Tournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any
Hey guys I disclose the way all you big power house schools have been trying to get me to. I figure it wont matter since i have 5 new affs for this tournament and 4 unbroken versions of my a strat on neg. Anyways I cant remember everything i've read so ill try to backfill in order of the stuff i read but i might miss something.

Im also new to this so be forgiving if i need to disclose something just let me know and i'll let u know on FACEBOOK (while your there check out my fb poetry its fire)

Remember debate is still just a fun activity i graduate in 2 months so try not to get to serious or obsessive like @jonas alright cya in rounds emoticon_smile

Tournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any
hi im jsut disclosing cites for the only aff ive run (pre berkeley planning on breaking new in outrounds there) Tags and poem are excluded since it had a bunch of personal shit that i dont really want to get into the details of or have people get easy acess to. If there are any probs with cites message me and ill give yu a quick url

Campbell 3 Fiona Anne Kumari Campbell, The Great Divide: Ableism and Technologies of Disability Production, 2003
Our discussion engages the imagination by playing dangerously (yet cautiously) with matters of
AND
~.. a true esteeming of the Cripple ~disabled~ body" (1994

Endorsing our methodology causes a spillover into our everyday lives;

Beckett 13 - Angharad Anti-oppressive pedagogy and¶ disability: possibilities and challenges, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds -

Serious and systemic disability discrimination
¶ ‘oppressed’ and ‘privileged’.

Smith ’13,
\"It will be uncomfortable, it will be hard, and it will require continued effort but the necessary step in fixing this problem, like all problems, is the community as a whole admitting that such a problem with many "socially acceptable" choices exists in the first place. Like all systems of social control, the reality of racism in debate is constituted by the singular choices that institutions, coaches, and students make on a weekly basis. I have watched countless rounds where competitors attempt to win by rushing to abstractions to distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day. One of the students I coached, who has since graduated after leaving debate, had an adult judge write out a ballot that concluded by "hypothetically" defending my student being lynched at the tournament. Another debate concluded with a young man defending that we can kill animals humanely, "just like we did that guy Troy Davis". Community norms would have competitors do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse black debaters of breaking to escape hard conversations but as someone who understands that experience, the only constructive strategy is to acknowledge the reality of the oppressed, engage the discussion from the perspective of authors who are black and brown, and then find strategies to deal with the issues at hand. It hurts to see competitive seasons come and go and have high school students and judges spew the same hateful things you expect to hear at a Klan rally. A student should not, when presenting an advocacy that aligns them with the oppressed, have to justify why oppression is bad. Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with liberatory potential. Even if the form debate gives to a conversation is not the same you would use to discuss race in general conversation with Bayard Rustin or Fannie Lou Hamer, that is not a reason we have to strip that conversation of its connection to a reality that black students cannot escape. Current coaches and competitors alike ~that~ dismiss concerns of racism and exclusion, won’t teach other students anything about identity in debate other than how to shut down competitors who engage in alternative styles and discourses, and refuse to engage in those discussions even outside of a tournament setting. A conversation on privilege nd identity was held at a debate institute I worked at this summer and just as any theorist of privilege would predict it was the h eterosexual, white, male staff members that either failed to make an appearance or stay for the entire discussion. No matter how talented they are, we have to remember that the students we work with are still just high school aged children. If those who are responsible for participants and the creation of accessible norms won't risk a better future for our community, it becomes harder to explain to students who look up to them why risking such an endeavor is necessary."

Part 2 is the closed mouth

Campbell 3 Fiona Anne Kumari Campbell, The Great Divide: Ableism and Technologies of Disability Production, 2003
In the opening pages of States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity
AND
in law, that is, renderings of disability as a personal tragedy232.

Part 3 is the method

Campbell 3 Fiona Anne Kumari Campbell, The Great Divide: Ableism and Technologies of Disability Production, 2003
Actor Network Theory (ANT), sometimes known as the sociology of translation, is
AND
stakeholders, the failure/success process and questions of compliance and consensus. 

Campbell 3 Fiona Anne Kumari Campbell, The Great Divide: Ableism and Technologies of Disability Production, 2003

The newly emergent field of science studies...
 creating blends/fusions " between entirely new types of beings, hybrids of nature and culture" (10

ANT allows actors to deploy their own worlds and then sharing those worlds with others in order to be non-obtrusive in finding the truth. This is a much ebtter strategy than dealing with controversies case by case Latour

The reason for this change of tempo is that, instead of taking a reasonable position and imposing some order beforehand, ANT claims to be ~is~ able to find order much better after having let the actors deploy the full range of controversies in which they are immersed. It is as if we were saying to the actors: ‘We won’t try to discipline you, to make you fit into our categories; we will let you deploy your own worlds, and only later will we ask you to explain how you came about settling them.’ The task of defining and ordering the social should be left to the actors themselves, not taken up by the analyst. This is why, to regain some sense of order, the best solution is to trace connections between the controversies themselves rather than try to decide how to settle any given controversy.19

Tournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any
HEY LOOK I DISCLOSED- if you still are not happy and have some nuance you need from me message me on fb and ill give it to you there.

Part 1 is the monster

Edward Field summarizes part of frankenstin :homepages.wmich.edu/~cooneys/poems/Field.frankenstein.html

The monster has escaped from the dungeon
where he was kept by the Baron,
who made him with knobs sticking out from each side of his neck
where the head was attached to the body
and stitching all over
where parts of cadavers were sewed together.
He is pursued by the ignorant villagers,
who think he is evil and dangerous because he is ugly
and makes ugly noises.
They wave firebrands at him and cudgels and rakes,
but he escapes and comes to the thatched cottage
of an old blind man playing on the violin Mendelssohn's "Spring Song."
Hearing him approach, the blind man welcomes him:
"Come in, my friend," and takes him by the arm.
"You must be weary," and sits him down inside the house.
For the blind man has long dreamed of having a friend
to share his lonely life.
The monster has never known kindness ‹ the Baron was cruel —
but somehow he is able to accept it now,
and he really has no instincts to harm the old man,
for in spite of his awful looks he has a tender heart:
Who knows what cadaver that part of him came from?
The old man seats him at table, offers him bread,
and says, "Eat, my friend." The monster
rears back roaring in terror.
"No, my friend, it is good. Eat — gooood"
and the old man shows him how to eat,
and reassured, the monster eats
and says, "Eat — gooood,"
trying out the words and finding them good too.
The old man offers him a glass of wine,
"Drink, my friend. Drink — gooood."
The monster drinks, slurping horribly, and says,
"Drink — gooood," in his deep nutty voice
and smiles maybe for the first time in his life.
Then the blind man puts a cigar in the monster's mouth
and lights a large wooden match that flares up in his face.
The monster, remembering the torches of the villagers,
recoils, grunting in terror.
"No, my friend, smoke — gooood,"
and the old man demonstrates with his own cigar.
The monster takes a tentative puff
and smiles hugely, saying, "Smoke — gooood,"
and sits back like a banker, grunting and puffing.
Now the old man plays Mendelssohn's "Spring Song" on the violin
while tears come into our dear monster s eyes
as he thinks of the stones of the mob the pleasures of meal-time,
the magic new words he has learned
and above all of the friend he has found.
It is just as well that he is unaware —
being simple enough to believe only in the present —
that the mob will find him and pursue him
for the rest of his short unnatural life,
until trapped at the whirlpool's edge
he plunges to his death.

~wade 97~ Whenever I hear the phrases "right to die with dignity" and "quality of life" I think, uh oh. I know once again the A.B.s are having a conversation about me, without me. I watch the news shows, waiting for one Crip activist to have her say, one Gimp, whose wholeness is in question, to be given an opportunity to offer some real expert information. I wait longer through several incarnations. The grand debaters bandy many precious words. They call on some of my personal fave raves like "freedom of choice" and "dignity". Who, they ask, could be against these things? Who, they ask, would deny these things to their fellow citizens? No one who believes in the great principles upon which this great democracy was founded, right? Unh uh. I'm not buying it. As an aging, female Cripple who lives with pain and in poverty, I know too well the value society places on me. Every day I am assaulted by images that degrade me, that deem me a burden, a tragedy, that question the quality of my life and the worthiness of my existence. I live in a society that more and more forces me to fight for basic health care, that forces me to put the majority of my limited physical resources into securing my survival. I live in a society that in every way imaginable tells me I should not want to live. And now they want to offer me the dignity of having the right to choose to be put out of my misery by a licensed physician. At the risk of sounding paranoid, I suspect my best interests do not reside at the heart of this matter. One of the things that disturbs me most deeply, besides my exclusion from the so-called debate regarding "assisted suicide", is the fact that rarely are the underlying values and assumptions fueling this quest ever examined or even questioned. The desire to establish a constitutional right to die is built upon a foundation of belief that the damaged/difficult and/or dying body is worthless, that the experiences of living with the damaged/difficult and/or dying body are undignified. Dignity. That word. To me, what it all gets down to is bodily fluids. Okay, that's a tad flippant, but I really do think it's an important part of the story. Nature at its most unruly. Our very human essence is so damned undignified. And so uncontrollable. We spend most of our life working like fiends to maintain the illusion that we are in control, that we can tame and tidy nature. Let's face it: nature always has the last laugh. Nowhere does the old girl laugh louder than with disability and death. God forbid we human beings should ever have to get up close and personal with our unwieldy, messy, smelly humanness. In every way possible, this culture's rules and values distance us from the realities of our own bodies in all their glorious imperfection. Just flick on the TV any time of the day or night and you'll be bombarded with messages about the necessity of looking perfect and smelling better. It's presented not as an option, but an obligation. Of course we want to hasten death; of course we want to make it easier for Cripples to die. Out damn spot. Out. I don't think it's just coincidence that this urgent, zealous drive to give us more ways to opt out of life comes at a time when more and more of us are visible, living in community, being "in the face", so to speak, of able-bodied assumptions about normal. And not just the us that can almost pass as AB, but those of us whose bodies are wildly uncontrollable, we of the drooling, spazzing, claw-handed variety of Cripple. And instead of trying to fade into the nooks and crannies as good Cripples of the past were taught to do, we blast down the main streets in full view, we sit slobbering at the table of your favorite restaurant, we insist on sharing your classroom, your workplace, your theater, your everything. The comfort of keeping us out of sight and out of mind behind institutional walls is being taken away. And because there is no way for good people to admit just how bloody uncomfortable they are with us, they distance themselves from their fears by devising new ways to erase us from the human landscape, all the while deluding themselves that it is for our benefit. And of course these fears that fuel the right-to-die movement are fed by economics. The high cost of Cripple maintenance and slow death. Limited resources and yada yada. Limited resources? As a society, we seem to have no problem paying for what we want; there are no limited resources when it comes to those things we deem of value. Unfortunately, our society's priorities are out of whack. America belches out billions for stealth bombers and rations health care; America pours its financial resources down the drain of bigger prisons while cutting hot lunch programs for hungry children. We shouldn't be surprised that we're on the hit list. All in keeping with the good ole American love affair with the quick fix. So much easier to kill something than to care for it. As someone who's spent most of my life on the receiving end of one kind of medical treatment or another, who's been probed and pried by more doctors than I can count, I can say from sad experience that when it comes to disability the medical profession ain't got a clue. Doctors are the last folks, as a group, I think oughta have more power to do me harm. It's not that I think docs are, by nature, a particularly vicious breed; it's just their training. What should we expect from folks who are taught that to heal means to fix or eradicate? If you can't cure it, bury it. Chronic illness, disability, the slow train of dying just don't make for a comfortable fit. My wariness about granting doctors more power over life and death isn't just because of the raw deal I've had personally. I know history. The 200,000+ disabled people killed in Germany as prologue to the Holocaust weren't slaughtered by goose-stepping brownshirts. Unh uh. They were starved to death and lethally injected out of their misery by nice professional men in clean white coats, men who'd sworn to uphold the Hippocratic oath, that same oath about healing that the doctors pushing for assisted suicide in 1997 USA have sworn to uphold. Even with the glaring spotlight of historical perspective, the murder of our ancestors is held separate and unequal to the murder of the six million that followed. Not one of those doctors has been called a war criminal. We were and still are, after all "special circumstances." If only Americans weren't so confident "it couldn't happen here," maybe we'd be safer. There are few things more dangerous than the arrogance of assuming you're incapable of behaving inhumanely. Decent people don't commit inhumane acts in good conscience, so in order to maintain the myth of enlightenment, those acts must be recast in a positive light. Dropping the H-bomb on the civilian population of Hiroshima moves from atrocity to "life-saving necessity"; killing those we deem a burden becomes euthansia, mercy killing, the relieving of undue suffering. I have to admit I feel inadequate to express in a rational, reasoned way what I understand in the deepest cell of my marrow to be a movement toward genocide. But no matter how awkward or inarticulate we feel, no matter how difficult it is to peel away the layers to get deep inside the truth of this movement, we must do it. It is our obligation as the ancestors of this country's future victims of the right to die.

~tansbradshaw~, Tansbradshaw 15,

Frankenstein is not just a story of a creature and his creator; it is also an allegory for the social model of disability. Frankenstein’s monster only becomes a monster when he is continually rejected ~by~ my society and his creator. Like many disabled people, they have to prove themselves continually because they are judged on face value. It doesn’t matter if they have a desire to learn, am smart or properly trained – if you don’t look or act a certain way access will be denied. As Percy Shelley, Mary Shelley’s husband said on The Creature, ‘The circumstances of ~Frankenstein’s monster~ his existence were so monstrous and uncommon, that… his original goodness was gradually turned into the fuel of an inextinguishable misanthropy and revenge.’

~eng~ENG,

While Siebers’s theory of identity formation explains why the monster is perceived in such a way, an analysis of Siebers’s theory of social construction is necessary to understand the more expansive ways, beyond spurring the hatred of others, in which the monster’s physical features affect its overall role in society. According to Siebers, the social construction of disabilities centers around the role that rhetoric, modern images, and descriptions play~s~ in formulating the perception of disabilities (14). Siebers criticizes popular portrayals of disabilities, claiming that society replicates disabilities in a marginalizing and blaming manner (15). The social construction of disabilities forces disabled individuals to be recognized as inferior in some sort of way. People that are disabled are perceived as completely different beings and are faced with suffering from constant prejudice due to the way that disability is depicted throughout society. Shelly’s monster implicitly understands this social construction, and sees himself cast to the lowest strata due to his physical differences: He considers himself "a blot upon the earth from which all men fled." (Shelly 105).

~knight~ OuKnight,

Hirschmann labels the second level of social construction materialization, wherein the misrepresentation of reality produces material effects (2003, 79). At this level, social construction moves from the misrepresentation of reality to the material creation of the social phenomena it describes. As it applies to Frankenstein, Shelley effectively illustrates how the misrepresentation of reality materializes into a social hierarchy predicated upon corporeal difference by detailing the Creature’s miserable fate of psycho-emotional distress, social exclusion, and economic poverty. Scholar Rosemarie Garland-Thomson labels this hierarchy the "politics of appearance"5 , whereby the body serves as "the coordinates of a taxonomical system that distributes status, privilege, and material goods to a hierarchy anchored by visible human physical variation" (Garland-Thomson 1997, 135). The second level of social construction is particularly salient because it reminds us that the normative goals of Taylor’s politics of recognition are worth pursuing. Although the demeaning identity of monster is socially constructed, Shelley reminds her readers that social construction materializes into real and occasionally detrimental consequences that require political intervention.

