Changes for page Westwood Mambapoor Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:41

From version < 67.1
edited by Administrator
on 2017/08/29 03:41
To version < 23.1 >
edited by Dhruva Mambapoor
on 2016/12/17 00:45
<
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Author
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -xwiki:XWiki.Admin
1 +XWiki.shadowmastax@gmailcom
Caselist.CitesClass[10]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,37 +1,0 @@
1 -=K – Cap=
2 -
3 -
4 -==Default 1NC==
5 -
6 -
7 -===1NC===
8 -
9 -
10 -====The university has become the cornerstone of production, where research and learning has become more and more focused on using students as capital for knowledge economies and mass capitalist globalization.====
11 -**Peters and Besley 06** (Michael A. Peters and A.C. Besley, Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism, 2006, pp 24-25, 7/5/2016)
12 -It is not hard to make the leap from informatization and the postmodernization of production to an understanding of the implications for higher education or, indeed, schooling per se. In this context, we can easily talk of the informatization of knowledge production. We can recognize, as have many national governments, the significance of higher education in the knowledge economy, and the role of research in bolstering productivity. Many of the strategies concerning technology transfer have been centered on universities, with an emphasis on partnerships with business and the development of new start-up and spin-off companies. Governments have also tried to encourage the “clustering” of universities as a means of regional development. There has been a general reorientation of university curricula toward more practical and vocational knowledge, and university teachers and lectures are increasingly encouraged to engage in e-learning and to prepare their lectures as part of online courses. In this context, the questions of immaterial labor, intellectual property, and the culturalization of economic knowledge become leading policy issues. The World Bank recognizes the importance of tertiary education systems for developing and transitional economies, which face significant new trends regarding the convergent impacts of globalization, the information and communication revolutions, and the increasing importance of knowledge as a main driver of growth. The bank now argues that the role of tertiary education in the construction of knowledge economies and democratic societies is more influential than ever and that tertiary education is central to knowledge creation and production. At the same time, there is the danger of a growing digital divide between strata within developing countries between North and South. In a major report, Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education, the World Bank (2002) describes how tertiary education contributes to building up a country’s capacity for participating in an increasingly knowledge-based world economy. It also investigates policy options for tertiary education that have the potential to enhance economic growth and reduce poverty. In some ways, the report indicates new directions. While it expands on Higher Education: The Lessons of Experience (World Bank 1994), it also emphasizes new trends, particularly the emerging role of knowledge as a major driver of economic development, and greater competition from nontraditional providers in a “borderless education” environment. The report recognizes that modes of delivery and organizational structures will become transformed as a result of the communications revolution. It comments on the rise of market forces in tertiary education and the emergence of a global market for advanced human capital.
13 -
14 -
15 -====The First Ammendment has become a tool of neoliberal governmentality furthering the capacity of corporations to influence decision-making====
16 -**Cohen, 2015 **~~Cohen, Julie E., Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center "The Zombie First Amendment", William and Mary Law Review, vol. 56, forthcoming 2015, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract'id=2473798anddownload=yes~~
17 -So far, I have argued that First Amendment scholars should pay more systematic attention to a set of developments that only partially overlaps the territory long conceived as the First Amendment’s traditional core. Many of those developments involve private economic activity and proprietary claims to information. In general, the Court has resolved First Amendment claims relating to private economic activity in a way that ratifies emerging distributions of information power. In this respect, contemporary First Amendment jurisprudence aligns with what scholars in a variety of fields have identified as a more general shift toward a neoliberal governmentality that emphasizes market liberties and a market-based approach to political participation.64 Constitutional law does not itself produce the shift toward neoliberal governmentality. As Morton Horwitz has observed, “A constitutional revolution can take place only when the intellectual ground has first been prepared.”65 Horwitz was describing the New Deal revolution in constitutional law, and more particularly the need to take careful note of its prehistory. As his research showed, the development of private and commercial law during both the antebellum period and the post-Civil War years established the distributive backdrop against which the constitutional disputes of the Lochner and New Deal eras were litigated. Economic regulation was commonplace in the nineteenth century, and initially emerged in ways that reinforced emerging patterns of industrial power, while judges came to understand the common law instrumentally, as a tool for promoting commerce and economic development.66 The judicial philosophy that produced Lochner was in part a reaction to perceived special-interest legislation that threatened property interests, but the turn toward social science methodology that progressive legal thought set in motion also tended to validate existing economic arrangements.67 Similarly, the First Amendment jurisprudence outlined in Part I takes its shape from an antecedent pattern of subconstitutional settlements and justifications that reflects perceived economic, commercial, and political imperatives. The point I want to make here is most aptly characterized as Hohfeldian: in the emerging information economy, the balance of rights, privileges, powers, and immunities that characterized the industrial economy and the regulatory frameworks put in place to constrain it is shifting.68 The transformation now underway in our political economy is engendering a corresponding shift in the distribution of legal power and privilege that extends across doctrinal boundaries and that is far more fundamental than the subject-matter divisions that such boundaries attempt to impose. A. Corporate Citizens in the Marketplace In both Citizens United and the earlier cases about the free speech rights of media companies on which the Citizens United majority relied, the Court took as given that corporations speak in the same ways that people do and that money enhances communicative power in a linear, additive way. Those assumptions are charmingly oldfashioned. In the contemporary information economy, the expressive power of capital is not additive but rather multiplicative and synergistic. One of the principal vehicles for the expressive power of capital is the corporate brand, and corporations rely on their brands to engage in norm entrepreneurship on a wide range of social, economic, and technical issues. The communicative impact of brands is backed by both old and new forms of legal and market privilege. Brand-driven corporate messaging is both increasingly pervasive and increasingly difficult to disentangle from the commercial and social contexts in which it is embedded.69 Logos and other indicia of corporate sponsorship adorn bodies, billboards, theaters and arenas, and other public spaces. In addition, corporate brand owners pursue a wide range of other branding opportunities that might yield bottomline benefits: product placements in films and television shows, displays on the uniforms and equipment of professional athletes, and so on. The modern corporation does not simply advertise its wares, however. It develops a “social media presence” on platforms like Facebook and Twitter, streaming updates to its followers about developments that might implicate its market or enhance its brand cachet. In addition, it develops gamified promotional strategies designed to recruit individual consumers as brand evangelists and reward them for their successes.70 These developments make the cumulative power of corporate messaging far greater than the Court’s discussion presumed. Although speech in the service of branding tends not to be overtly political, it reflects and reinscribes the ethos of consumerist, transactionally inflected participation that increasingly characterizes public discourse.71
18 -
19 -
20 -====Schools like Uchicago use free speech to market recruitment in the college – they are complicit in capital====
21 -**FIRE 15** ~~FIRE Student Network (FSN)Support free speech on your campus. The FIRE Student Network (FSN) is a coalition of students and faculty members who recognize the importance of advancing civil liberties on their campuses. Signing up for the FSN is free! ... Video Watch FIRE's latest videos about protecting rights on campus. FIRE Launches Campaign in Support of University of Chicago Free Speech Statement," FIRE. 10-23-2015. https://www.thefire.org/cases/fire-launches-campaign-in-support-of-university-of-chicago-free-speech-statement/~~//roman
22 -From its very founding, the University of Chicago has dedicated itself to the preservation and celebration of the freedom of expression as an essential element of the University’s culture. In 1902, in his address marking the University’s decennial, President William Rainey Harper declared that “the principle of complete freedom of speech on all subjects has from the beginning been regarded as fundamental in the University of Chicago” and that “this principle can neither now nor at any future time be called in question.” Thirty years later, a student organization invited William Z. Foster, the Communist Party’s candidate for President, to lecture on campus. This triggered a storm of protest from critics both on and off campus. To those who condemned the University for allowing the event, President Robert M. Hutchins responded that “our students . . . should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.” He insisted that the “cure” for ideas we oppose “lies through open discussion rather than through inhibition.” On a later occasion, Hutchins added that “free inquiry is indispensable to the good life, that universities exist for the sake of such inquiry, and that without it they cease to be universities.”
23 -
24 -
25 -====Capitalism perpetuates all other forms of oppression – we control the direction of their impacts.====
26 -**Bennett 12.** Sara Bennett. Socialist Review is a monthly magazine covering current events, theory and history, books and arts reviews from a revolutionary socialist perspective. It is the sister publication of Socialist Worker. , May 2012, "Marxism and oppression," Socialist Review, http://socialistreview.org.uk/369/marxism-and-oppression //RS
27 -Marx recognised that oppression, far from being a natural and thus a permanent feature of human society, is a historical invention. True, the oppression of certain groups of people in society existed before capitalism. For example, Marx's collaborator Engels traced the origins of women's oppression to the formation of the family with the rise of class society. Despite the many changes to the family over the centuries, it persists to this day because it plays a crucial role in the continuation of the system, by bearing the brunt of the cost for caring for present and past generations of workers and the rearing of the next - all at our own expense. So, despite the fact that the majority of women in this country who can work do work, their role in the family means they still accept lower wages and fewer career opportunities. Other forms of oppression have arisen with the emergence of capitalism. So racism was created to justify the slave trade and imperialism and is perpetuated by the need to keep workers divided. Towards the end of the 19th century a new sexual identity, the "homosexual", was invented and portrayed as a threat to society and the maintenance of the family. What is common to all forms of oppression, however, is that they have a material basis and arise from the structures and dynamics of class society. Oppression serves to reinforce the interests of capitalism. But while Marx understood that some forms of oppression existed before capitalism, he also grasped the way the nature of oppression under capitalism was different to what had gone before. Under feudalism or slavery the mass of the population were either slaves, the property of masters, or serfs tied to particular pieces of land and bound to a lord. Such societies were rigidly hierarchical and were based on the idea that everyone had their "rightful place". Notions of freedom for those other than the rulers in society were rare and subordination in society was widely accepted. When new societies emerge so too do new ideas. The bourgeois revolutions that overthrew feudalism and paved the way for capitalism did so under the banner of "liberty, equality and fraternity", as the French Revolution put it. This was a huge step forward for humanity compared to previous societies. Under capitalism production takes the form of creating commodities to be sold in the market. Everything becomes a commodity, including our ability to labour. Workers are no longer tied to individual lords and masters. The new ideas of individual freedom and equality under capitalism reflect this new way of organising production. But in reality freedom for the vast majority of the human race is simply this ability to sell their labour power to one or another capitalist (provided, of course, that there is sufficient demand). Capitalism holds out the promise of liberation, but then denies it to the majority of society. Capitalist production increasingly comes to depend on the mass cooperation of workers, but as capitalism brings workers together so too it divides them from each other. Workers are forced to continually compete against each other - for jobs, overtime, housing, even access to decent healthcare provision. Oppression helps to create and reinforce divisions between workers. For example, the mass media and mainstream government encourage us to see immigrant workers as inferior to native-born workers. While it may be acceptable for immigrants to participate in our workforce when there are plenty of jobs, as soon as jobs become more scarce, immigrants are portrayed as less deserving of work, and therefore a threat. Alienation These divisions are underpinned by the alienation of workers under capitalism from control over their labour. This results in a sense of powerlessness, especially when workers do not fight back collectively. In this situation, some workers may gain a feeling of empowerment by looking down on others and feeling superior. So a white person may look down on a black person or a man on a woman. And it is not just non-oppressed groups who feel superior to oppressed groups - it cuts across oppressed groups too. For example, a "second-generation immigrant" can feel superior to a recently arrived immigrant, or a gay man can feel superior to a disabled person. As a result, some people argue that sections of workers have an interest in sustaining oppression, rather than seeing that all oppression works to allow the continuation of capitalism by providing it with material benefits. So we hear arguments that men benefit from women's oppression, or that all whites benefit from the oppression of black people. While it's true that non-oppressed groups do not suffer in the way that oppressed people may, it is wrong to think they therefore have some interest in the continuation of oppression. For example, the fact that women in full-time work still earn around 15 percent less than their male counterparts does not allow men's wages to increase further - it simply means it's easier for the bosses to keep all wages down. The best solution to this would be for male and female workers to fight together for decent wages for all. This may be easier said than done for a woman at work being sexually harassed by a male colleague, however. After all, she experiences her oppression through his sexist commetns and gestures. But while he may be the immediate culprit, the causes of oppression run much deeper - they are rooted in capitalism. Socialists have to fight all forms of oppression through the struggle for class unity. Alienation and distorted notions of freedom and equality also mean that people are not necessarily conscious of their oppression and can lead them to actively embrace some of the worst aspects of it. With the emphasis under capitalism on the individual rather than the social whole, we are made to feel that the worst symptoms of our oppression must be through some fault of our own. Here capitalism steps in to sell us the very "solutions" we need. So we have a whole industry of self-help books in the UK which is estimated to have earned publishers some £60?million in the past five years. In a similar vein, the answer to women not feeling "sexy enough" is to attend pole dancing "fitness classes", or undergo cosmetic surgery. There are even skin-lightening techniques for black people. A divisive system Capitalism works quite hard to ensure we keep believing our main enemy is some other group of ordinary people in society rather than the nature of our distorted relationships under capitalist society. The mass media have to continuously pump out horrific anti-immigrant, anti-traveller, anti single mum propaganda. Capitalism maintains its hold by dividing those workers who collectively could overturn it, and ideology plays a significant role. And this means it has to work to undermine the reality of our lives that actually brings us into constant contact and cooperation with all types of people, whether Muslim, gay, disabled and so on. While many non-Marxists fight with us against oppression, there is often disagreement about our emphasis on the working class as the key agent of change. After all, oppression affects all classes, not just the working class. This means some people believe that the oppressed group itself is the key to overcoming its own oppression. At a recent demonstration at Cambridge University over the visit of former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, one of the chants was "The women united will never be defeated." It's not hard to see why this might seem like common sense to some; after all, every woman can be a victim of sexual assault. But which women are we uniting with? Christine Lagarde, Strauss-Kahn's replacement, is central to the imposition of draconian austerity measures across Europe, driving the living standards of millions of women and men down - something that in turn will increase the pressures on people's lives and place more women at the risk of violence.
28 -
29 -
30 -====Our alternative is to vote negative to refuse to participate in activities that support capitalism – key to hollowing out capitalist structures.====
31 -**Herod 4. ** Herod, Columbia University Graduate and Political Activist, 2004 (James, Getting Free, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman'g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm, JC)
32 -It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. This strategy, at its most basic, calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image then is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning out of them until there is nothing left but shells. This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy, and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system, but an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better, something we want. Thus capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations alongside capitalist relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing every thing we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, non-hierarchical, non-commodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called revolution, or during the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable, materialist laws of history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what we’re doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and know how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs. But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live and let live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we can’t simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism must be explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes War, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks, but a war fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to continue doing so. Nevertheless, there are many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly. We must always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage-slavery because the ruling class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, destroying community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, destroying our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell, for a wage, our ability to work. It’s quite clear then how we can overthrow slavery. We must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the products made by wage-slaves (that is, we must get free from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for replacing capitalism, totally, with a new civilization. This is an important distinction, because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms, as a system. We can sometimes in some places win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and win some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal, as a system.¶ Thus our strategy of gutting and eventually destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing image, an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another, and not merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking about entire systems and social orders, but everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a way of life, and that is the way we should approach it. The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed millions and millions of people must be dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief-system that is needed, like a religion, or like Marxism, or Anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant desire, an overriding need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way, and not to live another way. If this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to be autonomous, to live in democratically controlled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be destroyed. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction.
33 -
34 -
35 -====The role of the ballot is challenging capitalism in educational spaces – it has seeped into educational sites and has corrupted our epistemology, means K is a prior question.====
36 -**Giroux ’08. **(Henry A, Global Network Television Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, and Susan S, Associate Professor of English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, "Education After Neoliberalism", December 31 2008, http://www.truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/81781:education-after-neoliberalism,
37 -In spite of the crucial connection between various modes of domination and pedagogy, there is little input from progressive social theorists of what it might mean to theorize how education as a form of cultural politics actually constructs particular modes of address, identification, affective investments and social relations that produce consent and complicity with the ethos and practice of neoliberalism. Hence, while the current economic crisis has called into question the economic viability of neoliberal values and policies, it often does so by implying that neoliberal rationality can be explained through an economic optic alone, and consequently gives the relationship of politics, culture and inequality scant analysis. Neoliberal rationality is lived and legitimated in relation to the intertwining of culture, politics and meaning. Any viable challenge to the culture of neoliberalism as well as the current economic crisis it has generated must address not merely the diffuse operations of power throughout civil society and the globe, but also what it means to engage those diverse educational sites producing and legitimating neoliberal common sense, whether they be newspapers, advertising, the Internet, television or more recent spheres developed as part of the new information revolution. In addition, it is crucial to examine what role public intellectuals, think tanks, the media and universities actually play pedagogically in constructing and legitimating neoliberal world views, and how the latter works pedagogically in producing neoliberal subjects and securing consent.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-17 00:45:05.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -McCormick, Sean
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Lake Highland Prep MC
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JANFEB - K - Cap
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Strake Jesuit
Caselist.CitesClass[11]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,24 +1,0 @@
1 -=DA – Cyberbullying=
2 -
3 -
4 -==1NC==
5 -
6 -
7 -====No anti-cyberbullying laws in the 1AC b/c they are restrictions on free speech – increases cyberbullying====
8 -Hayward 13. John O. Hayward, ~~Senior Lecturer in Law at Bentley Universityds~~, "Anti-Cyberbullying Laws Are a Threat to Free Speech," Netiquette and Online Ethics, Gale: Opposing Viewpoints in Context, 2013, http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpointsandjsid=86b8d9990680ac70437ab043a7b61192andaction=2andcatId=anddocumentId=GALE7CEJ3010868216andu=nysl'we'bcsdandzid=e5792b8229fbb3d88a51bec521a1e8cf//AD
9 -While forty-three states have anti-bullying statutes, only twenty-one prohibit cyber bullying, which usually is defined as "bullying" conducted by electronic means. Additionally, the laws can be grouped into prohibitions that explicitly include off-campus cyber bullying or implicitly include or exclude it. Typical legislative language is "immediately adjacent to school grounds," "directed at another student or students," "at a school activity," or "at school-sponsored activities or at a school-sanctioned event." The statutes also usually contain language prohibiting cyber bullying if it results in one or more of the following: (1) causes "substantial disruption" of the school environment or orderly operation of the school, (2) creates an "intimidating," "threatening" or "hostile" learning environment, (3) causes actual harm to a student or student's property or places a student in reasonable fear of harm to self or property, (4) interferes with a student's educational performance and benefits, (5) includes as a target school personnel or references "person" rather than "student," and (6) incites third parties to carry out bullying behavior. Five states prohibit cyber bullying if it is motivated by an actual or perceived characteristic or trait of a student. Presumably this protects gay and lesbian students and school personnel from criticism because of their sexual orientation but it could also shield obese, bulimic, short and tall students from disparagement due to their weight or height. While many applaud anti-cyber bullying legislation, some are concerned that it gives school officials unbridled authority that will be used to burnish their image, not protect bullying victims, or that it threatens student free speech. Furthermore, if their authority is unleashed beyond the school yard, it is essentially limitless. Thus no student, even in the privacy of their home, can write about controversial topics of concern to them without worrying that it may be "disruptive" or cause a "hostile environment" at school. In effect, students will be punished for off-campus speech based on the way people react to it at school. Many of the terms are so vague that they offer no guidance to distinguish permissible from impermissible speech. In this sense, they are akin to campus speech codes that courts invalidated in the 1990s for vagueness and overbreadth. Consequently, these laws don't simply "chill" student free speech, they plunge it into deep freeze. This viewpoint argues that for these reasons, some anti-cyber bullying laws violate the First Amendment and should be struck down as unconstitutional.
