there is no conceivable reason I should have lost this debate
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
Disclosure Theory
Tournament: strae | Round: 6 | Opponent: idk | Judge: idr interpretation: If the affirmative defends a parametriczed advocacy, then the aff debater must disclose the entirety of their plan text and citations for the plan's topical solvency advocate on the NDCA wiki at least an hour before the round.
Violation: u did some fckshit prolly
Standard:
Predictability – cant predict yo shit ya feel me
Clash- how deb8 if cant deb8
No RVI bois Counter Interps pl0xerino
1/2/17
JF- Agamben K
Tournament: Strake Jesuit | Round: Octas | Opponent: Law Magnet MG | Judge: re
The claim that free speech leads to democratic debate and social progress is a neoliberal myth used to sustain the subjugation of the capitalist elite – the 1ACs faith in the free exchange of ideas displaces a focus on direct action and re-entrenches facets of oppression.
Tillett-Saks 13 Andrew Tillett-Saks (Labor organizer and critical activist author for Truth-Out and Counterpunch), Neoliberal Myths, Counterpunch, 11/7/13, http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/07/neoliberal-myths/LADI In the wake of the Brown University shout-down of Ray Kelly, champion AND . Herein lies neoliberal myth number one—that a liberal free-market
Their advocacy for rights rectifies the division between the human and the political - Rights talk ties the population to the sovereign by defining life only in terms of what can be defended by the state—this turns the citizen-subject into bare life by allowing arbitrary exclusion
Hoover 13 Hoover, Joe. ~Dr Hoover has a BA in Philosophy from the University of Colorado and an MSc in Philosophy, now at University of London~ "Towards a politics for human rights: Ambiguous humanity and democratizing rights." Philosophy and Social Criticism 2013 (IM) Agamben pushes this critique even further by focusing on the way in which rights depend AND and control, but rather central to it at the most fundamental level.
Bare life is the ultimate devaluation of life – life that can be killed, but not sacrificed.
Reinert 2007 ('The Pertinence of Sacrifice - Some Notes on Larry the Luckiest Lamb' Hugo Reinert, PhD from Cambridge University of Cambridge, http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol6no3_2007/reinert_larry.htm) IM 14. For a few years now, in his Homo Sacer project, Agamben AND worthy of this gesture of honour' (Hansen and Stepputat 2005: 17).
ROB/Framing
Your ballot probably won't change the world or even create any material change; Takes out any real world bullshit they read
Instead, the ballot is a promotion and valuation of a discourse, seen as important or productive. The role of the ballot is to promote knowledge that builds the best power relations against sovereignty. ==== Gulli, 13 - professor of history, philosophy, and political science at Kingsborough College in New York, (Bruno, "For the critique of sovereignty and violence," http://academia.edu/2527260/For_the_Critique_of_Sovereignty_and_Violence, pg. 1) We live in an unprecedented time of crisis. The violence that characterized the twentieth AND rhetoric, ultimately rests on the threat of military violence and police brutality
1/2/17
JF- CEDA Trigger Warnings PIC
Tournament: Colleyville | Round: Semis | Opponent: North Crowley LR | Judge: Zhao, Wright, Daksh Bet ya didnt see this one comin, logan
CEDA TW PIC
Cp-Text- the framers of the cross examination debate association in debate rounds within public colleges and universities should not restrict any speech protected by the current Cross Examination Debate except when a trigger warning is read and the anyone in the room says that they could potentially be triggered
A DISREGARD FOR TRIGGER WARNINGS IS A DISREGARD FOR PEOPLE – these safe spaces are necessary for dissipating anxieties and creating spaces for ACTUAL DISCUSSION. Pickett 16
Reann Pickett ~~ TIME "Trigger Warnings and Safe Spaces are Necessary" 8/31/2016 Pickett is senior director of communications and public Affairs at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and a Ms. Foundation Public Voices Fellows here are the author credentials i couldn't find them until now i love you go kill it message After the birth of my first son AND should be at the vanguard of modeling the way forward—not backward.
Competition
Competes through mutual exclusivity, your advocacy says that we follow the CEDA constitution, the constitution claims to not restrict debate unless they are listed as exceptions, no mention of trigger warnings are made within the 2016 version of the constitution which means that the CP and AC advocacy are mutually exclusive.
Counterplan Text: Public Colleges and Universities in the United States will restrict free speech exclusively for anti-feminist counter-protesters who disparage and harass feminist activists while those feminists are rallying or raising awareness about instances of sexism.
Competes through mutual exclusivity- we ban anti-feminist speech that occurs during their protests
Competes through Net Benefits- Winning a reason why the AFF is unnecessary or insufficient is sufficient to negate
When womxn decide to coalesce and fight against patriarchal systems, their greatest opposition comes from reactionary hyper-masculine counter-protesters who insult and verbally attack activists during their marches. The "Roosh" incident proves that these misogynists have no interest in engaging in dialogue and exist solely to oppose activism. Preventing them from interrupting protests allows feminists to articulate their grievances properly.
Brownstone 16'is the solvency advocate I don't endorse that gendered language b http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2016/02/03/23520727/tell-us-what-to-do-with-a-sad-misogynist-who-wants-us-to-pay-attention-to-his-misogyny-and-homophobia Sydney Brownstone "Tell us what to do with a sad misogynist who wants us to pay attention to his misogyny and homophobia" Sydney Brownstone is a Seattle-based former staff writer at Coexist. She lives in a Brooklyn apartment and covers environment, health, and data. She's written for the Village Voice, Mother Jones, Brooklyn Magazine, The L Magazine, and has contributed to NPR. The Daryush "Roosh" Valizadeh is a homophobe and a misogynist. He runs AND the 1AC.
Counterplan solves the AFF with 3 Net Benefits
1: Proper agonism.
When misogynists counter-protest feminist movements, they don't want to engage in dialogue or discussion. The confrontation makes both parties angry and the situation devolves into a scream-fest of insults and swearing. If we make it so that feminists can have their protests, and THEN engage in discourse in the aftermath of their presentation, productive dialogue between individuals can exist because the environment is less hostile. Wyden ==== http://oureverydaylife.com/deal-misogynist-17862.html "How to Deal With a Misogynist" Genevieve Van Wyden 2016 Genevieve Van Wyden began writing in 2007. She has written for "Tu Revista Latina" and owns three blogs. She has worked as a CPS social worker, gaining experience in the mental-health system. Van Wyden earned her Bachelor of Arts in journalism from New Mexico State University in 2006. This world is made up of all types of people, including men, women AND sexist voices AND create zones for discourse in casual environments which prevents hostility.
2: Effective Protest.
When feminists are able to protest effectively without being hindered by patriarchal interference, they can raise awareness and express opinions on social stigma and prejudice. Protest have been a major part of change in the past and the 1NC is a call to stop silencing them and let the possibilities free flow. ==== Gallagher Brenden Gallagher ""The Most Powerful Feminist Protests Against Donald Trump"" https://www.merryjane.com/culture/most-powerful-feminist-protests-against-donald-trump October 27, 2016 Brenden Gallagher works in television and writing in Los Angeles. He worked on Revenge, Heartbeat, and Famous in Love. His writing has appeared at Complex, VH1, and MERRY JANE. Though there has been a lot of negativity swirling around Donald Trump through this election AND creating feminist epistemology because I allow protests to go unfettered by masculine hindrance.
3: Critical Reflection.
The thesis of the 1AC is that womxn are silenced and prevented from speaking. My advocacy makes it so that anti-feminists who want to counter-protest are silenced and prevented from speaking which forces them to understand and undergo the process of having their speech devalued. The 1NC makes THEM understand how YOU feel, which allows for critical reflection and makes real change possible. Marsden Harriet Marsden http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/feminism-straight-white-men-didnt-ask-to-be-born-silenced-by-feminazi-meanies-guardian-article-a7227021.html "I feel for the straight white men who are being silenced by the mean girls of modern feminism" Harriet Marsden is a freelance journalist talking world culture, politics and lifestyle, often through the form of critical analysis and parody. She is an author for The Independent and specializes in feminism and gender discourse.
You would be forgiven for mistaking it for a Daily Mash headline – but no, it's real. The Guardian has published a piece today under the headline "'I didn't choose to be straight, white and male': are modern men the suffering sex?" The premise of the article is that men are feeling "silenced" by the spectre of gender equality. As I walk down the halls of hallowed institutions admiring the rows of (white male) portraits of former leaders, and I watch our Prime Minister (only the second female in a long line of white males) attempt to shout over her cabinet of predominantly white male MPs, I have to remind myself how silenced white men are. The press, the politicians, the police, the powerful…notwithstanding the undeniable fact that these are all still predominantly male, and white straight males at that, men are feeling silenced. Forget about the billions of women worldwide who are literally silenced by patriarchal oppression, poverty, racial inequality, and femicide. No, the silencing of men in the western world is now the social issue du jour. And we know this because they're complaining and being interviewed about it. Apparently, a "well-educated, professionally successful and mostly very progressive male friend" (you have to enjoy that qualifying "mostly") sent Guardian journalist Rose Hackman a video of women beating up men, presumably to make the point that feminism is running rampant with its violence and its misandry and its general advocating of beating men to a pulp. Forget the estimated two women dying every week in the UK as a result of domestic violence, or how violence against women has been the norm in pretty much every culture in the entire world at some point. Forget that. Hey, look at this YouTube video! According to this mostly progressive male, women are "having their cake and eating it too", profiting from an unfair double standard and "getting away with stuff men never would". Like sexual assault? Like mass shootings? Like war crimes? Like terrorist attacks? Like human trafficking? Forget the statistics which show how disproportionate the gender divide of these crimes is. Apparently, women are committing these atrocities just as much as men – but they're getting away with it. Political correctness gone mad! Apparently, the "increasingly equal society has made men the suffering sex", and there's no denying "the consistency, and therefore validity, of the feelings being ~expressed~." I had no idea that if a feeling is consistent, it must be valid. Thousands of racists rejoice – your feelings are now "valid". I have a bit of a problem with the microphone "being handed over" to men for their views on how women becoming seen as real and equal humans might be negatively affecting them. But then again, women have had the monopoly on public discourse since language was invented. Women have had the podium for long enough – decades, in fact. That's more than enough time. We should actually hand the microphone back to men. According to Michael Kimmel, executive director of the Centre for the Study of Men and Masculinities (imagine their mailing list) the world used to be "our locker room" where men could say what they wanted. "Now a lot of guys have to watch what they say. That's got to be hard." It is, Mr Kimmel! Wouldn't it be excellent if we could all shout about our burning cystitis every time the bus goes over a bump? Wouldn't you love to finally admit to your co-worker that their voice you want to stab yourself in the face? Watching what we say is so hard! The Guardian article provides a selection of male voices to wax lyrical on how silenced they are, men chosen for "a lack of overt disrespect towards women" – that's a category you don't want to lose in. Highlights include Tom, a butcher from Seattle, who howls: "We talk about accepting people – that someone didn't choose to be trans, or gay…I didn't choose to be straight, white and male." Because of course, you can equate the political struggles, emotional trauma, hate crimes, prejudice, under-representation, imprisonment and murders of the global gay or trans communities with the frustrations of a white male butcher. So to all you over-privileged, economically advantaged and socially unpersecuted white cisgendered males out there, I say this: I'm sorry you're suffering. I'm sorry you didn't choose to be born who you are. I didn't choose to be born into a racially segregated patriarchy where menstruation and childbirth render me intolerant of your suffering, and where I'm statistically more likely to be raped, murdered or discriminated against than you. But we all have our crosses to bear.====
Outweighs in terms of strength into your role of the ballot- My praxis allows both womxn and mxn to learn from politics of exclusion and inclusion which means my education method can make real change a possibility between both groups
Puts terminal defense on the 1AC- your method can never hope to achieve change because it is perceived by men to just be women getting mad at them for actions that have been implanted in them as normal. The CP resolves this because it makes misogynists deal with the reality of being silenced and makes it possible for them to come to the conclusion it is universally bad to be unheard
Western metaphysics have hypnotized the masses into believing that they have an accurate understanding of being, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Things like subjectivity have normalized existence, the 1AC's portrayal of identity is akin to this; the idea of a subject that exists independently, entailing that we create the categories that we are segmented into. However, there is no reason the concept of race is any more or less of a concept than the concept of me as a being. Just as I affect race, race can affect me. The 1AC falls into the trap of normative identity politics, failing to realize that titles like "jewish" and "islamic" are constructed by normalization, their performance within the system re-inscribes notions of colonialism and dooms their project to failure
Massumi 1 Massumi in 1992~Brian. A user's guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia: Deviations from Deleuze and Guattari. Swerve Editions. Professor of Comparative Literature @ McGill, Associate Professor of Comparative Literature @ UNY: Ithaca~ "Man" is "not-Woman", "Woman" is "not-Man", "Adult" is "not-Child"... that the link be made (on the basis of autonomy).
