy or significance. In Patterson's model, however, the human subjugation of animals is the first form of hierarchy and it paves the way for all other systems of domination such as include patriarchy, racism, colonialism, anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust. As he puts it, "the exploitation of animals was the model and inspiration for the atrocities people committed against each other, slavery and the Holocaust being but two of the more dramatic examples." Hierarchy emerged with the rise of agricultural society some ten thousand years ago. In the shift from nomadic hunting and gathering bands to settled agricultural practices, humans began to establish their dominance over animals through "domestication." In animal domestication (often a euphemism disguising coercion and cruelty), humans began to exploit animals for purposes such as obtaining food, milk, clothing, plowing, and transportation. As they gained increasing control over the lives and labor power of animals, humans bred them for desired traits and controlled them in various ways, such as castrating males to make them more docile. To conquer, enslave, and claim animals as their own property, humans developed numerous technologies, such as pens, cages, collars, ropes, chains, and branding irons. The domination of animals paved the way for the domination of humans. The sexual subjugation of women, Patterson suggests, was modeled after the domestication of animals, such that men began to control women's reproductive capacity, to enforce repressive sexual norms, and to rape them as they forced breeding in their animals. Not coincidentally, Patterson argues, slavery emerged in the same region of the Middle East that spawned agriculture, and, in fact, developed as an extension of animal domestication practices. In areas like Sumer, slaves were managed like livestock, and males were castrated and forced to work along with females. In the fifteenth century, when Europeans began the colonization of Africa and Spain introduced the first international ~~and~~ slave markets, the metaphors, ~~used~~ models, and technologies used to exploit animal~~s~~ slaves were applied with equal cruelty and force to human slaves. Stealing Africans from their native environment and homeland, breaking up families who scream in anguish, wrapping chains around slaves' bodies, shipping them in cramped quarters across continents for weeks or months with no regard for their needs or suffering, branding their skin with a hot iron to mark them as property, auctioning them as servants, breeding them for service and labor, exploiting them for profit, beating them in rages of hatred and anger, and killing them in vast numbers – all these horrors and countless others inflicted on black slaves were developed and perfected centuries earlier through animal exploitation. As the domestication of animals developed in agricultural society, humans lost the intimate connections they once had with animals. By the time of Aristotle, certainly, and with the bigoted assistance of medieval theologians such as St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, western humanity had developed an explicitly hierarchical worldview – that came to be known as the "Great Chain of Being" – used to position humans as the end to which all other beings were mere means. Patterson underscores the crucial point that the domination of human over human and its exercise through slavery, warfare, and genocide typically begins with the denigration of victims. But the means and methods of dehumanization are derivative, for speciesism provided the conceptual paradigm that encouraged, sustained, and justified western brutality toward other peoples. "Throughout the history of our ascent to dominance as the master species," Patterson writes, "our victimization of animals has served as the model and foundation for our victimization of each other. The study of human history reveals the pattern: first, humans exploit and slaughter animals; then, they treat other people like animals and do the same to them." Whether the conquerors are European imperialists, American colonialists, or German Nazis, western aggressors engaged in wordplay before swordplay, vilifying their victims – Africans, Native Americans, Filipinos, Japanese, Vietnamese, Iraqis, and other unfortunates – with opprobrious terms such as "rats," "pigs," "swine," "monkeys," "beasts," and "filthy animals." Once perceived as brute beasts or sub-humans occupying a lower evolutionary rung than white westerners, subjugated peoples were treated accordingly; once characterized as animals, they could be hunted down like animals. The first exiles from the moral community, animals provided a convenient discard bin for oppressors to dispose the oppressed. The connections are clear: "For a civilization built on the exploitation and slaughter of animals, the `lower' and more degraded the human victims are, the easier it is to kill them." Thus, colonialism, as Patterson describes, was a "natural extension of human supremacy over the animal kingdom. For just as humans had subdued animals with their superior intelligence and technologies, so many Europeans believed that the white race had proven its superiority by bringing the "lower races" under its command. There are important parallels between speciesism and sexism and racism in the elevation of white male rationality to the touchstone of moral worth. The arguments European colonialists used to legitimate exploiting Africans – that they were less than human and inferior to white Europeans in ability to reason – are the very same justifications humans use to trap, hunt, confine, and kill animals. Once western norms of rationality were defined as the essence of humanity and social normality, by first using non-human animals as the measure of alterity, it was a short step to begin viewing odd, different, exotic, and eccentric peoples and types as non- or sub-human. Thus, the same criterion created to exclude animals from humans was also used to ostracize blacks, women, and numerous other groups from "humanity."

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-04-30 02:46:29.107

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Kassie Colon

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake SP

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+56

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+West Ranch Won Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+JANFEB - TOC R4 AC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+TOC