~Goodley 11~
Goodley, Manchester Metropolitan University Professor of Psychology and Disability, and Runswick-Cole, Manchester Metropolitan University Research Associate, 11  
(Dan and Katherine, no full date given, Sociology of Health and Illness, "The violence of disablism," 33:4, p. 607-608, EBSCOhost Health Source Nursing Academic Edition , CNM)
This will outweigh a) magnitude its the worst for of pain in existence so
AND
consequentialism as a normative ethic but the ac can operate under alternative frameworks. 

part 2 is the monster's cave

~Campbell 1~, Campbell  12,

Difference can be a vexed issue even within modern liberal societies. The tendency for many people is still to emulate or at least appear to refashion normative ways of being. Much of the intellectual traffic for the rethinking of disability in terms of anti-sociality has emerged through debates about the merits of social inclusion and liberal notions of equality and resilience strategies to break the abled stranglehold. Legal theorists like Ruth Colker who argues that anti-subordination rather than integration should be the measure of equality are the exception (Colker, 2006). There is limited work within disability studies, especially in approaches influenced by the social model of disability or social role valorisation theory, that take a trans-integration or post-normalisation perspective. What if we turned our backs on ‘fitting in’ – what would be the opportunities, the consequences and maybe dangers, to give ‘attention to the lived intricacies of embodiment offer~ing~ alternatives to normalization efforts aimed at homogenizing social outsiders (Snyder and Fiona Kumari Campbell 223 Mitchell, 2010, 113)’? For this imaginative undertaking it is necessary to turn to the theoretical work by other ‘outsider’ groups – queer theorists. Spearheading the critique of the ‘different but same’ stance of social justice formulations are ‘anti-social’ queer theorists (Bersani, 1986, 1996; Edelman, 2004; Halberstam, 2005, 2008; Muñoz, 2007). This section will outline some of the conceptual drivers of the anti-social argument and their adoption for developing an anti-sociality posture of disability. Leo Bersani’s seminal work (1986, 1996) formulated an anti-social, negative and anti-relational theory of sexuality. These works along with the writings of Edelman (2004), Halberstam (2005, 2008) and Muñoz (2007) set the stage for the decoupling of queer marginality from the liberal projects of tolerance and social inclusion. Before moving into a consideration of how certain conceptual renderings may be applied to the disability situation, it is useful to familiarise ourselves with how the neologism queer is understood by anti-social theorists. Lee Edelman’s No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive does not indicate the parameters of queer, but concludes that ‘queerness can never define an identity; it can only ever disturb one’ (2004: 17). Queer, while originating from the purview of diverse sexualities, easily extends to other kindred forms of ontological and corporeal aberrancies and ambiguities (such as disability). So it is right for Halberstam (2005: 6) to embrace a more elastic connotation of queer which refers to ‘non-normative logics and organizations of community, sexual identity, embodiment and activity in space and time’. From this reckoning, the disabled person is already queered. Queer, then is antitheoretical to the regime of ableist translation. In a world that makes claims to integrity using the argument based on equality as sameness (we are normal, we are everyday people), it would seem a bit bold or offensive to suggest that people with disability are different from the run-of-mill ableist norm emulators. Ahmed (2006) points to an alternate prism, a ‘migrant orientation’ to capture a disorientation faced by queer folk which I extend to include disabled people. The disorientation, a form of radical estrangement propels a lived experience of facing at least two directions: towards a home that has been lost (the desire to emulate ableist norms), and to a place that is not yet home. Regimes of ableism have produced a depth of disability negation that reaches into the caverns of collective subjectivity to the extent that disability negativity is seen as a ‘naturalized’ reaction to an aberration. Not negating queerness or disability can cultivate alternate kinds of liberty that de-identify with the rhetoric of social inclusion. A key marker of the anti-social turn is temporality – contemporarity and futurity – an explication of the current marginal stance and the vision for future. It is this orientation of predicament and utopianism that can speak to the disability realm. For disability, utopianism is a conflicted zone – there is no future existence, disability dreaming is expunged and the utopian drive is a device for promise (of curability), hence extinction of the impairment state. Jose Esteban Muñoz (2007: 453) in speculating about the absence a queer imagination elicits a desire to engage in a queer horizon, a utopian hermeneutics where re-imagining futurity requires that ‘the not quite conscious is the realm of potentiality that must be called upon’. The distance between imagination and potentiality means that ‘queerness is not quite here’. Our imaginations are not yet exhausted. Muñoz explains: to argue that we are not quite queer yet, that queerness, what we will know as queerness, does not yet exist. I suggest that holding queerness, in a sort of ontologically humble state, under a conceptual grid wherein we do not claim to always already know queerness in the world, potentially staves off the ossifying effects of neoliberal ideology. (Muñoz, 2007: 454) How does an alternative horizon for disabled people come to be formulated? Living in the now and not yet, as outsiders, not quite inside, requires a disposition or habit of contemporariness. Contemporariness signifies a relationship with the present but also a distance, a critical space from it. As Agamben explains: Those who are truly contemporary, who truly belong to their time, are those who neither perfectly coincide with it nor adjust themselves to its demands. They are in this sense irrelevant ~inattuale~. But precisely because of this condition, precisely through this disconnection and this anachronism, they are more capable than others of perceiving and grasping their own time. (2009: 40) Disabled people are called to live as contemporaries. The queering or cripping of contemporariness is the grasping and holding tight to ambivalence and obscurity so fundamental to the alternate lifestyle which is obtained through fixing the gaze not on our era’s light but the underbelly, or in Agamben’s language ‘darkness’ – which shines into the staree. In this sense, the contemporary queered and cripped person, in touching an elusive imaginary, sees the now and the emergent not as a death drive, but in terms of unlivedness: The present is nothing other than this unlived element in everything that is lived. That which impedes access to the present is precisely the mass of what for some reason … we have not managed to live. The attention to this ‘unlived’ is the life of the contemporary. (Agamben, 2009: 51) The matter of re-imagining a disability or cripped horizon, a future without the stain of ableism, although elusive and out of grasp, is nonetheless fundamental in order to move to hopefulness and capture that unlived possibility in the lives of many with disability. Can the so-called shadows of a disabled life be sites of invigoration? What is ‘unlived’ in our lives? Crippin’ the human involves a differential gaze – where sometimes signs and gestures predominate, where there is a different mind style such as Tourette’s syndrome or autism, or a centring on visuality or tactility. A grounded earthiness can be ‘different’ through echolocation and waist heightedness. Halberstam (2008) speaks of acts of unbecoming. Through what she describes as ‘wilfully eccentric modes of being’, it is worth conjuring and queering concepts of passivity held against disabled people, as a refusal to live up to ableist expectations of performativity: ~I~n a performance of radical passivity, we witness the willingness of the subject to actually come undone, to dramatise unbecoming for the other so that the viewer does not have to witness unbecoming as a function of her own body. (Halberstam, 2008: 151) This radical passivity, for disabled people, would indeed have to be radical, as disabled people already live under the enormous weight of being characterised as passive. It is a tough ask to claw back and produce a cripped notion of passivity. Sunny Taylor does this in her quest for the right not to work: I have a confession to make: I do not work. I am on SSI ~social security benefit~. I have very little work value (if any), and I am a drain on our country’s welfare system. I have another confession to make: I do not think this is wrong, and to be honest, I am very happy not working. Instead I spend the majority of my time doing the activity I find the most rewarding and valuable, painting. (Taylor, 2004: 30) Such strange temporalities, imaginative life schedules present alternative temporalities which disability studies scholars have all along known, disrupt the parameters of the human (Halberstam, 2005; Campbell, 2009; McRuer, 2006). Having said this, it is all the more extraordinary that disabled people have not yielded to this repression but have resisted docility and engaged in transgressive ways of living disability. Ableism is founded on a utopian hermeneutics of the desirable and the disgusting and therefore it is, as Halberstam (2008: 153) puts it, necessary to inculcate alternative political imaginaries. McRuer (2008) drew my attention to the way Halberstam’s perspective can incorporate disability as also outside the lifecycle: I try to use the concept of queer time to make clear how respectability, and notions of the normal on which it depends, may be upheld by a middle-class logic of reproductive temporality. And so, in Western cultures, we chart the emergence of the adult from the dangerous and unruly period of adolescence as a desired process of maturation; and we create longevity as the most desirable future, applaud the pursuit of long life (under any circumstances), and pathologize modes of living that show little or no concern for longevity. Within the life cycle of the Western human subject, long periods of stability are considered to be desirable, and people who live in rapid bursts (drug addicts, for example) are characterized as immature and even dangerous. (Halberstam, 2005: 4–5) Cripped time can be staggered, frenzied, coded, meandering and be the distance between two events. Some of our time is shaped according to another’s doing – service time – the segmenting and waiting on assistive agencies.

aff is an instance of Cripping reality by creating an imaginative safe space for Frankenstein. That's embracing the wild extravagancy of disability which deconstructs oppressive structures and power relations====
Chandler 2013 (Eliza "Mapping difference: Critical connections between crip and diaspora communities", Critical Disability Discourse/Discours Critiques dans le Champ du Handicap 5, 39–66.)
As I have just described, disabled, racialized, and disabled racialized people live
AND
insecure world" (Bauman, 2002, pp. 1–2). 

part 3 is framing

~evans~ Evans et al in 12,

Lack of community discussion is neither random nor power-neutral. We have tried to have discussions. These discussions have been regularly derailed—in "wrong forum" arguments, in the demand for "evidence," in the unfair burdens placed on the aggrieved as a pre-requisite for engagement. Read the last ten years of these discussions on edebate archives: Ede Warner on edebate and move forward to Rashad Evans diversity discussion from 2010 to Deven Cooper to Amber Kelsie’s discussion on CEDA Forums and the NDT CEDA Traditions page. We have been talking for over a decade, we have been reaching out for years, we have been listening to the liberal, moderate refrain of "we agree with your goals but not with your method." We will no longer wait for the community to respond, to relinquish privilege, to engage in authentic discussion, since largely the community seems incapable of producing a consensus for responding to what "we all agree" is blatant structural inequity. It seems that meta-debates/discussions about debate are generally met with denial, hostility and—more often—silence. This silence is in fact a focused silence. It is not people in the Resistance Facebook group that comprise these silent figures—it is (as has been described) "the old boys club." We have been quite vocal—and we believe that it is this very vocalness (and the development of a diversity of tactics in response to status quo stalling tactics) that has provoked response when response was given. Sarah Spring’s cedadebate post is a case in point. The decision to change our speaker point scale is not in order to produce a "judging doomsday apparatus" (this kind of apocalyptic rhetoric might more aptly be applied to the current racist/sexist/classist state of affairs in this community), though we must admit that we are flattered that our efforts have affected the community enough to result in such a hyberbolic labeling. It indicates that civil disobedience is still an effective tactic; the debate community should take it as an indication that our calls for change are serious. We will continue to innovate and collaborate on tactics of resistance. This "crisis" in debate has no end in sight. The rationale for changing the point scale was not simply to "reward" people for preferring the unpreferred critic. We recognize that MPJ produces effects, and we hoped that changing our point scale was a small but significant tactic that was available to the disenfranchised in this community. MPJ:

~ervelles 1~ Ervelles 2K,

For example, critical theorists of education have begun to describe how bodies are inscribed by the dominant cultural practices of schools through a process that Peter McLaren has called "enfleshment." To be "enfleshed," McLaren explains, is to be marked by discourses that not only sit on the surface of the flesh but are, on the other hand, embedded in the flesh such that we learn "a way of being in our bodies…that is we are taught to think about our bodies and how to experience our bodies." One context where students learn to experience their bodies is education, where students learn the importance of disciplining their bodies so as not to distract from the "mental efforts" of the mind. In an attempt to control these "disruptive excesses" of unruly bodies, schools have elaborate practices that support the rigid organization of classroom space and time, the overriding emphasis on discipline, and the careful monitoring of the curriculum. So entrenched are these practices that Ursula Kelly has argued that "education is the body and education territorializes the body" since "the notion of mind/ing bodies bespeaks most accurately and succinctly about how the intersection of knowledge, power, and desire craft~s~ ~subjectivity~ as the cultural project of schools."  

~ervelles 2~
Once again, even though none of the authors makes any reference to disability in their essays, I would still like to examine the implications of their critiques for the disabled subject. Drawing on the poststructuralist position especially advocated by Kohli, it could be argued that the disabled body, notwithstanding its marginal status, can resist the disciplining discourses of schooling by producing disruptive narratives that will "blow apart the fictions" that have located it outside the scope of desire. Thus, on exploring the transgressive possibilities of this poststructuralist position, it could be argued that the disabled subject could transform ~themselves~ herself into a subject of desire by deploying subversive interventions inspired by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s invention of the "Body-without-Organs," Judith Butler’s theory of "performativity and citationality," and Donna Haraway’s dreams of "cyborgean entities," so as to read alterity inscribed on the body in multiple transgressive ways. Here, desire is defined as both autonomous and productive in its own right such that "~desire~ is not bolstered by needs, but rather the contrary’ needs are derived from desire: they are counterproducts within the real that desire produces." Based on these claims, this poststructuralist formulation severs the relation between desire and need, and in doing so, has (re)conceptualized consumption (desire) as the productive force within the social relations of capitalism, such that the social is now reconceptualized as "a scene of desire and enjoyment that is postneed, postclass, postlabor, and postproduction."

Cambel 2

Subjects designated by the neologism 'disability' typically experience various forms of marginality, discrimination and inequality. The response by social scientists and professionals engaged in social policy and service delivery has been to combat the 'disability problem' by way of implementing anti-discrimination protections and various other compensatory initiatives. More recently, with the development of biological and techno-sciences such as 'new genetics', nanotechnologies and cyborgs the solution to 'disability' management has been in the form of utilizing technologies of early detection, eradication or at best, technologies of mitigation. Contemporary discourses of disablement displace and disconnect discussion away from the 'heart of the problem', namely, matters ontological(ly). Disability - based marginality is assumed to emerge from a set of pre-existing conditions (i.e. in the case of biomedicalisation, deficiency inheres in the individual, whilst in the Social Model disablement is created by a capitalist superstructure). The Great Divide takes an alternative approach to studying 'the problem of disability' by proposing that the neologism 'disability'(AND) is in fact created by and used to generate notions and epistemologies of 'ableism'. Whilst epistemologies of disablement are well researched, there is a paucity of research related to the workings of ableism. The focal concerns of The Great Divide relate to matters of ordering, disorder and constitutional compartmentalization between the normal and pathological and the ways that discourses about wholeness, health, enhancement and perfection produce notions of impairment. A central argument of this dissertation figures the production of disability a part of the tussle over ordering, emerging from a desire to create order from an assumed disorder; resulting in a flimsy but often unconvincing attempt to shore up so-called optimal ontologies and disperse outlaw ontologies. The Great Divide examines ways ‘disability’ rubs up against, mingles with and provokes other seemingly unrelated concepts such as wellness, ableness, perfection, competency, causation, productivity and use value. The scaffolding of the dissertation directs the reader to selected sites that produce epistemologies of disability and ableism, namely the writing of 'history' and Judeo-Christian renderings of Disability. It explores the nuances of ableism (including a case study of wrongful life torts in law) and the phenomenon of internalized ableism as experienced by many disabled people. The study of liberalism and the government of government are explored in terms of enumeration, the science of 'counting cripples' and the battles over defining 'disability' in law and social policy. Additionally another axis of ableism is explored through the study of a number of perfecting technologies and the way in which these technologies mediate what it means to be 'human' (normalcy), morphs/simulates 'normalcy' and the leakiness of 'disability'. This analysis charts the invention of forearms transplantation (a la Clint Hallam), the Cochlear implant and transhumanism. The Great Divide concludes with an inversion of the ableist gaze(s) by proposing an ethic of affirmation, a desiring ontology of impairment

~cambell 3~
The central concepts underlying this doctorate are Michel Foucault’s notions of governmentality and practices of normalisation (Foucault, 1977a; 1988a (Orig. 1981); 1991). In particular, the way technologies of self induce a particular understanding of desire or a dis-ease about the particularities of corporealities. This kind of desire or dis-ease (that) makes it impossible to envision ‘disability’ as anything other than absence or negative ontology. Throughout this work I am interested in the ways individuals with also shapes the binarism of disability and able-bodiedness. My project of speaking otherwise about ‘disability’ and ableism is an attempt to unsettle hegemonic understandings of disability, to create a movement of aggiornamento, to open up an ecstatic ‘space’ where the flowering of positive spectrums of the ‘disabled self’ can be foregrounded. This chapter outlines specifically the methodological approaches and epistemological assumptions adopted throughout the work.