The role of the ballot is to be the specific intellectual. In educational spaces of contestation, it is necessary to understand knowledge properly, in terms of how power shapes and affects all aspects of knowledge. Only then can we identify the, often harmful, norms that we have totalized. Rabinow explains Foucault Rabinow, Paul, "Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, 202"University of Chicago Press
Hence, we must return again, ...mechanisms are hidden.
The AC relies upon identity to categorize bodies. They employ a normative idea of what it means to "palestinian". That there's any one word, such as "Islamic" capable of describing this portrayal of identity proves that's stable enough to be co-opted. The state, and powers of normalization relies on this form of strictly defined categories to stabilize its subjects for effective policing—if it knows exactly what or who you are, it can more effectively discriminate against you or enslave you, The 1AC performance solidifies the categorization of bodies; this is terminal defense to your performance as well as a turn to your method Puar:
Jasbir K.Puar. "Terrorist Assemblages: homonationalism in queer times." Duke Press. 2007. Rey Chow, drawing on Foucault's work in The Order of Things, proposes that ''Foucault's discussion of biopower can be seen as his approach, albeit oblique, to the question of the ascendancy of whiteness in the modern world.'' Engendered through scientific observation, ... within the global economy
Vote negative to embrace racial unintelligibility through assemblage theory. Instead of using identity as the basis for political praxis, we must use assemblages. Assemblages mark a shift from striated categories to the affective connections present between forces and objects. There is no static conception of being. Assemblages affirm possibility and change—that is necessary in a world where the state attempts to limit movement and intensity in order to striate individuals. Puar Jasbir K. Puar. "I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess" Becoming-Intersectional in Assemblage Theory.
"Assemblage" is actually a.. conceptions concerning class struggle. (Guattari 2009, 26)
If identity based politics focus on who is at fault for causing the problems of the 1AC assemblages ask what conditions have caused the problems in the first place- instead of asking who, we ask what should we do? Puar Jasbir K. Puar. "I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess" Becoming-Intersectional in Assemblage Theory.
So what transpiresin this assemblage of the event-space? ... domestic violence and how can we prevent it?
2/22/17
JF- Nietzsche NC
Tournament: IKD | Round: 1 | Opponent: Kantian Metaphysics | Judge: New age ontology Nietzsche NC Moral statements are intended to be objective truths but we can never know others objectively, meaning any judgments we make are tainted by our own subjective perspectives. Friedrich NietzscheFriedrich Nietzsche German Philosopher Human All Too Human. Translated by R.J.Hollingdale. Cambridge University Press. http://archive.org/stream/NietzscheHumanAllTooHuman/Nietzsche-HumanAllTooHuman_djvu.txt. A.S. Injustice necessary. - All judgements as to the value of life have evolved illogically and are therefore unjust. The falsity of human judgement derives firstly from the condition of the material to be judged, namely very incomplete, secondly from the way in which the sum is arrived at on the basis of this material, and thirdly from the fact that every individual piece of this material is in turn the outcome of false knowledge, and is so with absolute necessity. Our experience of another person, for example, no matter how close he stands to us, can never be complete, so that we would have a logical right to a total evaluation of him; all evaluations are premature and are bound to be. Finally, the standards by which we measure, our own being, is are not an unalterable magnitude, we are subject to moods and fluctuations, and yet we would have to know ourselves as a fixed standard to be able justly to assess the relation between ourself and anything else whatever. Perhaps it would follow from all this that one ought not to judge at all; if only it were possible to live without evaluating, without having aversions and partialities! - for all aversion is de- pendent on an evaluation, likewise all partiality. A drive to something or away from something divorced from a feeling one is desiring the beneficial or avoiding the harmful, a drive without some kind of knowing evaluation of the worth of its objective, does not exist in man. We are from the very beginning illogical and thus unjust beings and can recognize this: this is one of the greatest and most irresolvable discords of existence. An external system of ethics that is detached from the ethical agent makes no sense- if we are the only ones who know ourselves then only we are able to create independent unique obligations. To enforce an obligation upon another we would need to be able to take an outside view, but if we are tainted by subjectivity that becomes impossible. Therefore, there is no essence to persons. Rather, each agent creates their own ethical norms and identity in relation to themselves. This means that ethical systems must not be focused on creating a certain universal content to impose on all agents- but rather must be amenable to multiple perspectives on what is good and bad. They must accommodate multiple perspectives and modes of being- this is the only way to understand morality. The 1NC recognizes people's role as creators and subjects of morality. As such an ethical action is one in accordance with an individual's subjective evaluation. A denial of that ability to act or be would thus constitute an unethical decision. Thus the Standard is embracing subject fluidity. Thus the negative burden is to prove that the process of protecting constitutional free speech denies the agents the ability to define their own obligations and identities. I contend that affirming forces a static notion of identity upon agents. It precludes the possibility of a fluid ontology and denies the ability of agents to act in a way that expresses themselves. First- constitutional rights require a stable subject on whom we can confer rights on. An agent must be capable of exercising themselves in a particular way to receive the protection of the constitution which would make applications of the law impossible. Furthermore, empirically true- constitution used to say black individuals and women did not possess rights because the document did not recognize them as a subject- which makes your affirmation nonsensical. Two- rights never addresses the individual but rather a proxy entity that can be objectively evaluated by the system of the law. By removing the personal characteristics that make agents themselves, a codified right forecloses the possibility of recognizing the unique nature of each agent which denies the existential component of ethics.
Defending the crrent constitution is problematic because it applies a static model of rights Only 8 justices - can't change You affirm squo- can't fiat extra changes
3- Constitution has always affired a static subject, ie rights apply to X type ppl
The Capitalist regime has co-opted the way we value things, and look at ethics. It has created a fantasy where nothing but capitalism matters. We must overcome and traverse this ideology. Everything we have come to know is just a fiction set up by this fantasy, framed by those in a position of privilege who force us to make distinct concepts and characteristics of the world to benefit them. Reject this notion of exploitation and join me in putting on the critic ideological lenses by traversing this fantasy.
Slavoj Zizek, researcher at the institute of sociology at the university of Ljubljana, The Plague of Fantasies, 1997. Preface xi-xiii EM In caring for his own household, the city of Bucharest, Ceaujescu made a AND is - we are 'naturally' in ideology, our natural sight is ideological.
The claim that free speech leads to democratic debate and social progress is a neoliberal myth used to sustain the subjugation of the capitalist elite – the 1ACs faith in the free exchange of ideas displaces a focus on direct action and re-entrenches facets of oppression.
Tillett-Saks 13 Andrew Tillett-Saks (Labor organizer and critical activist author for Truth-Out and Counterpunch), Neoliberal Myths, Counterpunch, 11/7/13, http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/07/neoliberal-myths/LADI In the wake of the Brown University shout-down of Ray Kelly, champion AND freedom. To the contrary, direct action has always proved necessary.
Discursive framing is backwards—ideology and consumption patterns are determined by material inequalities. Discourse theory cedes politics by reducing radical action to 'transgressive' speech acts Tumino '8 Stephen Tumino, professor of English at the University of Pittsburgh, "Materiality in Contemporary Cultural Theory," The Red Critique, Fall/Winter 2008, accessed 1/21/10 http://www.redcritique.org/FallWinter2008/materialityincontemporaryculturaltheory.htm==== One of the mainstays of contemporary cultural theory is the argument that the social is primarily shaped by culture. Culture, that is, not as a collection of artifacts or an archive of progress, but, rather, following the writings of Antonio Gramsci, as "an arena of consent and resistance" (Stuart Hall, "Deconstructing" 239) over the shape of the social. Contemporary cultural theory has extended the understanding of culture beyond universalist, and, therefore, supposedly elitist assumptions and normative hegemonic conclusions about culture and instead focused on culture as "the articulation and activation of meaning" (Storey xiii) on the grounds that it is primarily discourse that possesses "the power and the authority to define social reality" (xii). The meaning(s) in a culture that secure and contest the dominant social arrangements are thought to lie in what Michel de Certeau calls "secondary production" (xiii), the sphere of consumption, rather than the economic sphere of production. In these terms, it is the "consumer who in effect 'produces in use'" (xiii) the meaning(s) of the culture that determines social reality. So much has such a focus on the daily practices of consumption and identification been "central to the project of cultural studies" (xi) that some have simply argued that "cultural studies could be described ... perhaps more accurately as ideological studies" (James Carey qtd. in Storey xii). The focus in cultural theory on the constitutive power of discourse to define social reality has shifted the attention of cultural studies from the wider social relations of production which shape ideology and consumption and in fact determine the social real, toward a market theory of culture which valorizes the excessive "uses" and "resignifications" of cultural commodities and in doing so transforms the subject of labor into the subject of consumption who, far from intervening into global capital, supports it through "resistant" desires and "rebellious" acts of consumption. Cultural theory, in other words, rests on the assumption that consumption determines production rather than the other way around. People's "lifestyles" (which is another way of referring to the commodities they consume and how they consume them) are thus assumed to be more significant, in these terms, than the labor relations they must enter into as a necessary precondition of consumption. Such an assumption concludes that the markers and beliefs that position individuals in culture as men and women, black, latino, gay,… are more important than the fact that they are wage workers that must first sell themselves daily to capital before they can acquire the cultural markers of identity. Such an understanding of the priority of the economic is seen on the cultural left as "left conservatism" (Butler, Bové, et. al.) because it forecloses on differences. But as Teresa Ebert has explained, "differences in class societies are always exploitative" (169) because they serve to divide and segment the working class and foster competition between the workers. At the core of the labor theory of culture is the explanation of how culturalism itself has an economic basis in the division of labor – and more specifically, in the crisis of overproduction that is endemic to capitalism since the 1970s—and reflects the interests of those who having had their material needs already met from the labor of the other can afford to focus on their desires in the market.