10 -
11 -
12 -====Anti-cyberbullying laws key to prevent cyberbullying – squo solves and checks off campus behavior====
13 -Patchin 10. Justin W. Patchin, ~~Professor of Criminal Justice in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire~~, 09/28/10, "Cyberbullying Laws and School Policy: A Blessing or Curse?," Cyberbullying Research Center, http://cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying-laws-and-school-policy-a-blessing-or-curse//AD
14 -Many schools are now in a difficult position of having to respond to a mandate to have a cyberbullying policy, without much guidance from the state about the circumstances under which they can (or must) respond. When folks ask me if I think there needs to be a “cyberbullying law” I basically respond by saying “perhaps – but not the kind of law most legislators would propose.” I would look for a law to be more “prescriptive” than “proscriptive.” By that, I mean I would like to see specific guidance from states about *how* and *when* schools can take action in cyberbullying incidents. Many states have taken the easy way out by simply passing laws saying effectively “schools need to deal with this.” Not only have they stopped short in terms of providing specific instructions or even a framework from which schools can evaluate their role, but they have not provided any additional resources to address these issues. Some states are now requiring schools to educate students and staff about cyberbullying or online safety more generally, but have provided no funding to carry out such activities. Unfunded mandates have become cliché in education, and this is just another example. Moreover, school administrators are in a precarious position because they see many examples in the media where schools have been sued because they took action against a student when they shouldn’t have or they failed to take action when they were supposed to. Schools need help determining where the legal line is. Many states already have existing criminal and civil remedies to deal with cyberbullying. Extreme cases would fall under criminal harassment or stalking laws or a target could pursue civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress or defamation, to name a few. Bullying (whatever the form) that occurs at school is no doubt already subject to an existing bullying policy. To be sure, schools should bring their bullying and harassment policies into the 21st Century by explicitly identifying cyberbullying as a proscribed behavior, but they need to move beyond the behaviors that occur on school grounds or those that utilize school-owned resources. But in order to do this they need guidance from their state legislators and Departments of Education so that they draft a policy and procedure that will be held up in court. School, technology, and privacy lawyers disagree about what should (or must) be in a policy. It’s no wonder many educators are simply throwing their hands up. We really like New Hampshire’s recently passed bullying law, even though like other efforts it demands a lot from schools without a corresponding increase in resources. This section is key: “Bullying or cyberbullying shall occur when an action or communication as defined in RSA 193-F:3: … (b) Occurs off of school property or outside of a school-sponsored activity or event, if the conduct interferes with a pupil’s educational opportunities or substantially disrupts the orderly operations of the school or school-sponsored activity or event.” This puts schools, students, and parents on notice that there are instances when schools can discipline students for their off campus behavior. It will take many years, though, before we will know if this law can be used as a model. Schools will need to pass policies based on the law; a school will then need to discipline a bully based on the new policy; then they will need to be sued; then the case will need to be appealed. Perhaps then the case will get to a significant enough court that it will matter. Hang on and see how it turns out. In the meantime, lobby your legislators to pass meaningful, prescriptive laws instead of laws that simply say “cyberbullying is wrong, now YOU do SOMETHING about it.” It’s election time, so I’m sure your local representative will be all ears…
15 -
16 -
17 -====Cyberbullying is conducive to abuse and kills self worth – impedes the ability to get education, turns case====
18 -ETCB 16, End To Cyber Bullying, ~~The End to Cyber Bullying (ETCB) Organization was founded in 2011 to raise global awareness on cyberbullying, and to mobilize youth, educators, parents, and others in taking efforts to end cyberbullying~~, "A Surprising Long-Term Effect of Cyberbullying, ETCB Organization, 2016, http://www.endcyberbullying.org/a-surprising-long-term-effect-of-cyberbullying///AD
19 -If someone repeatedly tells the victim online that they is are worthless, useless, a waste of space or that they should kill themselves, soon the victim might – at least partially – begin to believe it. According to Psychcentral.com, signs that someone is experience low self-esteem include: • Self-critical or a negative opinion of themselves • Sensitivity to even constructive criticism • Fatigue, insomnia, headaches • Poor performance at school or work due to lack of trying or lethargy It is important for an individual to maintain a healthy self-esteem so that they can achieve in life. A cyberbullying victim may miss out on opportunities because the victim believes they is unworthy of achievement. It’s important to realize that these two effects go well beyond being in a bad mood and not liking something about oneself. Depression, Low Self-Esteem and Dating Abuse Research is inconclusive, but most would agree that people who are victimized in abusive dating relationships often choose those relationships because of their depression or low self-esteem. Findyouthinfo.gov states that past experience with stressful life events – cyberbullying, for example – can put someone at risk for entering an abusive dating relationship. This is especially true if the cyberabuse included abuse directed at a female victim’s sexuality, or lack thereof. Feelings of worthlessness and a negative outlook on life can throw a previously-cyberbullied victim into yet another abusive relationship. However, instead of faceless strangers and bullies dolling out abuse, it would be the victim’s significant other. Dating abuse can encompass many forms of abuse, including cyberabuse. According to Dosomething.com, other forms of abuse in dating relationships include: • Physical abuse – in the form of “hitting, punching, slapping, biting” and anything that causes physical pain. • Mental abuse – in the form of verbal putdowns and belittling. The abuser might call their victim names, “make threats, or accuse the other person of cheating.” • Emotional abuse – in the form of control over the victim’s “behavior, personality, and life.” • Sexual abuse – in the form of unwanted touching, pressuring the victim to have sex, or rape. It’s getting harder to track cyberbullying since most people make their online profiles and social networking pages private. Also, apps like Snapchat would allow cyberbullies to attack their victim and have the evidence wiped away within seconds. According to this tech expert, “Users are drawn to the impermanence of the site’s uploads and the anonymity that impermanence provides.” However impermanent the actual abusive message may be, the lasting effects of the abuse upon the psyche of the victim are anything but impermanent.
20 -
21 -
22 -====Cyberbullying disproportionately affects racial/sexual minorities – turns case====
23 -Brandon 14. Mary Howlett-Brandon, ~~Doctor of Philosophy at Virginia Commonwealth University~~ "CYBERBULLYING: AN EXAMINATION OF GENDER, RACE, ETHNICITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS FROM THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY: STUDENT CRIME SUPPLEMENT, 2009", 2014, http://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4485andcontext=etd//AD
24 -Other and mixed race students reported cyberbullying victimization at 4.2, 26 Black students at 1.9, and Hispanic students at 1.3. Whites, however, experienced 3.1 victimization by electronic technology. Wang et al. (2009) also reported the percentage of cyberbullying by race. Black students reported the highest level of cyberbullying activity at 10.9, Hispanic students at 9.6, and the category of students classified as other at 7.3. White students reported cyberbullying victimization at 6.7. The Kessel Schneider et al. (2012) study also addressed the cyberbullying behavior of students by race and ethnicity. The race/ethnic breakdown of the sample is as follows: 75.2 White, 12.3 mixed/other, 5.8 Hispanic, 3.9 Asian, and 2.8 Black. Kessel Schneider et al. (2012) found that 5.7 of the White students and 8.4 of the non-White students conveyed they had been cyberbullied during the previous 12 months.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-12-17 00:45:07.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -McCormick, Sean
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Lake Highland Prep MC
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JANFEB - DA - Cyberbullying
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Strake Jesuit
Caselist.CitesClass[12]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,60 +1,0 @@
1 -===Kritik 1NC===
2 -
3 -
4 -====The 1ac’s act of resistance still clings to the belief of a just and free university. These are the very values that lure us into the process of extermination of our social and physical beings.====
5 -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/
6 -In the university we prostrate ourselves before a value of separation, which in reality
7 -...
8 -the positions we thoughtlessly enact. It’s the particular nature of being owned.
9 -
10 -
11 -====Academia is a fatal project the 1AC is—an re-scripting of the very terms of contestation such that nothing is left but the continued propagation of social death====
12 -**Occupied UC Berkeley ‘9** ("The Necrosocial – Civic Life, Social Death, and the University of California," November 2009, Craccum Magazine – University of Auckland Student Magazine. Iss. 4, 2012. http://craccum.ausa.auckland.ac.nz/?p=286) ~~m leap~~
13 -Yes, very much a cemetery. Only here there are no dirges, no
14 -...
15 -. We need, we desire occupations. We are an antagonistic dead.
16 -
17 -
18 -====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.====
19 -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/
20 -Totally managed death. A machine for administering death, for the proliferation of technologies
21 -...
22 -gets its own designated burial plot. Who doesn’t participate in this graveyard?
23 -
24 -
25 -====A free university within capital is a reading room inside a prison—our occupation of the university aligns us with the dispossessed multitude engaging in the refusal of work everywhere.====
26 -Communiqué from an Absent Future. "On the Terminus of Student Life." Anti-Capital Projects. 11-26-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/communique-from-an-absent-future-on-the-terminus-of-student-life/
27 -WE SEEK TO PUSH THE UNIVERSITY STRUGGLE TO ITS LIMITS. Though we denounce the
28 -...
29 -common conditions that, like a hidden water table, feed each struggle.
30 -
31 -
32 -====The academy will never be able to escape its intrinsic hierarchies nor its role in producing and reproducing a docile labor force.====
33 -Anti-Capital Projects. "Anti-Capital Projects: Questions and Answers." Anti-Capital Projects. 11-19-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/anti-capital-projects/
34 -We want students to see this increase for what it is: a form of
35 -...
36 -between us and the larger movement. We are one face of it.
37 -
38 -
39 -====This is part and parcel of a system that demarcates global zones of death subject to killings on a mass scale.====
40 -Etienne Balibar. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at University of Paris and Distinguished Professor of Humanities at University of California-Irvine. We, The People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. 2004. pp. 126-129 ~~This evidence has been gender-modified~~
41 -I am aware of all these difficulties, but I would maintain that a reality
42 -...
43 -borderlines themselves, the issue of equality, the horizon of political action.
44 -
45 -
46 -====The alternative is to occupy everything, demand nothing.====
47 -
48 -
49 -====Every demand is necessarily exclusionary and that is why we choose none. The only effect the ballot can ever have is to signal a participation in or refusal of the university. ====
50 -Anti-Capital Projects. "Anti-Capital Projects: Questions and Answers." Anti-Capital Projects. 11-19-2009. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/anti-capital-projects/
51 -Why No Demands? First, because anything we might win now would be too
52 -...
53 -advance. They will define themselves by rising up and standing with us.
54 -
55 -
56 -====The insurrection is here and we refuse to believe that debate will make the university a better place. Of course our role as debaters necessarily implicates us, but that is precisely the point—we must occupy spaces like debate to expose the futility of reform. ====
57 -Communiqués from Occupied California. "Introduction." Anti-Capital Projects. 2-15-2010. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/communiques-from-occupied-california-introduction/
58 -The radical or anti-reformist position within the movement has often insisted upon a
59 -...
60 -current occupation movement attempts to push those objective conditions toward a breaking point.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-07 13:44:08.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Engel, Max
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -StTho NB
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -7
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JANFEB - K - University
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Winston Churchill Classic
Caselist.CitesClass[13]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,10 +1,0 @@
1 -==CP==
2 -
3 -
4 -====CP text: Public colleges and universities should allow for free speech except in the instance of revenge pornography ====
5 -Koppelman 15 . Andrew Koppelman ~~John Paul Stevens Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science~~, "Revenge Pornography and First Amendment Exceptions," Emory University School of Law, Volume 65, Issue 3, 09/14/15, http://law.emory.edu/elj/content/volume-65/issue-3/articles/revenge-pornography-first-amendment-exceptions.html//AD
6 -People are marvelously inventive in devising new ways to hurt each other. Some of these new ways involve speech. The Supreme Court has recently declared that speech is protected by the First Amendment unless it is a type of communication that has traditionally been unprotected. If this is the law, then harms will accumulate and the law will be helpless to remedy them. A recent illustration is the new phenomenon of “revenge pornography”—the online posting of sexually explicit photographs without the subject’s consent, usually by rejected ex-boyfriends. The photos are often accompanied by the victim’s name, address, phone number, Facebook page, and other personal information. They are sometimes shared with other websites, viewed by thousands of people, and become the first several pages of hits that a search engine produces for the victim’s name. The photos are emailed to the victim’s family, friends, employers, fellow students, or coworkers. They are seen on the Internet by prospective employers and customers. Victims have been subjected to harassment, stalking, and threats of sexual assault. Some have been fired from their jobs. Others have been forced to change schools. The pictures sometimes follow them to new jobs and schools. The pictures’ availability can make it difficult to find new employment. Most victims are female. 1 Twenty-six states have passed laws prohibiting this practice, and others are considering them. 2 (Civil remedies are often available but have not been much of a deterrent: victims often cannot afford to sue, and perpetrators often have few assets to collect. 3 ) The constitutionality of such laws is uncertain, however. These laws restrict speech on the basis of its content. Content-based restrictions (unless they fall within one of the categories of unprotected speech) are invalid unless necessary to a compelling state interest. 4 The state’s interest in prohibiting revenge pornography, so far from being compelling, may not even be one that the state is permitted to pursue. The central harm that such a prohibition aims to prevent is the acceptance, by the audience of the speech, of the message that this person is degraded and appropriately humiliated because she once displayed her naked body to a camera. The harm, in other words, consists in the acceptance of a viewpoint. Viewpoint-based restrictions on speech are absolutely forbidden. 5 There are exceptions to the ban on content-based restrictions: the Court has held that the First Amendment does not protect incitement, threats, obscenity, child pornography, defamation of private figures, criminal conspiracies, and criminal solicitation, for example. 6 None of those exceptions is applicable here. The pathologies of revenge pornography I have just described are the product of entirely new technologies: digital photography and the Internet. Because it is so new, however, it is not a category of speech that has traditionally been denied First Amendment protection. The Court has recently announced that unless speech falls into such a category, it is fully protected. There can be no new categories of unprotected speech. Laws prohibiting revenge pornography thus violate the First Amendment as the Court now understands it. The crux of the problem is the Court’s announced unwillingness to create new categories of non-protection. That unwillingness is not a necessary inference from the First Amendment. The present exceptions to free speech protection are judge-made doctrines. The courts that made them are by the same authority free to construct additional exceptions. Those exceptions would be justified by whatever justified the exceptions already on the books. Free speech is a complex cultural formation that aims at a distinctive set of goods. Its rules must be formulated and reformulated with those specific goods in mind. Pertinently here, one of those goods is a citizenry with the confidence to participate in public discussion. Traumatized, stigmatized women are not the kind of people that a free speech regime aims to create. Revenge pornography threatens to create a class of people who are chronically dogged by a spoiled social identity, and a much larger class of people who know that they could be subjected to such treatment without hope of redress. That state of affairs is directly contrary to the ideal of a regime in which everyone is empowered to participate in public discourse. Part I of this Article examines the constitutional objections to a statute that bans revenge pornography, and argues that those objections, although they are firmly rooted in the doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court, rest on an indefensibly wooden vision of free speech. Part II argues that this vision rests on an impoverished understanding of liberalism, which does not merely aim at constraint on government but which affirmatively seeks a society whose citizens have certain desirable traits of character, notably the courage to participate in public discourse. I develop this claim with a close reading of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. Part III argues that revenge pornography has a silencing effect on its victims that directly attacks the Millian ideal. Part IV argues that the creation of free speech exceptions cannot persuasively be ruled out in the way the Court has done, but are a normal part of judicial construction of the First Amendment’s text. The Conclusion reflects on the mechanical character of the free speech rules that the Court has constructed.
7 -
8 -====Pornography reinforces a cultural of male-dominant sexuality and normalizes sexual violence – turns case====
9 -Jensen and Okrina 4. Robert Jensen ~~Professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas, a founding board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center, and a member of the board of Culture Reframed.~~, Debbie Okrina ~~Member of VAWnet – staff writer~~, "Pornography and Sexual Violence", National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
10 -Commercial pornography in the United States is at the same time increasingly more normalized and more denigrating to women. There is understandable interest in the question about the connection between pornography and sexual violence. Rather than asking "does pornography cause rape?" we would be better served by investigating whether pornography is ever a factor that contributes to rape. In other words, Is pornography implicated in sexual violence in this culture? There are limits to what research can tell us about the complex interactions of mass media and human behavior. But from both laboratory research and the narratives of men and women, it is not controversial to argue that pornography can: (1) be an important factor in shaping a male-dominant view of sexuality; (2) be used to initiate victims and break down their resistance to unwanted sexual activity; (3) contribute to a user's difficulty in separating sexual fantasy and reality; and (4) provide a training manual for abusers. These conclusions provide support for the feminist critique of pornography that emerged in the 1970s and '80s, which highlighted pornography's harms to the women and children: (1) used in the production of pornography; (2) who have pornography forced on them; (3) who are sexually assaulted by men who use pornography; and (4) living in a culture in which pornography reinforces and sexualizes women's subordinate status. People who raise critical questions about pornography and the sex industry often are accused of being prudish, anti-sex, or repressive, but just the opposite is true. Such questions are crucial not only to the struggle to end sexual and domestic violence, but also to the task of building a healthy sexual culture. Activists in the anti-violence and anti-pornography movements have been at the forefront of that task.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-08 00:16:30.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Nikunj Patel
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Katya E
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -8
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JANFEB - CP - Revenge Pornography v2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Winston Churchill Classic
Caselist.CitesClass[14]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,10 +1,0 @@
1 -==DA==
2 -
3 -
4 -====Hateful discourse is constitutionally protected====
5 -Volokh 15. Volokh, Eugene ~~teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy~~, "No, there’s no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment", Washington Post, 08/07/15. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm'term=.0285ca6aa92b//AD
6 -I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans. To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.) The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend. The Supreme Court did, in Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), uphold a “group libel” law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with “good motives” and for “justifiable ends.” But this too was treated by the Court as just a special case of a broader First Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the Court’s restrictions on the libel exception. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) (rejecting the view that libel is categorically unprotected, and holding that the libel exception requires a showing that the libelous accusations be “of and concerning” a particular person); Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) (generally rejecting the view that a defense of truth can be limited to speech that is said for “good motives” and for “justifiable ends”); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps (1986) (generally rejecting the view that the burden of proving truth can be placed on the defendant); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) (holding that singling bigoted speech is unconstitutional, even when that speech fits within a First Amendment exception); Nuxoll ex rel. Nuxoll v. Indian Prairie Sch. Dist. # 204, 523 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (concluding that Beauharnais is no longer good law); Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1200 (9th Cir. 1989) (likewise); Am. Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323, 331 n.3 (7th Cir. 1985) (likewise); Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1205 (7th Cir. 1978) (likewise); Tollett v. United States, 485 F.2d 1087, 1094 n.14 (8th Cir. 1973) (likewise); Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies 1043-45 (4th ed. 2011); Laurence Tribe, Constitutional Law, §12-17, at 926; Toni M. Massaro, Equality and Freedom of Expression: The Hate Speech Dilemma, 32 Wm. and Mary L. Rev. 211, 219 (1991); Robert C. Post, Cultural Heterogeneity and Law: Pornography, Blasphemy, and the First Amendment, 76 Calif. L. Rev. 297, 330-31 (1988). Finally, “hostile environment harassment law” has sometimes been read as applying civil liability — or administrative discipline by universities — to allegedly bigoted speech in workplaces, universities, and places of public accommodation. There is a hot debate on whether those restrictions are indeed constitutional; they have generally been held unconstitutional when applied to universities, but decisions are mixed as to civil liability based on speech that creates hostile environments in workplaces (see the pages linked to at this site for more information on the subject). But even when those restrictions have been upheld, they have been justified precisely on the rationale that they do not criminalize speech (or otherwise punish it) in society at large, but only apply to particular contexts, such as workplaces. None of them represent a “hate speech” exception, nor have they been defined in terms of “hate speech.” For this very reason, “hate speech” also doesn’t have any fixed legal meaning under U.S. law. U.S. law has just never had occasion to define “hate speech” — any more than it has had occasion to define rudeness, evil ideas, unpatriotic speech, or any other kind of speech that people might condemn but that does not constitute a legally relevant category. Of course, one can certainly argue that First Amendment law should be changed to allow bans on hate speech (whether bigoted speech, blasphemy, blasphemy to which foreigners may respond with attacks on Americans or blasphemy or flag burning or anything else). Perhaps some statements of the “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” variety are deliberate attempts to call for such an exception, though my sense is that they are usually (incorrect) claims that the exception already exists. I think no such exception should be recognized, but of course, like all questions about what the law ought to be, this is a matter that can be debated. Indeed, people have a First Amendment right to call for speech restrictions, just as they have a First Amendment right to call for gun bans or bans on Islam or government-imposed race discrimination or anything else that current constitutional law forbids. Constitutional law is no more set in stone than any other law. But those who want to make such arguments should acknowledge that they are calling for a change in First Amendment law, and should explain just what that change would be, so people can thoughtfully evaluate it. Calls for a new First Amendment exception for “hate speech” shouldn’t just rely on the undefined term “hate speech” — they should explain just what viewpoints the government would be allowed to suppress, what viewpoints would remain protected, and how judges, juries, and prosecutors are supposed to distinguish the two. Saying “this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech” doesn’t, I think, suffice.