Tournament: toc | Round: 2 | Opponent: michael kurian | Judge: nicole nave
Part 1 is a story
Debate
I never liked Debate, the place where I was a tool.
I feel like i'm just a number on a number line #22 ranked nationally
Always smiling but never fine
You see, they told me to be creative, but not my kind of creative.
They told me to imagine, but they only wanted me to see certain pictures,
Because you see they had a finished product in mind, a stronger smarter product.
They wanted to create something, something that wasn’t me that wouldn’t ever be me. 

I was an annoyance, unproductive, I just wouldn’t listen. I was clearly not their tool.
Not their tool to win elections or kill terrorists or overthrow regimes.
I saw a different world, one where the school bells stuttered, the chalk was broken
And the pencils were slanted. No more chanting in my head that I was wrong Wrong WRONG.
I saw a different world, a disabled world. And I loved that world because there, I was finally free.
If you have difficulty understanding the poem due to a disability I will stop the timer at the end of my ac and I will explain

Crip story telling creates non normative forms of dialogue
Ferris 14(Jim FerrisChair of the Disabilities Studies Program at the University of Toledo “CRIP POETRY, OR HOW I LEARNED TO LOVE THE LIMP”) http://www.wordgathering.com/past_issues/issue2/essay/ferris.html
What is crip poetry? How do I know it when I see it, when I hear it? Here is how I know it: I know it when I feel it. Poetry is an art form that can be recognized as marks that make a certain shape on the page, as a collection of words put together in certain ways. But that's a definition from people who have forgotten how their fire burns brighter for poems. Coleridge said poetry is the best words in the best order - and the best way to know that these are the best words in their best order is how they feel together. When asked for a definition of poetry, Emily Dickinson famously said, "If I read a book and it makes my whole body so cold no fire can ever warm me, I know that is poetry. If I feel physically as if the top of my head were taken off, I know that is poetry. These are the only ways I know it. Is there any other way?" That's how to know poetry. And here's how I know our poetry - it comes from a different place than the usual, the ordinary. When society wants us to stay out of sight, to keep quiet, to accept the still-rampant disability discrimination with resignation, with good humor, with pluck - even when we ourselves may most want to be ordinary - crip poetry comes from the outside, it comes from the abnormal, it is centered in the experience of being out of the ordinary. A definition I have given for disability poetry is "poetry that seeks to explore and validate the lived experience of moving through the world with a disability. Sometimes referred to as crip poetry, disability poetry embodies a disability consciousness; it is informed by and contributes to disability culture." That is a serviceable definition. But here's what I left out: the possibility, the edgy potential, the openness and even likelihood of transformation. Crip poetry centers the experience of disabled people; it shows disabled people taking control of the gaze and articulating the terms under which we are viewed. This is a revolutionary transformation right there, but crip poetry carries in it the potential for an even more radical transformation - a transformation in consciousness, not only the consciousness of the poet and the reader, but the potential to transform the world, to make the world in which we live roomier, not only more transparent and known, but to make more space in the imagination, and so in the culture, for the wide and startling variety of rich and fulfilling ways that real people live and love, work and play in this world. Crip poetry is poetry that has the potential not only to shiver Emily Dickinson, not only to muss her hair, but to enlarge and strengthen the whole culture in the most vital of ways. Like the rest of the disability arts movement, crip poetry rejects views of disability as a shameful, pitiable, tragic and individual phenomenon. Fundamental to crip poetry is an understanding that disability is a made thing, a social construction. This is not a denial of the pain and functional limitations that may come with our nonstandard ways of being in the world - in fact, disability poetry is often informed by a heightened awareness of those aspects of impairment. But crip poetry is also sharply aware that a major part of the impact disabilities have on lives results from the ways those human differences are interpreted and responded to by society, so often with prejudice, marginalization, and discrimination. Lynn Manning's poem "The Magic Wand" explicitly addresses this point when it describes the transformation the persona undergoes, "from black man to blind man", through the simple act of unfolding his white cane. Disability poetry can be characterized by several characteristics: a challenge to stereotypes and an insistence on self-definition; foregrounding of the perspective of people with disabilities; an emphasis on embodiment, especially atypical embodiment; and alternative techniques and poetics. One of the major impulses of crip poetry is to resist stereotyping and the limits of the socially imposed "handicapped" identity through a process of self-definition. Disability poetry often explicitly rejects social pressure to pursue a forever-elusive "normality," and instead finds value and strength within disability experience, not in spite of impairments but because of and through them. This can be seen in Cheryl Marie Wade's "I Am Not One of The," in which the persona forcefully rejects the labels that are applied to her:  

Psycho-emotional violence against disabled people is the worst form of violence – it’s violence against our being and existence
Goodley, Manchester Metropolitan University Professor of Psychology and Disability, and Runswick-Cole, Manchester Metropolitan University Research Associate, 11  
(Dan and Katherine, no full date given, Sociology of Health and Illness, "The violence of disablism," 33:4, p. 607-608, EBSCOhost Health Source Nursing Academic Edition , CNM)
Critical disability studies have engaged with the psychological and affective aspects of disablism. In Britain, the work of Thomas (1999, 2007) and Reeve (2002, 2008), has crucially intervened in materialist sociological accounts of disablism by drawing attention to the ‘barriers in here’ experienced by disabled people (Reeve 2008: 1). Against a wide understanding of structural inequalities, psycho-emotional disablism interrogates the experiences between disabled people and disabling society. This interrogation has identified direct and indirect forms of discrimination: Direct forms can be found in discriminatory interactions, acts of invalidation, patronizing responses of others and hate crimes such as the destruction of group symbols and hate literature (Sherry 2000, 2010). Recent crime statistics from Britain suggest that 25 of disabled people report being victimised (Roulstone and Balderston 2009). Indirect forms may be due to the side effects of structural disablism or unintended actions, words or deeds. The psycho-emotional refers to the impact of these ingredients of disablism on the ontological security or confidence of disabled people (Thomas 1999). A key psychic reaction to such hostility is internalized oppression: the re-injuring of self through internalizing discriminatory values (Marks 1999), lowering self-worth and lessening a sense of intrinsic value (Thomas 2007) (Goodley 2010: 90). Zˇ izˇ ek (2008: 60) describes this as ontic violence: a violence against being or existence: ‘there is a direct link between ontological violence and the texture of social violence (of sustaining relations and enforced domination)’ (Zˇizˇek 2008: 61). Interpersonal forms of violence threaten to determine the ‘very being and social existence of the interpreted subject’ (Zˇ izˇ ek 2008: 62). The following narratives represent, for us, potent examples of psycho-emotional or ontic violence: The administrators of the Facebook page for supporters of the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign (see http://www.edcm.org.uk for details of the campaign), have twice had to remove comments from the page full of hatred towards disabled children and their families. Although the comments have been removed swiftly and the people who made them reported and banned from Facebook, it is hard to understand why someone would feel the need to take the time to join as a fan of the campaign and write an offensive message on the wall of the site. (Katherine’s ethnographic notes) So they autism outreach teachers went in with, you know the suggestions of how to do this – and one of the things was, ‘Well it becomes apparent that we don’t understand when Sam’s distressed or upset or anxious, maybe if we introduced a one to five scale, that’s a simple way that he can communicate to us that he’s feeling stressed’. How did it go? Sam told the learning mentor he was at four and was approaching five, her response was, ‘Well how do you think I feel? I’m at a ten’. Can you believe that? I ... honestly ... I nearly died when he told me. I was just speechless and he was like, ‘Are you alright mum?’ and I said, ‘I’ll be fine, just give me a minute’ (Gayle).

This will outweigh a) magnitude its the worst for of pain in existence so outweighs death also occurs infinitly on time as oppose to finite pains b) kills accessibility of nc arguments since we can't engage if there's violence in round C) turns procedurals like fairness and education because entering into the round already had an irreversible fairness skew against me and the only education we gain is harmful to us.

part 2 is the monster who wrote it
wade 97 AND I am the crippled monster here to destroy debate and eat your ballot, every word you say echos able-normativity, each word i flow is a reminder of my burden and it all comes back to you wanting me out, you'll always find a way whether its that we need engagement or you actually know what’s best its all bullshit and we know it's just a way to erase us from debate, if you cared you'd concede WADE 97 http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/archive/onedge.htm
Whenever I hear the phrases "right to die with dignity" and "quality of life" I think, uh oh. I know once again the A.B.s are having a conversation about me, without me. I watch the news shows, waiting for one Crip activist to have her say, one Gimp, whose wholeness is in question, to be given an opportunity to offer some real expert information. I wait longer through several incarnations. The grand debaters bandy many precious words. They call on some of my personal fave raves like "freedom of choice" and "dignity". Who, they ask, could be against these things? Who, they ask, would deny these things to their fellow citizens? No one who believes in the great principles upon which this great democracy was founded, right? Unh uh. I'm not buying it. As an aging, female Cripple who lives with pain and in poverty, I know too well the value society places on me. Every day I am assaulted by images that degrade me, that deem me a burden, a tragedy, that question the quality of my life and the worthiness of my existence. I live in a society that more and more forces me to fight for basic health care, that forces me to put the majority of my limited physical resources into securing my survival. I live in a society that in every way imaginable tells me I should not want to live. And now they want to offer me the dignity of having the right to choose to be put out of my misery by a licensed physician. At the risk of sounding paranoid, I suspect my best interests do not reside at the heart of this matter. One of the things that disturbs me most deeply, besides my exclusion from the so-called debate regarding "assisted suicide", is the fact that rarely are the underlying values and assumptions fueling this quest ever examined or even questioned. The desire to establish a constitutional right to die is built upon a foundation of belief that the damaged/difficult and/or dying body is worthless, that the experiences of living with the damaged/difficult and/or dying body are undignified. Dignity. That word. To me, what it all gets down to is bodily fluids. Okay, that's a tad flippant, but I really do think it's an important part of the story. Nature at its most unruly. Our very human essence is so damned undignified. And so uncontrollable. We spend most of our life working like fiends to maintain the illusion that we are in control, that we can tame and tidy nature. Let's face it: nature always has the last laugh. Nowhere does the old girl laugh louder than with disability and death. God forbid we human beings should ever have to get up close and personal with our unwieldy, messy, smelly humanness. In every way possible, this culture's rules and values distance us from the realities of our own bodies in all their glorious imperfection. Just flick on the TV any time of the day or night and you'll be bombarded with messages about the necessity of looking perfect and smelling better. It's presented not as an option, but an obligation. Of course we want to hasten death; of course we want to make it easier for Cripples to die. Out damn spot. Out. I don't think it's just coincidence that this urgent, zealous drive to give us more ways to opt out of life comes at a time when more and more of us are visible, living in community, being "in the face", so to speak, of able-bodied assumptions about normal. And not just the us that can almost pass as AB, but those of us whose bodies are wildly uncontrollable, we of the drooling, spazzing, claw-handed variety of Cripple. And instead of trying to fade into the nooks and crannies as good Cripples of the past were taught to do, we blast down the main streets in full view, we sit slobbering at the table of your favorite restaurant, we insist on sharing your classroom, your workplace, your theater, your everything. The comfort of keeping us out of sight and out of mind behind institutional walls is being taken away. And because there is no way for good people to admit just how bloody uncomfortable they are with us, they distance themselves from their fears by devising new ways to erase us from the human landscape, all the while deluding themselves that it is for our benefit. And of course these fears that fuel the right-to-die movement are fed by economics. The high cost of Cripple maintenance and slow death. Limited resources and yada yada. Limited resources? As a society, we seem to have no problem paying for what we want; there are no limited resources when it comes to those things we deem of value. Unfortunately, our society's priorities are out of whack. America belches out billions for stealth bombers and rations health care; America pours its financial resources down the drain of bigger prisons while cutting hot lunch programs for hungry children. We shouldn't be surprised that we're on the hit list. All in keeping with the good ole American love affair with the quick fix. So much easier to kill something than to care for it. As someone who's spent most of my life on the receiving end of one kind of medical treatment or another, who's been probed and pried by more doctors than I can count, I can say from sad experience that when it comes to disability the medical profession ain't got a clue. Doctors are the last folks, as a group, I think oughta have more power to do me harm. It's not that I think docs are, by nature, a particularly vicious breed; it's just their training. What should we expect from folks who are taught that to heal means to fix or eradicate? If you can't cure it, bury it. Chronic illness, disability, the slow train of dying just don't make for a comfortable fit. My wariness about granting doctors more power over life and death isn't just because of the raw deal I've had personally. I know history. The 200,000+ disabled people killed in Germany as prologue to the Holocaust weren't slaughtered by goose-stepping brownshirts. Unh uh. They were starved to death and lethally injected out of their misery by nice professional men in clean white coats, men who'd sworn to uphold the Hippocratic oath, that same oath about healing that the doctors pushing for assisted suicide in 1997 USA have sworn to uphold. Even with the glaring spotlight of historical perspective, the murder of our ancestors is held separate and unequal to the murder of the six million that followed. Not one of those doctors has been called a war criminal. We were and still are, after all "special circumstances." If only Americans weren't so confident "it couldn't happen here," maybe we'd be safer. There are few things more dangerous than the arrogance of assuming you're incapable of behaving inhumanely. Decent people don't commit inhumane acts in good conscience, so in order to maintain the myth of enlightenment, those acts must be recast in a positive light. Dropping the H-bomb on the civilian population of Hiroshima moves from atrocity to "life-saving necessity"; killing those we deem a burden becomes euthansia, mercy killing, the relieving of undue suffering. I have to admit I feel inadequate to express in a rational, reasoned way what I understand in the deepest cell of my marrow to be a movement toward genocide. But no matter how awkward or inarticulate we feel, no matter how difficult it is to peel away the layers to get deep inside the truth of this movement, we must do it. It is our obligation as the ancestors of this country's future victims of the right to die.