The state isn't the innocent hero they make it out to be, it's the dangerous joker that waits in the dark preying on the innocent. As long as action is taken in the context of the state, it's doomed to maintain the capitalist machine. This is especially true in the context of promoting rights. Even fiat can't escape the blood thirsty mindset of maximizing economic growth. Evans Tony Evans~ Department of Politics, University of Southampton, Highfield~ Citizenship and Human Rights in the Age of Globalization.
This interpretation of civil society constitutes relations between public and private spheres that offer a unique opportunity for new forms of social power. This social power is located in the legitimation of rights, which are claimed by individuals as members of civil society. As expressed by Ellen Meiksins Wood, civil society x legitimasents "a particular network of social relations which does not simply stand in opposition to the coercive, `policing' and `administrative' functions of the state but represents the relocation of these functions, or at least some significant part of them."~74~ The role of the state is to oversee the existing order, to act as "night watchman" for guaranteeing "fair play" and the "rules of the game," rather than to initiate change, which is the role of civil society.~75~ All thought of transforming civil society through the formal political processes represented by the state is illusory.~76~ Although the image of the state as the guardian of individual human rights continues to be widely shared—including the image of the state acting as the agent of civil society in fulfilling the citizens' duty to deal with unacceptable inequalities—in this reading of civil society the state is more concerned with property, appropriation, exploitation, and securing the domination of particular economic interests, and it acts accordingly to protect the violation of these values. In short, the separation of public from private life, politics from economics, and the state from civil society provides a context where "political emancipation emancipates civil society from politics and opens the way for the unfettered materialism of interests."~77~
This is uniquely bad- affirming the resolution makes the state look like a best friend- the state is able to pull of the façade of caring for its citizenry when in reality its merely using them as a means to acquiring more capital- silences criticism because if the state looks perfect and reformatory then widespread coalitions have no focal points to rally around. This means that the 1AC forecloses the possibility of ever creating an authentic solution to capitalism because we A) fail to recognize it still pervades our lives and B) think that those conditions are a good thing. Actions taken within the capitalist system only reproduce and make the system stronger.
The ROB is to Evaluate the debate as a dialectical materialist—you are a historian inquiring into the determinant factors behind the 1AC Tumino '1 Stephen Tumino, professor of English at the University of Pittsburgh, "What is Orthodox Marxism and Why it Matters Now More Than Ever Before," Red Critique, Spring 2001, http://redcritique.org/spring2001/whatisorthodoxmarxism.htm jss
Any effective political theory will have to do at least two things: it will have to offer an integrated understanding of social practices and, based on such an interrelated knowledge, offer a guideline for praxis. My main argument here is that among all contesting social theories now, only Orthodox Marxism has been able to produce an integrated knowledge of the existing social totality and provide lines of praxis that will lead to building a society free from necessity. But first I must clarify what I mean by Orthodox Marxism. Like all other modes and forms of political theory, the very theoretical identity of Orthodox Marxism is itself contested—not just from non-and anti-Marxists who question the very "real" (by which they mean the "practical" as under free-market criteria) existence of any kind of Marxism now but, perhaps more tellingly, from within the Marxist tradition itself. I will, therefore, first say what I regard to be the distinguishing marks of Orthodox Marxism and then outline a short polemical map of contestation over Orthodox Marxism within the Marxist theories now. I will end by arguing for its effectivity in bringing about a new society based not on human rights but on freedom from necessity. I will argue that to know contemporary society—and to be able to act on such knowledge—one has to first of all know what makes the existing social totality. I will argue that the dominant social totality is based on inequality—not just inequality of power but inequality of economic access (which then determines access to health care, education, housing, diet, transportation, . . . ). This systematic inequality cannot be explained by gender, race, sexuality, disability, ethnicity, or nationality. These are all secondary contradictions and are all determined by the fundamental contradiction of capitalism which is inscribed in the relation of capital and labor. All modes of Marxism now explain social inequalities primarily on the basis of these secondary contradictions and in doing so—and this is my main argument—legitimate capitalism. Why? Because such arguments authorize capitalism without gender, race, discrimination and thus accept economic inequality as an integral part of human societies. They accept a sunny capitalism—a capitalism beyond capitalism. Such a society, based on cultural equality but economic inequality, has always been the not-so-hidden agenda of the bourgeois left—whether it has been called "new left," "postmarxism," or "radical democracy." This is, by the way, the main reason for its popularity in the culture industry—from the academy (Jameson, Harvey, Haraway, Butler,. . . ) to daily politics (Michael Harrington, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson,. . . ) to. . . . For all, capitalism is here to stay and the best that can be done is to make its cruelties more tolerable, more humane. This humanization (not eradication) of capitalism is the sole goal of ALL contemporary lefts (marxism, feminism, anti-racism, queeries, . . . ). Such an understanding of social inequality is based on the fundamental understanding that the source of wealth is human knowledge and not human labor. That is, wealth is produced by the human mind and is thus free from the actual objective conditions that shape the historical relations of labor and capital. Only Orthodox Marxism recognizes the historicity of labor and its primacy as the source of all human wealth. In this paper I argue that any emancipatory theory has to be founded on recognition of the priority of Marx's labor theory of value and not repeat the technological determinism of corporate theory ("knowledge work") that masquerades as social theory. Finally, it is only Orthodox Marxism that recognizes the inevitability and also the necessity of communism—the necessity, that is, of a society in which "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs" (Marx) is the rule.
Vote Neg to endorse revolutionary theory
This is a prior question—we should affirm the historical necessity of communism Tumino '12 Stephen Tumino, more marxist than Marx himself, "Is Occupy Wall Street Communist," Red Critique 14, Winter/Spring 2012, http://www.redcritique.org/WinterSpring2012/isoccupywallstreetcommunist.htm jss==== Leaving aside that the purpose of Wolff's speech was to popularize a messianic vision of a more just society based on workplace democracy, he is right about one thing: Marx's original contribution to the idea of communism is that it is an historical and material movement produced by the failure of capitalism not a moral crusade to reform it. Today we are confronted with the fact that capitalism has failed in exactly the way that Marx explained was inevitable.~4~ It has "simplified the class antagonism" (The Communist Manifesto); by concentrating wealth and centralizing power in the hands of a few it has succeeded in dispossessing the masses of people of everything except their labor power. As a result it has revealed that the ruling class "is unfit to rule," as The Communist Manifesto concludes, "because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him." And the slaves are thus compelled to fight back. Capitalism makes communism necessary because it has brought into being an international working class whose common conditions of life give them not only the need but also the economic power to establish a society in which the rule is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme). Until and unless we confront the fact that capitalism has once again brought the world to the point of taking sides for or against the system as a whole, communism will continue to be just a bogey-man or a nursery-tale to frighten and soothe the conscience of the owners rather than what it is—the materialist theory that is an absolute requirement for our emancipation from exploitation and a new society freed from necessity! As Lenin said, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement" (What Is To Be Done?). We are confronted with an historic crisis of global proportions that demands of us that we take Marxism seriously as something that needs to be studied to find solutions to the problems of today. Perhaps then we can even begin to understand communism in the way that The Communist Manifesto presents it as "the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority" to end inequality forever.
1/2/17
JF- Puarian Conviviality K
Tournament: why do people value this tournament | Round: 2 | Opponent: Palo Alto CF | Judge: reee
Conviviality K
The 1AC's focus on modalities of disability destroys effective praxis and means their solutions will inevitably fail- envisioning disability as a discrete set of variables as opposed to an event that happens to all bodies reinforces dichotomies and makes your impacts inevitable.
