Tournament: x | Round: 1 | Opponent: x | Judge: x
If you have any questions email me at: jbat195@gmail.com

Tournament: Golden Desert | Round: 2 | Opponent: x | Judge: x
Hate Speech
Current protections against hate speech are working – on campus harrassment is decreasing nationally now.  Sutton 16  
Sutton 16 Halley Sutton, Report shows crime on campus down across the country, Campus Security Report 13.4 (2016), 9/9/16,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casr.30185/full LADI
A recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics found an overall decrease in crimes at educational institutions across the country since 2001. The overall number of crimes reported by postsecondary institutions has dropped by 34 percent, from 41,600 per year in 2001 to 27,600 per year in 2013. The report, titled Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2015, covers higher education campuses as well as K–12 schools and includes such topics as victimization, teacher injury, bullying and cyberbullying, use of drugs and alcohol, and criminal incidents at postsecondary institutions. The report found significant decreases in instances of bullying, harassment due to sexual orientation, and violent crime at all levels of education. The number of on-campus crimes reported at postsecondary institutions in 2013 was lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses and murder.
Removing restrictions on free speech allows hate speech – hate speech IS free speech
Volokh 15 Eugene Volokh,No, There’s No “hate Speech” Exception to the First Amendment, The Washington Post, 5/7/15, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.05cfdd01dea4 LADI
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.)
Hate speech leads to a genocidal increase in crimes against marginalized groups- turns case   
Greenblatt 15 Jonathan Greenblatt, When Hateful Speech Leads to Hate Crimes: Taking Bigotry Out of the Immigration Debate, Huffington Post, 8/21/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenblatt/when-hateful-speech-leads_b_8022966.html LADI
When police arrived at the scene in Boston, they found a Latino man shaking on the ground, his face apparently soaked in urine, with a broken nose. His arms and chest had been beaten. One of the two brothers arrested and charged with the hate crime reportedly told police, “Donald Trump was right — all these illegals need to be deported.” The victim, a homeless man, was apparently sleeping outside of a subway station in Dorchester when the perpetrators attacked. His only offense was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The brothers reportedly attacked him for who he was — simply because he was Latino. In recent weeks anti-immigrant — and by extension anti-Latino — rhetoric has reached a fever pitch. Immigrants have been smeared as “killers” and “rapists.” They have been accused of bringing drugs and crime. A radio talk show host in Iowa has called for enslavement of undocumented immigrants if they do not leave within 60 days. There have been calls to repeal the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to people born in the United States, with allegations that people come here to have so-called “anchor babies.” And the terms “illegal aliens” and “illegals” — which many mainstream news sources wisely rejected years ago because they dehumanize and stigmatize people — have resurged. The words used on the campaign trail, on the floors of Congress, in the news, and in all our living rooms have consequences. They directly impact our ability to sustain a society that ensures dignity and equality for all. Bigoted rhetoric and words laced with prejudice are building blocks for the pyramid of hate. Biased behaviors build on one another, becoming ever more threatening and dangerous towards the top. At the base is bias, which includes stereotyping and insensitive remarks. It sets the foundation for a second, more complex and more damaging layer: individual acts of prejudice, including bullying, slurs and dehumanization. Next is discrimination, which in turn supports bias-motivated violence, including apparent hate crimes like the tragic one in Boston. And in the most extreme cases if left unchecked, the top of the pyramid of hate is genocide. Just like a pyramid, the lower levels support the upper levels. Bias, prejudice and discrimination — particularly touted by those with a loud megaphone and cheering crowd — all contribute to an atmosphere that enables hate crimes and other hate-fueled violence. The most recent hate crime in Boston is just one of too many. In fact, there is a hate crime roughly every 90 minutes in the United States today. That is why last week ADL announced a new initiative, #50StatesAgainstHate, to strengthen hate crimes laws around the country and safeguard communities vulnerable to hate-fueled attacks. We are working with a broad coalition of partners to get the ball rolling.