7 -
8 -====Hate speech entrenches power structures and kills education and debate, turns case ====
9 -Uelmen 90. Gerald F. Uelmen, ~~dean of Santa Clara University School of Law and a fellow of the Center for Applied Ethics~~, "A pro-con discussion of speech codes and free speech", Santa Clara University, November 1990, https://www.scu.edu/character/resources/campus-hate-speech-codes///AD
10 -Those who advocate hate speech codes believe that the harm codes prevent is more important than the freedom they restrict. When hate speech is directed at a student from a protected group, like those listed in Emory University's code, the effect is much more than hurt feelings. The verbal attack is a symptom of an oppressive history of discrimination and subjugation that plagues the harmed student and hinders his or her ability to compete fairly in the academic arena. The resulting harm is clearly significant and, therefore, justifies limiting speech rights. In addition to minimizing harm, hate speech codes result in other benefits. The university is ideally a forum where views are debated using rational argumentation; part of a student's education is learning how to derive and rationally defend an opinion. The hate speech that codes target, in contrast, is not presented rationally or used to provoke debate. In fact, hate speech often intends to provoke violence. Hate speech codes emphasize the need to support convictions with facts and reasoning while protecting the rights of potential victims. As a society we reason that it is in the best interest of the greatest number of citizens to sometimes restrict speech when it conflicts with the primary purpose of an event. A theater owner, for example, has a right to remove a heckler when the heckler's behavior conflicts with the primary purpose of staging a play - to entertain an audience. Therefore, if the primary purpose of an academic institution is to educate students, and hate speech obstructs the educational process by reducing students' abilities to learn, then it is permissible to extend protection from hate speech to students on college or university campuses. Hate speech codes also solve the conflict between the right to freely speak and the right to an education. A student attending a college or university clearly has such a right. But students exercising their "free speech" right may espouse hateful or intimidating words that impede other students abilities to learn and thereby destroy their chances to earn an education. Finally, proponents of hate speech codes see them as morally essential to a just resolution of the conflict .between civil rights (e.g., freedom from harmful stigma and humiliation) and civil liberties (e.g., freedom of speech). At the heart of the conflict is the fact that under-represented students cannot claim fair and equal access to freedom of speech and other rights when there is an imbalance of power between them and students in the majority. If a black student, for example, shouts an epithet at a white student, the white student may become upset or feel enraged, but he or she has little reason to feel terror or intimidation. Yet when a white student directs an epithet toward a black student or a Jewish student, an overt history of subjugation intensifies the verbal attack that humiliates and strikes institutional fear in the victim. History shows that words of hatred are amplified when they come from those in power and abridged when spoken by the powerless. Discrimination on college and university campuses is a growing problem with an uncertain future. Whether hate speech codes are morally just responses to campus intolerance depends on how society interprets the harms of discriminatory harassment, the benefits and costs of restricting free speech, and the just balance between individual rights and group rights.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-08 00:16:31.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Nikunj Patel
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Katya E
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -8
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JANFEB - DA - Hate Speech
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Winston Churchill Classic
Caselist.CitesClass[15]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,18 +1,0 @@
1 -==DA==
2 -
3 -
4 -====Endowments are high now but dropping rapidly - protests are alienating alumni donors, who are of older generations====
5 -**Hartocollis 8/4** (Anemona Hartocollis. Anemona Hartocollis is a metro reporter who began covering courts for The New York Times in October 2005. On the courts beat, she has written front-page stories about the trial of accused Gambino crime family leader John Gotti, which ended in a hung jury, and the trial of 18 "grannies" acquitted of disorderly conduct during a demonstration against the war in Iraq. From 2002 until 2005, Ms. Hartocollis wrote the "Coping" column in the Sunday City section, a weekly column about life in New York City. From 1997 until 2002, she covered education for the Times, writing about policy issues like whether parents in Greenwich Village should be allowed to pay for a public-school teacher out of their own pockets and the pros and cons of testing school children. Before coming to the Times, Ms. Hartocollis had been a reporter and feature writer for The New York Daily News, New York Newsday, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Detroit News, The Staten Island Advance and Flatbush Life, a weekly paper in Brooklyn. She has freelanced for Martha Stewart Living and LIFE magazines. Ms. Hartocollis was born on November 3, 1955 in Lausanne, Switzerland. She received her bachelor’s degree in comparative literature from Harvard University in 1977. She has won the Newswomen’s Club of New York Front Page Award (twice); the New York State AP Writing Contest, first place for continuing coverage of education (1996), first place features (1992) and third place features (1995); the Society of Silurians investigative reporting award and the Deadline Club of New York award, among others. Ms. Hartocollis is the author of "Seven Days of Possibilities: One Teacher, 24 Kids, and the Music that Changed Their Lives Forever," (Public Affairs, 2004) a book about a young music teacher in the Bronx, which began as a series of stories in the Times. "College Students Protest, Alumni’s Fondness Fades And Checks Shrink". 08-04-2016. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/us/college-protests-alumni-donations.html?'r=1) //TruLe
6 -Scott MacConnell cherishes the memory of his years at Amherst College, where he discovered his future métier as a theatrical designer. But protests on campus over cultural and racial sensitivities last year soured his feelings. Now Mr. MacConnell, who graduated in 1960, is expressing his discontent through his wallet. In June, he cut the college out of his will. “As an alumnus of the college, I feel that I have been lied to, patronized and basically dismissed as an old, white bigot who is insensitive to the needs and feelings of the current college community,” Mr. MacConnell, 77, wrote in a letter to the college’s alumni fund in December, when he first warned that he was reducing his support to the college to a token $5. A backlash from alumni is an unexpected aftershock of the campus disruptions of the last academic year. Although fund-raisers are still gauging the extent of the effect on philanthropy, some colleges — particularly small, elite liberal arts institutions — have reported a decline in donations, accompanied by a laundry list of complaints. Alumni from a range of generations say they are baffled by today’s college culture. Among their laments: Students are too wrapped up in racial and identity politics. They are allowed to take too many frivolous courses. They have repudiated the heroes and traditions of the past by judging them by today’s standards rather than in the context of their times. Fraternities are being unfairly maligned, and men are being demonized by sexual assault investigations. And university administrations have been too meek in addressing protesters whose messages have seemed to fly in the face of free speech. Scott C. Johnston, who graduated from Yale in 1982, said he was on campus last fall when activists tried to shut down a free speech conference, “because apparently they missed irony class that day.” He recalled the Yale student who was videotaped screaming at a professor, Nicholas Christakis, that he had failed “to create a place of comfort and home” for students in his capacity as the head of a residential college. A rally at New Haven Superior Court demanding justice for Corey Menafee, an African-American dining hall worker at Yale’s Calhoun College who was charged with breaking a window pane that depicted black slaves carrying cotton. CreditPeter Hvizdak/New Haven Register, via Associated Press “I don’t think anything has damaged Yale’s brand quite like that,” said Mr. Johnston, a founder of an internet start-up and a former hedge fund manager. “This is not your daddy’s liberalism.” “The worst part,” he continued, “is that campus administrators are wilting before the activists like flowers.” Yale College’s alumni fund was flat between this year and last, according to Karen Peart, a university spokeswoman. Among about 35 small, selective liberal arts colleges belonging to the fund-raising organization Staff, or Sharing the Annual Fund Fundamentals, that recently reported their initial annual fund results for the 2016 fiscal year, 29 percent were behind 2015 in dollars, and 64 percent were behind in donors, according to a steering committee member, Scott Kleinheksel of Claremont McKenna College in California. His school, which was also the site of protests, had a decline in donor participation but a rise in giving. At Amherst, the amount of money given by alumni dropped 6.5 percent for the fiscal year that ended June 30, and participation in the alumni fund dropped 1.9 percentage points, to 50.6 percent, the lowest participation rate since 1975, when the college began admitting women, according to the college. The amount raised from big donors decreased significantly. Some of the decline was because of a falloff after two large reunion gifts last year, according to Pete Mackey, a spokesman for Amherst. At Princeton, where protesters unsuccessfully demanded the removal of Woodrow Wilson’s name from university buildings and programs, undergraduate alumni donations dropped 6.6 percent from a record high the year before, and participation dropped 1.9 percentage points, according to the university’s website. A Princeton spokesman, John Cramer, said there was no evidence the drop was connected to campus protests.
7 -
8 -====Endowment funds are key to US competitiveness – ensures college quality====
9 -**Leigh 14** (Steven R. Leigh. Dean Steve Leigh is a biological anthropologist whose research explores the interactions between humans and the microbes that contribute to digestive efficiency. He also studies human growth with a special emphasis on the growth of the brain. He has extensive experience in archaeology, palaeontology, and anatomy. His teaching at the University of Colorado Boulder focuses on the history of human evolution. Leigh received his B.A. from Northwestern University, M.A. from the University of Tennessee, and Ph.D. from Northwestern University. He has served as dean of Arts and Sciences since 2012. "Endowments And The Future Of Higher Education". 03-04-2014. College Of Arts And Sciences. http://www.colorado.edu/artsandsciences/news-events/message-dean/endowments-and-future-higher-education) //TruLe
10 -These broad trends point directly to the need for CU-Boulder’s College of Arts and Sciences to increase endowment funding across the college. Endowments drive improvements in the quality of an institution and reflect alums, donors and supporters who recognize the importance of research universities in the 21st century. Endowed professorships are the first and most important component of increasing our academic quality. Named chairs recognize significant faculty achievements and help the university support faculty salary and research. CU-Boulder professors are among the most productive in the nation and are heavily recruited by competitors, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cornell, Berkeley, Illinois, UC Irvine and many others. Often, these competitors offer our faculty endowed professorships, conferring prestige and research support. CU must provide its faculty with comparable support to be competitive. A second major area for endowments is student scholarships and, for graduate students, fellowships. A stable source of income that helps pay tuition is the most direct and effective way to offset the costs of education. Endowed scholarships are also effective recruiting tools for admitting the nation’s best to CU. Our dynamic programs, departments and majors are attracting more and more applicants, including the best in the nation. Like faculty support, endowed scholarships and fellowships confer prestige and, most importantly, allow students to focus entirely on academics without balancing jobs and worrying about future loan repayments. Finally, endowment funding for programs greatly enriches the institution, providing capabilities that are difficult to attain when tuition revenue provides the majority of funding. Institutions funded mainly by tuition must make sure that expenditures directly benefit students, which sometimes limits options for innovation and risk-taking. Programmatic funding enables faculty and students to take risks in their research and creative work. For example, in my own field, this might involve traveling to an unexplored region to prospect for human fossils or archaeological sites. Support for high-risk projects allows our faculty and students to develop new areas of knowledge, benefitting society by broadening the capacity of the institution to innovate. The future of higher education, including CU’s future, depends to a large degree on how successfully we can build major endowments. Ultimately, U.S. competitiveness and leadership in the global knowledge economy depends on this as well. For alums, donors and supporters, endowments indelibly affirm the importance of higher education and enduringly preserve its viability and vitality.
11 -
12 -====Innovation solves great power war====
13 -Taylor 4 (Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Mark, "The Politics of Technological Change: International Relations versus Domestic Institutions," Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 4/1/2004, http://www.scribd.com/doc/46554792/Taylor))
14 -I. Introduction Technological innovation is of central importance to the study of international relations (IR), affecting almost every aspect of the sub-field. First and foremost, a nation’s technological capability has a significant effect on its economic growth, industrial might, and military prowess; therefore relative national technological capabilities necessarily influence the balance of power between states, and hence have a role in calculations of war and alliance formation. Second, technology and innovative capacity also determine a nation’s trade profile, affecting which products it will import and export, as well as where multinational corporations will base their production facilities. Third, insofar as innovation-driven economic growth both attracts investment and produces surplus capital, a nation’s technological ability will also affect international financial flows and who has power over them. Thus, in broad theoretical terms, technological change is important to the study of IR because of its overall implications for both the relative and absolute power of states. And if theory alone does not convince, then history also tells us that nations on the technological ascent generally experience a corresponding and dramatic change in their global stature and influence, such as Britain during the first industrial revolution, the US United States and Germany during the second industrial revolution, and Japan during the twentieth century. Conversely, great powers which fail to maintain their place at the technological frontier generally drift and fade from influence on international scene. This is not to suggest that technological innovation alone determines international politics, but rather that shifts in both relative and absolute technological capability have a major impact on international relations, and therefore need to be better understood by IR scholars. Indeed, the importance of technological innovation to international relations is seldom disputed by IR theorists. Technology is rarely the sole or overriding causal variable in any given IR theory, but a broad overview of the major theoretical debates reveals the ubiquity of technological causality. For example, from Waltz to Posen, almost all Realists have a place for technology in their explanations of international politics. At the very least, they describe it as an essential part of the distribution of material capabilities across nations, or an indirect source of military doctrine. And for some, like Gilpin quoted above, technology is the very cornerstone of great power domination, and its transfer the main vehicle by which war and change occur in world politics. Jervis tells us that the balance of offensive and defensive military technology affects the incentives for war. Walt agrees, arguing that technological change can alter a state’s aggregate power, and thereby affect both alliance formation and the international balance of threats. Liberals are less directly concerned with technological change, but they must admit that by raising or lowering the costs of using force, technological progress affects the rational attractiveness of international cooperation and regimes. Technology also lowers information and transactions costs and thus increases the applicability of international institutions, a cornerstone of Liberal IR theory. And in fostering flows of trade, finance, and information, technological change can lead to Keohane’s interdependence or Thomas Friedman et al’s globalization. Meanwhile, over at the “third debate”, Constructivists cover the causal spectrum on the issue, from Katzenstein’s “cultural norms” which shape security concerns and thereby affect technological innovation; to Wendt’s “stripped down technological determinism” in which technology inevitably drives nations to form a world state. However most Constructivists seem to favor Wendt, arguing that new technology changes people’s identities within society, and sometimes even creates new cross-national constituencies, thereby affecting international politics. Of course, Marxists tend to see technology as determining all social relations and the entire course of history, though they describe mankind’s major fault lines as running between economic classes rather than nation-states. Finally, Buzan and Little remind us that without advances in the technologies of transportation, communication, production, and war, international systems would not exist in the first place.
15 -
16 -====US leadership prevents great power war and existential governance crises====
17 -**Brooks et al. 13** (Stephen Brooks, John Ikenberry, and William C. Wohlforth. Stephen Gallup Brooks is an Associate Professor of Government in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. Gilford John Ikenberry (October 5, 1954) is a theorist of international relations and United States foreign policy, and a professor of Politics and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. William Curti Wohlforth (born 1959) is the Daniel Webster Professor of Government in the Dartmouth College Department of Government, of which he was chair for three academic years (2006-2009). He is the author of Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions during the Cold War (Cornell, 1993) and editor of Witnesses to the End of the Cold War (Johns Hopkins, 1996) and Cold War Endgame: Oral History, Analysis, and Debates (Penn State, 2003). Wohlforth published a seminal article in 1999, challenging the common knowledge at the time that US supremacy following the end of the Cold War is expected to be short-lived. He is linked to the Neoclassical realism-school and known for his work on American unipolarity, especially in collaboration with Stephen Brooks. Together they have published several articles and a book, World Out of Balance: International Relations Theory and the Challenge of American Primacy. Wohlforth was Editor-in-chief of Security Studies (journal) during 2008-2011. "Don’t Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment". International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51) //TruLe
18 -A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular—and highly restrictive—assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences, however, undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship. Offensive realism predicts that the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war). Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and security dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers, but at what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure security ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First, overall higher levels of conflict make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military competition, one would see overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a higher likelihood of competitive regional proxy wars and arming of client states—all of which would be concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades, as states such as Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces. 78 It is unlikely that proliferation decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more proliferation. Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate over the stability of proliferation changes as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on assumptions of rationality and narrow security preferences. In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and the prospects that some new nuclear powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of “unforeseen crisis dynamics” that could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases. Finally, add to these concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing: stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth century. The problem is that China’s rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, “The United States will have to play a key role in countering China, because its Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by themselves.” 81 Therefore, unless China’s rise stalls, “the United States is likely to act toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to move to onshore balancing in the future. It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing. 83 In sum, the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of scholarship, including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S. security is weakened by the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment might bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difªcult. Bringing together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which the case for retrenchment misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, the United States lowers security competition in the world’s key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere for growing new military capabilities. Alliance ties dissuade partners from ramping up and also provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals. On top of all this, the United States’ formidable military machine may deter entry by potential rivals. Current great power military expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been careful to avoid attracting the “focused enmity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap between the U.S. military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-08 00:16:31.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Nikunj Patel
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Katya E
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -8
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JANFEB - DA - Endownments
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Winston Churchill Classic
Caselist.CitesClass[16]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,17 +1,0 @@
1 -=DA – Dropouts=
2 -
3 -
4 -==1NC==
5 -
6 -
7 -====Minority enrollment in colleges is high.====
8 -**McGill 15** (Andrew McGill. Andrew McGill is a senior associate editor at The Atlantic. "The Missing Black Students At Elite American Universities". 11-23-2015. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/black-college-student-body/417189/) //TruLe
9 -Over the past 20 years, black enrollment in colleges and universities has skyrocketed. It’s a huge success story, one that’s due to the hard work of black families, college admissions officers, and education advocates. But at top-tier universities in the United States, it’s a different story. There, the share of students who are black has actually dropped since 1994. Among the 100-odd “very high research activity” institutions scored by Indiana University’s Center for Postsecondary Research, most saw their percentage of black undergraduates shrink between 1994 and 2013, the product of modest growth in black enrollment amid a much more rapid expansion of students on campus, according to data collected by the U.S. Department of Education. This list includes not only Ivy League schools and selective private colleges, but also many large public universities, including UCLA, Florida State, and the University of Michigan. Meanwhile, other institutions of higher education—including speciality schools, baccalaureate programs, and colleges that primarily offer associate degrees—have seen black representation increase, sometimes dramatically. This statistic put the recent campus discussions on race in a different light: less a spontaneous uprising of discontent, and more an inevitability. “When you already have an issue around inclusion ... these incidents of late heighten that perception and confirm that perception,” said Tyrone Howard, an associate dean for equity and inclusion at UCLA and director of the university’s Black Male Institute. “It gives some students of color some pause—do I really want to go to a place that, at least from the optics, suggests they’re not inclusive?” Since 1994, black enrollment has doubled at institutions that primarily grant associate degrees, including community colleges. In 2013, black students accounted for 16 percent of the student body there, versus 11 percent in 1994. Universities focusing on bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees also broadly saw gains, with blacks making up 14 percent of the population, compared to 11 percent in 1994. But at top-tier universities, black undergraduate populations average 6 percent, a statistic that has remained largely flat for 20 years. (It’s less than half of what their share of the population might suggest; the Census reports that 15 percent of Americans between the ages of 20 and 24 are black.) While some schools have had success—the University of Missouri’s main campus has actually increased its black share by 3 percentage points since 1994—the median school barely budged. (At Harvard, for example, 6.5 percent of undergraduates were black in 2013, down from 7.4 percent in 1994.) Researchers say top-tier schools have left black students behind in their push for ever-more-selective admission rates. Many rely heavily on measures that disadvantage minority students, including standardized test scores. The greater emphasis on such criteria has left high school counselors in predominantly black schools underprepared to respond. And tighter admissions may have prompted high school counselors to steer black students toward less selective schools. “Those schools don’t have as much support around college prep as they should. As a result, those students are woefully in the dark about their college options,” Howard said. “If a student shows he or she has a profile that would be considered at UCLA or Berkeley, if no one at the school or a counselor or an administrator helps the student to recognize it, that student shoots for a less-selective state school instead.” But simply admitting more black students isn’t enough. Persistently lower graduation rates among black students show that promising enrollment numbers alone won’t build an inclusive campus. The curriculum matters, academics say, as does support. So does the diversity of the faculty. “Even at places that are impressively diverse, students still feel very much on the fringes,” said Shaun Harper, a professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania and executive director of the Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education. “Simply having more students of color on a college campus does not ensure that they are going to feel included and respected.” There’s no question that top-tier schools are becoming more diverse. White students made up 58 percent of the student body in 2013, down from 72 percent in 1994. Universities have also recruited more Hispanics, the United States’ largest minority group.
10 -
11 -====A perception of openness to hate speech causes minorities to drop out of colleges.====
12 -**Wilkerson 90** (Isabel Wilkerson. Isabel Wilkerson (born 1961) is a Pulitzer Prize-winning American journalist, and the author of The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration. "Racial Harassment Altering Blacks' Choices On Colleges". 05-09-1990. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/09/us/racial-harassment-altering-blacks-choices-on-colleges.html?pagewanted=all) //TruLe
13 -Recent cases of racial harassment on the nation's campuses and a general atmosphere of racial tension have become increasingly important factors in the decisions made by many black families about where to send their children to college, according to high school counselors and black students and their families. The perception of racial hostility is inducing more families to send their children to historically black colleges to avoid the issue altogether, while others are scrutinizing predominantly white schools more carefully to weed out those that appear less racially tolerant. ''Our schools are getting more and more applications from students who are disgruntled,'' said Alan Kirschner, vice president for programs and public policy at the United Negro College Fund. ''These students want the chance to develop without the threat of harassment that looms over many of those campuses.'' Mood of Apprehension Kharis McLaughlin, a Boston guidance counselor who works with black college-bound students, remembers the apprehension a group of black students felt when she recently took them to the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where a racial melee occurred after the 1986 World Series. ''Some students were a bit fearful,'' Mrs. McLaughlin said. ''Whether it's right or wrong, these things will sway people if they perceive a danger. If you hear that someone had a horrible experience at a school, you're not likely to go. That's how decisions are made.'' But the choices seem to be getting narrower for blacks looking for predominantly white schools not touched by racial turmoil. In the last five years, incidents of racial harassment or violence have been reported at more than 300 colleges and universities across the country, according to the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence, an independent, nonprofit policy research group based in Baltimore that tracks racial violence on college campuses. All types of campuses are involved, a including the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, The Citadel, Smith College, Brown University, Wesleyan University, the University of Michigan, the University of Wisconsin and the University of Florida. The incidents range from racist graffiti and hate notes to the formation of white supremacy groups and allegations of racially motivated brutality by campus police. And at hundreds of other campuses where there may be no reports of overt acts of bigotry, black students describe a general sense of polarization and hostility. Last week, more than 1,000 students, most of them black, halted traffic with a sit-in on Broad Street in the middle of Temple University's Philadelphia campus, after members of a white fraternity, armed with baseball bats and sticks, chased three blacks they believed had broken windows of their fraternity house. Eleven students were injured in the melee, eight of them black, and students said the campus police had used excessive force and handcuffed only black students. At Emory University in Atlanta last March, a black woman found racist epithets scrawled in her dormitory room and her stuffed animals ripped apart. The case is being investigated by the police and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. On Sunday at Trinity College in Hartford, billiard balls were thrown through a window at a black cultural center, setting off a protest march by black students the next day. Question for Recruiters Because of such incidents, racial harassment has become a standard question facing college representatives trying to recruit black students to predominantly white campuses, and with each racial incident comes a battery of calls from concerned black parents of current or prospective students, college officials say. The officials are less inclined to say whether black applications to their schools have risen or decreased, and without access to such data at all campuses where incidents have occurred, it is impossible to quantify cause and effect. Despite the recent incidents, a big majority of the nation's one million black college students - about 80 percent - remain enrolled at the nation's predominantly white colleges, as against about 20 percent at historically black colleges, said Dr. Reginald Wilson, a senior scholar at the American Council on Education. ''There's no question in my mind that black kids are leaving white schools or not going to them in the first place because of the chilly climate,'' he said. ''But it's not the parting of the Red Sea. There is not a flood of people leaving white schools.'' But even schools that have taken the lead in censuring acts of bigotry are finding that the perception of a hostile campus may long outlive the incidents themselves. One Senior's Decision After months of indecision, Robin Scott, a graduating senior at Cass Technical High School in Detroit, recently chose Spelman College, a historically black women's college in Atlanta, over the University of Michigan, where racist jokes broadcast on the campus radio station and the distribution of racist fliers in 1987 marred the school's reputation. The university administration has since instituted a code that specifically prohibits racial harassment and has sponsored many conferences and seminars to encourage racial tolerance. Still, Ms. Scott's recent visit to the Ann Arbor campus confirmed suspicions founded on the incidents, she said. ''The white students were cold and distant,'' she said. ''I have to deal with racism the rest of my life. Why should I deal with that in college?'' Last fall, two members of an all-white fraternity at the University of Mississippi were stripped, bound and stranded at Rust College, a predominantly black school nearby, with racial slurs and ''KKK'' written on their chests. Although one fraternity member was expelled and four were suspended for the incident, recruiting is still difficult. ''I've been at this university 28 years, and the progress made here is absolutely remarkable,'' said Ed Meek, a spokesman for the University of Mississippi. ''Yet a problem like that negates all of that in the minds of people.'' Since then, the incidents have dogged the university in its effort to attract more black students. ''We recruit very aggressively, one on one, and that subject comes up,'' Mr. Meek said. ''We have learned in some cases to bring it up ourselves.'' Hardening of Perceptions It does not take long for images and perceptions to calcify, students say. ''We all have families across the nation and we go back and tell them, and these things spread,'' said Yvette Russell, a black student at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. A recent study by the Institute Against Prejudice and Violence showed that one out of five minority students is subjected to some form of physical or psychological racial harassment every year. One out of three of those victims re-experience harassment every year. ''We're seeing a spiraling of tension,'' said Dr. Howard J. Ehrlich, a sociologist who is the research director of the institute. ''Most of the incidents are forms of psychological harassment that involve the total humiliateion of the student. I have no doubt that the increase in enrollment at black colleges is a result of black students' apprehension.'' Some parents and students try to find clues about a campus's atmosphere and commitment to diversity by poring over guidebooks, checking black retention and graduation rates, going over the ratios of blacks to the total enrollment. But some parents are finding there is no way to shield their children completely. One couple in New York had settled on Brown University as the No. 1 choice for their 16-year-old daughter, Jessica, who will be putting in her applications next year. But the family was dismayed when it learned of several racial incidents at the campus, which is in Providence. ''It was a reaction of, ''Now what do we do?' '' said Jessica's mother. Could Happen Anywhere These incidents could happen anywhere, Dr. Ehrlich said, adding, ''There are no external characteristics that will tell you on what campus the incidents will occur.'' Indeed, some black students end up regretting the choice they made. ''At times I wish I had gone somewhere else so that I wouldn't have to deal with these things,'' said Derrick Young, a student at the University of Illinois, where racial tensions rose last month when the police broke up two predominantly black parties. ''I spend hours upon hours dealing with these types of issues. That's time away from studying.'' Many, like Clarence Wilson of Oklahoma City, are transferring to black institutions. Last year, Mr. Wilson left the University of Oklahoma, where white fraternity members were seen wearing T-shirts emblazoned with black stereotypical characters and where he said white friends would socialize with him in dormitory rooms but not in public. Now he is a sophomore at Xavier College in New Orleans. ''I decided it was time to leave,'' he said. ''I realized I was missing something.'' Tony Hampton, of Chicago, says he does not think he would be a graduating college senior if he had not gone to Xavier. ''Not until I came to Xavier did I get some self-esteem,'' Mr. Hampton said. But others say black students need to become accustomed to being in the minority. ''You take a risk of these things' happening whenever you go to a predominantly white school,'' said Gene Williams, a junior at Emory University in Atlanta. ''Emory is really just a microcosm of of our whole country.'' Education experts warn that merely turning to black schools is not the long-term solution. ''Those colleges don't have the capacity to handle all those kids,'' Dr. Wilson said. ''We can't use the black schools as an escape. The question is, How can we make the white schools more hospitable?, because that's where the bulk of them are going to go.''