And disability has always been the monster by combining the impossible and forbidden. We are necesarilly unstable and breaking rules- our performance in the round conjures up mystery and awe to draw attention so that we may change your lense Campbell 1 https://www.academia.edu/4492194/THE_GREAT_DIVIDE_ABLEISM_AND_TECHNOLOGIES_OF_DISABILITY_PRODUCTION_PhD_._2003
The conundrum “What is It?” is best represented in the figure of the ‘monster’33 , who as Foucault (1997a: 51) puts it “combines the impossible and the forbidden” and disturbs the “juridical regularities”. During the 14th and 15th centuries in Europe, the figuring of the ‘monster’ or ‘freak’ was unstable and multiple. This period can be characterised as a time of ambivalence and uncertainty about the liminality of human corporeality. As such the ‘monster’ conjures up mystery, sublime, prodigy, awe as well as repulsion. Monstrosity was ennobled in images (albeit in a later period) imputed to Julie Pastrana, known as the ugliest woman in the world (Figure 2)34 . To speak of disability, handicaps and illness is to speak of the weakness of our human condition. No-one born into this world is free from human frailty – whether it be physical, emotional or spiritual. Each of us must personally come to terms with this frailty. (Pope John Paul II, cited in Australian Catholic Bishops’ Committee for the Family and for Life, 1997).
Top of Form

Regulation and oppression of disabled people  creates the divide between empowered subjects and non-humans- and our embracement of mosnterisation is essential for true expression and an ontological prerequisite to evaluating truths. Campbell 2
bodies are regulated through the use of disciplinary power, which produces the subjectifications of “abledness” and aberrancy (read: disabled). The creation of such regimes of ontological separation, appears disassociated from power, and are achieved through the use of three disciplinary techniques: hierarchical observation, normalising judgement and examination (Nettleton, 1995: 113 - 114). Bodies in this way become elements that may be moved, used, transformed, demarcated, improved and articulated with others (Foucault, 1977a: 136, 164). Indeed, this transformative process produces knowledge of the individual and the conditions of their existence. Their subjectivities are shaped by techniques that govern use, gesture, movement and positioning of the body (Foucault, 1977a: 152). Central to regimes of ableism are two core elements that feature irrespective of its localised enactment, namely the notion of the normative (and normate individual89) and the enforcement of a constitutional divide between perfected naturalized humanity and the aberrant, the unthinkable, quasi-human hybrid and therefore non-human. This constitution provides the layout, the blueprint for the scaling and marking of bodies and the ordering of their terms of relation. Let’s take each of these two elements separately and explore them more closely. The corporeal Otherness of the ‘disabled body’ is integral to discourses of ableist normativity in order to establish the boundaries of ‘normal’ and ‘pathological’. As Georges Canguilhem (1978: 69) puts it, “every generality is the sign of an essence, and every perfection the realization of the essence, … a common characteristic, the value of an ideal type”. Inscribing certain bodies in terms of deficiency and essential inadequacy privileges a particular understanding of normalcy that is commensurate with the interests of dominant groups (and as we will see later, the assumed interests of subordinated groups). Indeed, the formation of the normate individual depends upon the self of ‘disabled’ bodies being rendered beyond the realm of civility, thus becoming an unthinkable object of apprehension. The unruly, uncivil, disabled body I argue is necessary for the reiteration of the ‘truth’ of the ‘real/essential’ human self who is endowed with masculinist attributes of certainty, mastery and autonomy - the perfectible God-made man. Marcel Detienne summarizes this system of thought aptly: Such a …system is founded on a series of acts of partition whose ambiguity, here as elsewhere, is to open up the terrain of their transgression at the very moment when they mark off a limit. To discover the complete horizon of a society’s symbolic values, it is also necessary to map out its transgressions, its deviants (Detienne, 1979: ix). Detienne’s summation in the context in which I am writing, points to what we may call the double bind of ableism when performed within western neo-liberal polities. The double bind folds in on itself – for whilst claiming ‘inclusion’, ableism simultaneously always restates and enshrines itself. On the one hand, discourses of equality promote ‘inclusion’ by way of promoting positive attitudes (sometimes legislated in mission statements, marketing campaigns, equal opportunity protections) and yet on the other hand, ableist discourses proclaim quite emphatically that disability is inherently negative, ontologically intolerable – and in the end a dispensable remnant. As Judith Butler remarks in the open quotation to this section, this casting results in an ontological foreclosure wherein positive signification of disability become unspeakable – disability can’t be thought of/spoken about on any other basis than the negative. To do so, to invoke oppositional discourses, to undertake acts of resistance; is to run the risk of further pathologisation, trivialisation, appropriation and recuperation by (and from within) hegemonic ableist networks. So to explicate ourselves out of this double bind we need to persistently and continually return to the matter of disability as negative ontology, as a malignancy, that is, as the property a body constituted by what Michael Oliver refers to as, “the personal tragedy theory of disability,” A conception in whose terms disability cannot be spoken of as anything other than an anathema. On the personal tragedy theory, Oliver notes, “disability is some terrible chance event which occurs at random to unfortunate individuals” (Oliver, 1996: 32).

part 3 is a methodology
Thus our advocacy is to embrace the methodology of disabled people telling disabled stories in a way that desires disability. we will defend das linking to this speech act alone.
Disabled authors stories provide are the best educational methodology to undertake in debate and promote absolute fairness by balancing against pertint inequality as if you wern't ableist we wouldn't have had to be un-T which means we are a cycle until you change.
Ruth  O’Brien 04 (Editor), , "Voices from the Edge: Narratives about the Americans with Disabilities Act: Ruth O'Brien, Rogers M. Smith: 9780195156874: Amazon.com: Books," No Publication, https://www.amazon.com/Voices-Edge-Narratives-Americans-Disabilities/dp/0195156870
The eloquent contributions in this volume give readers a look into the lives of persons with disabilities. By letting each contributor use his or her own voice, the volume opens doors of imagination in many diverse locations. It restores some balance to the overall narrative about disability by having people with impairments speak for themselves. In the past, it has been able-bodied authors like William Shakespeare and Victor Hugo, just to name a few, whose stories have shaped our views of disability. I "Non-disabled people have had, and largely continue to have, 'absolute power' over narratives," explains social policy specialist Jenny Morris, "when it comes to the representation of impairment in literature, film, television, and art."2   This volume also advances legal narration as a genre by moving its application from the lives of people of color to the lives of persons with disabilities. In the words of political theorist Larry Preston, "the imaginative reach of personal narrative" gives "us important access into the lives of particular people in particular places."3 Or, as Toni Morrison succinctly explains it, "Narrative remains the best way to learn anything. 

Story telling builds up wider revolution that solves back for any DAs in the long run. It is also the starting point for all kritiks and ways of solving oppression.
Sium and Ritskes 13
(Aman Sium, Eric Ritskes, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Sium identifies as being Tigrinya, indigenous, African, and Eritrean, Ritskes is Zhaganash and also is the Editor for Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society, Speaking truth to power: Indigenous storytelling as an act of living resistance, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2013 decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/download/19626/16256
Indigenous stories and ways of storytelling are as varied as the locations and peoples they emanate from, as varied as the forms of oppression they speak against, and as varied as the methods of resistance they contain and speak to. We do not take up an idealistic or naive view of personal narratives and stories; because of the relationality and locatedness that they emanate from, they are fraught with tensions and contestations. But these contestations, rather than disabling resistance and political action because of a tepid relativistic framework, strengthen and build a mobile, diverse, and amphibious movement built on the diverse Indigenous nations at work against colonial power. As we have argued previously (2012), “We cannot ignore these intersections because it is this complexity, this layer upon layer, which colonialism acts through and upon. If we are serious about decolonizing, we must be able to untangle the knots and respond to colonial oppression at all levels” (p. x). When Mohanty (2003) asks us to theorize difference as “genuinely complex and contradictory rather than as commodified variations of Eurocentric themes” (p. 185), this is what the articles in this issue do through storytelling, drawing on powerful examples of Indigenous story-as-theory to complicate and contextualize difference and decolonization. As Lefrancois adds (in this issue), “Stories like these tell more than the labels associated with identity politics. The contradictions, complicity, complexities of lived experiences cannot be grasped in the mere claiming of identities” (p. 118). Indigenous stories are a reclamation of Indigenous voice, Indigenous land, and Indigenous sovereignty. They are vital to decolonization. Indigenous storytelling works to both deconstruct colonial ways of coming to know, as well as construct alternatives - recognizing that these two processes do not happen in a linear trajectory; if we are waiting for the dismantling of colonial structures before we focus on rebuilding Indigenous and decolonial alternatives, we will always be too late. Indigenous stories are a creative force, grounded in rootedness and relationality. Said (1993) argues that “Decolonization is a very complex battle over the course of different political destinies, different histories and geographies, and it is replete with works of the imagination, scholarship, and counter-scholarship (p. 219). In this issue, we see the authors bridge these divisions and reveal storytelling as knowledge production, engaged in creative scholarship that works counter to colonial ways of knowing. We want to conclude by asking, what is the role of the reader/audience in bearing witness to these stories? How might we read these stories as instructional, or as informing our own decolonizing practices? In this case, the ‘we’ is a differentiated and layered community of scholars, educators, and activists, Indigenous peoples and our/their allies. Nonetheless, the question of how responsibility enters the frame of storytelling is an important one; accountability is an important aspect of Indigenous storytelling and the authors of this issue name trust and responsibility as key ingredients to storytelling. They demonstrate that in order for their work to be transformative, the storyteller must feel a sense of intellectual and often spiritual responsibility to the audience they speak to. What kinds of responsibilities might we have as witnesses to these stories of pain, healing, and transformation? These questions are only a starting point and but one point of entry but we can suggest that, as an audience of various peoples and experiences, you engage these stories from the same place of honesty and openness that they flow from. Let them soak in, take time to process the words, maybe sit with that cup of tea that Mallory Whiteduck suggests. Because, for Indigenous peoples, stories are open-ended processes for speaking reclamation and resurgence, dialogue and contestation, they are part of a cycle of renewal and recreation. Finally, storytelling is an act of ceremony that seeks to undo and re- imagine: “This undoing of the colonial by the act of ceremony is a decolonizing act” (Iseke, this issue, p. 48). We hope that these articles go beyond the moment of reading, that they go beyond the intellectualization and mental response to challenge your heart and feet to action.
Debate is try or die and right now we are dying disabled stories must come into the space with a vengeance in order for it to hold any meaning and to arrive at correct decesions around justice humanity and education.
Michael Berube , 5-1-2003, "Citizenship and Disability," Dissent Magazine May 1, 2003, http://www.alternet.org/story/15809/citizenship_and_disability  Michael Berube is the Paterno Family Professor in Literature at Pennsylvania State University. This article is adapted from a talk given at the 2002 convention of the Arc of the United States (formerly the Association of Retarded Citizens of the United States).
Imagine a building in which political philosophers are debating, in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, the value and the purpose of participatory parity over against forms of authoritarianism or theocracy. Now imagine that this building has no access ramps, no Braille or large-print publications, no American Sign Language interpreters, no elevators, no special-needs paraprofessionals, no in-class aides. Contradictory as such a state of affairs may sound, it's a reasonably accurate picture of what contemporary debate over the meaning of democracy actually looks like. How can we remedy this? Only when we have fostered equal participation in debates over the ends and means of democracy can we have a truly participatory debate over what "participatory parity" itself means. That debate will be interminable in principle, since our understandings of democracy and parity are infinitely revisable, but lest we think of deliberative democracy as a forensic society dedicated to empyreal reaches of abstraction, we should remember that debates over the meaning of participatory parity set the terms for more specific debates about the varieties of human embodiment. These include debates about prenatal screening, genetic discrimination, stem-cell research, euthanasia, and, with regard to physical access, ramps, curb cuts, kneeling buses, and buildings employing what is now known as universal design.  Leftists and liberals, particularly those associated with university humanities departments, are commonly charged with being moral relativists, unable or unwilling to say (even after September 11) why one society might be "better" than another. So let me be especially clear on this final point. I think there's a very good reason to extend the franchise, to widen the conversation, to democratize our debates, and to make disability central to our theories of egalitarian social justice. The reason is this: a capacious and supple sense of what it is to be human is better than a narrow and partial sense of what it is to be human, and the more participants we as a society can incorporate into the deliberation of what it means to be human, the greater the chances that that deliberation will in fact be transformative in such a way as to enhance our collective capacities to recognize each other as humans entitled to human dignity. As Jamie reminds me daily, both deliberately and unwittingly, most Americans had no idea what people with Down syndrome could achieve until we'd passed and implemented and interpreted and reinterpreted a law entitling them all to a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. I can say all this without appealing to any innate justification for human dignity and human rights, and I can also say this: Without a sufficient theoretical and practical account of disability, we can have no account of democracy worthy of the name.
 Perhaps some of our fellow citizens with developmental disabilities would not put the argument quite this way; even though Jamie has led me to think this way, he doesn't talk the way I do. But those of us who do participate in political debates, whether about school funding in a specific district or about the theory and practice of democracy at its most abstract, have the obligation to enhance the abilities of our children and our fellow citizens with disabilities to participate in the life of the United States as political and moral equals with their nondisabled peers-both for their own good, and for the good of democracy, which is to say, for the good of all of us.

part 4 is framing
Challenging the assemblage of the body in disability in educational spaces like debate is an epistemic and ontological prerequisite to analyzing all other impacts and truths Ervelles  2K,   

For example, critical theorists of education have begun to describe how bodies are inscribed by the dominant cultural practices of schools through a process that Peter McLaren has called “enfleshment.” To be “enfleshed,” McLaren explains, is to be marked by discourses that not only sit on the surface of the flesh but are, on the other hand, embedded in the flesh such that we learn “a way of being in our bodies…that is we are taught to think about our bodies and how to experience our bodies.” One context where students learn to experience their bodies is education, where students learn the importance of disciplining their bodies so as not to distract from the “mental efforts” of the mind. In an attempt to control these “disruptive excesses” of unruly bodies, schools have elaborate practices that support the rigid organization of classroom space (through) and time, the overriding emphasis on discipline, and the careful monitoring of the curriculum. So entrenched are these practices that Ursula Kelly has argued that “education is the body and education territorializes the body” since “the notion of mind/ing bodies bespeaks most accurately and succinctly about how the intersection of knowledge, power, and desire crafts subjectivity as the cultural project of schools.” 

THE ACADEMIA WON BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FIRST HERE BUT NOW WE WILL COME IN WAVES AND INVERT SCHOLARSHIP ITSELF WHICH HAS ALWAYS STUDIED US FROM THE POSITION OF NON-DISABILED WHICH RESULTS IN OPPRESSION Campbell 5
 In fact people with disabilities remain one of the most studied heterogeneous groups in the western world86. Such an emphasis produces scholarship that contains serious distortions, gaps and omission regarding the production of disability and erases and at the same time re-inscribes an able-bodied voice/lens towards disability. Disability, often quite unconsciously, continues to be examined and (is) taught from the perspective of the Other (Marks, 1996: 70). The challenge then is to reverse, to invert this traditional approach, to shift our gaze and concentrate on what the study of disability tells us about the production, operation and maintenance of ableism. For instance, in my own teaching I often ask students, what does the study of the politics of ‘deafness’ tell us about what it means to be ‘hearing’? Indeed how the very conceptualisation of ‘hearing’ is framed in the light of discourses of ‘deafness’

And you have an obligation to make debate safe and inclusive for all Smith  ’13, 

\“It will be uncomfortable, it will be hard, and it will require continued effort but the necessary step in fixing this problem, like all problems, is the community as a whole admitting that such a problem with many “socially acceptable” choices exists in the first place. Like all systems of social control, the reality of racism in debate is constituted by the singular choices that institutions, coaches, and students make on a weekly basis. I have watched countless rounds where competitors attempt to win by rushing to abstractions to distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day. One of the students I coached, who has since graduated after leaving debate, had an adult judge write out a ballot that concluded by “hypothetically” defending my student being lynched at the tournament. Another debate concluded with a young man defending that we can kill animals humanely, “just like we did that guy Troy Davis”. Community norms would have competitors do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse black debaters of breaking to escape hard conversations but as someone who understands that experience, the only constructive strategy is to acknowledge the reality of the oppressed, engage the discussion from the perspective of authors who are black and brown, and then find strategies to deal with the issues at hand. It hurts to see competitive seasons come and go and have high school students and judges spew the same hateful things you expect to hear at a Klan rally. A student should not, when presenting an advocacy that aligns them with the oppressed, have to justify why oppression is bad. Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with liberatory potential. Even if the form debate gives to a conversation is not the same you would use to discuss race in general conversation with Bayard Rustin or Fannie Lou Hamer, that is not a reason we have to strip that conversation of its connection to a reality that black students cannot escape. Current coaches and competitors alike that dismiss concerns of racism and exclusion, won’t teach other students anything about identity in debate other than how to shut down competitors who engage in alternative styles and discourses, and refuse to engage in those discussions even outside of a tournament setting. A conversation on privilege nd identity was held at a debate institute I worked at this summer and just as any theorist of privilege would predict it was the h eterosexual, white, male staff members that either failed to make an appearance or stay for the entire discussion. No matter how talented they are, we have to remember that the students we work with are still just high school aged children. If those who are responsible for participants and the creation of accessible norms won't risk a better future for our community, it becomes harder to explain to students who look up to them why risking such an endeavor is necessary.”

