Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[8]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[7]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[8]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-18 18:16:21.97
	1	+2016-09-18 18:16:21.0

Caselist.CitesClass[7]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,146 @@
	1	+==1AC – SV ==
	2	+All brackets for offensive language
	3	+
	4	+
	5	+===Part 1: Framework ===
	6	+
	7	+
	8	+====The Role of the Judge is to be a critical educator and policymaker focusing on the liberation of the oppressed ====
	9	+**Giroux 06** ~~Henry Giroux, American scholar and cultural critic, "America on the Edge: Henry Giro ux on Politics, Culture, and Education," Springer, March 31, 2006~~ JW
	10	+Educators at all levels need to challenge the assumption that politics is dead, or
	11	+AND
	12	+that severely limit the creative, ethical, and liberatory potential of education.
	13	+
	14	+
	15	+====The Role of the Ballot is to endorse the best methodology and policy to liberate oppressed groups ====
	16	+
	17	+
	18	+====Debate should deal with questions of real-world consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression^^====^^
	19	+**Curry 14 **~~Tommy J. Curry, Professor of Philosophy @ Texas AandM, "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century," 2014~~
	20	+Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
	21	+AND
	22	+economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations.
	23	+
	24	+
	25	+====The state is inevitable - policymaking is the only way to create change.====
	26	+**Coverstone 5** Alan Coverstone (masters in communication from Wake Forest, longtime debate coach) "Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact" Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference November 17^^th^^ 2005 An important concern emerges when Mitchell describes reflexive fiat as a contest strategy capable of "eschewing the power to directly control external actors" (1998b, p. 20). Describing debates about what our government should do as attempts to control outside actors is debilitating and disempowering. Control of the US government is exactly what an active, participatory citizenry is supposed to be all about. After all, if democracy means anything, it means that citizens not only have the right, they also bear the obligation to discuss and debate what the government should be doing. Absent that discussion and debate, much of the motivation for personal political activism is also lost. Those who have co-opted Mitchell's argument for individual advocacy often quickly respond that nothing we do in a debate round can actually change government policy, and unfortunately, an entire generation of debaters has now swallowed this assertion as an article of faith. The best most will muster is, "Of course not, but you don't either!" The assertion that nothing we do in debate has any impact on government policy is one that carries the potential to undermine Mitchell's entire project. If there is nothing we can do in a debate round to change government policy, then we are left with precious little in the way of pro-social options for addressing problems we face. At best, we can pursue some Pilot-like hand washing that can purify us as individuals through quixotic activism but offer little to society as a whole. It is very important to note that Mitchell (1998b) tries carefully to limit and bound his notion of reflexive fiat by maintaining that because it "views fiat as a concrete course of action, it is bounded by the limits of pragmatism" (p. 20). Pursued properly, the debates that Mitchell would like to see are those in which the relative efficacy of concrete political strategies for pro-social change is debated. In a few noteworthy examples, this approach has been employed successfully, and I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed judging and coaching those debates. The students in my program have learned to stretch their understanding of their role in the political process because of the experience. Therefore, those who say I am opposed to Mitchell's goals here should take care at such a blanket assertion. However, contest debate teaches students to combine personal experience with the language of political power. Powerful personal narratives unconnected to political power are regularly co-opted by those who do learn the language of power. One need look no further than the annual state of the Union Address where personal story after personal story is used to support the political agenda of those in power. The so-called role-playing that public policy contest debates encourage promotes active learning of the vocabulary and levers of power in America. Imagining the ability to use our own arguments to influence government action is one of the great virtues of academic debate. Gerald Graff (2003) analyzed the decline of argumentation in academic discourse and found a source of student antipathy to public argument in an interesting place. I'm up against…their aversion to the role of public spokesperson that formal writing presupposes. It's as if such students can't