14 -
15 -====Campus diversity is key to racial progress, economic growth, decreased poverty, national security, and more.====
16 -**Kerby 12** (Sophia Kerby. Sophia Kerby is the Policy Associate in the Brennan Center’s Washington, D.C. office, where she works to advance Brennan Center policy priorities in Congress. In addition to providing support for the Director and Chief Counsel of the Washington office, Sophia meets with civil rights, social justice, and democracy organizations to develop policy goals and share information critical to advancing civil rights in federal policy and regulations. Sophia also works on racial and criminal justice advocacy and reform, voting rights, and ex-felon enfranchisement. Prior to joining the Brennan Center, Sophia worked at the Center for American Progress where her work focused on communities of color, women and their socioeconomic intersections. Her work has been published in the Huffington Post and National Journal. Sophia holds a B.A in government and politics from the University of Maryland-College Park. "10 Reasons Why We Need Diversity On College Campuses. 10-09-2012". Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2012/10/09/41004/10-reasons-why-we-need-diversity-on-college-campuses/) //TruLe
17 -The Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments tomorrow in Fisher v. University of Texas, a constitutional challenge to race-conscious admission policies at colleges and universities. If the Court bars the use of race in admissions, it will erase 50 years of progress and threaten universities’ attempts to make college campuses more diverse and inclusive. Conservatives hope that this case will overturn the Court’s 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, which allowed schools to use race as one of the many factors in achieving racial diversity in their institutions. Such a ruling, however, would adversely impact students on college campuses and would go against our nation’s founding principles of fairness and equal opportunity. As a nation we have come a long way in terms of inclusiveness—in 2008 we elected our first African American president—but our work is far from done. It’s important that as a country we continue to expand opportunities for all to ensure that we are giving everyone a fair shot. Here are 10 reasons why diversity on college campuses is crucial for all students. 1. Our nation is changing, and our higher education institutions need to reflect this diversity. More than half of all U.S. babies today are people of color, and by 2050 our nation will have no clear racial or ethnic majority. Communities of color are tomorrow’s leaders, and we need to better prepare our future workforce. 2. While communities of color have made great strides in closing the education gap, disparities in higher education remain prevalent. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2009 about 28 percent of Americans older than 25 years of age had a four-year college degree. That same year only 17 percent of African Americans and 13 percent for Hispanics had a four-year degree. 3. It’s in our national interest to invest in our future workforce. People of color today make up about 36 percent of the workforce. According to Census Bureau projections, by 2050 one in two workers will be a person of color. As our nation becomes more diverse, so too does our workforce. 4. Diversity in the workforce fosters innovation and competitiveness in business. Studies consistently show that diversity drives innovation and fosters creativity. In a Forbes survey, 85 percent of respondents said diversity is crucial for their businesses, and approximately 75 percent indicated that their companies will put more focus during the next three years to leverage diversity to achieve their business goals. 5. Fortune 500 companies agree that diversity is good for the bottom line. More than 60 leading 500 Fortune companies—including Coca-Cola, General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Johnson and Johnson, and many others—came out in support of race-based admission policies in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Grutter v. Bollingerruling. 6. Diversity is a national security issue. In the past, our U.S. armed forces have argued that a highly qualified and racially diverse officer corps is essential to the military’s ability to provide national security. A top Army personnel official states that, “Diversity adds to the strength of the military as a force.” In Grutter v.Bollinger a number of high-ranking officers and civilian leaders of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps urged the Court to uphold the limited consideration of race. 7. Diversity on campus benefits all students. Diversity on college campuses isn’t just a benefit for the brown and black students. Learning with people from a variety of backgrounds encourages collaboration and fosters innovation, thereby benefitting all students. Research shows that the overall academic and social effects of increased racial diversity on campus are likely to be positive, rangeing from higher levels of academic achievement to the improvement of near- and long-term intergroup relations. 8. The implications of race-neutral policies in educational opportunities are detrimental to the next generation. Admission polices that do not consider race are predicted to decrease representation of students of color at the most selective four-year institutions by 10 percent. Given that our future workforce is projected to be nearly half people of color, it is necessary that universities create a fair process for expanding opportunities to all students. 9. Research show that race-neutral polices simply don’t work. Scholars have already debunked the myth that a class-based admission system is an adequate replacement for a race-based admission policy as a means of creating greater levels of diversity. A study conducted by the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law found that after using a class-based admission system, enrollment of African Americans and American Indians fell by more than 70 percent. A wide breadth of research concludes that race-conscious practices are necessary in some capacity to achieve a level of diversity that encompasses our diverse nation. 10. The majority of Americans support race-conscious policies in higher education. A CBS News/New York Times poll in 2009 shows that the majority of Americans are in favor of promoting diversity on college campuses through race-conscious policies—including the Asian American population, a group that is inaccurately speculated to benefit from the ban of such practices. An Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund poll found that 75 percent of Asian Americans voters in Michigan rejected Michigan’s Proposition 2, a 2006 state referendum seeking to ban race-conscious policies. As our nation becomes more diverse, it is crucial that institutions of higher education reflect this diversity. Our growing communities of color are America’s future, and it is important that we not only prepare people of color as future leaders, but that we also expose all students to diversity in education so that America’s students are more competitive in an increasingly global economy.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-08 00:25:50.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Dianna Radpour
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -FloMou KW
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -9
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JANFEB - DA - Dropouts
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Winston Churchill Classic
Caselist.CitesClass[17]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,26 +1,0 @@
1 -= Cap - Art=
2 -
3 -
4 -====The university has become the cornerstone of production, where research and learning has become more and more focused on using students as capital for knowledge economies and mass capitalist globalization.====
5 -Peters and Besley 6 (Michael A. Peters and A.C. Besley, Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism, 2006, pp 24-25, 7/5/2016)
6 -It is not hard to make the leap from informatization and the postmodernization of production to an understanding of the implications for higher education or, indeed, schooling per se. In this context, we can easily talk of the informatization of knowledge production. We can recognize, as have many national governments, the significance of higher education in the knowledge economy, and the role of research in bolstering productivity. Many of the strategies concerning technology transfer have been centered on universities, with an emphasis on partnerships with business and the development of new start-up and spin-off companies. Governments have also tried to encourage the “clustering” of universities as a means of regional development. There has been a general reorientation of university curricula toward more practical and vocational knowledge, and university teachers and lectures are increasingly encouraged to engage in e-learning and to prepare their lectures as part of online courses. In this context, the questions of immaterial labor, intellectual property, and the culturalization of economic knowledge become leading policy issues. The World Bank recognizes the importance of tertiary education systems for developing and transitional economies, which face significant new trends regarding the convergent impacts of globalization, the information and communication revolutions, and the increasing importance of knowledge as a main driver of growth. The bank now argues that the role of tertiary education in the construction of knowledge economies and democratic societies is more influential than ever and that tertiary education is central to knowledge creation and production. At the same time, there is the danger of a growing digital divide between strata within developing countries between North and South. In a major report, Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education, the World Bank (2002) describes how tertiary education contributes to building up a country’s capacity for participating in an increasingly knowledge-based world economy. It also investigates policy options for tertiary education that have the potential to enhance economic growth and reduce poverty. In some ways, the report indicates new directions. While it expands on Higher Education: The Lessons of Experience (World Bank 1994), it also emphasizes new trends, particularly the emerging role of knowledge as a major driver of economic development, and greater competition from nontraditional providers in a “borderless education” environment. The report recognizes that modes of delivery and organizational structures will become transformed as a result of the communications revolution. It comments on the rise of market forces in tertiary education and the emergence of a global market for advanced human capital.
7 -
8 -====The ideology that current student art can solve solidifies capitalist ideologies because art has become a commodity, a superficial critique, and ignorant of the antagonisms only the alt can solve.====
9 -**Libcom 13** (Libcom, libcom.org is a site for all people who wish to fight to improve their lives articles are anonymously posted to challenge the current culture of power, their communities and their working conditions.. "A letter to Goldsmiths art students on capitalism, art and pseudo-critique", libcom.org, Jul 8 2013 09:54, https://libcom.org/library/letter-goldsmiths-art-students-capitalism-art-pseudo-critique-prolapsarian)//DM Accessed 2-3-2017
10 -Dear Goldsmiths Art Students, I attended your MFA show two nights ago. I apologise to an extent: with so many artworks on display it was difficult to digest any of them. That situation was exacerbated by the fact that so few of the works seemed to have it in them to behave destructively towards the others. Maybe this is where I can begin: that the type of co-operation between artworks, their intellectual co-ordination, is something I find troubling. It didn’t seem to me to be the co-operation of a school thinking together, but instead the co-ordination of the school uniform, of a discipline that had been so fully internalised that all of the artworks, under its authority, might comfortably coalesce. That made those artworks difficult to be with. I want to write to you about a single gesture that was performed by a great majority of the artworks in the show (although there were some important exceptions). It is a gesture that claims to determine a relation between artworks and “capitalism”. It is of no surprise that under the contemporary situation of global capital, undergoing its most profound crisis in eighty years – creating conditions not only of mass destitution but also of mass resistance and protest – that the relation between art and capital would present itself more explicitly in the new works of art than has been the case in the last decades. But the expression of this relation of art and capital in the work displayed at your show was not only predictable, but questionable on both political and aesthetic grounds. The gesture that I refer to is that of artworks that attempt to parody capitalism, and in this parody hope to effect a critical irony through the apparent distance between the artwork (and its social situation) and the forms of commodity or capital that it parodies. In this gesture the artwork proclaims a radicalism, a dissatisfaction with the actually existing. It proclaims that the object of this dissatisfaction is “capitalism”. The modes of making explicit the structure of parody are plural: some take up the bathetic disjunction through a fully instrumental comparison with some hazy far-away classicism or humanism; others exaggerate the shoddiness of capital’s products; others rely on a revelatory mode whereby it is claimed something of capital’s seamy underbelly is exposed; while others are just bits of fixed capital – most often employing the high technologies of marketing – transposed into the gallery-space. But the gesture of this parody common to all of them will, I imagine, be familiar to you. That mention of marketing is important, because the attack that each of these artworks claims to make on capital is against the semblance-character (Scheincharakter) of its products. Or to put it in a trendier way, the claim is that the artwork performs, through this ironising parody, a critique of capitalist spectacle. But maybe before we jump wholeheartedly into claiming that level of actual critique for those artworks, we might examine what is actually going on in them a little more carefully. This gesture, as I understand it, stands upon its lofty artistic plinth, high above the world of capital, labour and production, in order to come to some conclusions: “the products of capitalism are a bit rubbish or glitchy” or “the activities that capitalism make humans perform are a bit stupid and pointless.” or “capitalism makes images everywhere an there’s something a bit fake about them.” What seemed strange to me, or rather, disconcerting and upsetting, was the refusal of any of these works that made this gesture to follow it through: there was in each an absolute resistance to making the dialectical leap (or rather a dialectical pigeon-step as a friend commented to me) into identifying that all of this rubbish that capitalism makes is composed finely of human lives forced by capitalism into endless labour and misery until death. There is no recognition that all of that capitalist trash contains within it the relentless destruction of all that each of us holds closest to us and loves most dearly. There is no understanding that the violence of the abstractions that capitalism imposes on humanity are materially particular, intervening in the particularities of our lives. To refuse to engage with that particularity is, it seems to me, to stand in solidarity with the forces of capital. The question of what it would mean for the artwork to attempt such an expression of the destruction of things and people loved, the historical weight of that process, is never asked; the self-satisfaction of being dissatisfied with commodities is instead transformed itself into the internal harmony of the artwork. Without accounting for these antagonisms there is no tension, no dissonance. The gesture is a thinning out of the artwork such that they may congregate as a marquetry of veneers, but becoming a veneer and pointing to the thinness of life today shifts into the mere declamation that this is how the world is. The pseudo-critical stance of these artworks makes a mistake in terms of the object of its critique: again and again, what is called into question is “capitalism”, which is taken to be some conceptual whole, plucked from the heaven of ideas, and imported directly into the artwork as an object of ridicule. The type of capitalism that is the object of critique is seemingly a wholly abstract thing. Capitalism exists for these artworks not as an historical process, a dynamic governing relations between people, and between people and nature, but instead merely as a critical concept, pristine from the theory tool-box. It is not the capitalism that might be known from the experience of exploitation, the submission of humans to the laws of value. It isn’t a capitalism that holds within it technical determinations, not one that leaves historical traces of the destruction it wrought, not one that weighs more heavily on us with that every life it crushed. Instead, it is a “capitalism” borrowed from the pages of the latest offerings of Semiotext(e) or ZeroBooks. Those artworks wilfully mistake the abstractions performed by capitalism – the violent processing of human activity into value – for a wholly abstract capitalism. It is a convenient slippage as it preserves the height of that plinth from which the judgment of capitalism might be made; critique, where it claims to exist in these artworks, need not sully itself in the muck of the billions of corpses, the works need not work to empathise with or express the visceral human suffering of those subjected to labour until they die because their “critique” can be made from a comfortable distance and the concept of capitalism which becomes the object of the critique never did include all of that death and suffering. It is here that these artworks find their true affinity with capitalism: all of that non-identical stuff, the suffering worthless and silenced that could never be sold, all the disjecta membra of humanity need never return. The concept of capitalism for these artworks is like a machine that doesn’t quite work: why it doesn’t work and how it came to be is not of concern. Furthermore, these artworks apparently need not be reflexive, for their elevated position guarantees that really they’re not that involved at all – that they’re just social commentary (the old doctrine of l’art pour l’art comes in handy like the final defiant cry of the old aristocrat Don Juan that he is not responsible before being sucked into hell.) These artworks refuse to recognise the labour congealed in them; work is not something to be suffered, but instead just a daft extravagance. Work is always external to them, like it is for all workers brutally alienated into compliance. These artworks see capital with the eye of a luxury consumer. They refuse to acknowledge necessity under capitalism. “Capitalism” for them is a bad choice, not something that you’re is compelled to reproduce because you’re hungry. It complains about capitalism just as it might about a scratched DVD being delivered from Amazon, only to cling to the scratch because at least it proves the thesis, just as the consumer clings to evidence in order to validate an insurance claim. But just like all insurance, all that is secured is the continuance of the present state of things. Critique is exchanged for dissatisfaction. For these works, capitalism would be fine if it worked better. Precisely because of this feeling that capitalism might work better, each of these works shies from expressing anything of the most forceful antagonisms that drive capitalist history; none of them hold within themselves the promise of anything different or other to capitalism, but instead rest happily on the maxim of progressive improvement and expediency. The insurance-structure of these artworks might allow us to begin to place them in a historical contour that has brought us to their situation. The history of art in the late 19th and early 20th century, from the articulations of an art that could create wholly new totalities of semblance out of the developments of industrial capitalism (one thinks, for example, of Wagner), through to the modernist rejection of semblance in artworks as a resistance to appearing as the commodity world is significant here: those strategies of the modernists – fragmentation and the refusal of completion, tension without resolution, eruptions of explicit and arbitrary violence, the regression to the childish or animalistic – all of these intended towards the abolition of the way things are. Those artworks never did abolish the world, that is, their promises never fulfilled, but that they could have is felt in complacency with which Kafka or Tzara is read today, or in the sponsorship on the next Klee exhibition. It is in the late 20th century return to an art whose subject is the semblance-character of commodities that your artworks exist. Your works claim to make that same gesture of fragmentation or brokenness that the modernists made, somehow without carrying the historical weight their work did: every broken body for you can be compared to a technical glitch, as though it weren’t inevitable, constantly reproduced under compulsion. Instead it is analogous to accidental clinamen of the machine that is grotesque not because of what it does but because it doesn’t do it well enough. Every broken thing here, every rift and crevice, indigent and distorted (as it appears every day by the illuminated on the screen of an ipad) carries no longer the potential to break everything, but instead carries the worldly insurance that one day everything will be fixed. If the modernists truly attempted to abolish the semblance-character inherent to the capitalism of their time, your artworks calculate as actuaries and hedge against the moment that this might actually happen. That modernist fragmentation has become alien to your work: you find it in the commodity world (of which your artworks claim not to be a part) in order to import it into your artworks which, in their lofty standpoints of critique take the form of truly complete, perfect, non-fragmentary commodities. I might try to put this another way: Adorno once wrote that “the theological heritage of art is the secularisation of revelation, which defines the ideal and limit of every work. The contamination of art with revelation would amount to the unreflective repetition of its fetish character on the level of theory. The eradication of every trace of revelation from art would, however, degrade it to the undifferentiated repetition of the status quo.” Your work, or at least this gesture in your work, refuses to engage in this antagonism. Instead, your artworks perform something like a false revelation (as I have suggested earlier, the revelation not that capitalism is built on the continuation of a history of immeasurable human suffering, but just that its commodities just don’t work very well.) In this false revelation – and at times it seems like a self-consciously, cynically planted false revelation – the faulty fetish-character of the commodity is exchanged for the perfect fetish-character of the artwork; the status quo is repeated, because the claim made by the artworks that they stand outside or above that status quo in order to repeat it with a haughty sneer is entirely false. I have an image from Ernst Bloch’s The Spirit of Utopia in my head (a really interesting book on many of these questions, whose title is currently being ripped off for some idiotic show at The Whitechapel Gallery) of the “dance around the golden calf, or better, just the calf-skin with nothing underneath.” Your artworks, in their avoidance of having any interiority, any formal-immanent dynamic that would be required to express anything of the antagonisms of the world in which they must reside, offer a claim to truth in the revelation that the artwork is a better commodity than the commodity itself. These artworks therefore do not invite interpretation. Instead, they invite their audience to stand with them, for a moment, on that plinth and to share in bemoan the current state of the commodity-world. Their gesture of making themselves thin, of claiming no internal or formal dynamic, demands that we believe for a moment that this is actually what capitalism is like, and that beneath its appearance is not a set of antagonisms in which humans are engaged but instead an abyssal nothing. The success of these artworks would be the inculcation of smugness, and the moment of release when in an instant the viewer claims non-complicity with capitalism. It is not unnoticed that the claim of non-complicity is identical the manoeuvre performed by capitalists every day: they are just business people and managers who claim even in maintaining the most detestable conditions for their workers that they are doing them a favour, doing them some good by providing them with a job. But where that manoeuvre wears thin, this bourgeoisie might find solace in your art. Perhaps you disagree with my point of view – I can understand that you might be entirely resigned to the notion that capitalism will never be overcome. Maybe you have moved beyond this resignation into a full-blown cynicism. The impression you as artists give is often that everything has already been recuperated, that all radicalism is produced broken, that all resistance is already integrated into the capitalist whole. Your works often make the claim of regretting this, but it is a false claim insofar as it is a process to which they happily contribute. Clearly, few of you are actually interested in a critique of capitalism (but a pseudo-critique that sells will have to do), but for those of us who care about art, for those of us who think that art’s critical capacities have not been exhausted and extinguished, for those of us for whom the abolition of capitalism is not a choice but a necessity, you are the enemy.