Puar 1 Prognosis time: Towards a geopolitics of affect, debility, and capacity. Jasbir K. Puar ~Women and Gender Sudies, Rutgers University, Newark~ Further, despite this rich field of inquiry, this domain of scholarship too often remains mired in what Robert McRuer and Nicole Marcotic term ''disability culturalism'' – a myopic focus on representational politics – along with variants of ''barbarism'' and ''crip nationalism'' that reinscribe the centrality of prevailing discourses on race, national identity, gender, and region, producing privileged disabled bodies in distinction to various ''others.''10 Meanwhile, the disability scholarship interested in moving beyond an individual subject that is Euro-American, white, middle-class, and neo-liberal is impoverished. Africanist Julie Livingston, for example, notes that ''while four-fifths of the world's disabled persons live in developing countries, there is a relative dearth of humanities and social science scholarship exploring disability in non-Western contexts'' (2006, 125n16). My intent, then, is twofold: to stretch the perceived contours of material bodies and to infuse queer disability studies with formulations of risk, calculation, prognosis, and statistical probability, whereby identity is understood not as essence, but as risk coding. What happens to congenital disabilities, for example, if they are positioned not merely in ideological terms as pathologies but as informational errors in DNA coding that can be corrected, where the disabled body is productive and not considered to be lacking the capacity for regeneration? This is a very intentional move away from self-other constructs of normality and pathology; instead, I am interested in the way populations are constructed through prevailing ideas of variability and risk. In this move away from normativity and pathology, I wonder how we might view queer and gender non-normative bodies in bio-informatic and statistical terms. How does Jain's suggestion that we are all ''living in prognosis'' – that is, living (and dying) in relation to statistical risk, chance, and probability, when populations are assessed based on indices of health, illness, disability, debility, infirmity, disease, fertility, environmental safety, climate change – offer a more dynamic frame for comprehending our multivalent and ever-shifting relations to life and death? Jain offers, but does not develop, the proposition that ''living in prognosis'' might be usefully deployed to re-tool disability studies beyond its current imbrication in Euro-American identity-based rights politics, moving us – as she suggests – from the disabled subject to the prognostic subject, from the subject of disability to the subject of prognosis, thus changing the category of disability itself, while temporally decomposing the common disability activist mantra: ''you're only able-bodied until you're disabled.'' Prognosis time, then, ''severs the idea of a time line,'' puts pressure on the assumption of an expected life span – a barometer of one's modernity – and the privilege one has or does not have to presume what one's life span will be, hence troubling any common view of life phases, generational time, and longevity. When and how do we stop saying things like, he died so young or she was too young to die? Jain's query is instructive in this regard: ''If you are going to die at 40, should you be able to get the senior discount at the movie when you're 35? (Is the discount a reward for long life or for proximity to death?) This relation to time makes death central to life in prognosis, death as an active loss – as if there were some right to a certain lifespan – rather than just something that happens to everybody at the end of life'' (2007, 81). Prognosis time should ideally articulate with other theories of queer temporality and social death that work through the unevenness of how populations live and get to live time, from Ruth Wilson Gilmore's framing of a carceral racism that produces premature death (2007), to Lauren Berlant's elaboration of the ''slow death'' maligned populations must often bear (2007), to Michael Ralph's argument about an artistic creativity that ''surplus time'' engenders in hip-hop artists – that is, time ''freed up'' by virtue of a prognosis that says you don't have much time to live, a euphoric release of freedom occasioned by the sense that you have exceeded the dismal prognosis that you will die at an early age (2006). The political mandate behind such rethinking about disability – or, as I argue, a move from disability to debility – would not be to disavow the crucial political gains enabled by disability activists globally, but to invite a deconstruction of what ability and capacity mean, affective and otherwise, and to push for a broader politics of debility that destabilizes the seamless production of abled-bodies in relation to disability. This entails theorizing not only specific disciplinary sites but also broader techniques of social control, marking a shift in terms from the regulation of normativity (that is, the internalization and regulation of self/other subject formation) to what Foucault calls the regularization of bodies and affect, and what Agamben renders as the difference between regulating to produce order (discipline) and regulating disorder (security) (20 September 2001). This deconstruction therefore shifts slightly from 'reclaiming' the singular as well as ordinary capacities of disabled bodies and questioning the enforced normativity produced by abled-bodies, two interventions which disability studies has admirably taken up quite well. Instead, it is about deconstructing the presumed, taken-for-granted capacitiesenabled status of abled-bodies. Porously resignifiying the categories of disability and debility may aid in addressing what Bryan S. Turner calls ''ontological contingency'' (2006), eloquently described by Rosemary Garland-Thomson as ''the truth of our body's vulnerability to the randomness of fate.'' She continues: ''Each one of us ineluctably acquires one or more disabilities – naming them variably as illness, disease, injury, old age, failure, dysfunction, or dependence. This inconvenient truth nudges most of us who think of ourselves as able-bodied toward imagining disability as an uncommon visitation that mostly happens to someone else, as a fate somehow elective rather than inevitable'' (2009, 19). Here, the insights of postcolonial, transnational, and area studies scholars provide pivotal interventions into the field of disability studies. For example, in her work on bodily-impaired miners in Botswana who do not necessarily articulate their plight in relation to disability, Livingston uses the term debility defined broadly to encompass ''experiences of chronic illness and senescence, as well as disability per se'' (2006, 113). While historically many bodily infirmities ''were not regarded as disabilities: indeed they were ''normal' and in some cases even expected impairments'' (2006, 120), her usage of debility is also demanded because there is a problem with the linguistic deployment of such a predicament in Setswana – there is no word that translates easily to ''disability.''11 Her research suggests a relation to the necropolitics of debility that is more expansive, foregrounding colonial and postcolonial violence, labor migrations, economic exploitation, and the interventions of western bio-medicine (such that impaired miners are termed ''lucky,'' in local discourses, because of access to ''the most clear cut system for processing newly impaired persons and providing them with tools ~wheelchairs, leg braces, and prosthetic limbs~ for managing their newly uneven and often arbitrary bodily states'' (2006, 111)). Overall, her work prompts an investigation into a disarticulation of ''disability'' from ''disabled subjects'' by asking, what does it mean to have a disability but not identify as disabled? Conversely, to identify as disabled without having, in regards to the representational forces of Darstellung and Vertretung, a disability? As disability is arguably the latest newcomer to the queer intersectional fray – a form of what Rey Chow deems ''(post)structuralist (significatory) incarceration''12 – I want to push Jain further around the formation of a subject of prognosis by problematizing the predominance of subject formation itself, thinking instead of disability and debility in terms of assemblages. The prognostic subject is tethered to what Sunder Rajan calls the patient-in-waiting who is inevitably hailed as a consumer-in-waiting, enabled – literally and conceptually – by the ''experimental subject'' that is increasingly displaced from conventional forms of manual labor to biocapital regimes where information is extracted from bodily material, often from people of color in/from the global south. As Catherine Waldby and Robert Mitchell write, ''the wealthy can purchase the fantasy of a regenerative body at the expense of the health of other, less valuable bodies'' (2006, 187). Neoliberal regimes of biocapital produce the body as never healthy enough, and thus always in a debilitated state in relation to what one's bodily capacity is imagined to be; aging itself is seen as a debility, as some populations live longer but also live with more chronic illness. Regenerative medicine produces the experience of ''double biological time'': as the body ages, the possibility (often unrealistic) of restoring its various parts to at least an originary state proliferates, and a certain promised return to capacity accompanies the experience of aging through debility (Waldby and Mitchell 2006, 125). In fact, being ''better than well'' emerges as the alibi for the translation of sensation and affect into symptom and thus the rationale for all types of medical intervention, manufacturing the ''continual enlargement of the domain of the therapeutic'' (Sunder Rajan 2006, 144). (One example of this would be the historical emergence of shyness as a Social Anxiety Disorder, whereby psychotropic drugs become ''personality optimizers.''13 Another example is the burgeoning field of ''cosmetic neurology,'' a term used to ''describe the practice of using drugs developed for recognized medical conditions to strengthen ordinary cognition,'' such as the growing use of Ritalin and Adderall amongst college students and marathon poker players ~Talbot 27 April 2009, 35~). Fear of the social – that is, any notion of illness as a form of social unrest or dis-ease – becomes muted through the production of fear of one's own body. Jackie Orr's Panic Diaries, for example, historicizes the transition from ''nuclear panic'' to Panic Disorder, from the invocation of the social body to the pathologization of the individuated body that is solely responsible for its health, thus to blame if unable to deal with its own responses (2006). Finally, the neo-liberal consumer subject of health assumes the right not to be injured in the usage of products, even as accidents that derive from product design can annually be predicted with statistical precision, and mapped onto the bodies that are likely to be implicated in these dynamics. Meanwhile, other bodies are employed in the production processes precisely because they are deemed available for injury – they are, in other words, expendable, bodies whose debilitation is required in order to sustain capitalist narratives of progress.14 The subject of prognosis, then, still proceeds through developmentalist time, still foregrounding an individuated subject in relation to populations Impacts: Makes oppression inevitable- disability is striated and displaced onto particular bodies AND world of the aff b/c you reinscribe legalistic interpretations of disability
The state and forces of microfasism uses difference in identity to quell rebellion and fractioning coalition forces against fascism.
Puar 2 Jasbir K.Puar. Terrorist Assemblages: homonationalism in queer times. Duke Press. 2007.
Rey Chow, drawing on Foucault's work in The Order of Things, proposes that AND break up coalitions while also taking advantage of the productive capacities of bodies.
The Alt- Vote Neg to endorse an ethics of conviviality- we have to be open to our own annihilation in order to reconceive the over determined future-
Puar 3 (09) Prognosis time: Towards a geopolitics of affect, debility, and capacity. Jasbir K. Puar ~Women and Gender Sudies, Rutgers University, Newark~ Women and Performance: a journal of feminist theory. 2009.
Out of the numerous possibilities that ''assemblage theory'' offers, much of AND allows us to see our effects in others and see openness between individuals.
4/29/17
JF- Temporality K
Tournament: Colleyville | Round: 5 | Opponent: Jacob | Judge: idk The 1AC epistemologically and methodologically falls into the trap of linear time- they analyze time as a series of events that independently happened There’s the past, present and the future. What they fail to realize is that the narrative of linear time is a tool used by the state and dominant powers to placate revolution and reinforce the idea that structural violence can be changed by appeals to legislation. The portrayal of the future as something amazing and better that we are constantly working toward is used by structures to rewrite history and over look past oppression, even though oppression exists cyclically and re-interprets itself in new ways. Stephen Dillon. “It’s here, it’s that time:” Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames. University of Minnesota. Women and Performance: A journal of feminist theory, 2013.
Progress is named...not let go
The promise of a future free of imperialism prevents a full confrontation with temporality as accumulation. There is no relief to come in some mystical future. Only understanding violence as accumulation and captivity allows us to understand the existing conditions of violence and come up with solutions. Stephen Dillon. “It’s here, it’s that time:” Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames. University of Minnesota. Women and Performance: A journal of feminist theory, 2013.
time not only...to happen again.
If the future is the accumulated past then the only way to destroy the future is the break the present as we know it. The Alternative is to embrace the incoherence of multiplicity and difference in contrast to the state’s focus on coherence and linear temporality. Stephen Dillon. “It’s here, it’s that time:” Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames. University of Minnesota. Women and Performance: A journal of feminist theory, 2013.
The time is...accumulation and capture
Only the alternative has the capacity to change the way violence operates- certain bodies are denied personhood by definition. Legal reformulations and the state’s demarcations mean that we need a method to articulate subjectivity and personhood outside of the traditional western order. Weheliye HABEAS VISCUS Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human ALEXANDER G. WEHELIYE Duke University Press Durham and London 2014.p. 48-49
focus on inclusion...subjugation are administered.
The 1ac's celebration of agonistic democracy is grossly inadequate to theorize the singularity of antiblackness.. Democracy is not benign, but rather an extension of civil society that is used to legitimize anti-black violence
Sexton and Lee 06 ~Jared Sexton, African American Studies Program, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA, Elizabeth Lee, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, "Figuring the Prison: Prerequisites of Torture at Abu Ghraib", Editorial Board of Antipode, page 1013-1014~MHELLIE The rituals of torture exposed at Abu Ghraib—staged events both reckless and deliberate AND the so-called post-civil rights era) (Nast 2000).
The logic of communication presumes personhood, a subject position inaccessible by the slave. Instead, the vocality of the slave is one of pupethood, fulfilling civil society's desire for legitimized violence against black bodies. Black speech always equals asking for it in a society defined by anti-blackness.
Brady 12. 2012. Nicholas. "Louder Than the Dark: Toward an Acoustics of Suffering", http://www.thefeministwire.com/2012/10/louder-than-the-dark-towards-an-acoustics-of-suffering/. ~Edited for Ableist Language~. AKB Discourse on race normally focuses on the material and the visual, but the video AND an impossible scream to be heard from the depths of incarceration and incapacity.
1AC dreams up their imaginary paradise of a free speech that only applies to white bodies. Speech is never free when it's within the confines of the constitution because it was made at the literally exclusion of black bodies
Farley 05 ~Anthony Paul (Associate Professor, Boston College Law School) "Perfecting Slavery", Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. Vol, 36. p101-131. AKB~ In 1995, Missouri v. Jenkins ended the saga.79 With Missouri v AND slaves are themselves the evidence of the eternal truth of their master's mastery.
Their politics of hope ignores this foundational truth – that the slave is always outside of the frame of redeemability – and instead creates an imaginary future to keep the slave at bay, always promising something greater.