AND personal stories are a prerequisite to gaining human rights that aren't used to oppress us- we are thus topical Couser 05
Disability, Life Narrative, and Representation Author(s): G. Thomas Couser Source: PMLA, Vol. 120, No. 2 (Mar., 2005), pp. 602-606 Published by: Modern Language Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25486192
l commodity for thousands of years. Historically, the cultural representation of disability has functioned at the expense of disabled people in part because they have not controlled their own images. My point of entry into disability studies, however, was through an antithetical phenomenon: late twentieth-century life writing, in which, in unprecedented ways and to an extraordinary degree, disabled people initiated and controlled their own narratives. Indeed, I would argue that one of the most significant developments, if not the most significant development in life writing in North America over the last three decades has been the upsurge in the publication of book-length accounts (from both first- and third-person points of view) of living with illness and disability. Whereas in the 1970s it was difficult to find any representation of most disabling conditions in life writing, today one can find multiple representations of many conditions. Equally significant, and more remarkable, one can find autobiographical accounts of conditions that would seem to preclude first-person testimony; for example, autism, locked-in syndrome, and (early) Alzheimer's disease. A comprehensive history of disability life writing has yet to be produced, but it is safe to say that not much of such literature was published before World War II. War both causes and valorizes certain forms of disability; not surprisingly, then, disabled veterans wrote a substantial number of narratives after the war. Polio generated even more narratives; indeed, polio may be the first disability to have engendered a substantial autobiographical literature (Wilson). In the 1980s and 1990s, HIV/AIDS and breast cancer provoked significant numbers of narratives; many of these challenge cultural scripts of the conditions (such as that AIDS is an automatic death sentence or that breast cancer negates a woman's sexuality). Thus, one major post-World War II cultural phenomenon was the generation of large numbers of narratives about a small number of conditions. A complementary phenomenon has been the production of small numbers of narratives about a large number of conditions, some quite rare and some only recently recognized. Among these conditions are (in alphabetical order) Alzheimer's, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Lou Gehrig's disease, aphasia, Asperger's syndrome, asthma, autism, cerebral palsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, cystic fibrosis, diabetes, disfigurement, Down syndrome, epilepsy, locked-in syndrome, multiple sclerosis, obesity, obsessive-compulsive disorder, stroke, stuttering, and Tourette's syndrome. As the twentieth century drew to a close, then, many disabilities came out of the closet and into the living room of life writing. Like life writing by other marginalized groups: women, African Americans, and gays, life writing by disabled people is a cultural manifestation of a human rights movement; significantly, the rise in personal narratives of disability has roughly coincided with the disability rights movement, whose major legal manifestation is the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was passed in 1990 (but which, some would argue, has never been fully implemented). The first flowering of disability autobiography is also part of a disability renaissance involving other arts and media. Disability autobiography should be seen, then, not as spontaneous "self-expression" but as a response, indeed, a retort to the traditional misrepresentation of disability in Western culture.

Storytelling is the best form of genealogy and futurism while allowing a plurastic of critical pedagogies and definitions to be taken- it is the starting point for  all critiques. Campbell 3
The telling of stories is a significant medium for the communication of ideas and values of culture as well as the transmission of the ‘memory’ of a body of people; a form of anamnesis that makes connections between the past, present and the future. Stories help us make sense of the world and the way in which we interpret the ‘nature’ of things and interpolate ways of difference. Sometimes these stories are explicitly named and actively exchanged, whilst others are more mundane, somewhat insidious - passing on in a multitude of remnants, connected, disconnected, contrary and multiple, eventually taking on the status of being considered a naturalized state of affairs, part of an a priori objective form of social ordering

part 5 is preempts

part 6 is the cards that didn't make it
And positive storytelling has the potential to create lasting relationships that extend out of debate. It is also the only way that we can actively engage in social change from a classroom.
 Julie Wiscombe 13 Ashoka future conference, 6-11-2013, "Future Forum Cheat Sheet: The Power Of Brevity And Other Storytelling Lessons," Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2013/06/11/future-forum-cheat-sheet-the-power-of-brevity-and-other-storytelling-lessons/#7e8911b268c3
Storytelling is a powerful tool for social change, which is why this theme was woven throughout Ashoka’s Future Forum. We talked about storytelling during the sessions, we dedicated an entire workshop to it, but most importantly, we shared our stories with each other.Three lessons learned about storytelling at the 2013 Future Forum:1) There is power in being concise Drawing inspiration from the Race Card Project, each participant at the Forum was invited to write down his or her story of change in six words or less. And during Thursday’s evening program, new Ashoka U.S. Fellows were given the opportunity to introduce their six-word stories. For example, Sarah Hemminger, founder of the Incentive Mentoring Program shared, “Feel alone? Expand your definition of family,” and Kendis Paris, founder of Truckers Against Trafficking said, “Truckers Against Human Trafficking? Hell Yeah!” In just six words each Fellow gave a powerful and memorable insight into his or her work. 2) Know the “why” behind the story What's the most important element of storytelling? It's defining a central theme, according to MothSHOP storytellers, a NYC-based group dedicated to crafting powerful, first-person stories. During their storytelling workshop, they challenged attendees to define what their stories were about and why they were important. The  takeaway: If you can answer why you are telling a story, and why it matters to listeners, then you're on track to craft stories worth remembering.3) All relationships are fed by storytelling  Nothing sells like a good story. But more importantly, nothing builds a relationship like a good story. The combination of conviction and storytelling brings people together, fuels relationships, and changes perspectives. We each have the responsibility of telling our stories, but it's just as important to let others tell their stories too. Something special happens when someone who has never shared his or her story is suddenly presented with a microphone or a tape recorder.Like Todd, my new favorite veteran, we are all authors and have the unique responsibility of sharing our stories. The story of social change is being written right now—it is a reality show and it is up to each of us to be co-authors and co-contributors.

My personal counter-narrative is a good method and  key to challenging the dominant cultural narrative of ableism for the benefit of marginalized outgroups

Andrews 04 Considering Counter Narratives: Narrating, Resisting, Making Sense edited by Michael G. W. Bamberg, Molly Andrews John Benjamins Publishing, 2004 - Language Arts and Disciplines - 380 pages
The issue of Narrative Inquiry in which the six articles were originally published was intended to explore the phenomenon of counter-narratives, the stories which people tell and live which offer resistance, either implicitly or explicitly, to dominant cultural narratives. The authors of these articles ask how it is that people frame their stories in relation to the dominant cultural storylines which form the context of their lives, especially when those storylines don't seem to fit. One of the key functions of master narratives is that they offer people a way of identifying what is assumed to be a normative experience. In this way, such storylines serve as a blueprint for all stories; they become the vehicle through which we comprehend not only the stories of others, but crucially of ourselves as well. For ultimately, the power of master narratives derives from their internalisation. Wittingly or unwittingly, we become the stories we know, and the master narrative is reproduced. But of course, it is not so simple. When, for whatever reason, our own experiences do not match the master narratives with which we are familiar, or we come to question the foundations of those dominant tales, we are confronted with a challenge. How can we make sense of ourselves, and our lives, if the shape of our life story looks deviant compared to the regular lines of the dominant stories? The challenge then becomes one of finding meaning outside of the emplotments which are ordinarily available. We become aware of new possibilities. Often people who construct personal stories which go against the social grain, do so with a consciousness of being a member of an outside group. While they might position their stories as being on the margin, they do not consider them to be unique. In this sense, narrative work has a particular attraction for those who are members of 'outgroups', or "groups whose marginality defines the boundaries of the mainstream, whose voice and perspective — whose consciousness — has been suppressed, devalued, and abnormalized" (Delgado 1995, p. 64). The stories, or counter-stories, which members of outgroups tell to themselves and others, help to document, and perhaps even validate, a 'counter-reality' (Delgado 1995, p. 64). In this sense, counter-narratives, like the dominant cultural narratives they challenge, might be experienced and articulated individually, but nonetheless they have common meanings. Even the most individualised and emotionally charged narratives belong to specific communities with specific scripts (Seale 2001); this too is true of the counter-narratives related in these pages. 

Current power structures have normalized the self that has made disability a negative ontology- the ac opens up an ecstatic space for embracing difference
The central concepts underlying this doctorate are Michel Foucault’s notions of governmentality and practices of normalisation (Foucault, 1977a; 1988a (Orig. 1981); 1991). In particular, the way technologies of self induce a particular understanding of desire or a dis-ease about the particularities of corporealities. This kind of desire or dis- ease makes it impossible to envision ‘disability’ as anything other than absence or negative ontology. Throughout this work I am interested in the ways individuals with disabilities respond to the compulsion towards ableist normativity and the way that compulsion also shapes the binarism of disability and able-bodiedness. My project of speaking otherwise about ‘disability’ and ableism is an attempt to unsettle hegemonic understandings of disability, to create a movement of aggiornamento, to open up an ecstatic ‘space’ where the flowering of positive spectrums of the ‘disabled self’ can be foregrounded. This chapter outlines specifically the methodological approaches and epistemological assumptions adopted throughout the work.
Allow me solve psychological pain and be free as I shape myself and the very world around me through my words- its a survival strategy don't kill me off
Maxwell 11 Tera Kimberly Maxwell May 2011 IMPERIAL REMAINS: MEMORIES OF THE UNITED STATES’ OCCUPATION IN THE PHILIPPINES Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/.../handle/2152/ETD-UT-2011-05.../MAXWELL-DI..

Once upon a time, I thought language about effecting change was just hopeful rhetoric. It sounded good, but I only half-believed it. What I have come to know through energy healing is the power of words to shift energy, and literally, to shift reality. We are the stories that we tell and the memories that we allow to define us, so why not choose empowering stories? It is not what happens to us that matters, but the stories we tell about  our past and the actions that emanate from our thoughts. The significance of storytelling in directing our reality does not mean that we ignore the past or suppress painful memories. Just as my archival project addresses disturbing memories, previously unacknowledged, and evokes the ghosts of the past, these ghosts no longer need to haunt us once we reckon with their memories. My family ghost stories have appeared throughout Imperial Remains, and I have wondered how my readers will react to supernatural tales. But whether readers accept these stories as literal or metaphorical, the conclusion is the same: the ghosts of our past no longer need to haunt us. Walter Benjamin writes, “To articulate the past does not mean to recognize it “the way it really was” (Ranke). It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger” (257). The ghost stories alert us to how the indigenous worldview offers solutions to our postmodern condition. 

The great divide represents the try or die battleground of fictions which is essential for disrupting the very foundations of oppression- our disquiet and embracement of disability is essential for resolving psychological harm and providing freedom
The Great Divide is a cartographic journey into the world of the production(s) of disability as well as the battlegrounds, the fights, the wars that seek to ensure the line of defence, the de-militarised zone, (to extend the military metaphor) between notions and epistemologies of ableism and disability are maintained, to remove grey zones that foreground hybrids, reduce uncertainties and enact ‘outlaw ontologies’ (Wrigley, 1996). The unfolding and writing of the doctorate was also a journey - albeit less cartographically dependent - for there were no roadmaps, only the remnants of foundations (e.g. existing disability studies scholarship) on which to pitch the author’s tent in order to ponder, discern, gather resources (literature outside of the purview of disability studies) and journey onward and a-round-ward (occasionally in circles). After many years of being immersed in disability studies literature I sensed that there was an element of inquiry missing from critical analysis. It seemed that the ‘disability problem’ was frequently expressed in terms of attitudinal barriers (incorporating social, political and legal) that resulted in social exclusion. Biomedicalism and/or social organisation were targeted as being the cause(s) of these mindsets (Bickenbach, 1993; Oliver, 1990; Oliver, 1991; Oliver, 1996) toward impairment. If this were simply the case, the solution would be to initiate some kind of program of awareness, positive and affirmative disability training aimed at inculcating more inclusive appreciations of disability. Certainly since the United Nations International Year of Disabled Persons (IYDP) in 1981, many countries have embarked on this task. The measure of the long-term success of these programs is debatable. It is true that a number of western countries instigated legal and social policy reforms in the 1980’s and 1990’s aimed at providing a better quality of life for disabled people. It is also true that with the increasing influence of economic monetarism ‘conservative’ government in many Western nations have reneged from or weakened social programs. As a Canadian disability activist remarks “goodwill is no substitute for freedom” (Snow, 1996). In the early days of pondering this thesis journey – the question, the subtext that directed my research, was related to the nature of unfreedom – the aspect of disablement that even in so-called ‘good’ social policy times – dented the shine – and continued to provoke disquiet. This disquiet revealed itself in conditions where an alternative construct of impairment was being proposed – in the simple settings of daily disability life: of a Para Olympian suggesting that her spinal injury was the best thing that happened to her, a mother feeling blessed to have given birth to a Deaf child, a devotee who desires another because of the nature of their impairment or a man with Tourette’s Syndrome who rejoices in his frenetic creativity

And disability is the necessary starting point for desiring marginalized epistemologies and ontologies
By placing ‘disability’ at the speaking centre of our analysis, not just in terms of subject/object relations but also based on an affirmative ontology, a ‘space’ can be opened for the foregrounding of an eroticisation of ‘disability’, read as a positive unfolding of difference. Known euphemistically as ‘disability’ culturalism, the literature concerning this ontological enclave is minimal and patchy. We can include some selective autobiographical/biographical material as a starting point. These works are often phenomenological in orientation (Bauby, 1997; Kuusisto, 1998; LaSpina, 1998; Mairs, 1987; Mairs, 1996; Sacks, 1984; Sacks, 1989; Williams, 1996). Another cluster of literature covers celebratory cultural representations in performance, visual arts, aesthetics, literature and media (Corker, 1999a; Duffy, 1997; Kuppers, 1999; VSA Arts Gallery, 1999). Only a handful of works tackle ‘disability’ as ontologically positive ‘head 33 on’, either by way of discussion of the notion of ‘disability culture’/pride11 or the appropriation (and re-inscription) of traditionally pejorative language and imagery (Australian Association of the Deaf, ND; Brannon, 1995; Campbell, 1999; Corker, 1999a; Linton, 1998; Martin, 1997; Wrigley, 1996). Many of the recent developments within ‘disability culture’ mirror some of the pathways of the cultural politics of other liminal identity groups such as queer nation and black pride12. This dissertation makes a significant contribution to epistemological and ontological explorations of the ways ‘disabilities’ mediate ‘desire’ and incite a movement towards a transgressive aesthetic.
Allow me solve psychological pain and be free as I shape myself and the very world around me through my words- its a survival strategy don't kill me off
Maxwell 11 Tera Kimberly Maxwell May 2011 IMPERIAL REMAINS: MEMORIES OF THE UNITED STATES’ OCCUPATION IN THE PHILIPPINES Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/.../handle/2152/ETD-UT-2011-05.../MAXWELL-DI..