imagine any rewards for being a public actor or even imagining themselves in such a role. This lack of interest in the public sphere may in turn reflect a loss of confidence in the possibility that the arguments we make in public will have an effect on the world. Today's students' lack of faith in the power of persuasion reflects the waning of the ideal of civic participation that led educators for centuries to place rhetorical and argumentative training at the center of the school and college curriculum. (Graff, 2003, p. 57) The power to imagine public advocacy that actually makes a difference is one of the great virtues of the traditional notion of fiat that critics deride as mere simulation. Simulation of success in the public realm is far more empowering to students than completely abandoning all notions of personal power in the face of governmental hegemony by teaching students that "nothing they can do in a contest debate can ever make any difference in public policy." Contest debating is well suited to rewarding public activism if it stops accepting as an article of faith that personal agency is somehow undermined by the so-called role playing in debate. Debate is role-playing whether we imagine government action or imagine individual action. Imagining myself starting a socialist revolution in America is no less of a fantasy than imagining myself making a difference on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, both fantasies influenced my personal and political development virtually ensuring a life of active, pro-social, political participation. Neither fantasy reduced the likelihood that I would spend my life trying to make the difference I imagined. One fantasy actually does make a greater difference: the one that speaks the language of political power. The other fantasy disables action by making one a laughingstock to those who wield the language of power. Fantasy motivates and role-playing trains through visualization. Until we can imagine it, we cannot really do it. Role-playing without question teaches students to be comfortable with the language of power, and that language paves the way for genuine and effective political activism. Debates over the relative efficacy of political strategies for pro-social change must confront governmental power at some point. There is a fallacy in arguing that movements represent a better political strategy than voting and person-to-person advocacy. Sure, a full-scale movement would be better than the limited voice I have as a participating citizen going from door to door in a campaign, but so would full-scale government action. Unfortunately, the gap between my individual decision to pursue movement politics and the emergence of a full-scale movement is at least as great as the gap between my vote and democratic change. They both represent utopian fiat. Invocation of Mitchell to support utopian movement fiat is simply not supported by his work, and too often, such invocation discourages the concrete actions he argues for in favor of the personal rejectionism that under girds the political cynicism that is a fundamental cause of voter and participatory abstention in America today.
	27	+
	28	+
	29	+**====The nuclearization of society enforces an epistemologically bankrupt mode of thinking in place of traditional ways of indigenous people. ====**
	30	+**WISE 93** ~~World Information Service on Energy, founded in 1978, "Special: Environmental Racism and Nuclear Development," Nuclear Monitor Issue: ~~#387-388, The WISE-Amsterdam Collective, March 1993~~ JW
	31	+Racism, by itself, is a symptom of the deep sickness at the heart
	32	+AND
	33	+of vision that come from those who see from a different vantage point."
	34	+
	35	+
	36	+===Part 2: Criticism ===
	37	+
	38	+
	39	+====Subpoint A) Environmental racism ====
	40	+
	41	+
	42	+====Every aspect of nuclear production overlaps and impedes upon Native Americans ====
	43	+**Matsunaga 14** ~~Kyoko Matsunaga, Associate Professor, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, "Leslie Marmon Silko and Nuclear Dissent in the American Southwest," The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 25, 2014~~ JW
	44	+The politics and rhetoric of the Cold War—of which the Vietnam War was
	45	+AND
	46	+by the "preexisting settler discourse about desert lands as barren wastelands."6
	47	+
	48	+
	49	+====And to add insult to injury, Native Americans don't receive proper compensation for damages ====
	50	+**Kyne and Bolin 7/12** ~~Dean Kyne, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Bob Bolin, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, "Emerging Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 12, 2016~~ JW
	51	+The "uranium frenzy" began in the West in the 1940s as the U
	52	+AND
	53	+for downwind and mining victims to receive benefits for their illnesses ~~75~~.
	54	+
	55	+
	56	+====Subpoint B) Cultural Genocide ====
	57	+
	58	+
	59	+====The health and ecological effects on indigenous populations is tantamount to cultural genocide ====
	60	+**Ryser et al 3/27 1** ~~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