11 -
12 -====Capitalism perpetuates all other forms of oppression – we control the direction of their impacts.====
13 -Bennett 12. Sara Bennett. Socialist Review is a monthly magazine covering current events, theory and history, books and arts reviews from a revolutionary socialist perspective. It is the sister publication of Socialist Worker. , May 2012, "Marxism and oppression," Socialist Review, http://socialistreview.org.uk/369/marxism-and-oppression //RS
14 -Marx recognised that oppression, far from being a natural and thus a permanent feature of human society, is a historical invention. True, the oppression of certain groups of people in society existed before capitalism. For example, Marx's collaborator Engels traced the origins of women's oppression to the formation of the family with the rise of class society. Despite the many changes to the family over the centuries, it persists to this day because it plays a crucial role in the continuation of the system, by bearing the brunt of the cost for caring for present and past generations of workers and the rearing of the next - all at our own expense. So, despite the fact that the majority of women in this country who can work do work, their role in the family means they still accept lower wages and fewer career opportunities. Other forms of oppression have arisen with the emergence of capitalism. So racism was created to justify the slave trade and imperialism and is perpetuated by the need to keep workers divided. Towards the end of the 19th century a new sexual identity, the "homosexual", was invented and portrayed as a threat to society and the maintenance of the family. What is common to all forms of oppression, however, is that they have a material basis and arise from the structures and dynamics of class society. Oppression serves to reinforce the interests of capitalism. But while Marx understood that some forms of oppression existed before capitalism, he also grasped the way the nature of oppression under capitalism was different to what had gone before. Under feudalism or slavery the mass of the population were either slaves, the property of masters, or serfs tied to particular pieces of land and bound to a lord. Such societies were rigidly hierarchical and were based on the idea that everyone had their "rightful place". Notions of freedom for those other than the rulers in society were rare and subordination in society was widely accepted. When new societies emerge so too do new ideas. The bourgeois revolutions that overthrew feudalism and paved the way for capitalism did so under the banner of "liberty, equality and fraternity", as the French Revolution put it. This was a huge step forward for humanity compared to previous societies. Under capitalism production takes the form of creating commodities to be sold in the market. Everything becomes a commodity, including our ability to labour. Workers are no longer tied to individual lords and masters. The new ideas of individual freedom and equality under capitalism reflect this new way of organising production. But in reality freedom for the vast majority of the human race is simply this ability to sell their labour power to one or another capitalist (provided, of course, that there is sufficient demand). Capitalism holds out the promise of liberation, but then denies it to the majority of society. Capitalist production increasingly comes to depend on the mass cooperation of workers, but as capitalism brings workers together so too it divides them from each other. Workers are forced to continually compete against each other - for jobs, overtime, housing, even access to decent healthcare provision. Oppression helps to create and reinforce divisions between workers. For example, the mass media and mainstream government encourage us to see immigrant workers as inferior to native-born workers. While it may be acceptable for immigrants to participate in our workforce when there are plenty of jobs, as soon as jobs become more scarce, immigrants are portrayed as less deserving of work, and therefore a threat. Alienation These divisions are underpinned by the alienation of workers under capitalism from control over their labour. This results in a sense of powerlessness, especially when workers do not fight back collectively. In this situation, some workers may gain a feeling of empowerment by looking down on others and feeling superior. So a white person may look down on a black person or a man on a woman. And it is not just non-oppressed groups who feel superior to oppressed groups - it cuts across oppressed groups too. For example, a "second-generation immigrant" can feel superior to a recently arrived immigrant, or a gay man can feel superior to a disabled person. As a result, some people argue that sections of workers have an interest in sustaining oppression, rather than seeing that all oppression works to allow the continuation of capitalism by providing it with material benefits. So we hear arguments that men benefit from women's oppression, or that all whites benefit from the oppression of black people. While it's true that non-oppressed groups do not suffer in the way that oppressed people may, it is wrong to think they therefore have some interest in the continuation of oppression. For example, the fact that women in full-time work still earn around 15 percent less than their male counterparts does not allow men's wages to increase further - it simply means it's easier for the bosses to keep all wages down. The best solution to this would be for male and female workers to fight together for decent wages for all. This may be easier said than done for a woman at work being sexually harassed by a male colleague, however. After all, she experiences her oppression through his sexist commetns and gestures. But while he may be the immediate culprit, the causes of oppression run much deeper - they are rooted in capitalism. Socialists have to fight all forms of oppression through the struggle for class unity. Alienation and distorted notions of freedom and equality also mean that people are not necessarily conscious of their oppression and can lead them to actively embrace some of the worst aspects of it. With the emphasis under capitalism on the individual rather than the social whole, we are made to feel that the worst symptoms of our oppression must be through some fault of our own. Here capitalism steps in to sell us the very "solutions" we need. So we have a whole industry of self-help books in the UK which is estimated to have earned publishers some £60?million in the past five years. In a similar vein, the answer to women not feeling "sexy enough" is to attend pole dancing "fitness classes", or undergo cosmetic surgery. There are even skin-lightening techniques for black people. A divisive system Capitalism works quite hard to ensure we keep believing our main enemy is some other group of ordinary people in society rather than the nature of our distorted relationships under capitalist society. The mass media have to continuously pump out horrific anti-immigrant, anti-traveller, anti single mum propaganda. Capitalism maintains its hold by dividing those workers who collectively could overturn it, and ideology plays a significant role. And this means it has to work to undermine the reality of our lives that actually brings us into constant contact and cooperation with all types of people, whether Muslim, gay, disabled and so on. While many non-Marxists fight with us against oppression, there is often disagreement about our emphasis on the working class as the key agent of change. After all, oppression affects all classes, not just the working class. This means some people believe that the oppressed group itself is the key to overcoming its own oppression. At a recent demonstration at Cambridge University over the visit of former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, one of the chants was "The women united will never be defeated." It's not hard to see why this might seem like common sense to some; after all, every woman can be a victim of sexual assault. But which women are we uniting with? Christine Lagarde, Strauss-Kahn's replacement, is central to the imposition of draconian austerity measures across Europe, driving the living standards of millions of women and men down - something that in turn will increase the pressures on people's lives and place more women at the risk of violence.
15 -
16 -====Our alternative is to vote negative to refuse to participate in activities that support capitalism – key to hollowing out capitalist structures.====
17 -Herod 4. Herod, Columbia University Graduate and Political Activist, 2004 (James, Getting Free, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman'g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm, JC)
18 -It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. This strategy, at its most basic, calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image then is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning out of them until there is nothing left but shells. This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy, and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system, but an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better, something we want. Thus capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations alongside capitalist relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing every thing we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, non-hierarchical, non-commodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called revolution, or during the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable, materialist laws of history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what we’re doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and know how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs. But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live and let live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we can’t simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism must be explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes War, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks, but a war fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to continue doing so. Nevertheless, there are many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly. We must always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage-slavery because the ruling class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, destroying community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, destroying our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell, for a wage, our ability to work. It’s quite clear then how we can overthrow slavery. We must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the products made by wage-slaves (that is, we must get free from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for replacing capitalism, totally, with a new civilization. This is an important distinction, because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms, as a system. We can sometimes in some places win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and win some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal, as a system.¶ Thus our strategy of gutting and eventually destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing image, an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another, and not merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking about entire systems and social orders, but everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a way of life, and that is the way we should approach it. The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed millions and millions of people must be dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief-system that is needed, like a religion, or like Marxism, or Anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant desire, an overriding need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way, and not to live another way. If this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to be autonomous, to live in democratically controlled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be destroyed. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction.
19 -
20 -====The role of the ballot is challenging capitalism in educational spaces – it has seeped into educational sites and has corrupted our epistemology, means K is a prior question.====
21 -Giroux 8. (Henry A, Global Network Television Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, and Susan S, Associate Professor of English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, "Education After Neoliberalism", December 31 2008, http://www.truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/81781:education-after-neoliberalism,
22 -In spite of the crucial connection between various modes of domination and pedagogy, there is little input from progressive social theorists of what it might mean to theorize how education as a form of cultural politics actually constructs particular modes of address, identification, affective investments and social relations that produce consent and complicity with the ethos and practice of neoliberalism. Hence, while the current economic crisis has called into question the economic viability of neoliberal values and policies, it often does so by implying that neoliberal rationality can be explained through an economic optic alone, and consequently gives the relationship of politics, culture and inequality scant analysis. Neoliberal rationality is lived and legitimated in relation to the intertwining of culture, politics and meaning. Any viable challenge to the culture of neoliberalism as well as the current economic crisis it has generated must address not merely the diffuse operations of power throughout civil society and the globe, but also what it means to engage those diverse educational sites producing and legitimating neoliberal common sense, whether they be newspapers, advertising, the Internet, television or more recent spheres developed as part of the new information revolution. In addition, it is crucial to examine what role public intellectuals, think tanks, the media and universities actually play pedagogically in constructing and legitimating neoliberal world views, and how the latter works pedagogically in producing neoliberal subjects and securing consent.
23 -
24 -====And, the kritik comes before the plan - they DON’T get to weigh the case. Effective policymaking assumes we have good mindsets to start.====
25 -Blum 12. Blum, Andrew J. Managing Partner, The Triumph Group. "Managing Mindset to Break the Cycle of Reactive Decision-Making." March 31, 2012. //AD
26 -In spite of the crucial connection between various modes of domination and pedagogy, there is little input from progressive social theorists of what it might mean to theorize how education as a form of cultural politics actually constructs particular modes of address, identification, affective investments and social relations that produce consent and complicity with the ethos and practice of neoliberalism. Hence, while the current economic crisis has called into question the economic viability of neoliberal values and policies, it often does so by implying that neoliberal rationality can be explained through an economic optic alone, and consequently gives the relationship of politics, culture and inequality scant analysis. Neoliberal rationality is lived and legitimated in relation to the intertwining of culture, politics and meaning. Any viable challenge to the culture of neoliberalism as well as the current economic crisis it has generated must address not merely the diffuse operations of power throughout civil society and the globe, but also what it means to engage those diverse educational sites producing and legitimating neoliberal common sense, whether they be newspapers, advertising, the Internet, television or more recent spheres developed as part of the new information revolution. In addition, it is crucial to examine what role public intellectuals, think tanks, the media and universities actually play pedagogically in constructing and legitimating neoliberal world views, and how the latter works pedagogically in producing neoliberal subjects and securing consent.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-04 07:08:18.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -10
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JANFEB - K - Cap Art
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Colleyville
Caselist.CitesClass[18]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,67 +1,0 @@
1 -=T - Any=
2 -
3 -
4 -==1NC==
5 -
6 -
7 -====Interpretation: The aff may not specify a single type of constitutionally protected speech that their advocacy does not restrict. As a negative polarity item, ‘any’ is an indefinite – takes into account Aff definitions that say any means they can specify.====
8 -**Kadmon and Landman.** Nirit Kadmon and Fred Landman Linguistics and Philosophy, 1993, "Any," Springer, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25001516?seq=1andamp;loggedin=true~~#page'scan'tab'contents //RS
9 -As is well known, any can function in two different ways. On the one hand, it can be a negative polarity item - POLARITY SENSITIVE (PS) any; on the other hand, it has what is called a 'free choice' interpretation - FREE CHOICE (FC) any. In this paper, we will propose a unified analysis of the semantic and pragmatic effects of any, which applies to any on both its uses. The use of any as a negative polarity it is illustrated in (1) and (2). (1) I don't have any potatoes. (2) *I have any potatoes. According to Ladusaw 1979's well known analysis, negative polarity items (NPIs) are only licensed if they are in the scope of a downward entailing operator. A downward entailing (DE) operator is an operator that reverses the direction of entailment, roughly as specified in (3) (using for entailment). (3) O is a DE operator iff if A = B then O(B) = O(A). On Ladusaw's account, example (1) is OK because any is in the scope of negation, which, as illustrated in (4), is a DE operator. (4) swim = move I don't move = I don't swim In example (2), any is not licensed, because there is no DE operator that any is in the scope of. Ladusaw's analysis elegantly accounts for a wide range of examples. Besides negative vs. affirmative pairs like (1) and (2), it deals, for example, with examples (5)-(8). (5) At most three girls saw anything. (6) *At least three girls saw anything. (7) Every girl who saw anything was happy. (8) *Some girl who saw anything was happy. Assuming, with Generalized Quantifier Theory, that determiners are two Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 353-422, 1993. ? 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. This content downloaded from 72.179.3.185 on Fri, 06 Jan 2017 02:31:43 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 354 NIRIT KADMON AND FRED LANDMAN place relations between a nominal property and a verbal property, Ladu saw predicts that (5) and (7) are OK because the determiner at most three is DE on its second argument (as well as the first) and the determiner every is DE on its first argument. (6) and (8) are out because at least three and some are not DE on either argument. Ladusaw's analysis of polarity sensitivity is quite successful. It gives semantic content to Klima 1964's suggestion that NPIs are licensed by 'affective' expressions, and it improves upon the analysis of Baker (1970), which is based on licensing by overt negation, in that the notion of DE provides a uniform account of the licensing of NPIs in examples with and without negation. However, there remain some empirical and theoretical issues that Ladusaw's analysis leaves unresolved. We now turn to such issues. We note the four issues summarized in (9), on which we will comment in turn immediately below. (9) constitutes, in fact, a summary of our goals: what we set out to do in this paper is provide an analysis of any that can successfully deal with these four issues. (9)i. the connection between PS any and FC any (goal: a unified analysis); ii. any as an expression which indicates reduced tolerance of ex ceptions; iii. the distribution of the NPI as determined by its meaning and function; iv. empirical problems with the licensing of NPIs I. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN PS ANY AND FC ANY. (10)-(12) are ex amples of free choice any. (10) Any owl hunts mice. (11) Any lawyer could tell you that. (12) I would dance with anybody. Ladusaw (1979) offers a whole battery of arguments that show beyond doubt that PS any is an indefinite with an existential meaning. (Arguments for this are also given by Horn (1972) and others.) FC any, on the other hand, seems to have universal quantificational force. And this goes beyond mere appearance. Carlson (1981) gives several arguments that FC any is in fact a universal quantifier. A strong argument is the behavior of almost. Almost is an operator that can modify only universal determiners, as illustrated in (13)-(15). (13) Almost every lawyer could answer that question. This content downloaded from 72.179.3.185 on Fri, 06 Jan 2017 02:31:43 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ANY 355 (14) Almost no lawyer could answer that question. (15) *Almost some lawyer could answer that question. As (16) and (17) show, almost can modify FC any but not PS any, which strongly suggests that FC any, but not PS any, is universal. (16) Almost any lawyer could answer that question. (17) *I don't have almost any potatoes. (This goes back to Horn (1972), who makes a similar argument using absolutely. Note that we are not concerned with a reading of (17) where almost is a sentential adverb.) It seems then, that we should draw the conclusion - towards which Carlson (1981) leans - that any is lexically ambiguous: PS any is an existential quantifier, and FC any is a universal quantifier
10 -
11 -====Violation – they specify '''''.====
12 -
13 -
14 -====Limits—you overlimit by restricting the debate to one issue. There are thousands of ways you could protect free speech – justifies affs that protect one specific person’s speech – kills meaningful clash, the neg can’t prep every possible way to protect free speech – all debates come down to bad generics. ====
15 -
16 -====TVA – read plan as advantage to whole rez aff.====
17 -
18 -
19 -====D~~ Voter====
20 -
21 -
22 -====Substantive engagement====
23 -
24 -
25 -====1. Only reason we debate is for argument interaction, thus comes first. ====
26 -
27 -
28 -====2. You can get education from school ====
29 -
30 -
31 -====3. If debate were about being fair, we’d just flip a coin because that’d be the fairest scenario, but no one does that means fairness isn’t a voter. ====
32 -
33 -
34 -====Competing Interpretations====
35 -
36 -
37 -====1. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom because debaters keep being barely reasonable====
38 -
39 -
40 -====2. No briteline to reasonability====
41 -
42 -
43 -====Drop the debater: ====
44 -
45 -
46 -====1. time skew puts me at a disadvantage on substance====
47 -
48 -
49 -====2. Sets a precedent that debaters can’t run unfair arguments,====
50 -
51 -
52 -====3. Dropping them and their advocacy are functionally the same. ====
53 -
54 -
55 -====No RVI’s====
56 -
57 -
58 -====1. Real world applicability- Winning defense on theory just means that they are being fair, that’s not a reason to vote them up- In the real world proving you are meeting a necessary rule will not give you reward.====
59 -
60 -
61 -====2. RVIs discourage checking abuse because debaters will be afraid to lose on theory====
62 -
63 -
64 -====3. RVIs center the debate on theory instead of substance because it’s the only place the round can be decided. substance clash is important—it’s the only education unique to debate and outweighs on time frame; we only get two months to talk about the topic.====
65 -
66 -
67 -====4. Debaters running abusive positions will always be prepared for theory because they know what’s coming. Their opponents, however, must divide their pre-round prep between many possible shells. ====
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-04 07:08:20.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -10
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JANFEB - T - Any
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Colleyville
Caselist.CitesClass[19]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,16 +1,0 @@
1 -=CP – Fraternities=
2 -
3 -
4 -==1NC==
5 -
6 -
7 -====CP Text: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech except in the instance of fraternity advertising, organization, or membership.====
8 -
9 -
10 -====Fraternities are the modern-day outpost of institutional anti-blackness sustaining power structures within universities.====
11 -**Umesh 15.** Nisha Umesh: Studying Women and Gender Studies and Sociology, 8-1-2015, "With Growing 'Misogyny And Racism', It's Time To 'Dismantle Historically White Fraternities'," Youth Ki Awaaz, https://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2015/08/sexism-and-racism-white-fraternities/ //RS
12 -It has been about two months since my first year of college ended at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG). The University was originally established in 1891 by the North Carolina General Assembly under “An Act to Establish a Normal and Industrial School for White Girls.” In 1956, JoAnne Smart Drane and Bettye Ann Tillman would become the first Black women to enroll at UNCG. And in the fall of 1964, the student body included 282 men as result of a top-down decision to make all UNC System schools co-educational. I do not approve of the initial exclusion of Black women, among other women of colour such as myself, a clear manifestation of racism and sexism in action. However, since 1964, patriarchy has gone nowhere and is still alive and thriving. The majority of my unpleasant memories from my first year involved various men, who felt entitled to harass me on a regular basis. I had little familiarity with these types of experiences prior to college, and was jolted into a harsh reality I was not prepared to face. Consequently, I am critical of the decision to include men, because of how it has affected my time as a First Year. Presently on a global scale, women across college campuses face the threat and fear of rape and sexual assault, which we have become normalized to, as it is deeply embedded into our institutions and culture. On college campuses around 1 in 4 women in college are victims of sexual violence, and about 1 in 12 men in college will admit to having raped a woman. These numbers are a clear indication of gender-based oppression, in which men are favored and women are abused. I soon began to realise just how patriarchy and gender-based oppression weigh down on women’s lives. Whether it be catcalling, sexual assault, rape, emotional or psychological abuse, the power dynamic of this social construct without a doubt favors men, and victimizes women. There exists so deeply permeated into our society a culture resulting from patriarchal norms, which dehumanizes women’s bodies and minds. We are struggling to survive in a blissfully ignorant world, which has historically oppressed us into mere objects of pleasure. While speaking about sexual violence on college campuses, we must center our conversation around historically White fraternities, which have through time expressed both anti-Black sentiments and misogyny. We cannot forget while addressing sexual violence against women, white men in these fraternities perpetuate racism, demonising and excluding black people and other people of colour from their institutions. This is perfectly evidenced by a recent incident, in which the frat Sigma Alpha Epsilon of Oklahoma University chanted a racist mantra whilst gathered on a bus, which consisted of the lines “You can hang em’ from a tree, but it will never start with me…“. Much of the U.S reacted with disgust and complete shock, to which I must ask, should we be surprised? With the U.S having such a deep history of anti-blackness, as this very nation was built off the labour and genocide of people of colour, can we truly express shock towards what has and never will be an isolated incident? Lynching is not a racial crime of the past, and today still trails in the shadows of black people, as evidenced by this video. As Robert Cohen, professor of Social Studies and History at New York University, so eloquently says: “Lynching symbolizes black powerlessness…The implication seems to be that even if the university integrates the fraternity will remain an outpost of white supremacy and racial exclusion.” Jessica Bennett, a columnist at Time, poses the question: “Why isn’t every campus in America dissolving its fraternity program — or at least instituting major, serious reform?” Amid endless reports of sexual violence emerging against fraternity members, our universities must critique the violence perpetuated by historically white fraternities, and question whether these powerful male social groups should exist. From policing the bodies and dress of women, abusing alcohol, and expressing anti-Black sentiment, it is time to dismantle historically white fraternities and prioritise social groups which can provide a space of support and voice for people of colour. Sexual violence and anti-Blackness are very much tied together, for as white fraternities are granted systemic privilege, and power, they utilize this to abuse women, especially women of of colour. Misogyny and racism has always been present in our education institutions and will continue to, until we recognize and fight to dismantle patriarchy and abolish white supremacy in the U.S. As Cohen powerfully states regarding the incident at the University of Oklahoma: “The historical roots of this racist fraternity tradition and the political, cultural and demographic props that sustain it must be understood and confronted honestly if the ghost of Jim Crow is ever to be banished from frat row.“
13 -
14 -====Frats protected by 1^^st^^ amendment.====
15 -**Lukianoff 11.** Greg Lukianoff President and Ceo, Foundation For Individual Rights In Education, 8-1-2011, "To Survive, Fraternities Need to Stand for Something, Anything," Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-lukianoff/fraternities-and-free-spe'b'912673.html //RS
16 -A lot of fraternities seem to know that their freedom of association is protected by the First Amendment. (While the freedom to join and form groups is not technically listed in the text of the First Amendment, it is understood to arise from the protections of freedom of speech and the right to assembly.) What fraternities often do not know, however, is that there are several different kinds of freedom of association protected by the First Amendment, and they are not all made equal. The strongest kind of freedom of association protected by the First Amendment is the right to “intimate” association, best represented by the family. Our government recognizes that the bonds of family are particularly important and that it should do its best to avoid actions that interfere with this bond. The second strongest kind of freedom of association is called “expressive” association. Sensibly, courts understand that the right to freedom of expression would not mean a great deal if we are forbidden from joining together with like-minded individuals to amplify the power of our voices and take collective action. This understanding forms the basis of our right to form groups around commonly held beliefs whether they are religious, secular, or ideological. Everything from Mothers Against Drunk Driving to NORML is a kind of expressive association. (This includes my nonprofit, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, as well.)