Once upon a time, I thought language about effecting change was just hopeful rhetoric. It sounded good, but I only half-believed it. What I have come to know through energy healing is the power of words to shift energy, and literally, to shift reality. We are the stories that we tell and the memories that we allow to define us, so why not choose empowering stories? It is not what happens to us that matters, but the stories we tell about  our past and the actions that emanate from our thoughts. The significance of storytelling in directing our reality does not mean that we ignore the past or suppress painful memories. Just as my archival project addresses disturbing memories, previously unacknowledged, and evokes the ghosts of the past, these ghosts no longer need to haunt us once we reckon with their memories. My family ghost stories have appeared throughout Imperial Remains, and I have wondered how my readers will react to supernatural tales. But whether readers accept these stories as literal or metaphorical, the conclusion is the same: the ghosts of our past no longer need to haunt us. Walter Benjamin writes, “To articulate the past does not mean to recognize it “the way it really was” (Ranke). It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger” (257). The ghost stories alert us to how the indigenous worldview offers solutions to our postmodern condition.

Tournament: TOC | Round: Finals | Opponent: Jonas | Judge: Sean Fee, Sean Fahey, Shawn white

PART 1 is dejavu

TICK TOCK TICK TOCK ITS THE CRIPPLES TIME TO SPEAK MAKE SURE HE DOESNT GO ON TO LONG WITH THE BEEP BEEP BEEP OF MY 5$ EFFICENT PURCHASE TIMER.

DEBATE IS CONSTRAINED BY LIMITS OF NORMATIVE STANDARDS OF TEMPORALITY IN WHICH DISABLED PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY EXCLUDED AND FORCED TO INTERNALISE VIOLENCE. THE FUTURE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH WHEN YOUR STUCK IN THE PAST. Ramirez  15,

To me, such comments are illustrative of how a certain normative standard of temporality is so consistently invoked, rendered so commonplace, that it is beyond noticeability or scrutiny. Unless we’re confronted with clear, visible instances of a bifurcated futurity in youth—say, someone with a terminable health condition—we generally go about our day with unquestioned and prefabricated assumptions about how human life should unfold across our linear version of time. There are, of course, obvious exceptions and counterarguments, such as that neither youth nor old age are the same for everyone, across all geographical and cultural contexts. We see instances of how standardized periodizations of age are called into question, for example, when examining the culturally divergent definitions of ‘adulthood’—of what it constitutes and when it starts—or the social construction of adolescence. But the dominant time and age-related assumptions are nevertheless there, codified into our social institutions and reproduced in our colloquial expectations. Although we are conditioned into thinking of it as an absolute and natural given, a mere backdrop against which social events unfold, I would agree with others that time, like space, is socially constructed. We’ve made decisions on how to read it–say, along axes of terrestrial movements using a sexagesimal system and a Gregorian calendar—and how such time is to be "spent" (an allusion to the naturalized connection between productivity, consumption, and time). Histories are made and remade, and our relationship to them shapes our sense of the future as well as our identities and experiences in the present. And as with other facets of our social existence, the political economy has been instrumental to the ways we conceptualize(s) time, humanity, and the trajectories of life. It’s worth remembering that the production of our first time-telling instruments was driven, in large part, by the needs of agricultural production. The advent of capitalism accelerated the changes as efficiency, productivity, and time became especially intertwined—a fact that was well noted by the so-called founders of sociology, particularly Marx, Weber, and Simmel. I bring up this social history to highlight the seemingly arbitrary nature of how we temporalize life into discrete parameters and periodizations that are far from "natural." Capitalist time has performed an incredible feat in measuring virtually everything against time-based markers of efficiency, a fact seen most cruelly today in the way neoliberal logic uses quantifiable metrics to convert schools into test-taking factories, bodies into malleable overtime engines, and brains into calculating computers. Even in our dominant allopathic healthcare, the logic of capitalist time is used in the treatment of bodies as machines, with an increasing trend toward "specialization" turning organs or bodily systems into isolatable cogs and pinwheels. For people with disabilities or chronic conditions, such parsing of time under this logic continually works against us as our bodies are said to "betray" us. We internalize the idea of failure when we can’t all measure up to the same standards of productivity and efficiency, and rather than devoting our limited energies to living life within a still-enriching range of possibilities, we are punished through de facto institutions of punishment and control: incarceration, hospitalization, or a regulatory "welfare" and its inordinate criteria of eligibility. (Those institutions, as it turns out, have their own alternate temporalities that involve "checking out" from the typical spatial and temporal conditions of the working masses.) That said, when speaking of the ways in which time doesn’t "work in my favor," I speak of the perverse ways in which social institutions and everyday expectations of normalized life trajectories make it difficult to live life with my particular set of abilities, skills, and interests. Being coerced into making decisions that align with certain pre-planned futurities, I find it difficult to peg any decisions around future-bounded notions of "climbing the ladder" or "starting the journey" of a career—not to mention those temporalized notions of partner-finding and family-making—when I can’t even be certain of my ability to wake up or pull myself out of bed the next morning. Living with a degenerative condition, I exist in a much different temporality marked by daily, sometimes hourly, unpredictabilities–a temporality that relates unevenly with the presumed "willing and able" logic of long-term work projects or social expectations. Given the nature of the condition, I’m unlikely to see the sort of "rewards," like certain job opportunities or social accomplishments, that capitalist time tells us to wait for. Sure, we can talk about how such "uncertainty" is true for all of us, that we can all get struck by a bus tomorrow. But with a disabling chronic condition, those questions of the future are always weighted against the very real possibilities of a changing body in an unaccommodating world. Although I have dreams for the future like everyone else, when I’m reminded of how my in-pained present was the future at one point, I’m also reminded that the future is far from being a limitless or delayable abstraction. 

YOU CAN BE ALICE IF IM THE MAD HATTER. WELCOME TO UTOPIANISM THE FINAL BATTLEGROUND TO FIND OUR PEACE AND DESIRE DISABILITY- HERE WE MUST EMBRACE NOTIONS OF CRIPPED TIME. Campbell  12,

Difference can be a vexed issue even within modern liberal societies. The tendency for many people is still to emulate or at least appear to refashion normative ways of being. Much of the intellectual traffic for the rethinking of disability in terms of anti-sociality has emerged through debates about the merits of social inclusion and liberal notions of equality and resilience strategies to break the abled stranglehold. Legal theorists like Ruth Colker who argues that anti-subordination rather than integration should be the measure of equality are the exception (Colker, 2006). There is limited work within disability studies, especially in approaches influenced by the social model of disability or social role valorisation theory, that take a trans-integration or post-normalisation perspective. What if we turned our backs on ‘fitting in’ – what would be the opportunities, the consequences and maybe dangers, to give ‘attention to the lived intricacies of embodiment offer~ing~ alternatives to normalization efforts aimed at homogenizing social outsiders (Snyder and Fiona Kumari Campbell 223 Mitchell, 2010, 113)’? For this imaginative undertaking it is necessary to turn to the theoretical work by other ‘outsider’ groups – queer theorists. Spearheading the critique of the ‘different but same’ stance of social justice formulations are ‘anti-social’ queer theorists (Bersani, 1986, 1996; Edelman, 2004; Halberstam, 2005, 2008; Muñoz, 2007). This section will outline some of the conceptual drivers of the anti-social argument and their adoption for developing an anti-sociality posture of disability. Leo Bersani’s seminal work (1986, 1996) formulated an anti-social, negative and anti-relational theory of sexuality. These works along with the writings of Edelman (2004), Halberstam (2005, 2008) and Muñoz (2007) set the stage for the decoupling of queer marginality from the liberal projects of tolerance and social inclusion. Before moving into a consideration of how certain conceptual renderings may be applied to the disability situation, it is useful to familiarise ourselves with how the neologism queer is understood by anti-social theorists. Lee Edelman’s No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive does not indicate the parameters of queer, but concludes that ‘queerness can never define an identity; it can only ever disturb one’ (2004: 17). Queer, while originating from the purview of diverse sexualities, easily extends to other kindred forms of ontological and corporeal aberrancies and ambiguities (such as disability). So it is right for Halberstam (2005: 6) to embrace a more elastic connotation of queer which refers to ‘non-normative logics and organizations of community, sexual identity, embodiment and activity in space and time’. From this reckoning, the disabled person is already queered. Queer, then is antitheoretical to the regime of ableist translation. In a world that makes claims to integrity using the argument based on equality as sameness (we are normal, we are everyday people), it would seem a bit bold or offensive to suggest that people with disability are different from the run-of-mill ableist norm emulators. Ahmed (2006) points to an alternate prism, a ‘migrant orientation’ to capture a disorientation faced by queer folk which I extend to include disabled people. The disorientation, a form of radical estrangement propels a lived experience of facing at least two directions: towards a home that has been lost (the desire to emulate ableist norms), and to a place that is not yet home. Regimes of ableism have produced a depth of disability negation that reaches into the caverns of collective subjectivity to the extent that disability negativity is seen as a ‘naturalized’ reaction to an aberration. Not negating queerness or disability can cultivate alternate kinds of liberty that de-identify with the rhetoric of social inclusion. A key marker of the anti-social turn is temporality – contemporarity and futurity – an explication of the current marginal stance and the vision for future. It is this orientation of predicament and utopianism that can speak to the disability realm. For disability, utopianism is a conflicted zone – there is no future existence, disability dreaming is expunged and the utopian drive is a device for promise (of curability), hence extinction of the impairment state. Jose Esteban Muñoz (2007: 453) in speculating about the absence a queer imagination elicits a desire to engage in a queer horizon, a utopian hermeneutics where re-imagining futurity requires that ‘the not quite conscious is the realm of potentiality that must be called upon’. The distance between imagination and potentiality means that ‘queerness is not quite here’. Our imaginations are not yet exhausted. Muñoz explains: to argue that we are not quite queer yet, that queerness, what we will know as queerness, does not yet exist. I suggest that holding queerness, in a sort of ontologically humble state, under a conceptual grid wherein we do not claim to always already know queerness in the world, potentially staves off the ossifying effects of neoliberal ideology. (Muñoz, 2007: 454) How does an alternative horizon for disabled people come to be formulated? Living in the now and not yet, as outsiders, not quite inside, requires a disposition or habit of contemporariness. Contemporariness signifies a relationship with the present but also a distance, a critical space from it. As Agamben explains: Those who are truly contemporary, who truly belong to their time, are those who neither perfectly coincide with it nor adjust themselves to its demands. They are in this sense irrelevant ~inattuale~. But precisely because of this condition, precisely through this disconnection and this anachronism, they are more capable than others of perceiving and grasping their own time. (2009: 40) Disabled people are called to live as contemporaries. The queering or cripping of contemporariness is the grasping and holding tight to ambivalence and obscurity so fundamental to the alternate lifestyle which is obtained through fixing the gaze not on our era’s light but the underbelly, or in Agamben’s language ‘darkness’ – which shines into the staree. In this sense, the contemporary queered and cripped person, in touching an elusive imaginary, sees the now and the emergent not as a death drive, but in terms of unlivedness: : The present is nothing other than this unlived element in everything that is lived. That which impedes access to the present is precisely the mass of what for some reason … we have not managed to live. The attention to this ‘unlived’ is the life of the contemporary. (Agamben, 2009: 51) The matter of re-imagining a disability or cripped horizon, a future without the stain of ableism, although elusive and out of grasp, is nonetheless fundamental in order to move to hopefulness and capture that unlived possibility in the lives of many with disability. Can the so-called shadows of a disabled life be sites of invigoration? What is ‘unlived’ in our lives? Crippin’ the human involves a differential gaze – where sometimes signs and gestures predominate, where there is a different mind style such as Tourette’s syndrome or autism, or a centring on visuality or tactility. A grounded earthiness can be ‘different’ through echolocation and waist heightedness. Halberstam (2008) speaks of acts of unbecoming. Through what she describes as ‘wilfully eccentric modes of being’, it is worth conjuring and queering concepts of passivity held against disabled people, as a refusal to live up to ableist expectations of performativity: ~I~n a performance of radical passivity, we witness the willingness of the subject to actually come undone, to dramatise unbecoming for the other so that the viewer does not have to witness unbecoming as a function of her own body. (Halberstam, 2008: 151) This radical passivity, for disabled people, would indeed have to be radical, as disabled people already live under the enormous weight of being characterised as passive. It is a tough ask to claw back and produce a cripped notion of passivity. Sunny Taylor does this in her quest for the right not to work: I have a confession to make: I do not work. I am on SSI ~social security benefit~. I have very little work value (if any), and I am a drain on our country’s welfare system. I have another confession to make: I do not think this is wrong, and to be honest, I am very happy not working. Instead I spend the majority of my time doing the activity I find the most rewarding and valuable, painting. (Taylor, 2004: 30) Such strange temporalities, imaginative life schedules present alternative temporalities which disability studies scholars have all along known, disrupt the parameters of the human (Halberstam, 2005; Campbell, 2009; McRuer, 2006). Having said this, it is all the more extraordinary that disabled people have not yielded to this repression but have resisted docility and engaged in transgressive ways of living disability. Ableism is founded on a utopian hermeneutics of the desirable and the disgusting and therefore it is, as Halberstam (2008: 153) puts it, necessary to inculcate alternative political imaginaries. McRuer (2008) drew my attention to the way Halberstam’s perspective can incorporate disability as also outside the lifecycle: I try to use the concept of queer time to make clear how respectability, and notions of the normal on which it depends, may be upheld by a middle-class logic of reproductive temporality. And so, in Western cultures, we chart the emergence of the adult from the dangerous and unruly period of adolescence as a desired process of maturation; and we create longevity as the most desirable future, applaud the pursuit of long life (under any circumstances), and pathologize modes of living that show little or no concern for longevity. Within the life cycle of the Western human subject, long periods of stability are considered to be desirable, and people who live in rapid bursts (drug addicts, for example) are characterized as immature and even dangerous. (Halberstam, 2005: 4–5) Cripped time can be staggered, frenzied, coded, meandering and be the distance between two events. Some of our time is shaped according to another’s doing – service time – the segmenting and waiting on assistive agencies.