Warren 15 ~Calvin K., Assistant Professor of American Studies at George Washington University, "Black Nihilism and the Politics of Hope," CR: The New Centennial Review, Volume 15, Number 1, Spring 2015~ The politics of hope, then, constitutes what Lauren Berlant would call "cruel AND the only "hope" for blackness in an anti-black world.
Civil Society is produced through gratuitous anti-black violence – The coherence of civil society relies on a prior ontological exclusion of black bodies.
Wilderson 1 ~Wilderson, African American Studies and Drama and UC-Irvine, fought in Anti-Apartheid struggle in South Africa, 2009. Red, White, and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms, intro~ I have little interest in assailing political conservatives. Nor is my argument wedded to AND split occur? The woman at the gates of Columbia University awaits an answer
Vote negative – freedom is an illusion created by the shackles of civil society. It is your obligation as the judge to throw away the 1AC. Farley 5 – Boston College (Anthony, "Perfecting Slavery", http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1028andcontext=lsfp) *edited for gendered language What is to be done? Two hundred years ago, when the slaves in Haiti rose up, they, of necessity, burned everything: They burned San Domingo flat so that at the end of the war it was a charred desert. Why do you burn everything? asked a French officer of a prisoner. We have a right to burn what we cultivate because a~person~ man has a right to dispose of his own labour, was the reply of this unknown anarchist. 48 The slaves burned everything because everything was against them. Everything was against the slaves, the entire order that it was their lot to follow, the entire order in which they were positioned as worse than senseless things, every plantation, everything. 49 "Leave nothing white behind you," said Toussaint to those dedicated to the end of white-overblack. 50 "God gave Noah the rainbow sign. No more water, the fire next time." 51 The slaves burned everything, yes, but, unfortunately, they only burned everything in Haiti. 52 Theirs was the greatest and most successful revolution in the history of the world but the failure of their fire to cross the waters was the great tragedy of the nineteenth century. 53 At the dawn of the twentieth century, W.E.B. Du Bois wrote, "The colorline belts the world." 54 Du Bois said that the problem of the twentieth century was the problem of the colorline. 55 The problem, now, at the dawn of the twenty-first century is the problem of the colorline. The colorline continues to belt the world. Indeed, the slave power that is the United States now threatens an entire world with the death that it has become and so the slaves of yesterday, today, and tomorrow, those with nothing but their chains to lose, must, if they would be free, if they would escape slavery, win the entire world. We begin as children. We are called and we become our response to the call. Slaves are not called. What becomes of them? What becomes of the broken-hearted? The slaves are divided souls, they are brokenhearted, the slaves are split asunder by what they are called upon to become. The slaves are called upon to become objects but objecthood is not a calling. The slave, then, during its loneliest loneliness, is divided from itself. This is schizophrenia. The slaves are not called, or, rather, the slaves are called to not be. The slaves are called unfree but this the living can never be and so the slaves burst apart and die. The slaves begin as death, not as children, and death is not a beginning but an end. There is no progress and no exit from the undiscovered country of the slave, or so it seems. We are trained to think through a progress narrative, a grand narrative, the grandest narrative, that takes us up from slavery. There is no up from slavery. The progress from slavery to the end of history is the progress from white-over-black to white-over-black to white-over-black. The progress of slavery runs in the opposite direction of the past-present-future timeline. The slave only becomes the perfect slave at the end of the timeline, only under conditions of total juridical freedom. It is only under conditions of freedom, of bourgeois legality, that the slave can perfect itself as a slave by freely choosing to bow down before its master. The slave perfects itself as a slave by offering a prayer for equal rights. The system of marks is a plantation. The system of property is a plantation. The system of law is a plantation. These plantations, all part of the same system, hierarchy, produce white-overblack, white-over-black only, and that continually. The slave perfects itself as a slave through its prayers for equal rights. The plantation system will not commit suicide and the slave, as stated above, has knowing non-knowledge of this fact. The slave finds its way back from the undiscovered country only by burning down every plantation. When the slave prays for equal rights it makes the free choice to be dead, and it makes the free choice to not be. Education is the call. We are called to be and then we become something. We become that which we make of ourselves. We follow the call, we pursue a calling. Freedom is the only calling—it alone contains all possible directions, all of the choices that may later blossom into the fullness of our lives. We can only be free. Slavery is death. How do slaves die? Slaves are not born, they are made. The slave must be trained to be that which the living cannot be. The only thing that the living are not free to be is dead. The slave must be trained to follow the call that is not a call. The slave must be trained to pursue the calling that is not a calling. The slave must be trained to objecthood. The slave must become death. Slavery is white-over-black. White-over-black is death. White-over-black, death, then, is what the slave must become to pursue its calling that is not a calling.
Thus the ROB is to vote for the debater that has the best method to deconstruct antiblackness. That's comes first, antiblackness scandalizes ethicality and sets the stage for all violence
Wilderson 2*Bracketed for Gendered Language* He is one of two Americans to hold elected office in the African National Co ngress and is a former insurgent in the ANC's armed wing, He is a full professor of Drama and African American studies at the University of California, Irvine. He received his BA in government and philosophy from Dartmouth College, his Masters in Fine Arts from Columbia University and his PhD in Rhetoric and Film Studies from the University of California, Berkeley. (Frank B. III "Chapter One: The Ruse of Analogy" Red, White, and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms,) 2008 Two tensions are at work here. One operates under the labor of ethical dilemmas AND (110) or, more precisely, in the eyes of Humanity.
====We embrace the concept of "revolutionary suicide" to redefine the impact calculus to evaluate the debate – the role of the judge is a revolutionary in the constant struggle of liberation for oppressed groups – this requires an embracement of the possibility of death to achieve the best hope for radical social change==== Newton 73 (Huey P. Newton is a co-founder of the Black Panther Party For Self-Defense, PhD @ University of California, Santa Cruz, Revolutionary Suicide, Penguin Edition with Introduction written by Frederika Newton 2009, pg. 2-6) To understand revolutionary suicide it is first necessary to have an idea of reactionary suicide AND a feather; to die for the revolution is heavier than Mount Tai.
2/7/17
JF- Wynter K
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 1 | Opponent: Evanston GH | Judge: idk some loser i think maddy stevens ha lame
Wynter K
There is no hope to deal with the question of "humanity," the potential of what "humans" should be, should think, and how they should act based on these stances within the anthropology of white European models of thought. Regardless of the "critique," the white call to action allows Europe the continued power to construct "MAN," within their own systems of thought. Their position is just another example of a moral plea to white decadent anthropology – you search for truth through dialogue, but it is white truth and excludes other cultures – knowledge isn't neutral but has meaning
Wynter 06, Syliva Wynter—2006 ( "Interview with Syliva Wynter,ProudFlesh Interview: New Afrikan Journal of Culture, Politics and Consciousness, Issue 4) PROUD FLESH: At this point in your life's work, who could think of AND -sociogeny, there's no problem. Do you see what I mean?
The courts created an arbitrary distinction between acts and words that allows the state to implicitly allow and support white domination – this is a fundamental flaw in the system. They conveniently abstract from real world structural inequalities
National Center for Human Rights Education 11 ~opened its doors and joined 21 other countries which launched human rights education projects as part of the United Nations Decade for Human Rights Education, "First Amendment and Racial Terrorism", 2011, University of Dayton, http://academic.udayton.edu/race/06hrights/waronterrorism/racial02.htm~~ Racists in the United States have always been able to cloak their ideas in the AND a cross to intimidate a black family was equivalent to freedom of speech.
The affirmatives deliberations are ones controlled by the potentiality of whiteness. They assume that the university and state, historically racist institutions, will just change their mind. The problem is that assumes that white power structures will let that happen and not rise again to maintain the squo. We need to strip optimism and give up hope in these institutions. What you fail to realize is that you don't open up black liberatory speech but just unlock the creative potential for white speech – it is this imaginative thought that destroys the ability for the black thinker to fight oppression. Curry 13:
Curry, Tommy J. ~doctor in Associate Professor of Philosophy, Affiliated Professor of Africana Studies, Texas A and M University~ In the Fiat of Dreams: The Delusional Allure of Hope, the Reality of Anti-Black Violence and the Demands of the Anti-Ethical. 2013. SPHSSS Ought implies a projected (futural) act. The word commands a deliberate action AND what possibility the world allows Blacks to contemplate under the idea of ethics.
The conception of the state is Eurocentric – you cannot use the state to fight the European conception of man
Quijano 2000 (Anibal, a Peruvian sociologist and humanist thinker, known for having developed the concept of "coloniality of power". His body of work has been influential in the fields of post-colonial studies and critical theory, 2000, "Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America," P. 558, www.unc.edu/~aescobar/wan/wanquijano.pdf) The Nation-State One of the clearest examples of this tragedy of equivocations in AND sense, necessarily a space of domination disputed and victoriously guarded against rivals.
Racism is the anthropological cause of colonial differences in the world order – it comprises the template of modernity used to refuse humanity to other people.
Vote negative to endorse a black counter-anthropology through an intellectual grassroots movement.==== Wynter 03, Sylvia Wynter—2003 ("Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument," CR: The New Centennial Review, Volume 3, Number 3,257-337) The argument proposes that the struggle of our new millennium will be one between the AND with the separation of huma and natural I say it starte w black exclu
On Case
OV: If everything was always fluid then nothing would ever make sense and even self-referential statements like I ought to do x would be incoherent because there would be no I. We should recognize difference is important and that affective relations shape our subjectivities but that does not mean throwing away all coherence. Rather we can create different identities from a starting point- that allows us to make sense of difference and use it in productive ways as opposed to getting lost in it. If there is no reason why a stable basis for subjecthood is problematic all the time, you vote neg.