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-04 19:47:13.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 ------
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -SLCJC
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -12
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -JANFEB - CP -Fraternities
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Colleyville
Caselist.CitesClass[20]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,17 +1,0 @@
1 -=CP – Private Sector=
2 -
3 -
4 -====CP text: The private sector institutions of the United States should guarantee the right to housing====
5 -
6 -
7 -====The federal government has created a myth that the private sector can’t finance the housing market, but the federal government has been failing for decades.====
8 -**THF 16** (The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership. Heritage has since continued to have a significant influence in U.S. public policy making, and is considered to be one of the most influential conservative research organizations in the United States. After the 2016 election of Donald Trump as U.S. President, Heritage played a major role in shaping his transition team. "Housing". 2016. Solutions. http://solutions.heritage.org/money-the-market/housing/) //TruLe
9 -The federal government has actively distorted housing markets for decades, particularly through the operations of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Proponents justified these government guarantees and outright subsidies as a way to increase home ownership, claiming that the private sector cannot provide a reliable source of financing. These efforts to support the housing market have failed. Despite the large federal subsidies, the homeownership rate has not changed much over the past 40 or so years. At the same time, the total burden of mortgage debt has increased dramatically. Although they were not the sole cause of the economic meltdown of 2008, these policies helped to inflated the housing bubble that burst that year, leaving homeowners underwater and soaking U.S. taxpayers. Congress should curtail its harmful interference in this market and let private institutions take the leading role in housing finance.
10 -
11 -====Federal approaches to housing have led to more crime, poverty, and more.====
12 -**Husock 2/23** (Howard Husock. Howard Husock is vice president for research and publications at the Manhattan Institute, where he is also director of the Institute’s social entrepreneurship initiative. A City Journal contributing editor, he is the author of Philanthropy Under Fire (2013) and a contributor to Forbes.com. From 1987 through 2006, Husock was director of case studies in public policy and management at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, where he was also a fellow at the Hauser Center on Nonprofit Organizations. His publications on the nonprofit sector have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, National Affairs, New York Times, New York Times Magazine, Society, Chronicle of Philanthropy, and Public Interest. Husock has written widely on U.S. housing and urban policy, including in his book The Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake: The Failure of American Housing Policy (2003) and his monograph Repairing the Ladder: Toward a New Housing Policy Paradigm (1996). His work has appeared in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Philanthropy, and The Wilson Quarterly. A former broadcast journalist and documentary filmmaker whose work won three Emmy Awards, Husock serves on the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He holds a B.A. from Boston University’s School of Public Communication and was a 1981–82 mid-career fellow at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. "Public Housing and Rental Subsidies". 2-23-2017. Downsizing the Federal Government. https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hud/public-housing-rental-subsidies) //TruLe
13 -From Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama, American presidents and their housing administrators have cut ribbons on subsidized housing projects and announced new housing initiatives aimed at uplifting the poor. The specific policies have changed over time, but the theory has always been that federal aid is needed because private markets fail to provide adequate housing for people with low incomes. As it turns out, such claims about market failure are erroneous and federal efforts have often resulted in harmful and counterproductive outcomes. The federal government has funded one expensive approaches to low-income housing after another since the 1930s — without seeming to notice that the new approaches were made necessary by the failures of past public policies. The public housing projects erected to replace slums soon became dilapidated and crime-ridden. The federal housing vouchers meant to end "concentrated poverty" simply moved poverty around. And another federal effort — the low income housing tax credit — appears to have aided developers more than low-income households. Another problem is that federal housing activities have been used as a pretext for misguided interventions into local planning activities. Under Barack Obama, for example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) pushed what it termed "affirmatively furthering fair housing" to encourage the relocation of poor households to higher-income neighborhoods. The new HUD Secretary, Ben Carson, is right that such interventions smack of "social engineering." President Donald Trump says that his administration will end failed programs and repeal counterproductive regulations. As such, the administration should reexamine housing programs because they create a myriad of distortions and social damage. Federal interventions undermine neighborhoods, encourage dependency, and create disincentives for long-term maintenance and improvements in housing. They also rest on the false premise that the private sector cannot provide housing for those of modest means. Federal housing subsidies are also expensive to taxpayers. In 2016, the federal government spent $30 billion on rental subsidies for low-income households and almost $6 billion on public housing.1 The following sections discuss the origins of federal subsidies, the distortions caused by public housing and rental subsidies, and the ability of private markets to provide housing without government help.
14 -
15 -====The private sector has worked significantly better than federal programs, empirics prove.====
16 -**Husock 2/23** (Howard Husock. Howard Husock is vice president for research and publications at the Manhattan Institute, where he is also director of the Institute’s social entrepreneurship initiative. A City Journal contributing editor, he is the author of Philanthropy Under Fire (2013) and a contributor to Forbes.com. From 1987 through 2006, Husock was director of case studies in public policy and management at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, where he was also a fellow at the Hauser Center on Nonprofit Organizations. His publications on the nonprofit sector have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, National Affairs, New York Times, New York Times Magazine, Society, Chronicle of Philanthropy, and Public Interest. Husock has written widely on U.S. housing and urban policy, including in his book The Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake: The Failure of American Housing Policy (2003) and his monograph Repairing the Ladder: Toward a New Housing Policy Paradigm (1996). His work has appeared in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Philanthropy, and The Wilson Quarterly. A former broadcast journalist and documentary filmmaker whose work won three Emmy Awards, Husock serves on the board of directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He holds a B.A. from Boston University’s School of Public Communication and was a 1981–82 mid-career fellow at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. "Public Housing and Rental Subsidies". 2-23-2017. Downsizing the Federal Government. https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hud/public-housing-rental-subsidies) //TruLe
17 -For eight decades, supporters of subsidized housing have acted on the belief that private markets cannot provide adequate housing for lower-income families. New Deal administrator Harold Ickes frequently made such claims in support of housing subsidies.21Ickes claimed that "slums cannot be eradicated except on the basis of a government subsidy."22 In 1935, Catherine Bauer — an influential public housing crusader at the time — claimed that private housing markets could not serve fully two-thirds of Americans, and thus most people would need public housing assistance. The same year, prominent architect Albert Mayer claimed in a New York Times op-ed that 50 percent of the population could not afford to rent in private dwellings.23 The post–World War II era's explosion of home ownership quickly gave the lie to those sorts of claims, as private markets produced millions of new homes in the suburbs. Unfortunately, all sorts of federal housing subsidies had already been put into place and were difficult to repeal — even with the poor performance of the subsidies and the excellent performance of the private sector in providing new housing during that era. Before federal subsidy programs, and before the widespread use of detailed housing regulations and zoning ordinances, private markets did a good job of provided housing for lower-income Americans. From 1890 to 1930, for example, vast amounts of new working-class housing were built in American cities. In Philadelphia during that period some 299,000 brick row homes were built — and many of them were so solid that they are still in use. Data from that period show that a significant percentage of residents of poor neighborhoods did not live in overcrowded tenements, but instead lived in small homes that they owned or in homes where the owners lived and rented out space. From the end of the Civil War until the New Deal, private markets generated a cornucopia of housing types to accommodate those of modest means. In those years, Chicago saw the construction of 211,000 low-cost two-family homes — or 21 percent of its residences. In Brooklyn, 120,000 two-family structures with ground-floor stores sprang up. In Boston, about 40 percent of the population of 770,000 lived in the 65,376 units of the city's three-decker frame houses. These areas of low-cost, unsubsidized housing were home to the striving poor. In Boston, as pioneer sociologists Robert Woods and Albert Kennedy describe it in their 1914 work, The Zone of Emergence, those neighborhoods teemed with skilled and semi-skilled workmen, the large majority of whom owned their homes. Even in the poorest neighborhoods, housing was rarely abject. A 1907 report by the U.S. Immigration Commission, for instance, found that in the eastern cities, crowding in such neighborhoods was by no means overwhelming. "Eighty-four of every 100 of the homes studied are in good or fair condition," wrote the commission.24 True, many lived without hot water or their own bathrooms, but this was a time in America that was far less wealthy than today in general, and rental costs, contrary to legend, were not unduly burdensome. A 1909 study by the President's Homes Commission of Washington, D.C., found that a majority of the 1,200 families surveyed paid but 17.5 percent of their income for housing costs.25 Many of the poor — just like the "emerging" class that Woods and Kennedy described — lived in small homes they owned or in small buildings in which the owner lived. We know from Jacob Riis's powerful 1891 book, How the Other Half Lives, some families lived in very poor conditions. But it is essential to remember that the conditions in which these poor families lived were not permanent — a fact unacknowledged by either Riis or today's housing advocates. After all, the generation of children for whom Riis despaired went on to accomplish America's explosive economic growth after the turn of the century and into the twenties. By 1930, the New York settlement-house pioneer Lillian Wald would write in her memoirs of the Lower East Side that, where once Riis had deplored overcrowding, she now found herself surrounded by "empties" because most of the poor had climbed the economic ladder and headed to Brooklyn and the Bronx. In other words, "substandard" housing was a stage through which many families passed, but in which they did not inevitably remain. Perversely, subsidized housing advocates usually make matters worse when they try to ban the conditions that offend them. By insisting on unrealistically high regulatory standards that drive up housing prices beyond the means of the poor, they help create housing shortages. Since the New Deal, a flood of regulatory mandates — whether for the number of closets, the square feet of kitchen counter space, or handicapped access — have caused private owners and builders to bypass the low-income market in particular. Under current building codes and zoning laws, much of the distinctive lower-cost housing that shaped the architectural identity of America's cities — such as Brooklyn's attached brownstones with basement apartments — could not be built today. It is true that even with relaxed building and housing codes, we might not be able to build brand-new housing within the reach of all those with low incomes. But housing structures last for decades, which facilitates the continual passing along of gradually older homes to those of more modest means. When new homes are built for the middle class, their homes are passed along to the lower middle class. When lower-middle-class families move up to better accommodations, they pass their homes and apartments along to those who are poorer, and so it goes. A major social benefit of private and unsubsidized rental and housing markets is the promotion of responsible behavior. Tenants and potential homeowners must establish a good credit history, save money for security deposits or downpayments, come with good references from employers, and pay the rent or mortgage on time. Renters must maintain their apartments decently and keep an eye on their children to avoid eviction. By contrast, public housing, housing vouchers, and other types of housing subsidies undermine or eliminate these benefits of market-based housing. Support for housing subsidies rests upon a failure to understand the importance of the means — such as marriage, hard work, and thrift — by which families improve their prospects so they can move to a better home in a better neighborhood. Better neighborhoods are not better because of something in the water but because people have built and sustained them by their efforts, their values, and their commitments. Subsidies are based on the mistaken belief that it is necessary to award a better home to all who claim "need," but it is the effort to achieve the better home, not the home itself, that is the real engine of social improvement.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-10 06:23:53.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -13
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -MARAPR - CP - Private Sector
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA State
Caselist.CitesClass[21]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,25 +1,0 @@
1 -=DA – Warming=
2 -
3 -
4 -==1NC==
5 -
6 -
7 -====We are on the brink but clean energy rise proves we can meet the 2 degree Celsius threshold.====
8 -**Canadell et. al. 2/16** (Dr. Josep (Pep) Canadell, Glen Peters, Corinne Le Quéré, Dr. Josep (Pep) Canadell is an EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT AND CSIRO RESEARCH SCIENTIST for the GLOBAL CARBON PROJECT, Glen Peters is a senior researcher for CICERO. Le Quéré is also another contributor for CICERO. "We can still keep global warming below 2℃ – but the hard work is about to start", No Publication, 2-16-2017, page numbers here, http://www.cicero.uio.no/no/posts/klima/we-can-still-keep-global-warming-below-2-but-the-hard-work-is-about-to-start)//DM Accessed 3-8-2017
9 -Last year we found that the growth in global fossil fuel emissions have stalled over the past three years. But does this mean we are on track to keep global warming below 2℃, as agreed under the 2015 Paris Agreement? In our study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change today, we looked at how global and national energy sectors are progressing towards global climate targets. We found that we can still keep global warming below 2℃ largely thanks to increasing use of clean energy, a global decline in coal use, improvements in energy efficiency, and a consequent stalling of emissions from fossil fuels over the past three years. Nations need to accelerate deployment of existing technologies to lock in and build on the gains of the last three years. More challenging, is the needed investment to develop new technologies and behaviours necessary to get to net-zero global emissions by mid-century. World moving away from fossil fuels We looked at several key measures, including carbon emissions from fossil fuels, the carbon intensity of the energy system (how much carbon is produced for each unit of energy) and the amount of carbon emitted to produce one dollar of wealth. ...we can still keep global warming below 2℃ largely thanks to increasing use of clean energy, a global decline in coal use, improvements in energy efficiency, and aconsequent stalling of emissions from fossil fuels over the past three years. The world share of energy from fossil fuels is starting to decline. There has been no growth in coal consumption and strong growth in energy from wind, biomass, solar and hydro power. The emerging trend is therefore towards lower carbon emissions from energy production. Energy efficiency has also improved globally in recent years, reversing the trends of the 2000s. These improvements are reducing the amount of carbon emissions to produce new wealth. From all these changes, global fossil fuel emissions have not grown over the past three years. Remarkably, this has occurred while the global economy has continued to grow. As the global economy grows, it is using less energy to produce each unit of wealth as economies become more efficient and shift towards services. These promising results show that, globally, we are broadly in the right starting position to keep warming below 2℃. But modelling suggests that stringent climate policy will only slightly accelerate this historical trend of improvements in energy intensity. And to keep warming below 2℃ will require deep and sustained reductions in the carbon intensity of how energy is produced.
10 -
11 -====Home construction is on the decline====
12 -Slowey 3/2 (Kim Slowey, ~~writer who has been active in the construction industry for the last 25 years and is licensed as a certified general contractor in Florida. She received her BA in Mass Communications/Journalism from the University of South Florida and has experience in both commercial and residential construction~~, 3-2-2017, "Weak productivity crippling global construction industry growth," Construction Dive, http://www.constructiondive.com/news/weak-productivity-crippling-global-construction-industry-growth/437249/) //AD
13 -Not only has the U.S. construction industry failed to keep pace with the U.S. compounded annual business productivity growth rate of 1.76, but it has lost ground since 1995 with a yearly productivity decline of 1.04, according to a recent McKinsey Global Institute report. In its report, "Reinventing Construction Through a Productivity Revolution," McKinsey said the global construction industry, which has a 1 productivity growth rate compared to the world's 2.8, has been slow to adopt the new technology and management techniques that could increase its value by $1.6 trillion. McKinsey noted that unless the industry takes significant steps to modernize, it will not be able to meet the demands of an aggressive infrastructure program or be able to address the shortage of housing in the U.S.
14 -
15 -====Housing construction explodes emissions – UK empirically proves====
16 -Monahan and Powell 11. Monahan, J., ~~~~, Powell, J.C. ~~~~, "The significance of embodied carbon and energy in house construction". Energy and Buildings 43: 179-188. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.09. 005, Science for Environmental Policy, European Comission DG, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/38si9'en.pdf) //AD
17 -As almost a quarter of all global CO2 emissions are attributed to energy use in buildings, reducing the energy demand and carbon emissions linked to buildings is an important goal for government climate policy. However, the energy used, and associated carbon emissions, when a house is built is often overlooked and mainly comes from the extraction, processing, manufacture, transportation and use of materials for construction. This energy and carbon is thus considered to be hidden or ‘embodied’ in the house. The researchers assessed the energy used and carbon emitted in the construction of a novel low-energy house in the UK using a life cycle method. The house was a threebedroom semi-detached house made with a factory-built, foam insulated, timber frame and assembled in modules at the building site, where it was clad with larch planks. It was compared with two similar buildings constructed using more traditional methods: a timberframed house with brick cladding and a house built with traditional masonry techniques (block internal walls, insulated cavity walls and brick cladding). The assessment, based on data from an inventory of all the materials and fossil fuels used during construction, revealed that the low-energy house required a total of 519GJ (gigajoules) of primary energy to build (5.7 GJ/m2 ), embodying 35 tonnes of CO2 (405 kilograms of CO2 per square metre). 82 of the energy was used in preparing the materials (over a third of this from concrete) and the rest was used to transport materials, remove waste and for onsite energy requirements. The brick-clad house embodied over 30 more carbon and energy, owing to the increase in minerals associated with the cladding (sand, brick and cement) and increases in transport and construction costs. The masonry house embodied 51 more carbon and 35 more energy compared to the timber framed, larch-clad house. Most energy and carbon savings in the low-energy house came from the use of wood as an alternative to cement, bricks and steel; larch cladding produces an energy saving of 24 compared to bricks. Less structural support is also needed, further reducing the need for energy rich materials, such as steel and concrete. The offsite, factory manufacturing of the timber fames also reduced energy costs. Addressing the alternative methods of construction outlined in this study could be a valuable contribution to national carbon reduction efforts. Further energy savings from construction include reducing onsite waste production, which accounts 14 of total embodied carbon, and reducing the amount of cement used, by replacing with ground granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash or other lower carbon alternatives.
18 -
19 -====Meeting two degree Celsius change is key to stopping climate change catastrophe====
20 -**Mastroianni 15** (I'm currently working as a Science/Technology reporter and editor for CBSNews.com. I previously covered Science and Technology for FoxNews.com. Before moving to New York, I spent a year as a Reporter, Editor, and Designer at The Berkshire Eagle and served as the Press Agent and Assistant to the Artistic Director at Berkshire Actors Theatre. I graduated with honors from Brown University in 2011, and earned a Master of Arts degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in May 2014. "Why 2 degrees are so important to the climate." CBS. 11-30-2015. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-un-climate-talks-why-2-degrees-are-so-important/)//roman
21 -As the United Nations conference on climate change gets underway Monday in Paris, one temperature that will be on everyone's minds is 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Although it might not sound like a big number, climatologists predict that if the planet warms a total of 2 degrees more than its average temperature before the Industrial Revolution ~-~- when humans started burning fossil fuels ~-~- the results could be catastrophic. What could happen? Think events like greater sea level rise submerging the coasts, more pervasive droughts and wildfires, and plant and animal extinctions across the board. Scientists say this amount of temperature increase could leave us with a significantly different Earth. And unless something changes, we're heading in that direction: U.N. and U.K. climate analysts recently concluded that the Earth has already warmed by 1 degree Celsius, with 2015 the hottest year ever recorded. Yale economist William Nordhaus first defined the 2-degree benchmark in a 1977 paper, "Economic Growth and Climate: The Carbon Dioxide Problem." Since then, the figure has stood as a rallying cry for those advocating for cutting back on carbon emissions. For others, 2 degrees is still too high ~-~- to allow the Earth to warm even that much would be dire for life on the planet. "Those who study the possible impacts of warming think that there is a threshold before we can start to get much more changed in the world ~-~- like the flooding of low-lying countries, and things like that," said Eric Larson, a senior scientist at Climate Central, a nonprofit news organization that provides analysis and information on climate science. "Science has established for quite a while that we need to respect a threshold of 2 degrees, that being the limit of the temperature increase that we can afford from a human, economic and infrastructure point of view," the top U.N. official on climate change, Christiana Figueres, told CBS News in an interview earlier this fall. Beyond that, "we would be moving into exceedingly dangerous zones of abrupt interruptions to our economy, to our livelihood, to our infrastructure that frankly we wouldn't even know how to deal with."