~wade 97~ AND I am  THE MAD HATTER the crippled monster here to destroy debate and eat your ballot, every word you say echos able-normativity, each word i flow is a reminder of my burden and it all comes back to you wanting me out, you'll always find a way whether its that we need engagement or you actually know what’s best its all bullshit and we know it's just a way to erase us from debate, if you cared you'd concede WADE 97 http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/archive/onedge.htm====
Whenever I hear the phrases "right to die with dignity" and "quality of life" I think, uh oh. I know once again the A.B.s are having a conversation about me, without me. I watch the news shows, waiting for one Crip activist to have her say, one Gimp, whose wholeness is in question, to be given an opportunity to offer some real expert information. I wait longer through several incarnations. The grand debaters bandy many precious words. They call on some of my personal fave raves like "freedom of choice" and "dignity". Who, they ask, could be against these things? Who, they ask, would deny these things to their fellow citizens? No one who believes in the great principles upon which this great democracy was founded, right? Unh uh. I'm not buying it. As an aging, female Cripple who lives with pain and in poverty, I know too well the value society places on me. Every day I am assaulted by images that degrade me, that deem me a burden, a tragedy, that question the quality of my life and the worthiness of my existence. I live in a society that more and more forces me to fight for basic health care, that forces me to put the majority of my limited physical resources into securing my survival. I live in a society that in every way imaginable tells me I should not want to live. And now they want to offer me the dignity of having the right to choose to be put out of my misery by a licensed physician. At the risk of sounding paranoid, I suspect my best interests do not reside at the heart of this matter. One of the things that disturbs me most deeply, besides my exclusion from the so-called debate regarding "assisted suicide", is the fact that rarely are the underlying values and assumptions fueling this quest ever examined or even questioned. The desire to establish a constitutional right to die is built upon a foundation of belief that the damaged/difficult and/or dying body is worthless, that the experiences of living with the damaged/difficult and/or dying body are undignified. Dignity. That word. To me, what it all gets down to is bodily fluids. Okay, that's a tad flippant, but I really do think it's an important part of the story. Nature at its most unruly. Our very human essence is so damned undignified. And so uncontrollable. We spend most of our life working like fiends to maintain the illusion that we are in control, that we can tame and tidy nature. Let's face it: nature always has the last laugh. Nowhere does the old girl laugh louder than with disability and death. God forbid we human beings should ever have to get up close and personal with our unwieldy, messy, smelly humanness. In every way possible, this culture's rules and values distance us from the realities of our own bodies in all their glorious imperfection. Just flick on the TV any time of the day or night and you'll be bombarded with messages about the necessity of looking perfect and smelling better. It's presented not as an option, but an obligation. Of course we want to hasten death; of course we want to make it easier for Cripples to die. Out damn spot. Out. I don't think it's just coincidence that this urgent, zealous drive to give us more ways to opt out of life comes at a time when more and more of us are visible, living in community, being "in the face", so to speak, of able-bodied assumptions about normal. And not just the us that can almost pass as AB, but those of us whose bodies are wildly uncontrollable, we of the drooling, spazzing, claw-handed variety of Cripple. And instead of trying to fade into the nooks and crannies as good Cripples of the past were taught to do, we blast down the main streets in full view, we sit slobbering at the table of your favorite restaurant, we insist on sharing your classroom, your workplace, your theater, your everything. The comfort of keeping us out of sight and out of mind behind institutional walls is being taken away. And because there is no way for good people to admit just how bloody uncomfortable they are with us, they distance themselves from their fears by devising new ways to erase us from the human landscape, all the while deluding themselves that it is for our benefit. And of course these fears that fuel the right-to-die movement are fed by economics. The high cost of Cripple maintenance and slow death. Limited resources and yada yada. Limited resources? As a society, we seem to have no problem paying for what we want; there are no limited resources when it comes to those things we deem of value. Unfortunately, our society's priorities are out of whack. America belches out billions for stealth bombers and rations health care; America pours its financial resources down the drain of bigger prisons while cutting hot lunch programs for hungry children. We shouldn't be surprised that we're on the hit list. All in keeping with the good ole American love affair with the quick fix. So much easier to kill something than to care for it. As someone who's spent most of my life on the receiving end of one kind of medical treatment or another, who's been probed and pried by more doctors than I can count, I can say from sad experience that when it comes to disability the medical profession ain't got a clue. Doctors are the last folks, as a group, I think oughta have more power to do me harm. It's not that I think docs are, by nature, a particularly vicious breed; it's just their training. What should we expect from folks who are taught that to heal means to fix or eradicate? If you can't cure it, bury it. Chronic illness, disability, the slow train of dying just don't make for a comfortable fit. My wariness about granting doctors more power over life and death isn't just because of the raw deal I've had personally. I know history. The 200,000+ disabled people killed in Germany as prologue to the Holocaust weren't slaughtered by goose-stepping brownshirts. Unh uh. They were starved to death and lethally injected out of their misery by nice professional men in clean white coats, men who'd sworn to uphold the Hippocratic oath, that same oath about healing that the doctors pushing for assisted suicide in 1997 USA have sworn to uphold. Even with the glaring spotlight of historical perspective, the murder of our ancestors is held separate and unequal to the murder of the six million that followed. Not one of those doctors has been called a war criminal. We were and still are, after all "special circumstances." If only Americans weren't so confident "it couldn't happen here," maybe we'd be safer. There are few things more dangerous than the arrogance of assuming you're incapable of behaving inhumanely. Decent people don't commit inhumane acts in good conscience, so in order to maintain the myth of enlightenment, those acts must be recast in a positive light. Dropping the H-bomb on the civilian population of Hiroshima moves from atrocity to "life-saving necessity"; killing those we deem a burden becomes euthansia, mercy killing, the relieving of undue suffering. I have to admit I feel inadequate to express in a rational, reasoned way what I understand in the deepest cell of my marrow to be a movement toward genocide. But no matter how awkward or inarticulate we feel, no matter how difficult it is to peel away the layers to get deep inside the truth of this movement, we must do it. It is our obligation as the ancestors of this country's future victims of the right to die.

~Goodley 11~ Psycho-emotional violence against disabled people is the worst form of violence – it’s violence against our being and existence

Goodley, Manchester Metropolitan University Professor of Psychology and Disability, and Runswick-Cole, Manchester Metropolitan University Research Associate, 11  
(Dan and Katherine, no full date given, Sociology of Health and Illness, "The violence of disablism," 33:4, p. 607-608, EBSCOhost Health Source Nursing Academic Edition , CNM)
Critical disability studies have engaged with the psychological and affective aspects of disablism. In Britain, the work of Thomas (1999, 2007) and Reeve (2002, 2008), has crucially intervened in materialist sociological accounts of disablism by drawing attention to the ‘barriers in here’ experienced by disabled people (Reeve 2008: 1). Against a wide understanding of structural inequalities, psycho-emotional disablism interrogates the experiences between disabled people and disabling society. This interrogation has identified direct and indirect forms of discrimination: Direct forms can be found in discriminatory interactions, acts of invalidation, patronizing responses of others and hate crimes such as the destruction of group symbols and hate literature (Sherry 2000, 2010). Recent crime statistics from Britain suggest that 25 of disabled people report being victimised (Roulstone and Balderston 2009). Indirect forms may be due to the side effects of structural disablism or unintended actions, words or deeds. The psycho-emotional refers to the impact of these ingredients of disablism on the ontological security or confidence of disabled people (Thomas 1999). A key psychic reaction to such hostility is internalized oppression: the re-injuring of self through internalizing discriminatory values (Marks 1999), lowering self-worth and lessening a sense of intrinsic value (Thomas 2007) (Goodley 2010: 90). Zˇ izˇ ek (2008: 60) describes this as ontic violence: a violence against being or existence: ‘there is a direct link between ontological violence and the texture of social violence (of sustaining relations and enforced domination)’ (Zˇizˇek 2008: 61). Interpersonal forms of violence threaten to determine the ‘very being and social existence of the interpreted subject’ (Zˇ izˇ ek 2008: 62). The following narratives represent, for us, potent examples of psycho-emotional or ontic violence: The administrators of the Facebook page for supporters of the Every Disabled Child Matters campaign (see http://www.edcm.org.uk for details of the campaign), have twice had to remove comments from the page full of hatred towards disabled children and their families. Although the comments have been removed swiftly and the people who made them reported and banned from Facebook, it is hard to understand why someone would feel the need to take the time to join as a fan of the campaign and write an offensive message on the wall of the site. (Katherine’s ethnographic notes) So they ~autism outreach teachers~ went in with, you know the suggestions of how to do this – and one of the things was, ‘Well it becomes apparent that we don’t understand when Sam’s distressed or upset or anxious, maybe if we introduced a one to five scale, that’s a simple way that he can communicate to us that he’s feeling stressed’. How did it go? Sam told the learning mentor he was at four and was approaching five, her response was, ‘Well how do you think I feel? I’m at a ten’. Can you believe that? I ... honestly ... I nearly died when he told me. I was just speechless and he was like, ‘Are you alright mum?’ and I said, ‘I’ll be fine, just give me a minute’ (Gayle).
This will outweigh a) magnitude its the worst for of pain in existence so
AND
skew against me and the only education we gain is harmful to us.

Part 2 is going back to November and bringing back Armstrong the martyr

The 4th circuit court of appeals reads the case of the Estate of Armstrong v. village of pinehurst in january 16

Ronald Armstrong suffered from bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia. On April 23, 2011, he had been off his prescribed medication for five days and was poking holes through the skin on his leg "to let the air out." J.A. 675.^~1~ His sister, Jinia Armstrong Lopez ("Lopez"), worried by his behavior, convinced Armstrong to accompany her to Moore Regional Hospital ("Hospital") in Pinehurst, North Carolina. He willingly went to the Hospital and checked in, but "~d~uring the course of the evaluation he apparently became frightened and eloped from the ~emergency department~." Id. Based on that flight and Lopez's report about his odd behavior over the previous week, the examining doctor judged Armstrong a danger to himself and issued involuntary commitment papers to compel his return. Armstrong's doctor could have, but did not, designate him a danger to others, checking only the box that reads "~m~entally ill and dangerous to self" on the commitment form. Id. The Pinehurst police were called as soon as Armstrong left the Hospital, and three members of the department — all Appellees in this case — responded in short order. Officer Gatling appeared on the scene first, followed a minute or two later by Sergeant Sheppard. Lieutenant McDonald arrived about ten minutes after Sheppard. Armstrong had not traveled far when Gatling arrived. He was located near an intersection near the Hospital's main entrance. When the police arrived, Armstrong's commitment order had not yet been finalized.^~2~ Therefore, Gatling and Sheppard engaged Armstrong in conversation. By all accounts, the parties were calm and cooperative at this point in time. Armstrong was acting ~ (differently than a non impaired person would be expected to), however. When Officer Gatling first initiated conversation, Armstrong was wandering across an active roadway that intersects with the Hospital's driveway. Gatling successfully convinced him to withdraw to the relative safety of the roadside, but Armstrong then proceeded to eat grass and dandelions, chew on a gauze-like substance, and put cigarettes out on his tongue while the police officers waited for the commitment order. As soon as they learned that the commitment papers were complete, the three police officers surrounded and advanced toward Armstrong — who reacted by sitting down and wrapping himself around a four-by-four post that was supporting a nearby stop sign. The officers tried to pry Armstrong's arms and legs off of the post, but he was wrapped too tightly and would not budge. Immediately following finalization of the involuntary commitment order, in other words, Armstrong was seated on the 897*897 ground, anchored to the base of a stop sign post, in defiance of the order. The three police officers at the scene were surrounding him, struggling to remove him from the post. Lopez was in the immediate vicinity as well, along with Jack Blankenship and Johnny Verbal, two Hospital security officers. So Armstrong was encircled by six people — three Pinehurst police officers tasked with returning him to the Hospital, two Hospital security guards tasked with returning him to the Hospital, and his sister, who was pleading with him to return to the Hospital. Appellees did not prolong this stalemate. Nor did they attempt to engage in further conversation with Armstrong. Instead, just thirty seconds or so after the officers told Armstrong his commitment order was final, Lieutenant McDonald instructed Officer Gatling to prepare to tase(d) Armstrong. Officer Gatling drew his taser, set it to "drive stun mode,"^~3~ and announced that, if Armstrong did not let go of the post, he would be tased. That warning had no effect, so Gatling deployed the taser — five separate times over a period of approximately two minutes.^~4~ Rather than have its desired effect, the tasing actually increased Armstrong's resistance. But shortly after the tasing ceased, Blankenship and Verbal jumped in to assist the three police officers trying to pull Armstrong off of his post. That group of five successfully removed Armstrong and laid him facedown on the ground. During the struggle, Armstrong complained that he was being choked. While no witness saw the police apply any chokeholds, Lopez (his sister)did see officers "pull~~ his collar like they were choking him" during the struggle. J.A. 192. With Armstrong separated from the post, Appellees restrained him. Lieutenant McDonald and Sergeant Sheppard pinned Armstrong down by placing a knee on his back and standing on his back, respectively, while handcuffs were applied. But even after being cuffed, Armstrong continued to kick at Sergeant Sheppard, so the police shackled his legs too. The officers then stood up to collect themselves. They left Armstrong facedown in the grass with his hands cuffed behind his back and his legs shackled. At this point, he was no longer moving — at all. Lopez was the first to notice that her brother was unresponsive, so she asked the officers to check on him. Appellees did so immediately,^~5~ but Armstrong's condition had already become dire. When the officers flipped him over, his skin had 898*898 turned a bluish color and he did not appear to be breathing. Sergeant Sheppard and Lieutenant McDonald administered CPR, and Lieutenant McDonald radioed dispatch to send Emergency Medical Services ("EMS"). EMS responders transported Armstrong to the Hospital's emergency department where resuscitation attempts continued but were unsuccessful. He was pronounced dead shortly after admission. According to the Pinehurst Police Department's summary of communications during the incident, just six and one-half minutes elapsed between dispatch advising Appellees that Armstrong's commitment papers were final and Appellees radioing for EMS.

And the court later ruled that while there was gratuitous violence it did not matter due to qualified immunity: THACKER 16, Circuit Judge on the case card is still from the cite above

The Estate of Ronald H. Armstrong ("Appellant" when referring to the estate, or "Armstrong" when referring to the decedent) appeals an order granting summary judgment to the Village of Pinehurst, North Carolina, and Lieutenant Jerry McDonald, Sergeant Tina Sheppard, and Officer Arthur Gatling, Jr., of the Pinehurst Police Department ("Appellees"). The district court determined that qualified immunity bars Appellant's claim that Appellees used excessive force when executing an involuntary commitment order, which required Armstrong's immediate hospitalization. On review, we hold that Appellees used unconstitutionally excessive force when seizing Armstrong, but we, nevertheless, agree with the district court that Appellees are entitled to qualified immunity. We, therefore, affirm the grant of summary judgment in Appellees' favor on the grounds explained below.  
Our advocacy is that the judges in the 4th circuit court of appeals ought to
AND
as a person would do if they were on the 4rth circuit court.

Because you have an obligation to teach debaters about how oppression manifests itself in the real world- that means taking on the reality of the oppressed and being responsible for at least saying you'd do something about it Smith  ’13,

"It will be uncomfortable, it will be hard, and it will require continued effort but the necessary step in fixing this problem, like all problems, is the community as a whole admitting that such a problem with many "socially acceptable" choices exists in the first place. Like all systems of social control, the reality of racism in debate is constituted by the singular choices that institutions, coaches, and students make on a weekly basis. I have watched countless rounds where competitors attempt to win by rushing to abstractions to distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day. One of the students I coached, who has since graduated after leaving debate, had an adult judge write out a ballot that concluded by "hypothetically" defending my student being lynched at the tournament. Another debate concluded with a young man defending that we can kill animals humanely, "just like we did that guy Troy Davis". Community norms would have competitors do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse black debaters of breaking to escape hard conversations but as someone who understands that experience, the only constructive strategy is to acknowledge the reality of the oppressed, engage the discussion from the perspective of authors who are black and brown, and then find strategies to deal with the issues at hand. It hurts to see competitive seasons come and go and have high school students and judges spew the same hateful things you expect to hear at a Klan rally. A student should not, when presenting an advocacy that aligns them with the oppressed, have to justify why oppression is bad. Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with liberatory potential. Even if the form debate gives to a conversation is not the same you would use to discuss race in general conversation with Bayard Rustin or Fannie Lou Hamer, that is not a reason we have to strip that conversation of its connection to a reality that black students cannot escape. Current coaches and competitors alike ~that~ dismiss concerns of racism and exclusion, won’t teach other students anything about identity in debate other than how to shut down competitors who engage in alternative styles and discourses, and refuse to engage in those discussions even outside of a tournament setting. A conversation on privilege nd identity was held at a debate institute I worked at this summer and just as any theorist of privilege would predict it was the h eterosexual, white, male staff members that either failed to make an appearance or stay for the entire discussion. No matter how talented they are, we have to remember that the students we work with are still just high school aged children. If those who are responsible for participants and the creation of accessible norms won't risk a better future for our community, it becomes harder to explain to students who look up to them why risking such an endeavor is necessary."
3 additional reasons to prefer.