Capitalism/sanctity of property is the most effective system for ending poverty and improving living conditions
Bill Emmott, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist, 2003, 20:21 Vision, pp. 272-273
The findings of history are quite simple, even if it is not becoming any easier to implement them. To believe them, however, one must first believe in capitalism and in the fact that it has been the only successful generator of sustained improvements in human welfare that has so far been discovered. The next thing is to work out what it is that makes capitalism tick. Or, put another way, one must find out what is different about the places where it ticks and the places where it doesn’t.
That is what an international study, Economic Freedom of the World, has sought to do every year since it was first published, in 1996, by eleven economic think tanks around the world led by the Fraser Institute in Canada. The correlations it finds correlations between sustained economic success and aspects of capitalist circumstances
suggest that most of the explanations for inequalities lie in how poor countries are governed, rather than in natural disadvantages or unfairness by the rich. Those suspicious of free-marketeers should note that conclusion: it is government, or the lack of it, that makes the crucial difference.
The aim of the study was to see whether countries in which people had more economic freedom were also richer and grew more rapidly. But the study also sought to define economic freedom, in the hope of capturing and measuring the things that matter in making capitalism work. Broadly, economic freedom means the ability to do what you want with whatever property you have legally acquired, as long as your actions do not violate other people’s rights to do the same. Goods and services do not, alas, fall like manna from heaven; their arrival depend on property rights and the incentives to use and create them. So the issues surrounding those are what matter: Are property rights legally protected? Are people hemmed in by government regulations and trade barriers, or fearful of confiscation? Are their savings under attack from inflation, or can they do what they want with their money? Is it economically viable for parents to send their kids to school?
The study’s authors initially found seventeen measures of these things, expanded in the 2001 update to twenty-one, and rated 102 (now 123) countries on each of them, going back, if possible, to 1975. They then had to find ways to weight the measures according to their importance, and used a panel of economists to do so. The conclusion was abundantly clear: the freer the economy, the higher the growth and the richer the people. This was especially so for countries that maintained a fairly free economy for many years, since before individuals and companies will respond to such freedom they need to feel confident that it will last.
Profit incentive means that capitalism can’t afford to be racist-it remedies social ills.
George Reisman, Ph.D.; president, The Jefferson School of Philosophy, Economics, and Psychology, 1992, http://www.capitalism.net/excerpts/1-931089-07-8.pdf, accessed 4/28/03
Let us begin with the accusation that under capitalism blacks are paid less than whites for the identical work.
Such Racist injustice is contrary to the operation of the profit motive, and is speedily eliminated where the profit motive is free to operate. Under the profit motive, if two kinds of labor are equally good, and one is less expensive than the other, employers choose the less expensive, because doing so cuts their costs and raises their profits. The effect of choosing the less expensive labor, however, is to raise its wages, since it is now in greater demand; while the effect of passing by the more expensive labor is to reduce its wages, since it is now in lesser demand. This process goes on until the wages of the two kinds of labor are either perfectly equal or the remaining difference is so small as not to be worth caring about by anyone. As illustration of the fact that even very small differences in white and black wages could not be maintained under capitalism, consider the following example. Assume that white workers of a certain degree of skill are paid $5 per hour. Assume that black workers of identically the same degree of skill can be hired for just five percent, that is 25¢ an hour, less. Assume that a factory must employ 500 workers of this degree of skill. With a forty-hour week, over a fifty-week year, this slight difference in hourly wage rates results in a saving of labor cost and a corresponding extra profit per year of $250,000 if the factory owner employs 500 blacks rather than 500 whites (for 25¢ x 500 x 40 x 50 = $250,000). Even in the case of a small establishment employing only ten workers, the annual saving in labor cost, and thus the extra profit attaching to the employment of blacks, would be $5,000 (since 25¢ x 10 x 40 x 50 = $5,000)—enough for the owner to afford a new small car each year or to make significant improvements in his business. It is doubtful that there are many employers so bigoted as to be willing to indulge their personal prejudice in favor of whites at a cost of $250,000 per year, or even $5,000 per year. The clear implication is that even slight differences in wage rates would make the employment of blacks in preference to whites virtually irresistible. Not only would a five percent differential in wages not be sustainable, but neither would a two percent or even a one percent differential. Every such differential would lead employers to hire blacks in preference to whites, and would thus bring about a further rise in the wage rates of blacks and a further fall in the wage rates of whites, until a virtually perfect equality was achieved. Indeed, profit-seeking employers qua profit-seeking employers are simply unconcerned with race. Their principle is: of two equally good workers, hire the one who is available for less money; of two workers available for the same money, hire the one who is the better worker. Race is simply irrelevant. Any consideration of race means extra cost and less profit; it is bad business in the literal sense of the term. It should be realized that one of the great merits of capitalism is that by its very nature employers are virtually compelled to be oblivious to race. The freedom of competition under capitalism ensures this result. For even if, initially, the majority of employers were so fanatically bigoted as to be willing to forgo extra profits for the sake of their prejudice, they would be powerless to prevent a minority of more rational employers from earning these extra profits. (“Rationality” in this context means not committing the contradiction of passing moral judgment against a person on the basis of his racial membership, and not allowing such an absurd judgment to outweigh the desire for profit. Such a judgment represents a logical contradiction in that morality pertains only to acts open to choice, while a man’s racial membership is not open to his choice.) The more rational employers would thus have a relatively greater income from which to save and expand their businesses than the irrational majority. Moreover, since they operated at lower costs, they could afford to charge lower prices and thus increase their profits still further by taking customers away from the irrational majority. The result of these factors would be that the more rational employers would tend to replace the less rational ones in economic importance. They would come to set the tone of the economy, and their attitudes would be transmitted to all other employers, who would seek to emulate their success. In this way, capitalism virtually guarantees the victory of rationality over racial bigotry.

Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 1 | Opponent: x | Judge: x
Counterplan Text
Resolved: Public Colleges and universities ought to create safe spaces for students.
Downes 2016 clarifies advocacy
Downes, Sophie. 10 September 2016. “Trigger Warnings, Safe Spaces, and Free Speech, Too.” https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/11/opinion/trigger-warnings-safe-spaces-and-free-speech-too.html. Sophie Downes is a student at UChicago at the time of writing this article.
A trigger warning is pretty simple: It consists of a professor’s saying in class, “The reading for this week includes a graphic description of sexual assault,” or a note on a syllabus that reads, “This course deals with sensitive material that may be difficult for some students.” A safe space is an area on campus where students — especially but not limited to those who have endured trauma or feel marginalized — can feel comfortable talking about their experiences. This might be the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs or it could be Hillel House, but in essence, it’s a place for support and community. This spring, I was in a seminar that dealt with gender, sexuality and disability. Some of the course reading touched on disturbing subjects, including sexual violence and child abuse. The instructor told us that we could reach out to her if we had difficulty with the class materials, and that she’d do everything she could to make it easier for us to participate. She included a statement to this effect on the syllabus and repeated it briefly at the beginning of each class. Nobody sought to “retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,” as Dean Ellison put it in the letter, nor did these measures hinder discussion or disagreement, both of which were abundant.
Aff kills public colleges ability to create safe spaces and trigger warnings, and ignores the plights of minorities and other marginalized groups. Safe Spaces and trigger warnings key step to ending social stigma. Brackets for clarity.
Pickett, RaeAnn. 31 August 2016. “Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces Are Necessary.” http://time.com/4471806/trigger-warnings-safe-spaces/. Pickett is senior director of communications and public Affairs at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and a Ms. Foundation Public Voices Fellows.
After the birth of my first son, I had postpartum depression. I was a mess emotionally, and I was in desperate need of feeling safe. I had no idea what “trigger warnings” or “safe spaces” were, but I had been using them internally for days—avoiding the mommy movies and choosing not to go to the breastfeeding support group where I felt like a failure. Being able to know beforehand what experiences I should avoid and create an environment where I felt safe made it easier for me to share my struggles and move past them. Everyone deserves that opportunity. The University of Chicago recently decided to put an end to trigger warnings—advance notice of subject material that might upset students—and safe spaces—places where students can avoid those subjects. The university’s reasoning for ending these voluntary practices was a “commitment to academic freedom.” In reality, this policy puts many students in the uncomfortable position of entering spaces that may or may not be safe for them to learn, interact and share in—and puts the onus on them to leave or to endure the situation. The decision doesn’t take students wants or needs into account. As the National Coalition Against Censorship notes: “In many cases, the request for trigger warnings comes from students themselves.” And safe spaces can have powerful therapeutic purposes for those who enter them. In fact, the university’s new policy does the exact opposite of what it is purported to do: instead of fostering academic freedom, it could foster mistrust and negatively affect survivors of trauma, including people of color. If students cannot trust that spaces they enter are going to keep them safe, they are less able to feel secure enough to learn. Safe spaces and trigger warnings can help support victims of assault, PTSD and violence. Organizations like Slut Walk and Take Back The Night have made great strides in ending stigma for sexual assault survivors and have called for increasing trigger warnings for sensitive content. A lack of safe spaces can also compound the mental toll of racism, even subtle racism. Past experience with bullying plays a role here: Of the 160,000 children bullied every day, 31 are multiracial, according to Clemson University’s “Status of Bullying in School” 2013 report. Racial bullying often goes unnoticed or unreported due to how teachers perceive interethnic relationships. Psychologist Morris Rosenberg found that African-Americans showed surprisingly high rates of self-esteem when they compared themselves with other African-Americans, but when they compared themselves to white peers, self-esteem levels dropped. Safe spaces can help minorities feel empowered to speak up. Some may say a commitment to free speech, by any means necessary, does more to foster a positive academic setting than safe spaces and trigger warnings. But the bigger question is: whose speech is being protected by these policies? They certainly don’t always foster a healthy relationship with students of color or survivors of trauma or those who live at the intersection of both. Sitting in the dark holding my newborn and struggling with undiagnosed postpartum depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder were some of the darkest days of my life. But because of ratings systems on movies and descriptions on the TV guide, I was able to take small steps every day to commit to keeping myself mentally healthy. The pressure of living up to the stereotype of a proud, wise, confident Latina mother kept me from seeking help for a long time. But when my first postpartum depression support group facilitator said in a hushed, happy voice that this was because of a safe space, I felt the weight slowly start to lift from my chest. All the pent-up anxiety I had felt was dissapating—just by knowing that the physical place I chose to be in was filled with people who understood me and could help me find the tools to get well. Being able to make informed decisions about which spaces students chose to enter and not enter is critical in helping them stay well and take control over the information they decide to receive and how to receive it. A critical phase of healing involves reclaiming power and control in positive ways. Our universities should be at the vanguard of modeling the way forward—not backward.
 

Competition 

1. Mutually exclusive. Free Speech and safe spaces incompatible. Aff requires enforcement of free speech on campus at all times, safe spaces require that free speech be curtailed in certain areas to protect people.
   2. Net benefits. Counterplan solves 99 of the Aff while protecting marginalized voices. Free speech is fine in 99 of campus, it’s just that the NC actually makes an effort to protect people.  
   And, the CP is legit
2. CP is core of the topic lit. Free Speech topic is literally only an issue because of the rise trigger warnings and safe space. If you don’t have answers you didn’t prep. Your fault, not mine.
   a. Solvency advocate also proves that the CP is reasonable.
   2. Also means that if I can’t read the CP you kill reasonable neg ground. Two impacts.
   a. Neg can’t win because you’re forcing away the good arguments via theory
   b. Means discussion in round is worthless anyway. Our debate isn’t representative of the actual discussion in the real world because Neg is forced into a caricature of the real argument.
   Free speech is not neutral; it favors the powerful and its great equality is an illusion when deployed to harm racial minorities
   Williams 05
   Gwyneth Williams, prof of poli sci, “Hate speech codes on college campuses.” St Louis Journalism Review. Premier
   Supporters of hate speech policies, however, argue that the traditional defense of free speech ignores the fact that it favors those who already hold power in a society. Liberties are not wielded equally by those who do not enjoy equally; it is an empty formalism to claim that all have equal freedom to speak. Instead, hate speech, and the tolerance of it, is used to perpetuate social hierarchies. It further marginalizes the disenfranchised.
   There is no "equal right" to engage in hate speech, supporters point out-after all, what is the white equivalent of calling someone a "nigger"? There is no such word that demeans whites in the way this epithet demeans African-Americans. They argue all students, especially the disadvantaged, must feel safe and accepted on a university campus if they are to experience equal access to education. Hate speech denies minorities this equal chance to learn, say the supporters of restrictive codes.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: MV Independent OZ | Judge: Olivia Panchal

Util Framework

The value is Utilitarianism.

People don't identify with their future selves which means they do the greatest good for themselves and others in the long run

Opar 14 (Alisa Opar, January 14 2014, the articles editor at Audubon magazine, "Why We Procrastinate". http://nautilus-web-602376506.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com/issue/16/nothingness/why-we-procrastinate)
The British philosopher Derek Parfit espoused a severely reductionist view of personal identity in his
AND
to practice being good to others. One of them might be you.