We need to understand the intricacies of explicit policies, the operations of the state, and the way that farm culture pervades and forces expectations on individuals- this hijanks your assemblage arguments- identity is merely one part of the map of interactions- we need to understand the position of all subjects and events in order to understand how certain identities are created as majoritarian or minoritarian- this entails mapping out relations between all parties, deconstructing how those event spaces occur, and then creating lines of flight Bryant (9/15, Levi, professor of Philosophy at Collin College and Chair of the Critical Philosophy program at the New Centre for Research and Practice, "War Machines and Military Logistics: Some Cards on the Table," https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/war-machines-and-military-logistics-some-cards-on-the-table/)====
We need answers to these questions to intervene effectively. We can call them questions of "military logistics". We are, after all, constructing war machines to combat these intolerable conditions. Military logistics asks two questions: first, it asks what things the opposing force, the opposing war machine captured by the state apparatus, relies on in order to deploy its war machine: supply lines, communications networks, people willing to fight, propaganda or ideology, people believing in the cause, etc. Military logistics maps all of these things. Second, military logistics asks how to best deploy its own resources in fighting that state war machine. In what way should we deploy our war machine to defeat war machines like racism, sexism, capitalism, neoliberalism, etc? What are the things upon which these state based war machines are based, what are the privileged nodes within these state based war machines that allows them to function? These nodes are the things upon which we want our nomadic war machines to intervene. If we are to be effective in producing change we better know what the supply lines are so that we might make them our target. What I've heard in these discussions is a complete indifference to military logistics. It's as if people like to wave their hands and say "this is horrible and unjust!" and believe that hand waving is a politically efficacious act. Yeah, you're right, it is horrible but saying so doesn't go very far and changing it. It's also as if people are horrified when anyone discusses anything besides how horribly unjust everything is. Confronted with an analysis why the social functions in the horrible way, the next response is to say "you're justifying that system and saying it's a-okay!" This misses the point that the entire point is to map the "supply lines" of the opposing war machine so you can strategically intervene in them to destroy them and create alternative forms of life. You see, we already took for granted your analysis of how horrible things are. You're preaching to the choir. We wanted to get to work determining how to change that and believed for that we needed good maps of the opposing state based war machine so we can decide how to intervene. We then look at your actual practices and see that your sole strategy seems to be ideological critique or debunking. Your idea seems to be that if you just prove that other people's beliefs are incoherent, they'll change and things will be different. But we've noticed a couple things about your strategy: 1) there have been a number of bang-on critiques of state based war machines, without things changing too much, and 2) we've noticed that we might even persuade others that labor under these ideologies that their position is incoherent, yet they still adhere to it as if the grounds of their ideology didn't matter much. This leads us to suspect that there are other causal factors that undergird these social assemblages and cause them to endure is they do. We thought to ourselves, there are two reasons that an ideological critique can be successful and still fail to produce change: a) the problem can be one of "distribution". The critique is right but fails to reach the people who need to hear it and even if they did receive the message they couldn't receive it because it's expressed in the foreign language of "academese" which they've never been substantially exposed to (academics seem to enjoy only speaking to other academics even as they say their aim is to change the world). Or b) there are other causal factors involved in why social worlds take the form they do that are not of the discursive, propositional, or semiotic order. My view is that it is a combination of both. I don't deny that ideology is one component of why societies take the form they do and why people tolerate intolerable conditions. I merely deny that this is the only causal factor. I don't reject your political aims, but merely wonder how to get there. Meanwhile, you guys behave like a war machine that believes it's sufficient to drop pamphlets out of an airplane debunking the ideological reasons that persuade the opposing force's soldiers to fight this war on behalf of the state apparatus, forgetting supply lines, that there are other soldiers behind them with guns to their back, that they have obligations to their fellows, that they have families to feed or debt to pay off, etc. When I point out these other things it's not to reject your political aims, but to say that perhaps these are also good things to intervene in if we wish to change the world. In other words, I'm objecting to your tendency to use a hammer to solve all problems and to see all things as a nail (discursive problems), ignoring the role that material nonhuman entities play in the form that social assemblages take. This is the basic idea behind what I've called "terraism". Terraism has three components: 1) "Cartography" or the mapping of assemblages to understand why they take the form they take and why they endure. This includes the mapping of both semiotic and material components of social assemblages. 2) "Deconstruction" Deconstruction is a practice. It includes both traditional modes of discursive deconstruction (Derridean deconstruction, post-structuralist feminist critique, Foucaultian genealogy, Cultural Marxist critique, etc), but also far more literal deconstruction in the sense of intervening in material or thingly orders upon which social assemblages are reliant. It is not simply beliefs, signs, and ideologies that cause oppressive social orders to endure or persist, but also material arrangements upon which people depend to live as they do. Part of changing a social order thus necessarily involves intervening in those material networks to undermine their ability to maintain their relations or feedback mechanisms that allow them to perpetuate certain dependencies for people. Finally, 3) there is "Terraformation". Terraformation is the hardest thing of all, as it requires the activist to be something more than a critic, something more than someone who simply denounces how bad things are, someone more than someone who simply sneers, producing instead other material and semiotic arrangements rendering new forms of life and social relation possible. Terraformation consists in building alternative forms of life. None of this, however, is possible without good mapping of the terrain so as to know what to deconstruct and what resources are available for building new worlds. Sure, I care about ontology for political reasons because I believe this world sucks and is profoundly unjust. But rather than waving my hands and cursing because of how unjust and horrible it is so as to feel superior to all those about me who don't agree, rather than playing the part of the beautiful soul who refuses to get his hands dirty, I think we need good maps so we can blow up the right bridges, power lines, and communications networks, and so we can engage in effective terraformation.
This is also terminal defense on your alternative- individuals don't understand incoherence-ergo why it is incoherent- it means your pedagogy is useless to the subjects it's meant to actually help- there's a reason antihumanism has always failed in the real world- because it's articulated in unhelpful ways. Recognizing humanism as historically contingent allows us to articulate harms in an understandable while also avoiding the pitfalls of your criticism. Lester 12 – (January 2012, Alan, Director of Interdisciplinary Research, Professor of Historical Geography, and Co-Director of the Colonial and Postcolonial Studies Network, University of Sussex, "Humanism, race and the colonial frontier," Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Volume 37, Issue 1, pages 132–148) I fear, however, that if we direct attention away from histories of humanism's AND to reveal themselves- this means I solve 100 of your impacts.
Police don't reform because they want to change, they do so in order convince society to let them remain facets of the state's control. Police reform aims to build biopolitical power by convincing people that they are solving violence by changing the system when in reality that change is just done so that people grow to accept the power relations that constitute the police state
Summerhays J.J. Summerhays, Political Thesis Paper, American Police Reform - An Alternative Perspective 1979 https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=66749 To explain why efforts since the 1960's to increase police effectiveness through education have failed AND societal inscriptions imbedded in the positionality of the non-political agent.
Limitation of qualified immunity opens the floodgates of the legal system, wherein hope is put in legality to make sure that officers are prosecuted when they commit acts of violence, but courts and the legal system don't make choices based on guilt or innocence, but rather categorization and power relations. These trials transform into judgements of the victim's souls instead of evaluating whether or not an officer has violated the law; passions, motivations, room for insanity, and other behavioral characteristics are assessed to determine culpability of the victim at hand. However, such criteria pave the way for the systematic regulation of bodies and allows for the worst form of biopolitical control.
Foucault Michel Foucault. Discipline and Punish. 1977. By this I do not mean that one has suddenly set about punishing other crimes. No doubt the definition of offences, the hierarchy of their seriousness, the margins of indulgence, what was tolerated in fact and what was legally permitted - all this has considerably changed over the last 200 years; many crimes have ceased to be so because they were bound up with a certain exercise of religious authority or a particular type of economic activity; blasphemy has lost its status as a crime; smuggling and domestic larceny some of their seriousness. But these displacements are perhaps not the most important fact: the division between the permitted and the forbidden has preserved a certain constancy from one century to another. On the other hand, 'crime*, the object with which penal practice is concerned, has profoundly altered: the quality, the nature, in a sense the substance of which the punishable element is made, rather than its formal definition. Undercover of the relative stability of the law, a mass of subtle and rapid changes has occurred.Certainly the 'crimes' and 'offences* on which judgement is passed are juridical objects defined by the code, but judgement is also passed on the passions, ~and~instincts, anomalies, infirmities, maladjustments, effects of environment or heredity; acts of aggression are punished, so also, through them, is aggressivity; rape, but at the same time perversions; murders, but also drives and desires. But, it will be objected, judgement is not actually being passed on them; if they are referred to at all it is to explain the actions in question, and to determine to what extent the the subject's will was involved in the crime.This is no answer. For it is these shadows lurking behind the case itself that are judged and punished.They are judged indirectly as 'attenuating circumstances' that introduce into the verdict not only 'circumstantial' evidence, but something quite different, which is not juridically codifiable: the knowledge of the criminal, one's estimation of him, what is known about the relations between him, his past and his crime, and what might be expected of him in the future. They are also judged by the interplay of all those notions that have circulated between medicine and jurisprudence since the nineteenth century (the 'monsters' of Georget's times, Chaumie's 'psychical anomalies', the 'perverts' and 'maladjusted' of our own experts) and which, behind the pretext of explaining an action, are ways of defining an individual. They are punished by means of a punishment that has the function of making the offender 'not only desirous, but also capable, of living within the law and of providing for his own needs'; they are punished by the internal economy of a penalty which, while intended to punish the crime, may be altered (shortened or, in certain cases, extended) according to changes in the prisoner's behaviour; and they are punished by the 'security measures' that accompany the penalty (prohibition of entering certain areas, probation, obligatory medical treatment), and which are intended not to punish the offence, but to supervise the individual, to neutralize his dangerous state of mind, to alter his criminal tendencies, and to continue even when this change has been achieved.The criminal's soul isnot referred to in the trial merely to explain his crime and as a factor in the juridical apportioning of responsibility; if it is brought before the court, with such pomp and circumstance, such concern to understand and such 'scientific' application, it is because it too, as well as the crime itself, isto be judged and to share in the punishment.Throughout the penal ritual, from the preliminary investigation to the sentence and the final effects of the penalty, a domain has been penetrated by objects that not only duplicate, but also dissociate the juridically defined and coded objects. Psychiatric expertise, but also in a more general way criminal anthropology and the repetitive discourse of criminology, find one of their precise functions here: by solemnly inscribing offences in the field of objects susceptible of scientific knowledge, they provide the mechanisms of legal punishment with a justifiable hold not only on offences, but on individuals; not only on what they do, but also on what they are, will be, may be.Theadditional factor of theoffender's soul, which the legal system has laid hold of,is only apparently explanatory altered by the fact that its author was insane, nor the punishment reduced as a consequence; the crime itself disappeared. It was impossible, therefore, to declare that someone was both guilty and mad; once the diagnosis of madness had been accepted, it could not be included in the judgement; it interrupted the procedure and loosened the hold of the law on the author of the act. Not only the examination of the criminal suspected of insanity, but the very effects of this examination had to be external and anterior to the sentence. But, very soon, the courts of the nineteenth century began to misunderstand the meaning of article 64. Despite several decisions of the supreme court of appeal confirming that insanity could not result either in a light penalty, or even in an acquittal, but required that the case be dismissed, the ordinary courts continued to bring the question of insanity to bear on their verdicts. They accepted that one could be both guilty and mad; less guilty the madder one was; guilty certainly, but someone to be put away and treated rather than punished; not only a guilty man, but also dangerous, since quite obviously sick, etc. From the point of view of the penal code, the result was a mass of juridical absurdities. But this was the starting point of an evolution that jurisprudence and legislation itself was to precipitate in the course of the next 150 years: already the reform of 1832, introducing attenuating circumstances, made it possible to modify the sentence according to the supposed degrees of an illness or the forms of a semi-insanity. And the practice of calling on psychiatric expertise, which is widespread in the assize courts and sometimes extended to courts of summary jurisdiction, means that the sentence, even if it is always formulated in terms of legal punishment, implies, more or less obscurely, judgements of normality, attributions of causality, assessments of possible changes, anticipations as to the offender's future. It would be wrong to say that all these operations give substance to a judgement from the outside; they are directly integrated in the process of forming the sentence.Instead of insanity eliminating the crime according to the original meaning of article 64, every crime and even every offence now carries within it, as a legitimate suspicion, but also as a right that may be claimed, the hypothesis of insanity, in any case of anomaly. Andthe sentencethat condemns or acquits is not simply a judgement of guilt, a legal decision that lays down punishment; itbears within it an assessment of normality and a technical prescription for a possible normalization. Today the judge - magistrate or juror - certainly does more than 'judge*.