22 -
23 -====Global warming definitively causes extinction====
24 -Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, "Climate Change and Implications for National Security," International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/) //AD
25 -Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was to be reflected on a single one-year calendar then the dinosaurs died off sometime late in the afternoon of December 27th and modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, or at around lunchtime on December 28th. Therefore, human life on earth is very recent. Sometime on December 28th humans made the first fires – wood fires – neutral in the carbon balance. Now reflect on those most recent 200,000 years again on a single one-year calendar and you might be surprised to learn that the industrial revolution began only a few hours ago during the middle of the afternoon on December 31st, 250 years ago, coinciding with the discovery of underground carbon fuels. Over the 250 years carbon fuels have enabled tremendous technological advances including a population growth from about 800 million then to 7.5 billion today and the consequent demand to extract even more carbon. This has occurred during a handful of generations, which is hardly noticeable on our imaginary one-year calendar. The release of this carbon – however – is changing our climate at such a rapid rate that it threatens our survival and presence on earth. It defies imagination that so much damage has been done in such a relatively short time. The implications of climate change is the single most significant threat to life on earth and, put simply, we are not doing enough to rectify the damage. This relatively very recent ability to change our climate is an inconvenient truth; the science is sound. We know of the complex set of interrelated national and global security risks that are a result of global warming and the velocity at which climate change is occurring. We worry it may already be too late. Climate change writ large has informed few, interested some, confused many, and polarized politics. It has already led to an increase in natural disasters including but not limited to droughts, storms, floods, fires etc. The year 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to an American Meteorological Society (AMS) report. Research suggests that climate change is already affecting human displacement; reportedly 36 million people were displaced in 2008 alone because of sudden natural disasters. Figures for 2010 and 2011 paint a grimmer picture of people displaced because of rising sea levels, heat and storms. Climate change affects all natural systems. It impacts temperature and consequently it affects water and weather patterns. It contributes to desertification, deforestation and acidification of the oceans. Changes in weather patterns may mean droughts in one area and floods in another. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, sea levels rise but perennial river water supplies are reduced because glaciers are retreating. As glaciers and polar ice caps melt, there is an albedo effect, which is a double whammy of less temperature regulation because of less surface area of ice present. This means that less absorption occurs and also there is less reflection of the sun’s light. A potentially critical wild card could be runaway climate change due to the release of methane from melting tundra. Worldwide permafrost soils contain about 1,700 Giga Tons of carbon, which is about four times more than all the carbon released through human activity thus far. The planet has already adapted itself to dramatic climate change including a wide range of distinct geologic periods and multiple extinctions, and at a pace that it can be managed. It is human intervention that has accelerated the pace dramatically: An increased surface temperature, coupled with more severe weather and changes in water distribution will create uneven threats to our agricultural systems and will foster and support the spread of insect borne diseases like Malaria, Dengue and the West Nile virus. Rising sea levels will increasingly threaten our coastal population and infrastructure centers and with more than 3.5 billion people – half the planet – depending on the ocean for their primary source of food, ocean acidification may dangerously undercut critical natural food systems which would result in reduced rations. Climate change also carries significant inertia. Even if emissions were completely halted today, temperature increases would continue for some time. Thus the impact is not only to the environment, water, coastal homes, agriculture and fisheries as mentioned, but also would lead to conflict and thus impact national security. Resource wars are inevitable as countries respond, adapt and compete for the shrinking set of those available resources. These wars have arguably already started and will continue in the future because climate change will force countries to act for national survival; the so-called Climate Wars. As early as 2003 Greenpeace alluded to a report which it claimed was commissioned by the Pentagon titled: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security. It painted a picture of a world in turmoil because global warming had accelerated. The scenario outlined was both abrupt and alarming. The report offered recommendations but backed away from declaring climate change an immediate problem, concluding that it would actually be more incremental and measured; as such it would be an irritant, not a shock for national security systems. In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) – Institute of Public Research – convened a board of 11 senior retired generals and admirals to assess National Security and the Threat to Climate Change. Their initial report was published in April 2007 and made no mention of the potential acceleration of climate change. The team found that climate change was a serious threat to national security and that it was: “most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.” The team made recommendations from their analysis of regional impacts which suggested the following. Europe would experience some fracturing because of border migration. Africa would need more stability and humanitarian operations provided by the United States. The Middle East would experience a “loss of food and water security (which) will increase pressure to emigrate across borders.” Asia would suffer from “threats to water and the spread of infectious disease. ” In 2009 the CIA opened a Center on Climate Change and National Security to coordinate across the intelligence community and to focus policy. In May 2014, CNA again convened a Military Advisory Board but this time to assess National Security and the Accelerating Risk of Climate Change. The report concludes that climate change is no longer a future threat but occurring right now and the authors appeal to the security community, the entire government and the American people to not only build resilience against projected climate change impacts but to form agreements to stabilize climate change and also to integrate climate change across all strategy and planning. The calm of the 2007 report is replaced by a tone of anxiety concerning the future coupled with calls for public discourse and debate because “time and tide wait for no man.” The report notes a key distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and agreements (ways to stabilize climate change) and states that: Actions by the United States and the international community have been insufficient to adapt to the challenges associated with projected climate change. Strengthening resilience to climate impacts already locked into the system is critical, but this will reduce long-term risk only if improvements in resilience are accompanied by actionable agreements on ways to stabilize climate change. The 9/11 Report framed the terrorist attacks as less of a failure of intelligence than a failure of imagination. Greenpeace’s 2003 account of the Pentagon’s alleged report describes a coming climate Armageddon which to readers was unimaginable and hence the report was not really taken seriously. It described: A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the U.S. and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. The CNA and Greenpeace/Pentagon reports are both mirrored by similar analysis by the World Bank which highlighted not only the physical manifestations of climate change, but also the significant human impacts that threaten to unravel decades of economic development, which will ultimately foster conflict. Climate change is the quintessential “Tragedy of the Commons,” where the cumulative impact of many individual actions (carbon emission in this case) is not seen as linked to the marginal gains available to each individual action and not seen as cause and effect. It is simultaneously huge, yet amorphous and nearly invisible from day to day. It is occurring very fast in geologic time terms, but in human time it is (was) slow and incremental. Among environmental problems, it is uniquely global. With our planet and culture figuratively and literally honeycombed with a reliance on fossil fuels, we face systemic challenges in changing the reliance across multiple layers of consumption, investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix!
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-10 06:23:54.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -13
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -MARAPR - DA - Warming
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA State
Caselist.CitesClass[22]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,34 +1,0 @@
1 -=DA – Econ=
2 -
3 -
4 -==1NC==
5 -
6 -
7 -====The right the housing would push the US economy into collapse- two links.====
8 -
9 -
10 -====Housing rights movements hurt business growth====
11 -**Alexander 15** Lisa T. Alexander (Professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School). "Occupying the Constitutional Right to Housing." Nebraska Law Review. 2015. HW. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2821andcontext=nlr SM
12 -Housing rights protestors in San Francisco blocked a Google employee bus transporting employees to the company’s headquarters in suburban Mountain View.3 The protestors opposed Google’s use of over 200 public San Francisco bus stops for its private employee shuttle buses without paying fines for its illegal use of public infrastructure.4 The protestors demanded that the city fine Google $1 billion dollars,5 and dedicate the proceeds to affordable housing initiatives, eviction defenses,6 and measures to prevent the conversion of affordable rental units to market-rate condos.7 Similar protests also took place in other cities.8 The protestors’ main grievance was the increasingly inequitable distributions of local housing and property entitlements in San Francisco and Seattle spurred, in part, by technology companies’ growth in the region.9
13 -
14 -====The right to housing in Ireland caused the first recession in decades.====
15 -**O’Sullivan, Trinity College in Dublin, 2008:**
16 -Sustainable Solutions to Homelessness: The Irish Case. Eoin O’Sullivan, School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College, Dublin, Dublin 2. Republic of Ireland. SM
17 -In the last year, some difficulties have emerged in relation to the funding of the care needs of homeless individuals. As noted earlier, a crucial element in the strategic development of services was that local authorities would have responsibility for the provision of accommodation, with health authorities having responsibility for the provision of care. The establishment of Health Service Executive (HSE) in 200518, while rational in theory, has generated considerable implementation difficulties and overspend; in the case of homeless services, some new services have experienced delays in opening because of the reluctance of the HSE to fund the care element. In addition, strains on the public finances generated largely but not exclusively by the decline in the property market, have resulted in Ireland entering recession for the first time in nearly a quarter of a century. Demands for greater efficiencies in public services are now articulated daily as a response to the reduction in tax revenues and homeless service providers will not be immune to these new realities.
18 -
19 -====This turns the AC====
20 -
21 -
22 -====Economic recessions cause a huge spike in homelessness.====
23 -**Cauvin 11:**
24 -~~Henri E. Cauvin is a Washington Post Staff Writer. "More families became homeless in recession" 1/13/2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/12/AR2011011206298.html~~ SM
25 -During the throes of the recession, the number of homeless people in the United States increased, and the number of homeless families increased at an even greater rate, according to a report released Wednesday. The findings by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, although not surprising, confirm the harsh toll that the recession - which began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009 - took on families. Historically, people struggling with mental illness, substance abuse or other chronic problems have been the focus of government homelessness efforts, and until recently the number of such homeless people had been declining. But the recession, which has led to rising unemployment and declining social services, has slowed progress among the chronically homeless and increased numbers of the newly homeless, among them many families, according to the alliance's report. State by state the picture was mixed, with 19 states reporting decreases in homelessness. "The good news is, the numbers could have been a lot worse," Nan Roman, the alliance's executive director, said Wednesday at a news conference at the National Press Club. Drawing on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, the study looked at changes in homelessness nationwide from 2008 to 2009. The number of homeless people increased 3 percent, or by about 20,000 people, and the number of homeless families increased 4 percent, according to the alliance's report, "State of Homelessness in America." The District and 31 states recorded increases in the total number of homeless people. To explain the rise, the report discusses a number of factors, including housing costs, foreclosure rates, the number of people aging out of foster care and the number of inmates leaving prison. The differences among states underscore the local nature of homelessness and the role that local governments play in fighting the problem. With state and county governments facing huge budget deficits, advocates fear that the numbers in next year's report - which will look at 2009 to last year - will be even worse. "We're obviously concerned about the current situation," Roman said. In the most recent survey by Washington area jurisdictions, the number of homeless people was down slightly from 2009 to 2010, although the District, which has more than half of the region's homeless, and Arlington and Loudoun counties recorded moderate increases.
26 -
27 -====Econ decline causes extinction====
28 -Kemp 10
29 -Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, "The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East", p. 233-4
30 -The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s population.
31 -
32 -====Intensifying economic recession will push us over the brink toward apocalypse—crime, suicide, and mass devastation is inevitable; this turns/outweighs all AC impacts ====
33 -The Sunday Times, 2/1/09 (Judith Duffy, "Scotland’s health boss sees apocalypse now," 2009, Lexis)
34 -SCOTLAND'S most senior public health official has warned that "humanity is on a path towards unprecedented catastrophe" and the Scottish economy is sinking at a faster rate than at any time since the Great Depression.In an apocalyptic report to the Scottish government, Dr Laurence Gruer, NHS Health Scotland's director of public health science, warned that the recession is likely to have a devastating effect on social cohesion and health.He predicts a rise in levels of property crime, fraud, racism, drug abuse, child abuse, domestic violence, obesity, depression and suicide. Coupled with environmental factors such as the depletion of natural resources, he claims the downturn could have dire consequences for the population."This upheaval can be expected to create changes in socioeconomic conditions in Scotland of a magnitude not seen since the early 1980s ... the causes of the recession are unprecedented and the rapidity and severity of their onset are only matched by the Great Depression of 1929."Humanity is on a path towards catastrophe on an unprecedented scale but which has already been tasted by the devastated residents of coastal Bangladesh, Myanmar and Louisiana, by the idle fishermen of the shrinking Aral Sea and the respiratory casualties of numerous air polluted cities."Gruer blames the "have-itall" mindset of western consumerist societies and its impact on the environment and people in developing countries."The risk of depression and the possibility of suicide may increase when unemployment is combined with financial problems such as losing one's home or relationship breakdown," says his report."With many more people struggling to make ends meet, some may be tempted into property crime, fraud or drug dealing ... there may also be possible increases in wife and child abuse and neglect ... the potential for increased racism and other forms of discrimination and harassment against immigrants due to perceived competition for jobs should be anticipated and responded to." The report has been criticised by politicians, who warn that Gruer's language could cause unnecessary anxiety."In the circumstances, prophesying doom and gloom is not a constructive way forward, neither does it help people cope with the current problems," said Mary Scanlon, health spokeswoman for the Scottish Conservatives.."It is for the public authorities to give the best advice and support, rather than adding to anxiety and depression."Richard Simpson, Labour's public health spokesman, said: "Something so full of doom and gloom at a time of uncertainty creates a sense of despair that is unnecessary and inappropriate. Dr Gruer should stick to his specific remit on public health."Simpson added that the current economic crisis could not be compared to the Great Depression because of the vast improvements in the nation's health and the global response to the credit crunch.The Great Depression, the most severe economic slump in modern history, was triggered by the Wall Street crash.Gruer believes that the socioeconomic changes caused by the current crisis would be as significant as those brought in by Margaret Thatcher's government in the 1980s.He adds that the falling value of sterling could also lead to elderly people, who had planned to spend their retirement living abroad, returning to Scotland, adding to the burden on health and social services.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-10 06:23:55.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -13
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -MARAPR - DA - Econ
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA State
Caselist.CitesClass[23]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,56 +1,0 @@
1 -=T – Implementation=
2 -
3 -
4 -==1NC==
5 -
6 -
7 -====A is the Interpretation: The affirmative can only garner offense by defending the hypothetical implementation of a government policy option. To clarify, they may not win by defending the truth value off the resolution.====
8 -
9 -
10 -====Resolved means a policy.====
11 -Words and Phrases ‘64 Permanent Edition. "Resolved". 1964.
12 -Definition of the word "resolve," given by Webster is "to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;" It is of similar force to the word "enact," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law".
13 -
14 -
15 -====B is the Violation: The affirmative debater doesn’t defend the hypothetical implementation of the plan, they assume it will happen. They conceded in cx that they don’t defend the implementation of the plan.====
16 -
17 -
18 -====Net benefits:====
19 -
20 -
21 -====Defending implementation is key to teaching students how to defend advocacies from objections – only portable impact from debate. ====
22 -Nixon 2K (Themba-Nixon, Makani. Executive Director of The Praxis Project, a nonprofit organization helping communities use media and policy advocacy to advance health equity and justice~~, "Changing the Rules: What Public Policy Means for Organizing" Colorlines 3.2, 2000) //WW JA 1/15/16
23 -"This is all about policy," a woman complained to me in a recent conversation. "I'm an organizer." The flourish and passion with which she made the distinction said everything. Policy is for wonks, sell-out politicians, and ivory-tower eggheads. Organizing is what real, grassroots people do. Common as it may be, this distinction doesn't bear out in the real world. Policy is more than law. It is any written agreement (formal or informal) that specifies how an institution, governing body, or community will address shared problems or attain shared goals. It spells out the terms and the consequences of these agreements and is the codification of the body's values-as represented by those present in the policymaking process. Given who's usually present, most policies reflect the political agenda of powerful elites. Yet, policy can be a force for change-especially when we bring our base and community organizing into the process. In essence, policies are the codification of power relationships and resource allocation. Policies are the rules of the world we live in. Changing the world means changing the rules. So, if organizing is about changing the rules and building power, how can organizing be separated from policies? Can we really speak truth to power, fight the right, stop corporate abuses, or win racial justice without contesting the rules and the rulers, the policies and the policymakers? The answer is no-and double no for people of color. Today, racism subtly dominates nearly every aspect of policymaking. From ballot propositions to city funding priorities, policy is increasingly about the control, de-funding, and disfranchisement of communities of color. Take the public conversation about welfare reform, for example. Most of us know it isn't really about putting people to work. The right's message was framed around racial stereotypes of lazy, cheating "welfare queens" whose poverty was "cultural." But the new welfare policy was about moving billions of dollars in individual cash payments and direct services from welfare recipients to other, more powerful, social actors. Many of us were too busy to tune into the welfare policy drama in Washington, only to find it washed up right on our doorsteps. Our members are suffering from workfare policies, new regulations, and cutoffs. Families who were barely getting by under the old rules are being pushed over the edge by the new policies. Policy doesn't get more relevant than this. And so we got involved in policy-as defense. Yet we have to do more than block their punches. We have to start the fight with initiatives of our own. Those who do are finding offense a bit more fun than defense alone. Living wage ordinances, youth development initiatives, even gun control and alcohol and tobacco policies are finding their way onto the public agenda, thanks to focused community organizing that leverages power for community-driven initiatives. - Over 600 local policies have been passed to regulate the tobacco industry. Local coalitions have taken the lead by writing ordinances that address local problems and organizing broad support for them. - Nearly 100 gun control and violence prevention policies have been enacted since 1991. - Milwaukee, Boston, and Oakland are among the cities that have passed living wage ordinances: local laws that guarantee higher than minimum wages for workers, usually set as the minimum needed to keep a family of four above poverty. These are just a few of the examples that demonstrate how organizing for local policy advocacy has made inroads in areas where positive national policy had been stalled by conservatives. Increasingly, the local policy arena is where the action is and where activists are finding success. Of course, corporate interests-which are usually the target of these policies-are gearing up in defense. Tactics include front groups, economic pressure, and the tried and true: cold, hard cash. Despite these barriers, grassroots organizing can be very effective at the smaller scale of local politics. At the local level, we have greater access to elected officials and officials have a greater reliance on their constituents for reelection. For example, getting 400 people to show up at city hall in just about any city in the U.S. is quite impressive. On the other hand, 400 people at the state house or the Congress would have a less significant impact. Add to that the fact that all 400 people at city hall are usually constituents, and the impact is even greater. Recent trends in government underscore the importance of local policy. Congress has enacted a series of measures devolving significant power to state and local government. Welfare, health care, and the regulation of food and drinking water safety are among the areas where states and localities now have greater rule. Devolution has some negative consequences to be sure. History has taught us that, for social services and civil rights in particular, the lack of clear federal standards and mechanisms for accountability lead to uneven enforcement and even discriminatory implementation of policies. Still, there are real opportunities for advancing progressive initiatives in this more localized environment. Greater local control can mean greater community power to shape and implement important social policies that were heretofore out of reach. To do so will require careful attention to the mechanics of local policymaking and a clear blueprint of what we stand for. Much of the work of framing what we stand for takes place in the shaping of demands Getting It in Writing Much of the work of framing what we stand for takes place in the shaping of demands. By getting into the policy arena in a proactive manner, we can take our demands to the next level. Our demands can become law, with real consequences if the agreement is broken. After all the organizing, press work, and effort, a group should leave a decisionmaker with more than a handshake and his or her word. Of course, this work requires a certain amount of interaction with "the suits," as well as struggles with the bureaucracy, the technical language, and the all-too-common resistance by decisionmakers. Still, if it's worth demanding, it's worth having in writing-whether as law, regulation, or internal policy. From ballot initiatives on rent control to laws requiring worker protections, organizers are leveraging their power into written policies that are making a real difference in their communities. Of course, policy work is just one tool in our organizing arsenal, but it is a tool we simply can't afford to ignore. Making policy work an integral part of organizing will require a certain amount of retrofitting. We will need to develop the capacity to translate our information, data, stories that are designed to affect the public conversation. Perhaps most important, we will need to move beyond fighting problems and on to framing solutions that bring us closer to our vision of how things should be. And then we must be committed to making it so.
24 -
25 -
26 -====Clash: defending implementation is key to DA links – I can’t read common arguments like the hate speech da, endowments da, and title ix da – clash controls the internal link to their framing – the 1AC creates an exclusionary discussion wherein the negative can’t engage – defending implementation ensures that we create effective dialogue and learn how to defend our arguments so we can do this in the real world and create material change.====
27 -
28 -
29 -====TVA – pair your method with an implementation and explain why its morally good.====
30 -
31 -
32 -====Competing Interpretations====
33 -
34 -
35 -====1. Reasonability causes a race to the bottom because debaters keep being barely reasonable====
36 -
37 -
38 -====2. No briteline to reasonability====
39 -
40 -
41 -====Drop the debater: ====
42 -
43 -
44 -====1. Sets a precedent that debaters can’t read illegitimate arguments,====
45 -
46 -
47 -====2. Dropping them and their advocacy are functionally the same. ====
48 -
49 -
50 -====No RVI’s====
51 -
52 -
53 -====1. Real world applicability- proving that you’re being fair isn’t a reason to vote you up.====
54 -
55 -
56 -====2. RVIs center the debate on theory instead of substance because it’s the only place the round can be decided. substance clash is important—it’s the only education unique to debate and outweighs on time frame; we only get two months to talk about the topic.====
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-10 06:35:06.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -14
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -T - Implementation
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA State
Caselist.CitesClass[24]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,25 +1,0 @@
1 -==IPV Word CP==
2 -
3 -
4 -====First, the term "domestic" creates hetero-normative tendencies excluding LGBT victims—- the domestic violence laws in California proves. Fountain 2: ====
5 -Kim Fountain et al ~~PH.D, Deputy Director New York City Anti-Violence Project~~, "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Domestic violence in the united states in 2008" The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs www.avp.org/documents/2008NCAVPLGBTQDVReportFINAL.pdf FD
6 -―Intimate Partner Violence‖ and ―Domestic Violence‖ - Distinctions Between the Terms Use of the term "domestic violence" to describe violence in LGBTQ intimate relationships has been disfavored by some feminist researchers. They contend that the language of "domesticity" reflects the patriarchy and hetero-normative tendencies of the law from which it springs, obscuring the dimensions of gender and power at play. These tendencies have various expressions in state law, but even those with provisions around LGBTQ intimate partnerships tend exhibit some form of sanctioned discrimination in either text or practice. For example, in order to access a legal remedy under California‟s Domestic Violence Protection Act ("DVPA"), one must fall into one of the Act‟s categories of "protected persons," as well as demonstrate, to the Court‟s satisfaction, "reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse." Categories of "protected persons" under the Act include being the Spouse, Cohabitant, Co-parent, Child, or Blood relative to the alleged perpetrator, or sharing a Dating or Engagement Relationship with the alleged perpetrator. Thus, there is no conduct which alone is sufficient to satisfy the extension of domestic civil protection orders; whatever proofs the alleged victim provides of a past act (or acts) of abuse by the alleged perpetrator, no protection order will be granted without establishing also that the relationship between the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator is one which the Act anticipated in crafting the law.
7 -
8 -
9 -====That turns case because LGBTQ intimate partnerships are excluded from this frame of consideration, so they aren’t protected, increasing discriminatory abuse.====
10 -
11 -
12 -====Second, the term "domestic" justifies continued violence against the victim because it "domesticizes" the private sphere, which makes laws more hesitant and less effective. Rivera:====
13 -Jenny Rivera ~~Professor of Law at the City University of New York~~ Violence Against Women Act and the Construction of Multiple Consciousness in the Civil Rights and Feminist Movement,", 1995. FD
14 -Violence against women by intimate partners is commonly referred to as "domestic violence." In previous articles, I have voiced my opposition to the use of the word "domestic" as a qualifier for this category of violence because it characterizes violence against women by current and former spouces and lovers as sufficiently distinct from all other forms of violence so as to justify wholly different, sometimes, inadequate, sanctioning of such violence. See Jenny Rivera, Domestic Violence Against Latinas by Latino Males: An Analysis of Race, National Origin, and Gender Differentials, 14 B.C. Third World L.J.231, 232 n.5 (1994) ~~hereinafter domestic Violene against Latinas~~; Jenny Rivera, Puerto Rico’s Domestic Violence Prevention and Intervention Law and the United States Violence Against Women Act of 1994: The Limitations of Legislative Responses, 5 Colum. J. Gender and L. 78, 79 n.8 (1995) ~~hereinafter Puerto Rico’s Domestic Violence Law~~. Undeniably, violence against women by these categories of perpretrators is different from other violence crimes commited by strangers or nonintimate acquantances and relatives. However, the use of "domestic" as a qualifying term does more than simply categorize based on the status of the abuser. This terminology has, in effect, "domesticized" the very act of violence and facilitated the insulation of this violence from public scrutiny and criminalized. See Elizabeth M. Schneider, The Violence of Privacy, 24 CONN. L. Rev. 973, 977 (1991) ("thus, in the so-called private sphere of domestic and family life, which is purportedly immune from law, there is always the selective application of law. Signifincantly, the selective application of law invokes ‘privacy’ a a rationalte for immunity in order to protect male domination.")