All values collapse into util or tautology

Green, 2002 – Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Harvard University (Joshua, November 2002 "The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality And What To Do About It", 314)
Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding
AND
represents is either dogmatic in an esoteric sort of way or covertly consequentialist.

Policymaking inevitably entails tradeoffs

Gary Woller ~BYU Prof., "An Overview by Gary Woller", A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, June 1997, pg. 10~
Moreover, virtually all public policies entail some redistribution of economic or political resources,
AND
unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem or actually making it worse.   

The value Criterion is maximizing expected well-being.

Utilitarianism inevitable even in deontological frameworks

Green, 02 – Assistant Professor Department of Psychology Harvard University (Joshua, November 2002 "The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality And What To Do About It", 314)
Some people who talk of balancing rights may think there is an algorithm for deciding
AND
how much oppression can we stop= can you help one person or multiple

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: MV Independent OZ | Judge: Olivia Panchal

Deterrence DA

We are on the brink of Nuclear War with Russia

Hallinan'16- Conn Hallinan is a columnist for Foreign Policy in Focus. (Conn Hallinan. "We May Be at a Greater Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe Than During the Cold War" 20 July 2016. 2 September 2016)
The purpose of nukes "is to prevent major war, not to wage wars
AND
that Perry thinks that the chances of some catastrophe is a growing possibility.

Nuclear Weapons Key to Prevent War

Spalding'13- Robert Spalding is a military fellow at the council on Foreign Relations. (Robert Spalding. "Nuclear weapons are at the U.S.'s instruments of peace". 4 October 2013. 2 September 2016.)
The U.S. rebalance — or "pivot" — to the Asia
AND
too menacing. More likely, it is a combination of the two. 

Aff limits the potential expansion of nuke weapons which causes war

Waltz'81- Kenneth Neal Waltz was an American political scientist who worked for both UC Berkley and Columbia. He was one of the most prominent scholars in his field of international relations. (Kenneth Neal Waltz. "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better" 1981. 4 September 2016)
Nuclear weapons have been the second force working for peace in the post-war
AND
the measured spread of nuclear weapons is more to be welcomed than feared.

Increased war of any kind causes extinction.

Hagopian'15 – Joachim Hagopian is a West point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written for Global Research. (Joachim Hagopian. "War on Global Scale. The First Manmade Extinction on Planet Earth: The Endgame's 'Final Solution?'. 2015. 4 September 2016)  
 Many factors that have been dangerously at play are rapidly converging now in 2015
AND
suicide of the entire human species has destroyed all life on the planet.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: MV Independent OZ | Judge: Olivia Panchal

Phase Out CP

Text: (insert aff actor(person doing the plan)) countries should phase out nuclear power production in stages.

Phasing out nuclear power helps stop the risk of nuclear power, while still allowing alternative energies to be used.

Marecheau'13- Constance Marecheau is a writer for Duel Amical, a news source in Europe. They are dedicated to delivering honest and important news to their readers. (Constance Marecheau. "Should we phase out nuclear power" 15 January 2013. 23 August 2016.)
The catastrophe of Fukushima last April has reopened the debate on the civil nuclear energy
AND
of security measures. That argument cannot be disregarded in times of crisis.