Allowing the state to construct power relations via position in society leads to biopolitical management as certain bodies are seen as deviant and evil when constructed in opposition to the idea of a flawless protector; The police and the prison it serves apply normative ideas based on past judgements of crimes allow police to get away near freely in the justice system. Through the affirmation of an officer's innocence in an instance of violence, passive judgements mark bodies as inherent criminals.
Johnson 1 explains Foucault ~Bracketed for Grammar~ "Foucault: Critical Theory of the Police in a Neoliberal Age" 2014 Andrew Johnson University of California, Santa Barbara, Political Science, Graduate Student He is currently a Doctoral Student in Political Science at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He received a BA in Philosophy from the University of Maine and an MA in Philosophy from Louisiana State University. He was formerly a Professor at Husson University, Guangxi University and Beijing Huijia International School. Main research fields: Marxism, Critical Theory, Post-Structuralism, Social/Political Philosophy, Literary Theory (esp. Pynchon and Borges), Chinese Politics, Critical Criminology, and Global Political Economy https://www.academia.edu/222087/Foucault_Critical_Theory_of_the_Police_in_a_Neoliberal_Age Discipline and Punish distinguishes changes in punishment between the eighteenth and the nineteenth century. AND go. The 1AC reifies structures of biopolitical control through legalistic reliance
This also means I control the internal link to all your oppression args- the only reason why certain bodies are oppressed is because you allow individuals to pass determinations on the normative worth of certain bodies which ends up compartmentalizing certain groups as criminal A criminal violates the law because now, since the system has judged the victim in relation to the officer, the victim is by nature a criminal. The law immediately presumes such bodies are suspect to deviancy and violence and as such they must be contained.
Dilts Andrew Dilts, Foucault and Felon Disenfranchisement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Hyatt Regency Albuquerque, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mar 17, 2006 Not Available. 2013-12-17http:citation.allacademic.com/meta/p97690_index.html
First is the doubling of the offence. The specific offence is linked up with any manner of other activities that become associated with the offence.The actual offence is doubled with "… a whole series of other things that are not the offense itself but a series of forms of conduct, of ways of being that are, of course, presented in the discourse of the psychiatric expert as the cause, origin motivation, and starting point of the offense" (AB, 15). There are two importantfunctions of this, first a shifting from action to way of being: "its function is to repeat the offense tautologically in order to register it and constitute it as an individual trait. Expert psychiatric opinion allows one to pass from action to conduct, from an offense to a way of being, and to make this way of being appear as nothing other than the offense itself, but in general form, as it were, in the individual's conduct" (AB 16). Second,ways of being that are not crimes subsequently take on criminal character: "the function of this series of notions is to shift the level of reality of the offense, since these forms of conduct do not break the law" (AB 16). The doubling of the offenses has the effect of extending the law's reach beyond the action that has brought the offender before the court.The actual offense is taken off the table, and in its place the biographical narrative of the individual is substituted. A series of non-offenses become the evidence of the criminal before the crime to explain the subsequent real offense. The psychiatric expert tells us, Foucault states, that "when they are asked to assess a delinquent, psychiatrists say, 'After all, if he has stolen, it is basically because he is a thief,'" (AB 16). This odd inversion of causality (that the thief was a thief before stealing anything) is troubling because this logic does not, Foucault insists, actually explain the crime but rather explains "… the thing itself to be punished that the judicial system must bite on and get hold of" (AB 16). It is an explanation of the criminal subject, not the crime.In the end, we find the judge does not condemn an offender for the crime, but for being a criminal that already existed, in essence the role of such opinion is "to legitimize, in the form of scientific knowledge, the extension of punitive power to something that is not a breach of the law" (AB 18), namely any prior conduct of the "criminal" before the actual crime has been committedThis leads Foucault to invoke the emergence of the delinquent as the second doubling that takes place. The offender becomes both the "author of the offense" and a delinquent someone characterized by criminal conduct. Recall the line in Discipline and Punish quoted above describing the delinquent as, "an individual in whom the offender of the law and the object of a scientific technique are superimposed – or almost – one upon the other" (DP 256). At this stage, while still in the grasp of the court, the accused is both a responsible subject and an object suitable for correction. This doubling occurs because Article 64 requires the expert to "determine whether a state of dementia allows us to consider the author of the action as someone who is no longer a juridical subject responsible for his actions" (AB 18). But once expert opinion is included, it turns out that this is not what actually happens at all. According to Foucault, the expert instead works to "show how the individual already resembles his crime before he has committed it" (AB 19). Obviously related to the first doubling, in which past actions that are possibly deviant or improper but not themselves illegal become evidence of the pre-existing criminality of the offender, the offender is revealed to have already been a criminal long before being brought before the court. The purpose is not to demonstrate merely "potential criminality" but rather, "… of describing his delinquent character, the basis of his criminal or paracriminal conduct since childhood, is clearly to facilitate transition from being accused to being convicted" (AB 22). The judge is thus able to see the offender not as a subject characterized by free agency, responsible for a specific criminal offense, but as a determinate object characterized by need for the penitentiary technique. "Magistrates and jurors no longer face a legal subject," Foucault writes, "but an object: the object of a technology and knowledge of rectification, readaptation, reinsertion, and correction. In short, the function of the expert opinion is to double the author of the crime, whether responsible or not, with a delinquent who is the object of a specific technology" (AB 21). This is the precisely the condition of possibility that connects the juridical discourse and the penitentiary discourse described in Discipline and Punish. Legal subjects responsible for a specific transgression call for punishment in a purely retributive sense, in relation only to the criminal action. But delinquents, as a class of dangerous persons, must be handled differently, as the object of the penitentiary techniques.
1) Uniquely turns the Aff, if the legal system is supposed AND for the alt, ladies this spicy piece of white chocolate is still single
ALT- Vote Neg to endorse discourses of self-policing, a method wherein the idea of an objective, state-based police force is deconstructed in favor of a system in which individuals begin to form their own coalitions to protect themselves from harm.
Everyone in a neighborhood, area or city coalesces into a faction and takes turns actively participating in the role of regional protection. This prevents violence amongst the people as the community constantly experiences a transfer of power via exiting and entering and re-entering into the service. Also solves antagonistic relations, the root cause of the violence which would trigger qualified immunity, as everyone is accepted and equal in the police-public power relation, which solves for the biopolitical conditions that manufacture anti-police antagonisms in the first place, all whilst transforming the prison from a place of suffering and punishment, to one of healing and rehabilitation.==== Leadbeater "The Self-Policing Society" 1996 Charles Leadbeater Charles Leadbeater is a leading authority on innovation and creativity. He has advised companies, cities and governments around the world on innovation strategy and drew on that experience in writing his latest book We-think: the power of mass creativity, which charts the rise of mass, participative approaches to innovation from science and open source software, to computer games and political campaigning. We-think was the latest in a string of acclaimed books: Living on Thin Air, a guide to living and working in the new economy; Up the Down Escalator, an attack on the culture of public pessimism accompanying globalisation and In Search of Work, published in the 1980's, which was one of the first books to predict the rise of more flexible and networked forms of employment. In 2005 Charles was ranked by Accenture, the management consultancy, as one of the top management thinkers in the world. A past winner of the prestigious David Watt prize for journalism, Charles was profiled by the New York Times in 2004 for generating one of the best ideas of the year, the rise of the activist amateur, outlined in his report The Pro-Am Revolution. As well as advising a wide range of organisations on innovation including the BBC, Vodafone, Microsoft, Ericsson, Channel Four Television and the Royal Shakespeare Company, Charles has been an ideas generator in his own right. As an associate editor of the Independent he helped Helen Fielding devise Bridget Jones's diary. He wrote the first British report on the rise of social entrepreneurship, which has since become a global movement. His report on the potential for the web to generate social change led to the creation of the Social Innovation Camp movement. Charles has worked extensively as a senior adviser to the governments, advising the 10 Downing St policy unit, the Department for Trade and Industry and the European Commission on the rise of the knowledge driven economy and the Internet, as well as the government of Shanghai. He is an advisor to the Department for Education's Innovation Unit on future strategies for more networked and personalised approaches to learning and education. He is a co-founder of the public service design agency Participle. A visiting senior fellow at the British National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts, he is also a longstanding senior research associate with the influential London think-tank Demos and a visiting fellow at Oxford University's Said Business School and the Young Foundation. He is co-founder of Participle, the public service innovation agency, which is working with central and local government to devise new approaches to intractable social challenges. Charles spent ten years working for the Financial Times where he was Labour Editor, Industrial Editor and Tokyo Bureau Chief before becoming the paper's Features Editor. In 1994 he moved to the Independent as assistant editor in charge of features and became an independent author and advisor in 1996. Perhaps the most interesting development in this field of cultural explanations for crime is a AND reconvicted after two years, rising to 72 per cent for young males.
