Tournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All
Hi!  Please contact me for cites and questions at felixcantdebate@gmail.com

Tournament: Dowling Catholic | Round: 6 | Opponent: WDMV SC | Judge: Tony Welter

Your attempt to prioritize forms of oppression is problematic since it kills any meaningful resistance to oppression.

McDonald and Coleman 99
Peter McDonald and Mikki Coleman, Deconstructing hierarchies of oppression and adopting a 'multiple model' approach to anti-oppressive practice. Social Work Education serial online. March 1999;18(1):19.
"By definition, the privileged group within a hierarchy tends to have the maximum access to necessary commodities, as well as political power and social status. Those at the lower levels of the pyramid must either conform to the rules and desires of those at the highest point, in exchange for a given share of the society's resources; or else those at the lower levels must engage in a constant struggle with those at the very base of the pyramid for whatever resources are left in society after the privileged group have taken the majority share. In fact, it is in the interests of those at the top of the hierarchy to allow (or actively to encourage) a certain amount of social conflict between those at the lower levels, and those at the base. While the mass of people below can be encouraged to fight amongst themselves, rather than uniting for a common cause, the privileged group can more easily maintain their position at the top of the hierarchy, as Freire asserted under a heading specifically entitled 'Divide and Rule': This is another fundamental dimension of the theory of oppressive action which is as old as oppression itself. As the oppressor minority subordinates and dominates the majority, it must divide it and keep it divided in order to remain in power. The minority cannot permit itself the luxury of tolerating the unification of the people, which would undoubtedly signify a serious threat to their own hegemony. Accordingly, the oppressors halt by any means (including violence) any action which in even incipient fashion could awaken the oppressed to the need for unity. Concepts such as unity, organization and struggle arc immediately labelled as dangerous. In fact, of course, these concepts are dangerous—to the oppressors—for their realization is necessary to actions of liberation. It is in the interest of the oppressor to weaken the oppressed still further, to isolate them, to create and deepen rifts among them. This is done by varied means, from the repressive methods of the government bureaucracy, to the forms of cultural action with which they manipulate the people by giving them the impression that they arc being helped. (Freire, 1996, p. 122)"

The AC engages in oppression Olympics- your ranking of oppression only retrenches the mindset of the oppressor—thus the alt is recognizing all forms as being equally bad can truly create a meaningful resistance to oppression. To clarify, my argument is not all forms of oppression are the same, rather it is that when you try rank oppression, it shatters resistance to oppression and keeps the oppressors in power.

McDonald and Coleman 99
Peter McDonald and Mikki Coleman, Deconstructing hierarchies of oppression and adopting a 'multiple model' approach to anti-oppressive practice. Social Work Education serial online. March 1999;18(1):19.
"Having deconstructed 'hierarchies of oppression' and established that any credence given to their acceptability can only be a destructive force, it follows therefore that their inverse, 'hierarchies of oppressive experiences', i.e. 'my oppression is worse/more important than your oppression', can only be similarly counter-productive to anti-oppressive practices and goals, and that therefore: ... there should be no perceived hierarchy of oppressive experiences but a recognition of the cumulative effect of racism, sexism and disablist practices ... (Stuart, 1992). As different forms of oppression are not lived out separately or in a hierarchical structure. (Begum, 1994, pp. 17-18) Richie suggests that giving credence to a 'hierarchy of oppressions' can only 'lead people to dangerous places' (Richie, I996a). If it can be argued that ~if~ all forms of oppression arc dehumanising and therefore unacceptable, it then becomes as meaningless to speculate who is either more oppressed or less oppressed, as it would be to give consideration to concepts of being 'a bit pregnant' or 'very dead'. Any speculation of 'how much?' in relation to another individual or group, becomes a fatuous notion in all instances. People are either pregnant or not, dead or not dead, oppressed or not oppressed, and it is oppression itself in all its forms that must be challenged. Thus, ultimately, any theoretical framework which reifies the acceptability of a hierarchy, whereby one form of oppression is deemed more acceptable, or less unacceptable, than another form, can be said to collude with supremacist thinking which seeks to rationalise dominance and marginalisation of one oppressed group in relation to another."