Tournament: USC | Round: 3 | Opponent: x | Judge: x
Federal Funding is the main source of income for public colleges and universities along with state funding as a secondary
Woodhouse’15 – Kelly Woodhouse is a writer for InsideHigherEdu. (Kelly Woodhouse. “Impact of Pell Surge”. 2015. 28 January 2017.)
Federal spending has surpassed state spending as the main source of public funding in higher education, and the primary reason is a surge in Pell Grants in the last decade. Federal and state funds have different missions. The majority of state funding is used to fund specific public institutions, whereas federal funding is generally awarded through student aid and research grants. State funding goes primarily to public institutions, while federal funding goes to students at public, private and for-profit colleges, and to researchers at public and private universities. Historically, state funding has been heftier than federal funding. In the 25 years leading up to 2012, states spent 65 percent more on higher education than the federal government. Yet that trend has rapidly changed in the past decade. In 2010 federal funding overtook state funding as the main source of public support for universities and colleges throughout the country, according to a report released Thursday by the Pew Charitable Trusts. That same year funding for Pell Grants -- grants awarded to college students from low-income families -- hit an all time high of about $36 billion. In fact, during the five-year period leading up to 2013, Pell funding increased by 72 percent, and funding of college benefits for veterans tripled. In 2013 the federal government spent nearly $76 billion on higher education, while states spent about $3 billion less, according to the "Federal and State Funding of Higher Education" study. Federal support include nearly $25 billion in research funding obligations, which are paid over a series of years depending on the length of a research project. “Our biggest surprise was just the shift that we saw in federal and state higher education funding,” said Phil Oliff, a higher education analyst at Pew. “This is a really significant shift in a pretty short period of time.” Though the federal government now funnels more money to higher education as a whole, states still supply a greater share of funding to public universities. Public colleges educate 68 percent of all students in the U.S., and in 2013 they received an average of 21 percent of their funding from state funds and 16 percent of their funding from the federal government. Tuition and fees also accounted for 21 percent of public university revenue. Those averages hide wide variations. Community colleges and nonresearch public institutions tend to get much larger shares of their budgets from state funds. And even at research universities, research grants have a big impact on faculty projects and graduate education, but don't necessarily pay for undergraduate education. Total public funding per full-time-equivalent student for higher education fell 12 percent in the 12-year period starting in 2000, when adjusted for inflation. Yet during that time, federal funding nearly doubled while state funding fell -- federal funding grew from $43 billion to $83 billion, while state funding dropped from $78 billion to $71 billion. Meanwhile, enrollment skyrocketed, growing by 45 percent. Pew’s report shows that state funding is responsive to the economic climate, while federal funding was less restricted by the economic downturn that began in 2008. In fact, more low-income students attended college during the downturn, and the federal government actually increased its Pell Grant support during that time. Oliff noted that both federal and state funding vary widely by state. For example, Alaska universities receive, on a per-student basis, six times the state funding of New Hampshire universities. Meanwhile, per-student federal funding in Hawaii is more than double the federal funding in most other states. Pell funding also varies state to state. There are higher concentrations of Pell recipients in the Southeast, compared to relatively lower concentrations in the Northeast. On average, the federal government provided nearly $2,100 in Pell funding for every full-time-equivalent student in 2013.
Title IX violations are happening NOW- this causes complete loss of federal funding
Kingkade’14- Tyler Kingkade is a senior editor/writer for the Huffington Post. (Tyler Kingkade. “Colleges Warned They Will Lose Federal Funding For Botching Campus Rape Cases”. 2014. 28 January 2017)
HANOVER, N.H. — Catharine Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education, told a group of college administrators Monday that she would have no reservations about pulling a university’s funding if it showed a pattern of mishandling cases of sexual violence on campus. Lhamon was speaking at a summit on sexual assault hosted at Dartmouth College, one of the 67 colleges and universities currently under investigation by Lhamon’s agency over concerns that they did not properly handle sexual violence cases. Colleges are required under the gender equity law Title IX to address sexual assault and harassment on campus. The ultimate punishment for a school violating Title IX is a complete loss of federal funding. No disciplinary procedure has ever gone that far, but Lhamon emphasized that the option is always on the table. “Do not think it’s an empty threat,” Lhamon said Monday. “It’s one I’ve made four times in the 10 months I’ve been in office. So it’s one that’s very much in use.” Lhamon’s remarks drew some applause. The Office of Civil Rights’ lack of punitive abilities has caused activists and lawmakers to question whether the investigation process is really all that effective. Critics argue that it’s not realistic to expect the department to cut off all federal funding to a school, including student loans and Pell grants. Lawmakers are considering adding more ways for the OCR to penalize a school for violating Title IX. “It’d always be nice to have more tools. There’s always more we can use,” Lhamon said during the panel Monday. “Where I sit today, I think we have a set of very, very effective tools we can use.” Lhamon said the criticism of the OCR’s effectiveness investigating colleges was due to a “lack of understanding” about the tools available to the office for sanctioning institutions. “That is our fault that we haven’t always been transparent,” she said. To address transparency issues, Lhamon said the Education Department will need to post online more of the resolution agreements it reaches with the schools it investigates. Lhamon said it’s been “useful” for the agency to post a list of universities under Title IX investigation relating to sexual assault. Lhamon added that she was hopeful there could be a bulk-up of staff at the OCR to enforce Title IX, something that Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) has indicated she wants to push for. The assistant secretary also acknowledged recent criticism that the Education Department has been placing unreasonable expectations on schools to address campus rape. “I resist pretty hard the idea that schools don’t have a role in this. They absolutely do,” Lhamon said during the panel. “This is fundamental to the educational mission ... The reality that sexual assault is a crime does not take away from the ways it creates a hostile environment for students that are subject to it.” “Our disciplinary and grievance procedures were designed to provide appropriate resolution of institutional standards for student conduct, especially with respect to academic matters,” Molly Corbett Broad, head of college lobbying group the American Council on Education, wrote to the Senate’s education committee last month. “They were never meant for misdemeanors, let alone felonies.” Broad noted in her letter, dated June 25, that the Education Department has continued to provide schools with guidelines on how to address issues that law enforcement often fails to deal with. At one point during Monday’s panel, the moderator asked what the federal government is doing to get more local district attorneys to prosecute campus rape cases, a question that drew a huge round of applause from the audience. Anurima Bhargava, chief of the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, pointed to a recent multi-pronged investigation of the University of Montana, undertaken by school authorities and police and prosecutors from Missoula, Montana, as one example of successful collaboration between a school and local law enforcement. Bhargava said the DOJ would be releasing guidance on how campuses can work with local law enforcement and prosecutors in the coming months. When asked if Title IX should be expanded to cover student groups like Greek houses, Bhargava said that in fact “it does cover organizations on campus,” whether it be a chess club, a fraternity or a sports team. Lhamon and Bhargava were generally reserved in their praise for colleges, declining to name a school that’s doing exceptionally well. They did applaud schools that proactively implement campus climate surveys to see how students feel about sexual assault at their college, though they did not cite specific examples.
This causes loss of federal funding and low amounts of student opportunities
Mitchell, Leachman and Materson’16- Michael Mitchell, Michael Leachman and Kathleen Masterson are all writers for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (Michael Mitchell, Michael      Leachman, and Kathleen Masterson. “Funding Down, Tuition Up”. 2016. 27 January 2017)
Years of cuts in state funding for public colleges and universities have driven up tuition and harmed students’ educational experiences by forcing faculty reductions, fewer course offerings, and campus closings. These choices have made college less affordable and less accessible for students who need degrees to succeed in today’s economy. Though some states have begun to restore some of the deep cuts in financial support for public two- and four-year colleges since the recession hit, their support remains far below previous levels. In total, after adjusting for inflation, funding for public two- and four-year colleges is nearly $10 billion below what it was just prior to the recession. As states have slashed higher education funding, the price of attending public colleges has risen significantly faster than the growth in median income. For the average student, increases in federal student aid and the availability of tax credits have not kept up, jeopardizing the ability of many to afford the college education that is key to their long-term financial success. States that renew their commitment to a high-quality, affordable system of public higher education by increasing the revenue these schools receive will help build a stronger middle class and develop the entrepreneurs and skilled workers that are needed in the new century. Of the states that have finalized their higher education budgets for the current school year, after adjusting for inflation:2 Forty-six states — all except Montana, North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming — are spending less per student in the 2015-16 school year than they did before the recession.3 States cut funding deeply after the recession hit. The average state is spending $1,598, or 18 percent, less per student than before the recession. Per-student funding in nine states — Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina — is down by more than 30 percent since the start of the recession. In 12 states, per-student funding fell over the last year. Of these, four states — Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, and Vermont — have cut per-student higher education funding for the last two consecutive years. In the last year, 38 states increased funding per student. Per-student funding rose $199, or 2.8 percent, nationally. Deep state funding cuts have had major consequences for public colleges and universities. States (and to a lesser extent localities) provide roughly 54 percent of the costs of teaching and instruction at these schools.4 Schools have made up the difference with tuition increases, cuts to educational or other services, or both. Since the recession took hold, higher education institutions have: Increased tuition. Public colleges and universities across the country have increased tuition to compensate for declining state funding and rising costs. Annual published tuition at four-year public colleges has risen by $2,333, or 33 percent, since the 2007-08 school year.5 In Arizona, published tuition at four-year schools is up nearly 90 percent, while in six other states — Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, and Louisiana — published tuition is up more than 60 percent. These sharp tuition increases have accelerated longer-term trends of college becoming less affordable and costs shifting from states to students. Over the last 20 years, the price of attending a four-year public college or university has grown significantly faster than the median income.6 Although federal student aid and tax credits have risen, on average they have fallen short of covering the tuition increases. Diminished academic opportunities and student services. Tuition increases have compensated for only part of the revenue loss resulting from state funding cuts. Over the past several years, public colleges and universities have cut faculty positions, eliminated course offerings, closed campuses, and reduced student services, among other cuts. A large and growing share of future jobs will require college-educated workers.7 Sufficient public investment in higher education to keep quality high and tuition affordable, and to provide financial aid to students who need it most, would help states develop the skilled and diverse workforce they will need to compete for these jobs. Sufficient public investment can only occur, however, if policymakers make sound tax and budget decisions. State revenues have improved significantly since the depths of the recession but are still only modestly above pre-recession levels.8 To make college more affordable and increase access to higher education, many states need to supplement that revenue growth with new revenue to fully make up for years of severe cuts. But just as the opportunity to invest is emerging, lawmakers in a number of states are jeopardizing it by entertaining tax cuts that in many cases would give the biggest breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers. In recent years, states such as Wisconsin, Louisiana, and Arizona have enacted large-scale tax cuts that limit resources available for higher education. And in Illinois and Pennsylvania ongoing attempts to find necessary resources after large tax cuts threaten current and future higher education funding.
The impact is massive- fighting structural barriers that stop people from going to college is the internal link to competitiveness  
US Department of Commerce’12 -(US Department of Commerce prepared with consultation of National Economic Council. “The Competitiveness and Innovative Capacity of the United States”. 2012. 30 January 2017)
If we don’t get our economic house in order, we risk a new era of multi-polarity. Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers. The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt  rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression. Given the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the world’s GDP. American institutions — particularly those providing enforceable rule of law — set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today. The policy question is how to enhance economic growth and employment while cutting discretionary spending in the near term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the out years. Republican members of Congress have outlined a plan. Several think tanks and commissions, including President Obama’s debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on measures to pare back the recent increases in domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while lowering individual and corporate rates). These are promising options.    The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill have the will to act and the skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might be. It is clearly within our capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and members of Congress should point not only to the domestic consequences of inaction — but also to the geopolitical implications. As the United States gets its economic and fiscal house in order, it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by signaling that its domestic challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways. While China’s economic rise enables its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also frightens rival powers. The Obama administration has wisely moved to strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more can be done. Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities pass. China’s military assertiveness should enable security cooperation with countries on China’s periphery — particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam — in ways that complicate Beijing’s strategic calculus. China’s mercantilist policies and currency manipulation — which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere — should be used to fashion a coalition in favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijing’s over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese democracy activist alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw supporters from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China.   Since the end of the Cold War, a stable economic and financial condition at home has enabled America to have an expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for granted. Unless we get our economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in combination with the rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing international problems. Regional hegemons in Asia could seize the moment, leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity.

