Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[9]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[9]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-18 00:06:19.966
	1	+2016-09-18 00:06:19.0

Caselist.CitesClass[8]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,98 @@
	1	+=1-off =
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====Global carbon emissions are way down ====
	5	+**McKenna 15** ~~Phil McKenna, Boston-based reporter for InsideClimate News, master's degree in Science W "Global CO2 Emissions Decline in 2015 After Soaring for a Decade, Study Says," Inside Climate News, December 7, 2015, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07122015/global-carbon-emissions-rising-decades-decline-2015-study-climate-change-paris~~ JW
	6	+The volume of carbon dioxide belched into the atmosphere from human activity this year is
	7	+AND
	8	+years but I think it's unlikely in the long run," he said.
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+====Closing nuclear plants forces increased fossil fuel use ====
	12	+**Roston 15** ~~Eric Roston, writer for Bloomberg, "Why Nuclear Power Is All but Dead in the U.S." Bloomberg News, April 15, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-15/soon-it-may-be-easier-to-build-a-nuclear-plant-in-iran-than-in-the-u-s-~~ JW
	13	+*ellipsis from original text
	14	+Say what? The U.S. achieved
	15	+AND
	16	+to figure out nuclear if that envelope is to mean anything to us."
	17	+
	18	+
	19	+====Nuclear power is key to preventing global warming- empirics prove.====
	20	+** Biello 13 –**David Biello 13, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/, citing James Hansen of Columbia University, How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming
	21	+In addition to reducing the risk of nuclear war, U.S. ~~
	22	+AND
	23	+, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, where Hansen works.
	24	+
	25	+
	26	+====Meeting the 2 degrees Celsius change is key to stopping climate change catastrophe ====
	27	+**Mastroianni 15** ~~Brian Mastroianni, "Why 2 degrees are so important to the climate," CBS News, November 30, 2015, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-un-climate-talks-why-2-degrees-are-so-important/~~
	28	+As the United Nations conference on climate change gets underway Monday in Paris, one
	29	+AND
	30	+carbon emissions enough so that the 2-degree threshold is not crossed.
	31	+
	32	+
	33	+====Global runaway warming causes extinction ====
	34	+**Carana 14 –** Sam Carana is an environmental analyst whose expertise lies in environmental policy and sustainable energy. He also is a writer and policy developer. "Near-Term Human Extinction",~~ http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/04/near-term-human-extinction.html) CR
	35	+Global Warming and Feedbacks Is there a mechanism that could make humanity go extinct in
	36	+AND
	37	+. The poster below, from an earlier post, illustrates the danger.
	38	+
	39	+
	40	+====Ethical uncertainty means we prioritize existential risks. ====
	41	+**Bostrom 13** ~~Nick Bostrom, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy @ University of Oxford, "Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority," Global Policy Vol. 4 Issue 1, February 2013~~
	42	+These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential
	43	+AND
	44	+of value. To do this, we must prevent any existential catastrophe.
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+====Climate change disproportionately affects people of color and causes extinction. ====
	48	+Pellow 12
	49	+**David Naguib Pellow 12, Ph.D. Professor, Don Martindale Endowed Chair – University of Minnesota, "Climate Disruption in the Global South and in African American Communities: Key Issues, Frameworks, and Possibilities for Climate Justice," February 2012, http://www.jointcenter.org/sites/default/files/upload/research/files/White_Paper_Climate_Disruption_final.pdf**
	50	+It is now known unequivocally that significant warming of the atmosphere is occurring, coinciding
	51	+AND
	52	+must reduce our emissions and consumption here at home in the global North.
	53	+
	54	+
	55	+====policymaking is the only way to create change.====
	56	+**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.
	57	+
	58	+
	59	+=2-off =
	60	+
	61	+
	62	+====The 1AC misdiagnoses the problem- you simplify racism to a question of bodily characteristics and overall goals, which ignores the social context of oppression.====
	63	+ Yamamoto 2
	64	+Yamamoto, Eric (Professor of Law, University of Hawai'i Law School; Visiting Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley, 1999.)., and Jen-L. W. Lyman. "Racializing environmental justice." U. Colo. L. Rev. 72 (2001): 311.
	65	+Finally, the established framework tends to assume that all racial and indigenous groups,
	66	+AND
	67	+courts and environmental justice scholars make this simplifying assumption about race and culture.
	68	+
	69	+
	70	+====Trying to articulate your solvency advocate as a reason that you meet the wishes of the oppressed is another link- this allows the 1AC to paper over other individuals and enforce a hierarchy that privileges the dominant voices. ====
	71	+McDonald and Coleman 99
	72	+Peter McDonald and Mikki Coleman, Deconstructing hierarchies of oppression and adopting a 'multiple model' approach to anti-oppressive practice. Social Work Education serial online. March 1999;18(1):19.