Tournament: Dowling Catholic | Round: 3 | Opponent: WDMV Trent GIlbert | Judge: Lauren Burdt

Part 1 is Framework

American neoliberal society is contingent on a state of exception where undesirable citizens are made disposable in the name of consumption. The crimes of colonialism have come home and the sovereign protects itself through legal exception. We need change now! Giroux 14 bracketed clarity:

~Henry A. Giroux (American and Canadian scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy), "Neoliberalism and the Machinery of Disposability" April 8, 2014. Truthout. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/22958-neoliberalism-and-the-machinery-of-disposability~~ SF
Americans now live in a society in which almost everyone is spied on, considered
AND
the dead," who remain unaccounted for in numbers and law."~2~ 

Militarism dominates American logic through the cooption of educational spaces, we must reclaim education so students can begin to imagine radically. Thus, the role of the ballot, as an academic pedestal for my political method, is to vote for the best strategy for combatting militarism. Giroux 15:

~Henry A. Giroux (American and Canadian scholar and cultural critic. One of the founding theorists of critical pedagogy in the United States, he is best known for his pioneering work in public pedagogy), "Beyond Dystopian Visions in the Age of Neoliberal Authoritarianism", Truthout, 11/4/2015. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33511-beyond-dystopian-visions-in-the-age-of-neoliberal-authoritarianism~~ SF
If neoliberal authoritarianism is to be challenged and overcome, it is crucial that intellectuals
AND
of the ballot's structuralist approach to politics is best, 3 independent warrants:

A) Materialism

1. Concrete analysis of policies and their material effects on people is key to effectively crafting revolutionary solutions – identity politics and theory without praxis only ends in solipsism. Taft-Kaufman 95:

Jill Taft-Kaufman, Speech prof @ CMU, 1995,   ~Southern Comm. Journal, Spring, v. 60, Iss. 3, "Other Ways"~
The postmodern passwords of "polyvocality," "Otherness," and "difference," unsupported
AND
political agendas, institutions, agencies, and the budgets that fuel them.

2. Quit bullshitting – we can spend these 45 minutes talking about how we should abolish the state or burn down the world – but after the round we reenter the world controlled by state power.  Self-moralizing politics like this only serve to avoid the fact that we are literally high schoolers who just want to go to college – the state must be in a discussion of a material liberatory strategy.

Martin 15 (Marlene Martin works for the Campaign to End the Death Penalty and is an active member of the International Socialist Organization.  "Cell Blocks for Killer Cops?" Jacobin.  LEFC May 10, 2015.)
I agree that the system is racist and violent to the core, but I
AND
on the rest of us, including going to jail for committing murder.

3. The oppressed don't care about the abstract- they want actual consequential change. Anything else is just a reflection of privilege. Utt 13 Jamie Utt is a writer and a diversity and inclusion consultant and sexual violence prevention educator, "Intent vs. Impact: Why Your Intentions Don't Really Matter," July 30, 2013

I cannot tell you how often I've seen people attempt to deflect criticism about their oppressive language or actions by making the conversation about their intent. At what point does the "intent" conversation stop mattering so that we can step back and look at impact? After all, in the end, what does the intent of our action really matter if our actions have the impact of furthering the marginalization or oppression of those around us? In some ways, this is a simple lesson of relationships. If I say something that hurts my partner, it doesn't much matter whether I intended the statement to mean something else – because my partner is hurting. I need to listen to how my language hurt my partner. I need to apologize. And then I need to reflect and empathize to the best of my ability so I don't do it again. But when we're dealing with the ways in which our identities intersect with those around us – and, in turn, the ways our privileges and our experiences of marginalization and oppression intersect – this lesson becomes something much larger and more profound. This becomes a lesson of justice. What we need to realize is that when it comes to people's lives and identities, the impact of our actions can be profound and wide-reaching. And that's far more important than the question of our intent. We need to ask ourselves what might be or might have been the impact of our actions or words. And we need to step back and listen when we are being told that the impact of our actions is out of step with our intents or our perceptions of self. Identity Privilege and Intent For people of identity privilege, this is where listening becomes vitally important, for our privilege can often shield us from understanding the impact of our actions. After all, as a person of privilege, I can never fully understand the ways in which oppressive acts or language impact those around me. What I surely can do is listen with every intent to understand, and I can work to change my behavior. Because what we need to understand is that making the conversation about intent is inherently a privileged action. The reason? It ensures that you and your identity (and intent) stay at the center of any conversation and action while the impact of your action or words on those around you is marginalized. So if someone ever tells you to "check your privilege," what they may very well mean is: "Stop centering your experience and identity in the conversation by making this about the intent of your actions instead of their impact." That is: Not everything is about you. "What They Did" vs. "What They Are" The incredible Ill Doctrine puts it well when he explains the difference between the "What They Did" conversation and the "What They Are" conversation, which you can watch here. In essence, the "intent" conversation is one about "what they are." Because if someone intended their action to be hurtful and racist/sexist/transphobic/pickyourpoison, then they must inherently be racist/sexist/transphobic/pickyourpoison. On the other hand, the "impact" conversation is one about "what they did." For you, it takes the person who said or did the hurtful thing out of the center and places the person who was hurt in the center. It ensures that the conversation is about how "what they did" hurts other people and further marginalizes or oppresses people.