	61	+Medical, genetic and social researchers have attempted to understand the complex public health effects
	62	+AND
	63	+, parts of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Yakama.
	64	+
	65	+
	66	+====Subpoint C) Nuclear colonial discourse ====
	67	+
	68	+
	69	+====Discourse about native lands as wastelands permits nuclear colonialism ====
	70	+**Endres 09 1** ~~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~~ JW
	71	+Wasteland, like most words, is polysemous. In common parlance, wasteland is
	72	+AND
	73	+land being turned into a wasteland from toxic pollution (LaDuke 1999).9
	74	+
	75	+
	76	+====Wasteland discourse justifies terrible nuclear policies. It directly spills over into actual policies and harms ====
	77	+**Endres 2** ~~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~~ JW
	78	+The negative perception of the desert as wasteland has persisted to this day. The
	79	+AND
	80	+of wasteland as one of the justifications for HLW storage at those locations.
	81	+
	82	+
	83	+====The 1AC is a direct challenge to this colonial discourse. We recognize that these lands have spiritual and cultural value to indigenous populations. Our affirmation of the resolution is our method to rectify this historic abuse and challenge traditional discourse that justifies cultural destruction. ====
	84	+
	85	+
	86	+====Plan text: Native American tribal governments in conjunction with the USFG will ban the production of nuclear power ====
	87	+
	88	+
	89	+===Part 3: Solvency ===
	90	+
	91	+
	92	+====1. Conjunction with the federal government is key. There are nuclear activities near indigenous lands that negatively affect tribes but fall outside their jurisdiction ====
	93	+**Tsosie 15 2** ~~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~~ JW
	94	+Second, U.S. public lands policy governs federal lands adjacent to the
	95	+AND
	96	+both.115 The Havasupai Tribe is still heavily invested in this issue.
	97	+
	98	+
	99	+====2. Any amount of radiation is dangerous. Means a ban of all nuclear power is the only way to solve. ====
	100	+**Ryser et al 2** ~~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
	101	+Radioactive substances carry uniquely dangerous characteristics compared to other toxins made by human industry.
	102	+AND
	103	+of potential increased cancer risk — particularly from disposed spent radioactive fuel rods.
	104	+
	105	+
	106	+====3. Exercising Native American sovereign power is uniquely key to addressing the historical legacy of nuclear colonialism ====
	107	+**Tsosie 3** ~~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~~ JW
	108	+The exercise of self-determination is necessary to redress the legacy of the 19th
	109	+AND
	110	+this with a practice of "genocide" against the Navajo people.16
	111	+
	112	+
	113	+====4. The aff is part of a larger resistance to nuclear colonialism. ====
	114	+**Endres 3** ~~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies,6:1,39 — 60, 2009~~
	115	+~~Native~~ American Indian resistance is an important part of the story of nuclear
	116	+AND
	117	+also intersects with sovereignty, nuclearism and colonialism, to which I now turn
	118	+
	119	+
	120	+===Part 4: Underview ===
	121	+
	122	+
	123	+====1. Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms====
	124	+**Bryant 12** bracketed for grammar
	125	+~~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
	126	+The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
	127	+AND
	128	+. Instead we prefer to shout and denounce. Good luck with that.
	129	+
	130	+
	131	+====2. Aff gets RVI's on theory ====
	132	+a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
	133	+b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
	134	+c) It's logical: you should lose for needlessly calling me a cheater
	135	+
	136	+
	137	+====3. If they win offense under a T interp, you should re-evaluate the 1AC as a whole res aff: ====
	138	+a) allows us to return to substance and prevents the round from devolving to theory
	139	+b) solves all the abuse on their shell
	140	+
	141	+
	142	+====Reject low probability impacts. ====
	143	+**Kessler and Daase 08** ~~Oliver Kessler and Christopher Daase, Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Department of Political Science, University of Munich, "From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Risk and the Paradox of Security Politics," Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 33, No. 2, The Social Construction and Control of Danger in Counterterrorism (Apr.-June 2008), pp. 211-232~~
	144	+The problem of the second method is that it is very difficult to "calculate
	145	+AND
	146	+assessment is, however, that even the most absurd scenarios can gain plausibility

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-18 18:16:23.755

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Sierra Inglet

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Newark Science BA

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+8

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+5

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Greenhill R5 AC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Greenhill