Losing access to competitiveness causes the great power conflict- makes war inevitable ensuring US participation- causes heg bad impacts try or die for the Neg- turns case
Khalizad’11- Zalmay Khalilzad was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992. (Zalmay Khalizad. “The Economy and National Security”. 2011. 28 January 2017.)
If we don’t get our economic house in order, we risk a new era of multi-polarity. Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers. The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt  rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval, cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression. Given the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the rise of potential adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the world’s GDP. American institutions — particularly those providing enforceable rule of law — set it apart from all the rising powers. Social cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today. The policy question is how to enhance economic growth and employment while cutting discretionary spending in the near term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the out years. Republican members of Congress have outlined a plan. Several think tanks and commissions, including President Obama’s debt commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on measures to pare back the recent increases in domestic spending, restrain future growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while lowering individual and corporate rates). These are promising options.    The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill have the will to act and the skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might be. It is clearly within our capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and members of Congress should point not only to the domestic consequences of inaction — but also to the geopolitical implications. As the United States gets its economic and fiscal house in order, it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by signaling that its domestic challenges will not impede its intentions to check Chinese expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways. While China’s economic rise enables its military modernization and international assertiveness, it also frightens rival powers. The Obama administration has wisely moved to strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more can be done. Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities pass. China’s military assertiveness should enable security cooperation with countries on China’s periphery — particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam — in ways that complicate Beijing’s strategic calculus. China’s mercantilist policies and currency manipulation — which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere — should be used to fashion a coalition in favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijing’s over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese democracy activist alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw supporters from nearby countries but also embolden reformers within China.   Since the end of the Cold War, a stable economic and financial condition at home has enabled America to have an expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for granted. Unless we get our economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in combination with the rise of rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing international problems. Regional hegemons in Asia could seize the moment, leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity.