B) Historiography

A genealogical approach based in critical examination of history is key to productive critique. Absent analysis, historical truth becomes a tool for the powerful to isolate deviancy and punish it. Yates and Hiles 10:

~Scott and Dave; DeMontfort University "Towards a "Critical Ontology of Ourselves"? Foucault, Subjectivity, and Discourse Analysis" Theory and Psychology Vol. 20 (1): 52-75~ SF
Foucault termed his new approach "genealogy": a "meticulous and patiently documentary"
AND
between individuals ... ~it~ designates relationships" (p. 217).

Part 2 is the State of Exception

The fiasco starts with Scalia, of course. In Anderson v. Creighton, The Supreme Court privileged federal authorities over regular citizens by making them scot-free from constitutional violations leaving real state violence with no recourse. Rudovsky 89:

~David Rudovsky (University of Pennsylvania Law School), "The Qualified Immunity Doctrine in the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism and the Restriction of Constitutional Rights" Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Respository. 1989. http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3772andcontext=penn_law_review~~ SF, brackets in original evidence
Anderson v. Creighton swept away these decisions and created an additional basis for the
AND
a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right."

This is a genealogy of the state of exception and the paradox of the state; the state creates societal rules and enforces them but removes itself from the public sphere to ensure immunity. This division leads to bare life, the condition that makes police brutality "reasonable". Ziarek 12:

Ewa Ziarek (Julian Park Professor of Comparative Literature at The State University of New York at Buffalo). "9. Bare Life." Impasses of the Post-Global: Theory in the Era of Climate Change, vol. 2. 2012. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/o/ohp/10803281.0001.001/1:11/—impasses-of-the-post-global-theory-in-the-era-of-climate?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
Since bare life is included within Western democracies as their hidden inner ground and as
AND
life to death, constitutes the "supreme" political principle of genocide. 

Thus my advocacy is the abolition of qualified immunity, police officers should be held to strict liability for their legal violations. CX clarifies possible violations. Bernick 15 is the solvency advocate:

~Evan Bernick (Evan is the Assistant Director of the Center for Judicial Engagement at the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm), "To Hold Police Accountable, Don't Give Them Immunity." Foundation for Economic Education. May 6, 2015. https://fee.org/articles/to-hold-police-accountable-dont-give-them-immunity/~~ SF
Simply put, qualified immunity has to go. It should be replaced with a
AND
have to purchase insurance to cover any costs in excess of that amount.

Qualified immunity is a state of exception that hides the truths about militarism and halts reform. Only abolition can hold a legal mirror to the lawless state. Bernick 2:

This decision was unabashedly policy-oriented: it was thought that government officials would not vigorously fulfill their obligations if they could be held accountable for actions taken in good faith. Under current law, the general rule is that victims of rights violations pay the costs of their own injuries. In practice, qualified immunity provides a near-absolute defense to all but the most outrageous conduct. The Ninth Circuit has held that throwing a flash-bang grenade "blindly" into a house, injuring a toddler, isn't outrageous enough. Just last year, in Plumhoff v. Rickard, the Supreme Court decided that firing 15 bullets at a motorist is a reasonable method to end the driver's flight from the police. So much for "every person" "shall be liable." Qualified immunity shields police misconduct not only from liability but also from meaningful judicial scrutiny. Private lawsuits are an essential tool in uncovering the truth about police misconduct. The discovery process can yield information that makes broader policy changes within police departments possible. At trial, judicial engagement — an impartial, evidence-based determination of the constitutionality of the officer's actions — can take place. Qualified immunity can cut this search for truth short. If qualified immunity is raised as a defense before trial and the judge denies it, that decision is immediately appealable. If it is granted, discovery stops, and there is no trial on the merits.

The AFF changes police behavior – lawsuits are used by departments to create reform and individuals know their behavior will be watched – they don't need to win the lawsuits. Schwartz 10

Schwartz, Joanna. "What Police Learn from Lawsuits." Cardozo Law Review, 2010. http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/event/265497/media/slspublic/What_Police_Learn_From_Lawsuits.pdf**.
The evidence developed in discovery and trial offers a detailed picture of underlying events that
AND
to create multiple, new, and even redundant sources of information."253

Civil lawsuits are good because they spur systemic reform through investigations and public outcry.  Cheh:

Mary M. Cheh 96, Professor of Law, George Washington University "Are Lawsuits an Answer to Police Brutality?" in William A. Geller and Hans Toch, "Police Violence: Understanding and Controlling Police Abuse of Force," Yale University Press, 1996.
By contrast, the civil law, because of its greater flexibility and scope,
AND
but to reform so that the harm is not likely to be repeated.