15 -
16 -
17 -====TURNS case because the aff’s rhetoric entrenches the public/private dichotomy allowing for continued abuse.====
18 -
19 -
20 -====Third, the term "domestic violence" disguises the criminal nature of the violence. Only the term intimate partner violence solves. Douglas -====
21 -Heather Douglas "Crime in the intimate sphere: prosecutions of intimate partner violence" 7 newscastle l. rev 80 (2004)
22 -In this paper I have eschewed the use of the term ‘domestic violence’, this term has suffered criticism in recent times. It has been suggested that the use of the term ultimately hampers further enquiry as it denotes a status relationship as well as a special one, separate such violence out from and somehow modifying ordinary violence. Others note that although the term, when it was initially contrived, was both radical and useful, it may now work to trivialize the violence which broadly is occurring in the context of the home. One judge recently noted that he disliked the term ‘domestic violence’ because the term disguised its criminal nature. It is thus difficult to know how to appropriately name the violence that is the subject of this paper. Its relationship context and gendered nature is extremely relevant and important to understanding and dealing with it. Rather than trivializing it, its status should be seen to exacerbate its seriousness, it is separate from other violence, it is worse. This type of violence is worse and more serious than many other forms of violence because its perpetrators exploit the intimate knowledge they have of their victim and because it frequently exploits a power imbalance between the parties. As a result of these considerations I have used the term ‘intimate partner violence’ to denote that violence which takes place between those in defacto or marriage relationships or those formerly in such relationships. Previous research has found that most DVOs are applied for by women against their male intimates or previous intimates (rather than by men against women). This research supports the view that violence against women by men in intimate relationships is more likely to occur and generally more serious than violence against men by women. The violence discussed here is very much about gender and relationship and this is played out in the fact scenarios I will discuss below. The reality for women continues to be that they are more likely to suffer violence from their intimate partner (or previous partner) than any other person.
23 -
24 -
25 -====We advocate the entirety the 1AC except with replacing the terms "domestic" or "domestic violence" with "intimate partner violence"====
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-10 06:35:07.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -14
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -MARAPR - CP - IPV Word
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA State
Caselist.CitesClass[25]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,27 +1,0 @@
1 -=K – Cap=
2 -
3 -
4 -==1NC==
5 -
6 -
7 -===Links===
8 -
9 -
10 -====The plan is a neoliberal smokescreen coopted by wealthy elites to privatize housing reforms, accelerate consumerism, and re-entrench the system.====
11 -Khare 13. (Amy T. Khare, ~~Research Associate in the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center at the Urban Institute~~, "Market-Driven Public Housing Reforms: Inadequacy for Poverty Alleviation", Cityscape, Vol. 15, No. 2, Mixed Messages on Mixed Incomes (2013), pp. 193-203, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41959119) //AD
12 -The underlying rationale of the HCVP, particularly as it relates to public housing reforms, prioritizes the private-market provision of affordable rental housing. The historical and political context is relevant in order to assess the findings and implications of these three studies, as well as the others in this symposium on mixed-income housing strategies. Since the late 1960s, the federal government's role for the provision of affordable rental housing has steadily embraced strategies that subsidize private owners of rental properties. As opposed to publically owned properties, most new affordable housing units have been built through federal initiatives - such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (1986) and HOME funds from the National Affordable Housing Act (1990) - that use public funding to leverage private financing (Erikson, 2009; Fraser, Oakley, and Bazuin, 2012; McCarty, 2012; Schwartz, 2010). Subsidizing private develop- ment has been argued by political opponents of large government bureaucracy as a more efficient and timely method for producing affordable rental housing. Advocates of privatization claim the U.S. government has historically failed to adequately deliver necessary quality services, in part be- cause of the inefficient state bureaucracies that are poorly managed and not properly incentivized. The reduction of government services encourages private-sector entities to enter new markets that were previously untapped. Private-sector actors, seeking to maximize their economic interests, will deliver better quality services, at lower costs. Individual citizens benefit by having an expanded market with more attractive alternatives than were previously available when the public service was the only option (Ellickson, 2010; Glaeser and Gyourko, 2008; Husock, 2003; Marcuse and Keating, 2006). The underlying rationale for reforms suggests that market investment into the built environment of places long associated with concentrated poverty is necessary because the public-sector interven- tions have failed. If urban neighborhoods are to be radically reshaped, then a significant portion of the subsidized public housing rental units (and the renters living in them) will need to be replaced with housing and other related amenities that increase the potential for economic development. These housing policy reforms reflect a broader movement of the U.S. welfare state that increasingly shifts responsibility from the public sector to the private sector for the provision of necessary goods and services, such as affordable rental housing. The trend in U.S. policymaking, which is increasing, has been to retrench government programs that meet basic needs for vulnerable citizens (such as for food, shelter, safety, and health) and to implement a private-sector model in which nongovern- mental institutions are engaged by public policies to respond to individual needs. This shift places the role of the state in a removed or hidden position, as the government contracts out the direct operations of rental housing to private actors (Dreier, 2006; Hacker, 2002; Marcuse and Keating, 2006). These alterations in housing policy became widely embraced in the 1970s with federal housing assistance models that used rental subsidies to essentially reserve existing units in the private housing market. Rather than making an investment in rehabbing the old public housing units or constructing new units, the federal government policies since the mid-1980s responded to criticisms and shortcomings of the public housing program by inducing the private market to deliver affordable rental units. A movement in the mid-1990s to reform public housing and deconcentrate poverty resulted in two major approaches that continue to dominate the policy agenda. The first focuses on dispersing public housing tenants and relocating them primarily through the use of the HCVP. Instead of living in public housing projects they would move to privately owned apartments where their rent would be subsidized by vouchers (Goetz, 2003; Varady et al., 2005). The second framework of mixed- income development focuses on redeveloping public housing sites through demolition, renovation, and the construction of new housing, primarily as embodied in the Housing Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) Program. The new-developments would, it was argued, attract residents with higher incomes to urban low-income neighborhoods while maintaining a portion of the units for lower income residents (Fraser, Oakley, and Bazuin, 2012; Joseph, Chaskin, and Webber, 2007; Popkin et al., 2004; Smith, 2006). The policy framework of mixed-income development depends on the first strategy of dispersal because the mixed-income model necessitates the removal of tenants who live in redeveloping public housing sites, only a portion of whom are eligible and able to return the site. In contrast to the mixed-income development strategy, the dispersal strategy through housing vouchers does not aim to integrate public housing residents in close proximity to housing units that are not considered to be public or subsidized housing. Rather, voucher holders have the freedom to choose their housing and neighborhoods, although in a context of real constraints given the lack of affordable rental housing options truly available to residents who obtain vouchers. A growing body of literature critiques housing reforms centered on mixed-income development and dispersal strategies. At the core of these analyses is the value to be extracted from otherwise underdeveloped areas of a city. Critics see government policies that encourage mixed-income housing and mobility initiatives as examples of neoliberal urban redevelopment - a process aimed at generating profits for economic and political elites who reclaim centrally located neighborhoods from the poor (Arena, 2012; Chaskin and Joseph, 2013; DeFilippis and Fraser, 2010; Fraser, DeFilippis, and Bazuin, 2012; Hackworth, 2009, 2007; Hyra, 2012; Imbroscio, 2011, 2008; Lees, 2008; Lipman, 2008; Smith and Stovall, 2008; Steinberg, 2010). What these policies do not do accomplish, critics say, is addressing systemic economic inequality, expanding opportunities for low-income families, or making efforts toward equitable urban redevelopment. HOPE VI and the HCVP are illustrative of neoliberal policies that use government incentives to induce property owners to lease apartments to low-income households through the use of portable vouchers. Because these strategies are not structured to expand the availability of rental housing in tight markets, the strategies aim to address the problem of housing affordability, while leaving vague the problem of housing availability. This dilemma is the case because the policies are structured around the consumption rather than the production of new affordable rental units (Hays, 2012; Pierson, 1994; Schwartz, 2010). Since passage of the Quality Housing and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1998, public housing reforms have resulted in the reduction of approximately 200,000 units of public housing (McCarty, 2012). Furthermore, the 2008 recession affected the rental housing market in tremendous ways, primarily by increasing the numbers of households in need of rental housing. In fact, the number of households seeking rental housing rose by 1 million in 2011, representing the single largest increase in a 1-year period since the early 1980s (JŒS, 2012). As the rental housing market booms, the vacancy rates decrease and create a tighter rental market in which rents can be increased. According to the report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Out of Reach 2013, "for every 100 extremely low-income renter households, there are just 30 affordable and available units" (NLIHC, 2013: 1). During this same period, the federal government has continued to reduce the amount of funds for the HOME Investment Partner- ships program, the Community Development Block Grant program, the Public Housing Operating and Capital Funds, and other programs that support federal rental assistance. It is within this historical and political context that research on public housing reforms that work to rely on market mechanisms need to be interrogated, a topic to which I now turn.
13 -
14 -
15 -====K outweighs the case – neolib causes extinction and massive social inequalities – the aff’s quick fix solution is exactly what allows the system to deflect criticism.====
16 -Farbod 15 (Faramarz Farbod , PhD Candidate @ Rutgers, Prof @ Moravian College, Monthly Review, http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2015/farbod020615.html, 6-2)
17 -Global capitalism is the 800-pound gorilla. The twin ecological and economic crises, militarism, the rise of the surveillance state, and a dysfunctional political system can all be traced to its normal operations. We need a transformative politics from below that can challenge the fundamentals of capitalism instead of today's politics that is content to treat its symptoms. The problems we face are linked to each other and to the way a capitalist society operates. We must make an effort to understand its real character. The fundamental question of our time is whether we can go beyond a system that is ravaging the Earth and secure a future with dignity for life and respect for the planet. What has capitalism done to us lately? The best science tells us that this is a do-or-die moment. We are now in the midst of the 6th mass extinction in the planetary history with 150 to 200 species going extinct every day, a pace 1,000 times greater than the 'natural' extinction rate.1 The Earth has been warming rapidly since the 1970s with the 10 warmest years on record all occurring since 1998.2 The planet has already warmed by 0.85 degree Celsius since the industrial revolution 150 years ago. An increase of 2° Celsius is the limit of what the planet can take before major catastrophic consequences. Limiting global warming to 2°C requires reducing global emissions by 6 per year. However, global carbon emissions from fossil fuels increased by about 1.5 times between 1990 and 2008.3 Capitalism has also led to explosive social inequalities. The global economic landscape is littered with rising concentration of wealth, debt, distress, and immiseration caused by the austerity-pushing elites. Take the US. The richest 20 persons have as much wealth as the bottom 150 million.4 Since 1973, the hourly wages of workers have lagged behind worker productivity rates by more than 800.5 It now takes the average family 47 years to make what a hedge fund manager makes in one hour.6 Just about a quarter of children under the age of 5 live in poverty.7 A majority of public school students are low-income.8 85 of workers feel stress on the job.9 Soon the only thing left of the American Dream will be a culture of hustling to survive. Take the global society. The world's billionaires control $7 trillion, a sum 77 times the debt owed by Greece to the European banks.10 The richest 80 possess more than the combined wealth of the bottom 50 of the global population (3.5 billion people).11 By 2016 the richest 1 will own a greater share of the global wealth than the rest of us combined.12 The top 200 global corporations wield twice the economic power of the bottom 80 of the global population.13 Instead of a global society capitalism is creating a global apartheid. What's the nature of the beast? Firstly, the "egotistical calculation" of commerce wins the day every time. Capital seeks maximum profitability as a matter of first priority. Evermore "accumulation of capital" is the system's bill of health; it is slowdowns or reversals that usher in crises and set off panic. Cancer-like hunger for endless growth is in the system's DNA and is what has set it on a tragic collision course with Nature, a finite category. Secondly, capitalism treats human labor as a cost. It therefore opposes labor capturing a fair share of the total economic value that it creates. Since labor stands for the majority and capital for a tiny minority, it follows that classism and class warfare are built into its DNA, which explains why the "middle class" is shrinking and its gains are never secure. Thirdly, private interests determine massive investments and make key decisions at the point of production guided by maximization of profits. That's why in the US the truck freight replaced the railroad freight, chemicals were used extensively in agriculture, public transport was gutted in favor of private cars, and big cars replaced small ones. What should political action aim for today? The political class has no good ideas about how to address the crises. One may even wonder whether it has a serious understanding of the system, or at least of ways to ameliorate its consequences. The range of solutions offered tends to be of a technical, legislative, or regulatory nature, promising at best temporary management of the deepening crises. The trajectory of the system, at any rate, precludes a return to its post-WWII regulatory phase. It's left to us as a society to think about what the real character of the system is, where we are going, and how we are going to deal with the trajectory of the system — and act accordingly. The critical task ahead is to build a transformative politics capable of steering the system away from its destructive path. Given the system's DNA, such a politics from below must include efforts to challenge the system's fundamentals, namely, its private mode of decision-making about investments and about what and how to produce. Furthermore, it behooves us to heed the late environmentalist Barry Commoner's insistence on the efficacy of a strategy of prevention over a failed one of control or capture of pollutants. At a lecture in 1991, Commoner remarked: "Environmental pollution is an incurable disease; it can only be prevented"; and he proceeded to refer to "a law," namely: "if you don't put a pollutant in the environment it won't be there." What is nearly certain now is that without democratic control of wealth and social governance of the means of production, we will all be condemned to the labor of Sisyphus. Only we won't have to suffer for all eternity, as the degradation of life-enhancing natural and social systems will soon reach a point of no return.
18 -
19 -
20 -====Our alternative is to vote negative to refuse to participate in activities that support capitalism – key to hollowing out capitalist structures.====
21 -Herod 4. Herod, Columbia University Graduate and Political Activist, 2004 (James, Getting Free, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman'g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm, JC)
22 -It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. This strategy, at its most basic, calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image then is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning out of them until there is nothing left but shells. This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy, and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system, but an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better, something we want. Thus capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations alongside capitalist relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing every thing we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, non-hierarchical, non-commodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called revolution, or during the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable, materialist laws of history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what we’re doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and know how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs. But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live and let live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we can’t simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism must be explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes War, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks, but a war fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to continue doing so. Nevertheless, there are many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly. We must always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage-slavery because the ruling class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, destroying community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, destroying our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell, for a wage, our ability to work. It’s quite clear then how we can overthrow slavery. We must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the products made by wage-slaves (that is, we must get free from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods. Another clarification is needed. This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for replacing capitalism, totally, with a new civilization. This is an important distinction, because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms, as a system. We can sometimes in some places win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and win some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal, as a system.¶ Thus our strategy of gutting and eventually destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing image, an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another, and not merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking about entire systems and social orders, but everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a way of life, and that is the way we should approach it. The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed millions and millions of people must be dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief-system that is needed, like a religion, or like Marxism, or Anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant desire, an overriding need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way, and not to live another way. If this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to be autonomous, to live in democratically controlled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be destroyed. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction.
23 -
24 -
25 -====The role of the ballot is challenging capitalism in educational spaces – it has seeped into educational sites and has corrupted our epistemology, means K is a prior question.====
26 -**Casey 13** (Zachary A. Casey is an Assistant Professor of Educational Studies in the Department of Psychology. His research interests include multicultural education, critical whiteness studies, teacher education, and critical pedagogy. "Toward an Anti-Capitalist Teacher Education," Journal of Educational Thought Vol. 46, No. 2. 2013. p. 123-143. Jstor.) //WW JA 3/1/17
27 -Despite the overwhelming magnitude of neoliberal educational policies and the detrimental impacts of these policies on the lives of teachers, we are at a critical moment where those of us who stand in solidarity with anti-oppressive teachers and in opposition to treating students as commodities must reclaim education and educational policy as domains that cannot be reduced to market fundamentalism. The might of the other side, however, and the unbridled power of global capitalism, will not relinquish education and maintain control over every other aspect of political economy. Our work then, as teacher educators and those who reject neoliberal educational policies as dehumanizing to both teachers and students, must be to work within and outside our classrooms to create sites of resistance (Freire, 2000). We must find space in our over- prescribed curriculums to critically interrogate the content of lessons to ask questions of who is being privileged and who is being left out (Apple, 2000). We must vocally reject the Rightist media's claims that teachers are to blame for the ongoing legacies of white supremacy (the achievement/opportunity gap) and capitalist exploitation (the Great Recession). And we cannot do so as if it is only P-12 educators who have been forced into neoliberal policies that do not support the interests of their students nor the vast majority of humanity.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-10 22:22:28.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Blake Andrews
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Strake Jesuit RC
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -15
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -MARAPR - K - Cap
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA
Caselist.CitesClass[26]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,21 +1,0 @@
1 -=CP – 50 States=
2 -
3 -
4 -====CP text: The state governments of the United States ought to ban the practice of redlining, or the refusal to give house loans based on race, predatory lending, and "retail redlining". ====
5 -**NLC 11 (**National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty) "Housing Rights for All: Promoting and Defending Housing Rights in the United States: A Resource Manual on International Law and the Human Right to Adequate Housing" Fifth Edition, 2011 https://www.nlchp.org/Human'Right'to'Housing'Manual //AD
6 -While a right to housing is well established under international law, in terms of purely domestic law, the existence of such a right is at least less certain. Under federal constitutional law, it is not clear whether a right to housing exists, and it seems unlikely that such a right would be found were it to be adjudicated before the current Supreme Court. While a right to housing, subject to a number of limitations, may have been developing under federal statutory law, this process appears to have been halted or at least postponed by changes made to public assistance programs in 1996. However, there is evidence that a right to housing could be developed under a number of state constitutions and the right may be developing across the United States through state statutes and case law. 69 Constitutional Law The U.S. Constitution does not mention a right to housing.70 Moreover, the prevailing view of our Constitution appears to be one of negative liberties rather than affirmative duties, which would seem to run counter to finding a governmental duty to ensure housing.71 Nor is there any stated legislative recognition of a right to housing, and recent legislative changes have arguably undermined provisions in existing federal statutes. Nonetheless, some scholars and commentators have made arguments in support of such a right, and current federal laws and programs may be viewed as steps on which such a right could be built. But while long-term progress is possible, the immediate prospects for such recognition or creation of a right to housing seem challenging at best.
7 -
8 -
9 -====The plan competes through net benefits: ====
10 -
11 -
12 -====Federal law doesn’t allow for developing a right to housing – CP solves.====
13 -
14 -
15 -====State governments implement the plan better because they understand local nuances ====
16 -
17 -
18 -====Public opinion flows towards stronger state governments – mitigates 1AC solvency====
19 -**Jeffery 12**, Terence P. Jeffrey started as editor in chief of CNSNews.com in September 2007. Prior to that, he served for more than a decade as editor of Human Events, where he is now an editor at large. Terry was born in San Francisco and raised in the Bay Area, the seventh of eleven children. Both his parents were doctors of medicine. Terry earned a bachelors degree in English Literature from Princeton, "Wash Post Poll: Large Majorities Want Smaller Federal Gov't, Say Gov't Controls Too Much" CNS News http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/wash-post-poll-large-majorities-want-smaller-federal-govt-say-govt-controls-too-much
20 -A survey of 3,130 American adults conducted by the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation between July 25 and August 5 discovered that large majorities of Americans favor a smaller federal government and believe the government controls too much of our daily lives. The survey discovered these results even though only 25 percent of the people it polled were Republicans, while another 34 percent were Democrats and another 34 percent were Independents. The poll asked: "Would you say you favor a smaller federal government with fewer services, or larger federal government with many services?" Among all those polled, 55 percent said they wanted a smaller federal government and 40 percent said they wanted a larger federal government. Among just the registered voters in the poll, 58 percent said they wanted a smaller federal government and 37 percent said they wanted a larger federal government. The poll also asked: "Do you personally agree or disagree with the following statement. Government controls too much of our daily lives." Among all those polled, 60 percents said they agreed and 39 percent said they disagreed. Among just the registered voters in the survey, the results were almost identical, with 60 percent saying they agreed and 38 percent saying they disagreed.
21 -Methodology: A survey of 3,130 American adults conducted by the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation between July 25 and August 5 discovered that large majorities of Americans favor a smaller federal government and believe the government controls too much of our daily lives. The survey discovered these results even though only 25 percent of the people it polled were Republicans, while another 34 percent were Democrats and another 34 percent were Independents.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-10 22:22:29.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Blake Andrews
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Strake Jesuit RC
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -15
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Westwood Mambapoor Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -MARAPR - CP - 50 States
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA
Caselist.RoundClass[6]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -10,11
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2016-12-17 00:45:03.0
1 +2016-12-17 00:45:03.754
Caselist.RoundClass[7]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -12
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-07 13:44:06.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Engel, Max
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -StTho NB
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -went for K in the 2n
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Winston Churchill Classic
Caselist.RoundClass[8]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -13,14,15
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-08 00:16:28.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Nikunj Patel
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Katya E
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Went for CP in 2N
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Winston Churchill Classic
Caselist.RoundClass[9]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -16
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-01-08 00:25:48.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Dianna Radpour
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -FloMou KW
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Went for DA and PIC Net Benefit in 2N
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Winston Churchill Classic
Caselist.RoundClass[10]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -17,18
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-04 07:08:16.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Went for T
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Colleyville
Caselist.RoundClass[11]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-04 19:45:37.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Colleyville
Caselist.RoundClass[12]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -19
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-02-04 19:47:11.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 ------
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -SLCJC
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Colleyville
Caselist.RoundClass[13]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -20,21,22
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-10 06:23:50.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Went for the CP and Econ
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA State
Caselist.RoundClass[14]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -23,24
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-10 06:35:02.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -----
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Went for T and Word PIC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA State
Caselist.RoundClass[15]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -25,26
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2017-03-10 22:22:24.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Blake Andrews
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Strake Jesuit RC
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -6
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -went for Cap in the 2N
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -TFA

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)