1. The resolution is a question of  
   AND
   good idea all the neg has to do is prove that it is.

ARMSTRONG WAS GUILTY OF NOTHING BUT BEING MENTALLY DISABLED- EVERY DEATH MATTERS SHOULD HAVE REVENGE ENACTED UPON IN ORDER TO RESIST ABLEISM

Teplin 14 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/05/14/the-mentally-ill-are-treated-like-criminals-by-the-police
They (we) are guilty of living while mentally ~DISABLED~. And they
AND
mental i~disabilioty~, we treat persons with mental disorders like criminals.

AND THE ARMSTRONG CASE REPRESENTS THE STEREOTYPE OF MENTALLY DISABLED PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF AS DANGEROUS AND IRRATIONAL

BRIAN SUMNER 16 http://www.copblock.org/167145/police-brutality-and-mental-illness-go-hand-in-hand/ brackets for ablest language
It’s ~strange~  to think that half of the people who have been killed
AND
hire mental health professionals to respond to the mentally disabled and mentally ill.

AND ARMSTRONGS STORY IS SADLY NOT UNIQUE- HALF OF POLICE KILLING ARE OF DISABLED PEOPLE AS THEY ARE SEEN AS NONCOMPLIANT LIKE ARMSTRONG- OUR SOLVENCY COMES FROM RAISING AWARENESS OF THE ARMSTRONG CASE

MARY O HARA 16 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/29/media-must-report-police-violence-towards-disabled-people

Not only are the total numbers of police-involved deaths in the
AND
opportunity to learn from tragedies, identify patterns, and implement necessary reforms".

Part 3 is T TAKEOUTS uhhh i mean framing

Your should take on a anti-ableism pedagogy. Endorsing our methodology causes a spillover into our everyday lives;

Beckett 13 - Angharad Anti-oppressive pedagogy and¶ disability: possibilities and challenges, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds -

Serious and systemic disability discrimination provides powerful justification for¶ disability-focused anti-oppressive pedagogy (Beckett 2009), but such pedagogy is also¶ critical to the development of a more ‘innovative and aggressive conception of¶ inclusive education’ (Slee 2011, i). If inclusive education is to help build an inclusive¶ society (Armstrong and Barton 2008), then in addition to meaningful inclusion of¶ disabled students within mainstream settings (itself, likely to do much to challenge¶ disability), schools’ teaching and learning strategies must challenge disability as a¶ form of oppression.¶ Proposed here is a form of ‘inclusive pedagogy’, but not as currently understood.¶ Inclusive pedagogy is usually defined in terms of rethinking curricula and teaching¶ practices to include everyone (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011). This is vital and a¶ prerequisite for the anti-oppressive pedagogy proposed herein: inclusion, in all¶ regards, being ‘a prerequisite of a democratic education’ (Slee 2011, i).¶ The connection between ‘inclusive’ and ‘democratic’ education, although well¶ established, has been reworked by authors in ‘Disability Studies in Education’¶ (Danforth and Gabel 2006). For example, Goodley (2011) calls for dialogue between¶ critical pedagogy and disability politics. To this end, Baglieri and Shapiro (2012),¶ Gabel and Connors (2009) and Ware (2002) suggest incorporating Disability Studies¶ into the curriculum within US schools. Overall, this work implies that strategies¶ encouraging/supporting students to challenge disability as one form of oppression¶ ought to be part of education for all.¶ If non-disabled students are not encouraged to recognize and challenge disability¶ oppression, then as adults they may reinforce and legitimize disabling ideas and practices (Rieser and Mason 1990). Disabled students need to be supported to¶ recognize and understand the nature of their oppression and acquire skills to resist¶ this (Mason 1990). Arguably, they also need to be included in such initiatives because¶ relationships between disabled people can be marked by oppression (Wendell 1996).¶ We need to view all students as potentially having a ‘foot in both camps’ i.e.¶ ‘oppressed’ and ‘privileged’.

Challenging the assemblage of the body in disability in educational spaces like debate is an epistemic and ontological prerequisite to analyzing all other impacts and truths Ervelles  2K,

For example, critical theorists of education have begun to describe how bodies are inscribed by the dominant cultural practices of schools through a process that Peter McLaren has called "enfleshment." To be "enfleshed," McLaren explains, is to be marked by discourses that not only sit on the surface of the flesh but are, on the other hand, embedded in the flesh such that we learn "a way of being in our bodies…that is we are taught to think about our bodies and how to experience our bodies." One context where students learn to experience their bodies is education, where students learn the importance of disciplining their bodies so as not to distract from the "mental efforts" of the mind. In an attempt to control these "disruptive excesses" of unruly bodies, schools have elaborate practices that support the rigid organization of classroom space (through) and time, the overriding emphasis on discipline, and the careful monitoring of the curriculum. So entrenched are these practices that Ursula Kelly has argued that "education is the body and education territorializes the body" since "the notion of mind/ing bodies bespeaks most accurately and succinctly about how the intersection of knowledge, power, and desire craft~s~ ~subjectivity~ as the cultural project of schools."
That specifically takes out t/theory arguments run against me since its just you trying to enflesh my body through rules.

And don’t let the neg attempt to "school" me within the disciplined control of rules and rules formation. I am the monster, I disrupt, and your rules do not and cannot apply to me. There is no possibility of a unique violation to your T or theory shells since the overlying violation in all arguments is that i am disabled and that i am in your space. I will never fit in your presupposed able body norms.

Cambel 2

Subjects designated by the neologism 'disability' typically experience various forms of marginality, discrimination and inequality. The response by social scientists and professionals engaged in social policy and service delivery has been to combat the 'disability problem' by way of implementing anti-discrimination protections and various other compensatory initiatives. More recently, with the development of biological and techno-sciences such as 'new genetics', nanotechnologies and cyborgs the solution to 'disability' management has been in the form of utilizing technologies of early detection, eradication or at best, technologies of mitigation. Contemporary discourses of disablement displace and disconnect discussion away from the 'heart of the problem', namely, matters ontological(ly). Disability - based marginality is assumed to emerge from a set of pre-existing conditions (i.e. in the case of biomedicalisation, deficiency inheres in the individual, whilst in the Social Model disablement is created by a capitalist superstructure). The Great Divide takes an alternative approach to studying 'the problem of disability' by proposing that the neologism 'disability'(AND) is in fact created by and used to generate notions and epistemologies of 'ableism'. Whilst epistemologies of disablement are well researched, there is a paucity of research related to the workings of ableism. The focal concerns of The Great Divide relate to matters of ordering, disorder and constitutional compartmentalization between the normal and pathological and the ways that discourses about wholeness, health, enhancement and perfection produce notions of impairment. A central argument of this dissertation figures the production of disability a part of the tussle over ordering, emerging from a desire to create order from an assumed disorder; resulting in a flimsy but often unconvincing attempt to shore up so-called optimal ontologies and disperse outlaw ontologies. The Great Divide examines ways ‘disability’ rubs up against, mingles with and provokes other seemingly unrelated concepts such as wellness, ableness, perfection, competency, causation, productivity and use value. The scaffolding of the dissertation directs the reader to selected sites that produce epistemologies of disability and ableism, namely the writing of 'history' and Judeo-Christian renderings of Disability. It explores the nuances of ableism (including a case study of wrongful life torts in law) and the phenomenon of internalized ableism as experienced by many disabled people. The study of liberalism and the government of government are explored in terms of enumeration, the science of 'counting cripples' and the battles over defining 'disability' in law and social policy. Additionally another axis of ableism is explored through the study of a number of perfecting technologies and the way in which these technologies mediate what it means to be 'human' (normalcy), morphs/simulates 'normalcy' and the leakiness of 'disability'. This analysis charts the invention of forearms transplantation (a la Clint Hallam), the Cochlear implant and transhumanism. The Great Divide concludes with an inversion of the ableist gaze(s) by proposing an ethic of affirmation, a desiring ontology of impairment
And The aff is a method of caring which can destroy and change the public
AND
the politics of care which is the state at which capitilism will unwind.

~evans~ And judges first obligation is to make debate a safe and inclusive space. Silence and rules are never power neutral and topical engagement has produced no solvency thus far- thus our act of civil disobedience in occupying the space and rejecting what the framers may have wanted is crucial, Evans et al in 12, 

Lack of community discussion is neither random nor power-neutral. We have tried to have discussions. These discussions have been regularly derailed—in "wrong forum" arguments, in the demand for "evidence," in the unfair burdens placed on the aggrieved as a pre-requisite for engagement. Read the last ten years of these discussions on edebate archives: Ede Warner on edebate and move forward to Rashad Evans diversity discussion from 2010 to Deven Cooper to Amber Kelsie’s discussion on CEDA Forums and the NDT CEDA Traditions page. We have been talking for over a decade, we have been reaching out for years, we have been listening to the liberal, moderate refrain of "we agree with your goals but not with your method." We will no longer wait for the community to respond, to relinquish privilege, to engage in authentic discussion, since largely the community seems incapable of producing a consensus for responding to what "we all agree" is blatant structural inequity. It seems that meta-debates/discussions about debate are generally met with denial, hostility and—more often—silence. This silence is in fact a focused silence. It is not people in the Resistance Facebook group that comprise these silent figures—it is (as has been described) "the old boys club." We have been quite vocal—and we believe that it is this very vocalness (and the development of a diversity of tactics in response to status quo stalling tactics) that has provoked response when response was given. Sarah Spring’s cedadebate post is a case in point. The decision to change our speaker point scale is not in order to produce a "judging doomsday apparatus" (this kind of apocalyptic rhetoric might more aptly be applied to the current racist/sexist/classist state of affairs in this community), though we must admit that we are flattered that our efforts have affected the community enough to result in such a hyberbolic labeling. It indicates that civil disobedience is still an effective tactic; the debate community should take it as an indication that our calls for change are serious. We will continue to innovate and collaborate on tactics of resistance. This "crisis" in debate has no end in sight. The rationale for changing the point scale was not simply to "reward" people for preferring the unpreferred critic. We recognize that MPJ produces effects, and we hoped that changing our point scale was a small but significant tactic that was available to the disenfranchised in this community. MPJ:

And all t/theory interps must be weighed against the structural disadvantages of the aff in 7-4 6-3 time skew speaking in the dark and win skew means absent weighing u drop any and all interps brought up in the round. Also means you presume aff if there is no offence

Tournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any
facebook is the best way to find me. im a traditional debater whose branching into circuit so idk how this disclosure thing really works. Assumign you seem like a nice person ill send you cites to my aff ahead of time but bear in mind i only have it on paper so its possible i lose my cites and are thus anable to provide youw ith the information you want.

Oh also things i need to disclose apparently

1. i have dysgrafia flash your analytics and actually answer my questiosn when i ask for clarity
   2. im neurodivergent so take that as you will
   3. my best friend died by committing suicide do not read it in front of me
   4. i get it you hate capitalism but please try to be original and branch to other Ks

Oh also i go to PA you can expect some semblance of a methods debate so assuming you can prove a violation on T (i think im topical) our mutual point of clash is the best way to engage with debate from a personal level

Tournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any
hi im jsut disclosing cites for the only aff ive run (pre berkeley planning on breaking new in outrounds there) Tags and poem are excluded since it had a bunch of personal shit that i dont really want to get into the details of or have people get easy acess to. If there are any probs with cites message me and ill give yu a quick url

Campbell 3 Fiona Anne Kumari Campbell, The Great Divide: Ableism and Technologies of Disability Production, 2003
Our discussion engages the imagination by playing dangerously (yet cautiously) with matters of
AND
.. a true esteeming of the Cripple disabled body" (1994

Endorsing our methodology causes a spillover into our everyday lives;
Beckett 13 - Angharad Anti-oppressive pedagogy and¶ disability: possibilities and challenges, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds -

Serious and systemic disability discrimination
¶ ‘oppressed’ and ‘privileged’.
Smith ’13,
\"It will be uncomfortable, it will be hard, and it will require continued effort but the necessary step in fixing this problem, like all problems, is the community as a whole admitting that such a problem with many "socially acceptable" choices exists in the first place. Like all systems of social control, the reality of racism in debate is constituted by the singular choices that institutions, coaches, and students make on a weekly basis. I have watched countless rounds where competitors attempt to win by rushing to abstractions to distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day. One of the students I coached, who has since graduated after leaving debate, had an adult judge write out a ballot that concluded by "hypothetically" defending my student being lynched at the tournament. Another debate concluded with a young man defending that we can kill animals humanely, "just like we did that guy Troy Davis". Community norms would have competitors do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse black debaters of breaking to escape hard conversations but as someone who understands that experience, the only constructive strategy is to acknowledge the reality of the oppressed, engage the discussion from the perspective of authors who are black and brown, and then find strategies to deal with the issues at hand. It hurts to see competitive seasons come and go and have high school students and judges spew the same hateful things you expect to hear at a Klan rally. A student should not, when presenting an advocacy that aligns them with the oppressed, have to justify why oppression is bad. Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with liberatory potential. Even if the form debate gives to a conversation is not the same you would use to discuss race in general conversation with Bayard Rustin or Fannie Lou Hamer, that is not a reason we have to strip that conversation of its connection to a reality that black students cannot escape. Current coaches and competitors alike that dismiss concerns of racism and exclusion, won’t teach other students anything about identity in debate other than how to shut down competitors who engage in alternative styles and discourses, and refuse to engage in those discussions even outside of a tournament setting. A conversation on privilege nd identity was held at a debate institute I worked at this summer and just as any theorist of privilege would predict it was the h eterosexual, white, male staff members that either failed to make an appearance or stay for the entire discussion. No matter how talented they are, we have to remember that the students we work with are still just high school aged children. If those who are responsible for participants and the creation of accessible norms won't risk a better future for our community, it becomes harder to explain to students who look up to them why risking such an endeavor is necessary."

Part 2 is the closed mouth
Campbell 3 Fiona Anne Kumari Campbell, The Great Divide: Ableism and Technologies of Disability Production, 2003
In the opening pages of States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity
AND
in law, that is, renderings of disability as a personal tragedy232.

Part 3 is the method
Campbell 3 Fiona Anne Kumari Campbell, The Great Divide: Ableism and Technologies of Disability Production, 2003
Actor Network Theory (ANT), sometimes known as the sociology of translation, is
AND
stakeholders, the failure/success process and questions of compliance and consensus. 

Campbell 3 Fiona Anne Kumari Campbell, The Great Divide: Ableism and Technologies of Disability Production, 2003

The newly emergent field of science studies...
 creating blends/fusions " between entirely new types of beings, hybrids of nature and culture" (10
ANT allows actors to deploy their own worlds and then sharing those worlds with others in order to be non-obtrusive in finding the truth. This is a much ebtter strategy than dealing with controversies case by case Latour
The reason for this change of tempo is that, instead of taking a reasonable position and imposing some order beforehand, ANT claims to be is able to find order much better after having let the actors deploy the full range of controversies in which they are immersed. It is as if we were saying to the actors: ‘We won’t try to discipline you, to make you fit into our categories; we will let you deploy your own worlds, and only later will we ask you to explain how you came about settling them.’ The task of defining and ordering the social should be left to the actors themselves, not taken up by the analyst. This is why, to regain some sense of order, the best solution is to trace connections between the controversies themselves rather than try to decide how to settle any given controversy.19