	73	+"By definition, the privileged group within a hierarchy tends to have the maximum access to necessary commodities, as well as political power and social status. Those at the lower levels of the pyramid must either conform to the rules and desires of those at the highest point, in exchange for a given share of the society's resources; or else those at the lower levels must engage in a constant struggle with those at the very base of the pyramid for whatever resources are left in society after the privileged group have taken the majority share. In fact, it is in the interests of those at the top of the hierarchy to allow (or actively to encourage) a certain amount of social conflict between those at the lower levels, and those at the base. While the mass of people below can be encouraged to fight amongst themselves, rather than uniting for a common cause, the privileged group can more easily maintain their position at the top of the hierarchy, as Freire asserted under a heading specifically entitled 'Divide and Rule': This is another fundamental dimension of the theory of oppressive action which is as old as oppression itself. As the oppressor minority subordinates and dominates the majority, it must divide it and keep it divided in order to remain in power. The minority cannot permit itself the luxury of tolerating the unification of the people, which would undoubtedly signify a serious threat to their own hegemony. Accordingly, the oppressors halt by any means (including violence) any action which in even incipient fashion could awaken the oppressed to the need for unity. Concepts such as unity, organization and struggle arc immediately labelled as dangerous. In fact, of course, these concepts are dangerous—to the oppressors—for their realization is necessary to actions of liberation. It is in the interest of the oppressor to weaken the oppressed still further, to isolate them, to create and deepen rifts among them. This is done by varied means, from the repressive methods of the government bureaucracy, to the forms of cultural action with which they manipulate the people by giving them the impression that they arc being helped. (Freire, 1996, p. 122)"
	74	+
	75	+
	76	+====This ignores the actual voices of the oppressed- applying blanket statements to all just re-affirms dominant power structures. ====
	77	+Yamamoto 99
	78	+Yamamoto, Eric (Professor of Law, University of Hawai'i Law School; Visiting Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley, 1999.)., and Jen-L. W. Lyman. "Racializing environmental justice." U. Colo. L. Rev. 72 (2001): 311.
	79	+The framework, however, at times also undercuts environmental justice struggles by racial and
	80	+AND
	81	+cynicism about environmentalists who sometimes treat them as mascots for the environmental cause.
	82	+
	83	+
	84	+====This means your movement just harms traditional groups, such as indigenous people- turns case and no solvency====
	85	+Yamamoto 01, Eric (Professor of Law, University of Hawai'i Law School; Visiting Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley, 1999.)., and Jen-L. W. Lyman. "Racializing environmental justice." U. Colo. L. Rev. 72 (2001): 311.
	86	+James Huffman also criticizes the traditional environmental justice framework, but from the perspective of
	87	+AND
	88	+society, will suffer at the altar of environmentalism worshipped in their name."
	89	+
	90	+
	91	+====Thus, the alternative: communities should individually decide for themselves whether they want to prohibit the production of nuclear power in their area. Mutually exclusive: they decide for themselves, so they don't actually necessarily ban. The perm is severance. ====
	92	+
	93	+
	94	+====Alt solves best- you cannot make rulings over the needs of the oppressed without reifying their oppression. Friere 68 ,,PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED Paulo Freire. 1968.,, ====
	95	+It is essential for the oppressed to realize that when they accept the struggle for humanization they also accept, from that moment, their total responsibility for the struggle. They must realize that they are fighting not merely for freedom from hunger, but for freedom to create and to construct, to wonder and to ven­ ture. Such freedom requires that the individual be active and responsible, not a slave or a well-fed cog in the machine. . . . It is not enough that men are not slaves; if social conditions further the existence of automatons, the result will not be love of life, but love of death. The oppressed, who have been shaped by the death-affirming cli­ mate of oppression, must find through their struggle the way to life- affirming humanization, which does not lie simply in having more to eat (although it does involve having more to eat and cannot fail to include this aspect). The oppressed have been destroyed precisely because their situation has reduced them to things. In order to regain their humanity they must cease to be things and fight as men and women. This is a radical requirement. They cannot enter the struggle as objects in order later to become human beings. The struggle begins with men's recognition that they have been destroyed. Propaganda, management, manipulation—all arms of domination—cannot be the instruments of their rehumanization. The only effective instrument is a humanizing pedagogy in which the revolutionary leadership establishes a permanent relationship of dialogue with the oppressed. In a humanizing pedagogy the method ceases to be an instrument by which the teachers (in this instance, the revolutionary leadership) can manipulate the students (in this instance, the oppressed), because it expresses the consciousness of the students themselves. The method is, in fact, the external form of consciousness manifest in acts, which takes on the fundamental property of consciousness—its intentionality. The essence of consciousness is being with the world, and this behavior is permanent and unavoidable. Accordingly, consciousness is in essence a way to­ wards something apart from itself, outside itself, which surrounds it and which it apprehends by means of its ideational capacity. Consciousness is thus by definition a method, in the most general sense of the word. A revolutionary leadership must accordingly practice co-inten- tional education. Teachers and students (leadership and people), co- intent on reality, are both Subjects, not only in the task of unveiling that reality, and thereby coming to know it critically, but in the task of re-creating that knowledge. As they attain this knowledge of real­ ity through common reflection and action, they discover themselves as it£ permanent re-creators. In this way, the presence of the op­ pressed in the struggle for their liberation will be what it should be: not pseudo-participation, but committed involvement.
	96	+
	97	+
	98	+=Case =

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-18 00:06:21.518

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Megan Nubel

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Strake Jesuit AS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+9

Round

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

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Greenhill R4 NC

Tournament

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