Tournament: Damus | Round: 2 | Opponent: West Ranch JW | Judge: Olivia Panchal
Value: Structural Justice
VC: Justice for systematic Racism

1. Structural Justice means that we focus on helping those who have been given injustice in society
   Malpas’13- Nick Malpas is a postgraduate research student in the department of philosophy at the University of Sydney. (Nick Malpas. “Responsibility for Justice”. 2013. 16 October 2016. JB)

2. Prefer Structural Justice because other forms of justice are given major flaws
Demeterio III’ no date- Feorillo A. Demeterio III is a full professor of the Filipino Department at De La Salle University. (Feorillio A. Demeterio III. “Young’s Theroy of Structural Justice and Collective Responsibility”. No date. 16 October 2016. JB) 

ROB- Vote for the debater who best challenges systematic racism
Reasons to prefer: 

1. Only by focusing on race problems are we able to have a unique discussion in the debate round. Negative does an excellent job of this through the evidence provided below. This is critical to education because we are able to have an honest discussion about the real problems in society.
   K
   History has caused people of color to be forced into a metaphorical slavery causing today’s mindset of the white-black relationship
   Farley 5 Boston College (Anthony, “Perfecting Slavery”, http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028andcontext=lsfp)

Lack of discussion about the oppression of people of color causes symbolic structural violence
CRENSHAW, Prof of Speech Comm @ Univ. Ala., 1997
Carrie-PhD. USC; former director of debate @ Univ. of Ala.; WESTERN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATION

African-Americans are inherently targeted in society for no reason which causes structural violence
Wilderson 11 (Frank, Associate Professor, African American Studies Dept., UC Irvine, “The Vengeance of Vertigo: Aphasia and Abjection in the Political Trials of Black Insurgents”, InTensions, Vol 5, http://www.yorku.ca/intent/issue5/articles/frankbwildersoniii.php#footxvii, LK)

African-Americans have been robbed of their proper social status due to the basis of enslavement
Sexton 10 (Jared, Assoc Prof of African American Studies @ UC Irvine, “People of Color Blindness” p. 33-34)

Only an unflinching thought shift can solve the problem. The alt is to reject the aff to promote a greater thought process.
Wilderson, ’10
2010, Frank B. Wilderson is an Associate Professor of African-American Studies at UC Irvine and has a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley, “Red, White and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms,”

Solving Slavery comes first, it is the only way to solve other problems
Wilderson 10
(Frank, Red, Red, White, and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms pg. 17-19) 

Turns/Answers 

Independent of qualified immunity established by the courts, many jurisdictions indemnify officers, making getting any significant settlement from officers difficult

Joann Schwartz, 2014, Police Idemnification, New York University Law Review, June 2014, http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-89-3-Schwartz.pdf

Idemnification is completely independent of qualified immunity

Richard Thompson, legislative attorney, Congressional Research Service, October 30, 2015, Police Use of Force: Rules, Remedies, and Reforms, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44256.pdf

Turn -- If QI is eliminated, it will be more difficult for plaintiffs to win claims and there will be even more idemnification

Joann Schwartz, 2014, Police Idemnification, New York University Law Review, June 2014, http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-89-3-Schwartz.pdf , Joanna Schwartz is a Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She teaches Civil Procedure, the Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, and a variety of courses on police accountability and public interest lawyering. In 2015, she received UCLA’s Distinguished Teaching Award. Professor Schwartz is one of the country’s leading experts on police misconduct litigation. Her studies examine the frequency with which police departments gather and analyze information from lawsuits, and the ways in which litigation-attentive departments use lawsuit data to reduce the likelihood of future harms. She has also examined the financial effects of police misconduct litigation, including the frequency with which police officers contribute to settlements and judgments in police misconduct cases, and the extent to which police department budgets are affected by litigation costs. Professor Schwartz has also looked more broadly at how lawsuits influence decision-making in hospitals, airlines, and other organizational settings. Professor Schwartz additionally studies the dynamics of modern civil litigation. Recent scholarship examines the degree to which litigation costs and delays necessitate current civil procedure rules, and compares rhetoric with available evidence about the costs and burdens of class action litigation. She is co-author, with Stephen Yeazell, of a leading casebook, Civil Procedure (9th Edition). Professor Schwartz is a graduate of Brown University and Yale Law School. She was awarded the Francis Wayland Prize for her work in Yale Law School’s Prison Legal Services clinic. After law school, Professor Schwartz clerked for Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York and Judge Harry Pregerson of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was then associated with Emery Celli Brinckerhoff and Abady LLP, in New York City, where she specialized in police misconduct, prisoners’ rights, and First Amendment litigation. She was awarded the New York City Legal Aid Society's Pro Bono Publico Award for her work as co-counsel representing a class of inmates challenging conditions at Rikers Island. Immediately prior to her appointment, Professor Schwartz was the Binder Clinical Teaching Fellow at UCLA School of Law.