Alt- This system of shifting and transferring control deconstructs the notion of stable power-relations and formulates a mode of policing that operates outside the realm of the state's control. 1NC rejects the totalizing biopolitical control of modern policing in favor of a system where power-relations are fluid and therefore non-coercive
Johnson 2 explains Foucault Foucault: Critical Theory of the Police in a Neoliberal Age" 2014 Andrew Johnson University of California, Santa Barbara, Political Science, Graduate Student He is currently a Doctoral Student in Political Science at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He received a BA in Philosophy from the University of Maine and an MA in Philosophy from Louisiana State University. He was formerly a Professor at Husson University, Guangxi University and Beijing Huijia International School. Main research fields: Marxism, Critical Theory, Post-Structuralism, Social/Political Philosophy, Literary Theory (esp. Pynchon and Borges), Chinese Politics, Critical Criminology, and Global Political Economy https://www.academia.edu/222087/Foucault_Critical_Theory_of_the_Police_in_a_Neoliberal_Age
It is true that we can separate 'the police', its institutional form, from policing, understood as various techniques of control. '~P~olice and policing should not be identified with the police, and … one must stifle the impulse to equate police with men in uniforms. Policing is undertaken partly by the uniformed public police, but their actions are coordinated with agencies of policing situated throughout the state' (Neocleous 2000: xi, emphasis in original). The police is the science of governmental rationale. Governmentality is the knowledge of policing, the technocratic mastery of control. The police cannot be reduced to the State institution we are familiar with. Rather, we are policed in all sorts of ways, in all sorts of places, by people and institutions that are not authorised to enforce the law. Thus, we can identify policing throughout the social milieu: the surveillance and collection of bulk data by the National Security Agency, as well as by private intelligence firms such as Team Themis and Stratfor (Ludlow 2013); high-technology human tracking systems (referred to as geospatial information systems) and the popularity of social networks (which induce a deluge of daily confessions, alongside archival tracking put to profitable uses) illuminates the rise of a generalised dataveillance (Dobson and Fisher 2007; Ericson and Haggerty 2006; Ewald 2011); the registration, assessment and classification of homo economicus into enumerated credit ratings (by private corporations such as Moody's, Standard and Poor's and the Fitch Group, but also including Experian, EquiFax and TransUnion) (Deleuze 1992); the self-regulatory mechanism which governs futures trading in state-sponsored private associations (Harcourt 2012a); the upsurge in diet regiments, local yoga clinics and fitness centres; the mapping of the human genome (Human Genome Project) and all manners of advanced biometric control of life (Rose 2006, 2008).10 Neoliberalism subcontracts policing throughout the whole social field. We are in an age of self-policing: everywhere we are policing and policed, complicit in a circular surveillance of mutual reinforcement.11 Police is a mode of conducting conduct; police deals with living, and more than just living. Is it surprising that the police resemble factories, schools, barracks and hospitals, which all resemble the police? Foucault's history of the police uncovers the complex transmutations of the police institution; his critical project categorises techniques of control into multifarious modalities of power (ubiquitous, but also diverse and precise). However, he is unable to reassemble this complexity into a coherent whole; Foucault fails to characterise what the police are, their essential raison d'être. What is constant in the police? What is invariable, persistent and unceasing? Foucault's critical project is a failure if it is revealed to be nothing more than a hollow ontology of power. The police remain institutionalised, ebbing and flowing, transforming along with changes in politics and society. The police is the State. However, the police are also de-institutionalised; policing is dispersed throughout the social field, swarming freely, such that we are always already policing ourselves and others. Foucault reveals that liberalism disguises its effects; state power is concealed by its bureaucratic structure, a law-administration continuum, divorced from but conditioned by the State, obscuring its effect. Police will not be ameliorated with better laws or more judicious officers; discretion and control are inherently linked up with the policing function. Indeed, the police are a cold-monster, exemplifying a spirit of opposition and control (Agamben 2014; Pasquino 1991). Any decapitation of the State results in the hegemonic sway of market-forces; one cold-monster exchanged for another. Foucault's sympathetic endorsement of neoliberalism, alongside his cautious reluctance to engage in 'state phobia', is diametrically opposed to the critique of capitalism that propels his analysis in History of Madness and Discipline and Punish. 12 We cannot abide a normative nominalism when it comes to the police. The police act in service of the State, and the modern neoliberal State acts in service of capital. The best path forward for critical theories of modern police power is a ruthless criticism of neoliberalism, its functional mechanics and its organising principle.13 Foucauldians have laid much of the groundwork for a greater understanding of the neoliberal age/order and have advanced ruthless criticisms of over-policing (Ericson and Haggerty 1997; Harcourt 2012a). However, so too have scholars who do not confess an allegiance to Foucault (Graeber 2005; Wacquant 2009). The modern-day American police are organised along a military model, violently unleashed to fortify and perpetuate neoliberal capitalism, its surreptitious puppeteers, the moneyed class and their elected envoys, resulting in the domination and control, both disarmed and assimilated, given no real alternative, of a permanent pauperism.
1/2/17
ND Hobbes NC
Tournament: UT | Round: 4 | Opponent: Prosper EH | Judge: ikr I negate and value Morality because “ought” implies a moral obligation. To negate means “to deny the existence or truth of,” so negating requires no positive justification and second any argument that proves the resolution false is sufficient to negate. Presume negative A) Proving any part of claims or their assumptions as untrue makes the statement false, so because there more ways to prove a claim false than true, we err to believe the statement is false.
B) We do not assume certain things are true without justifications, for example you would not believe if I said unicorns exist unless I showed proof. Therefore, we assume things are false since we err false in the absence of a justification.
C) The aff gets to speak first and last meaning they have a clear advantage on 1AR theory. Both sides have 13 minutes of speaking so time skew does not matter. They get to set up and end the debate with their own comparison; this means they can be more persuasive. Persuasive appeal outweighs time skew and strat skew because the amount of arguments I make don’t matter if new cross apps in the 2AR preclude and are the last thing in a judge’s mind. This also means you should check theory interps in CX to avoid 2N as well as 1AR substance skew, no need to read theory if we can resolve issues in cross :3 The actor is the government because the resolution asks what the United States ought to do. The state only comes about because individuals fear for their lives in a state of nature. In the state of nature, they have no protections from the actions of other individuals and have no stable method for ensuring their own survival. Given their propensity for survival, they come together and form a commonwealth to act as the agent of their protection. They cede rights to the sovereign in order to ensure their protection. This is the basis of the state’s obligation and demarcates the boundaries on their power. States are therefore permitted to do anything as long as they see it in their interest to ensure their continued wellbeing. Therefore, the standard is consistency with the will of the sovereign. This means you should negate if I prove that the limiting of qualified immunity for police officers is inconsistent with the maintenance of state power
Prefer my standard additionally
Moral Discourse- outside of the state there is no regulative authority to ensure that individuals are capable of engaging in the same moral language. For example, one party can think good means x and another thinks that good means y. The state clarifies this dispute by being an ultimate arbiter and declaring what is good and bad. This means that absent my standard, moral language makes no sense. 2. Infinite Regress- other moral theories inevitably fail because individuals can question why they follow them, but state based morality escapes this because individuals consent to the state by virtue of engaging in it. 3. Constitutivism– other moral theories might matter in the abstract but obligations differ based on the nature of agency. For example, a janitor has different obligations than teachers; in the same vein, the state has unique obligations that might be inconsistent with other generalized interpretations of morality. My contention is that a prohibition on nuclear power is inconsistent with the states perspective. A- The Police act in accordance to the will of the government, which means if the intentions of the government are to aid its people via the act of police violence it isn’t morally punishable as the state cannot punish itself for being immoral as by virtue of it acting it is moral
B- The act of removing a method of safety for the police officers is a method of state limiting its own power which is inherently immoral as the state is needed to function as a sovereign
C- Qualified immunity protects government agents from the burden of lawsuits, absent protection from these lawsuits, police officers (the tools of the state) are hindered from fulfilling their obligations
Schott 12 Richard G. Schott, J.D. “Qualified Immunity; How It Protects Law Enforcement Officers.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 2012. https://leb.fbi.gov/2012/september/qualified-immunity-how-it-protects-law-enforcement-officers Law enforcement is a difficult profession. It presents many challenges and risks, as well as great rewards, to those who undertake it. One of the risks associated with law enforcement is the possibility of being sued civilly for an action taken in the course and scope of one’s employment. In an effort to mitigate the costs and burden of defending oneself from a lawsuit, government actors are entitled to assert immunity as a barrier to being sued. For law enforcement officers, the level of immunity available is qualified immunity. As the name implies, this type of immunity is protective, but is not an absolute guarantee against successfully being sued. It is comforting, though, to know that the purpose of qualified immunity is to protect all but “the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”61 As this article has demonstrated, the test to determine whether qualified immunity should be afforded officers has changed over the years, but the objective nature of the doctrine itself has remained unchanged for nearly 30 years. This objective determination often shields competent law enforcement officers from defending a suit itself, much less from being found liable at the conclusion of a suit. Rosen 05 Michael M. Rosen, (Rosen is an and graduated from Harvard Law School in 2003) A Qualified Defense: In Support of the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity in Excessive Force Cases, With Some Suggestions for its Improvement, 35 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1899andcontext=ggulrev It is hard to deny that the more time police officers spend at trial defending their conduct, the less time they spend patrolling the streets, the more money their departments expend in their defense, and the more frequently the officers will second-guess certain behaviors in the heat of the moment. These drawbacks may well be justified for the sake of society's prevention of tortious and unreasonable conduct on the part of law enforcement agents. Nevertheless, police agencies, Supreme Court justices, and some scholars highlight the important role that qualified immunity can play in reducing unnecessary costs and in improving deterrence of crime. Prefer additionally: 1) Other government agencies and scholars believe themselves that qualified immunity is necessary 2) Fulfilling government obligations is only possible with qualified immunity
The Cures Act Bill will pass. It has bipartisan support but Obama's PC key to pass it through the Senate in the lame duck. This is the highest priority right now. Leonard 11/28
Law enforcement lobbies will fight reforms and they have influence
Bohm, ACLU Advocacy and Policy Strategist, ACLU, 14 ~Allie, 5-12-14, ACLU, "Law Enforcement's Lobbying Priority In States Is Fighting Transparency", https://www.aclu.org/blog/law-enforcements-lobbying-priority-states-fighting-transparency, accessed 7-1-15, AFB~ The ACLU has been working in states across the country on a variety of laws AND , if you're doing nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?
The Cures Act is key to solve disease. It is necessary to find cures to things like cancer, MS, Alzheimer's, harsh drug addictions, and helps individuals with mental illness. Steinhauer and Tavernise 11/28
JENNIFER STEINHAUER and SABRINA TAVERNISE, 11/28/16, "$6.3 Billion Measure Aims to Cure Ailing Health Care Policies", New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/us/politics/congress-cures-cancer-moonshot-alzheimers.html Many of the details remained in flux this week. But the bill's extensive scale AND care for the mentally ill and those in the middle of crippling addictions."
1/2/17
SO Temporality K
Tournament: Holy Cross | Round: Octas | Opponent: Isadore Newman MK | Judge: Fife, Smith, Dyle The 1AC epistemologically and methodologically falls into the trap of linear time- they analyze time as a series of events that independently happened There’s the past, present and the future. What they fail to realize is that the narrative of linear time is a tool used by the state and dominant powers to placate revolution and reinforce the idea that structural violence can be changed by appeals to legislation. The portrayal of the future as something amazing and better that we are constantly working toward is used by structures to rewrite history and over look past oppression, even though oppression exists cyclically and re-interprets itself in new ways. Stephen Dillon. “It’s here, it’s that time:” Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames. University of Minnesota. Women and Performance: A journal of feminist theory, 2013.
Progress is named...not let go
The promise of a future free of imperialism prevents a full confrontation with temporality as accumulation. There is no relief to come in some mystical future. Only understanding violence as accumulation and captivity allows us to understand the existing conditions of violence and come up with solutions. Stephen Dillon. “It’s here, it’s that time:” Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames. University of Minnesota. Women and Performance: A journal of feminist theory, 2013.
time not only...to happen again.
If the future is the accumulated past then the only way to destroy the future is the break the present as we know it. The Alternative is to embrace the incoherence of multiplicity and difference in contrast to the state’s focus on coherence and linear temporality. Stephen Dillon. “It’s here, it’s that time:” Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames. University of Minnesota. Women and Performance: A journal of feminist theory, 2013.
The time is...accumulation and capture
Only the alternative has the capacity to change the way violence operates- certain bodies are denied personhood by definition. Legal reformulations and the state’s demarcations mean that we need a method to articulate subjectivity and personhood outside of the traditional western order. Weheliye HABEAS VISCUS Racializing Assemblages, Biopolitics, and Black Feminist Theories of the Human ALEXANDER G. WEHELIYE Duke University Press Durham and London 2014.p. 48-49
focus on inclusion...subjugation are administered.