Lawsuits don’t deter – multiple studies

Joann Schwartz, 2014, Police Idemnification, New York University Law Review, June 2014, http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-89-3-Schwartz.pdf , Joanna Schwartz is a Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She teaches Civil Procedure, the Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, and a variety of courses on police accountability and public interest lawyering. In 2015, she received UCLA’s Distinguished Teaching Award. Professor Schwartz is one of the country’s leading experts on police misconduct litigation. Her studies examine the frequency with which police departments gather and analyze information from lawsuits, and the ways in which litigation-attentive departments use lawsuit data to reduce the likelihood of future harms. She has also examined the financial effects of police misconduct litigation, including the frequency with which police officers contribute to settlements and judgments in police misconduct cases, and the extent to which police department budgets are affected by litigation costs. Professor Schwartz has also looked more broadly at how lawsuits influence decision-making in hospitals, airlines, and other organizational settings. Professor Schwartz additionally studies the dynamics of modern civil litigation. Recent scholarship examines the degree to which litigation costs and delays necessitate current civil procedure rules, and compares rhetoric with available evidence about the costs and burdens of class action litigation. She is co-author, with Stephen Yeazell, of a leading casebook, Civil Procedure (9th Edition). Professor Schwartz is a graduate of Brown University and Yale Law School. She was awarded the Francis Wayland Prize for her work in Yale Law School’s Prison Legal Services clinic. After law school, Professor Schwartz clerked for Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York and Judge Harry Pregerson of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was then associated with Emery Celli Brinckerhoff and Abady LLP, in New York City, where she specialized in police misconduct, prisoners’ rights, and First Amendment litigation. She was awarded the New York City Legal Aid Society's Pro Bono Publico Award for her work as co-counsel representing a class of inmates challenging conditions at Rikers Island. Immediately prior to her appointment, Professor Schwartz was the Binder Clinical Teaching Fellow at UCLA School of Law.

Idemnification and other policies means there is no deterrent value to lawsuits

Joann Schwartz, 2014, Police Idemnification, New York University Law Review, June 2014, http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-89-3-Schwartz.pdf , Joanna Schwartz is a Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She teaches Civil Procedure, the Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, and a variety of courses on police accountability and public interest lawyering. In 2015, she received UCLA’s Distinguished Teaching Award. Professor Schwartz is one of the country’s leading experts on police misconduct litigation. Her studies examine the frequency with which police departments gather and analyze information from lawsuits, and the ways in which litigation-attentive departments use lawsuit data to reduce the likelihood of future harms. She has also examined the financial effects of police misconduct litigation, including the frequency with which police officers contribute to settlements and judgments in police misconduct cases, and the extent to which police department budgets are affected by litigation costs. Professor Schwartz has also looked more broadly at how lawsuits influence decision-making in hospitals, airlines, and other organizational settings. Professor Schwartz additionally studies the dynamics of modern civil litigation. Recent scholarship examines the degree to which litigation costs and delays necessitate current civil procedure rules, and compares rhetoric with available evidence about the costs and burdens of class action litigation. She is co-author, with Stephen Yeazell, of a leading casebook, Civil Procedure (9th Edition). Professor Schwartz is a graduate of Brown University and Yale Law School. She was awarded the Francis Wayland Prize for her work in Yale Law School’s Prison Legal Services clinic. After law school, Professor Schwartz clerked for Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York and Judge Harry Pregerson of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was then associated with Emery Celli Brinckerhoff and Abady LLP, in New York City, where she specialized in police misconduct, prisoners’ rights, and First Amendment litigation. She was awarded the New York City Legal Aid Society's Pro Bono Publico Award

Police only pay .02 of awards

Joann Schwartz, 2014, Police Idemnification, New York University Law Review, June 2014, http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-89-3-Schwartz.pdf , Joanna Schwartz is a Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She teaches Civil Procedure, the Civil Rights Litigation Clinic, and a variety of courses on police accountability and public interest lawyering. In 2015, she received UCLA’s Distinguished Teaching Award. Professor Schwartz is one of the country’s leading experts on police misconduct litigation. Her studies examine the frequency with which police departments gather and analyze information from lawsuits, and the ways in which litigation-attentive departments use lawsuit data to reduce the likelihood of future harms. She has also examined the financial effects of police misconduct litigation, including the frequency with which police officers contribute to settlements and judgments in police misconduct cases, and the extent to which police department budgets are affected by litigation costs. Professor Schwartz has also looked more broadly at how lawsuits influence decision-making in hospitals, airlines, and other organizational settings. Professor Schwartz additionally studies the dynamics of modern civil litigation. Recent scholarship examines the degree to which litigation costs and delays necessitate current civil procedure rules, and compares rhetoric with available evidence about the costs and burdens of class action litigation. She is co-author, with Stephen Yeazell, of a leading casebook, Civil Procedure (9th Edition). Professor Schwartz is a graduate of Brown University and Yale Law School. She was awarded the Francis Wayland Prize for her work in Yale Law School’s Prison Legal Services clinic. After law school, Professor Schwartz clerked for Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York and Judge Harry Pregerson of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was then associated with Emery Celli Brinckerhoff and Abady LLP, in New York City, where she specialized in police misconduct, prisoners’ rights, and First Amendment litigation. She was awarded the New York City Legal Aid Society's Pro Bono Publico Award for her work as co-counsel representing a class of inmates challenging conditions at Rikers Island. Immediately prior to her appointment, Professor Schwartz was the Binder Clinical Teaching Fellow at UCLA School of Law.

Their method of politics turns them into actors disengaged from politics and creates ressentiment—turns their offense.
Antonio ’95, Nietzsche’s antisociology: Subjectified Culture and the End of History”; American Journal of Sociology; Volume 101, No. 1; July 1995