Tournament: Pre toc | Round: 1 | Opponent:  | Judge:
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 vie read so ill try to backfil 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

Tournament: BACKFILING | Round: 2 | Opponent: HARVARD WESTLAKE ALL OF THEM | Judge: ALL THE PEOPLE I PUT AS STRIKES AND GOT ANYWAYS
The construction of hypothetical fiat in the debate round is a destructive mode of thought.. The concept of normativity critiques our acceptance of the structure of debate as an immutable status quo we must conform to, as explained by
SCHLAG, PROFESSOR OF LAW@ UNIV. COLORADO, 1990 (PIERRE, STANFORD LAW REVIEW, NOVEMBER, PAGE LEXIS)
In fact, normative legal thought is so much in a hurry that it will tell you what to do even though there is not the slightest chance that you might actually be in a position to do it.
…
Normative legal thought doesn't seem overly concerned with such worldly questions about the character and the effectiveness of its own discourse.  It just goes along and proposes, recommends, prescribes, solves, and resolves.  Yet despite its obvious desire to have worldly effects, worldly consequences, normative legal thought remains seemingly unconcerned that for all practical purposes, its only consumers are legal academics and perhaps a few law students — persons who are virtually never in a position to put any of its wonderful normative advice into effect.
Normative discourse reinstates the harms of the status quo by making us spectators of political life. Our traditional conceptualization of solvency doesn’t solve anything, but only makes our problems worse by paralyzing solvency action in the future.  
Mitchell in 1995 (Gordon, Univ. of Pittsburgh Communications prof, "REFLEXIVE FIAT: INCORPORATING THE OUTWARD ACTIVIST TURN INTO CONTEST STRATEGY", paper presented to the 1995 SCA National Convention)
One problem with approaches to fiat which feature such a structural separation between advocate and agent of change is that such approaches tend to instill political apathy by inculcating a spectator mentality. The function of fiat which gives debaters simulated political control over external actors coaxes students to gloss over consideration of their concrete roles as involved agents in the controversies they research. The construct of fiat, in this vein, serves as a political crutch by alleviating the burden of demonstrating a connection between in-round advocacy and the action by external actors defended in plan or counterplan mandates.
And, this speculative mindset only allows us to condone and exploit oppression and suffering of others.
Mitchell in 1998 (Gordon, Pitt Communications Professor, "Pedagogical possibilities for argumentative agency in academic debate", Argumentation and Advocacy, fall)
The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" (in the technical parlance of debate-speak).
And, normative discourse desensitizes us to the suffering of others, perpetuates cruelty and justifies violence against the other.
Delgado, Professor of Law @ The University of Colorado, 1991 (Richard, NORMS AND NORMAL SCIENCE: TOWARD A CRITIQUE OF NORMATIVITY IN LEGAL THOUGHT, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, April, Lexis)
Normativity may be more than a harmless tic prevalent only in certain circles.
…
We confront a starving beggar and immediately translate the concrete duty we feel into a normative (i.e., abstract) question. And once we see the beggar's demand in general, systemic terms, it is easy for us to pass him by without rendering aid. n86 Someone else, perhaps society (with my tax dollars), will take care of that problem.
Normativity thus enables us to ignore and smooth over the rough edges of our world, to tune out or redefine what would otherwise make a claim on us.
…
Not only does normativity help us justify indifference to others' needs, but we sometimes use it to rationalize treatment of others that would otherwise be seen as injurious, if not downright cruel. As I pointed out earlier, those in a position to dictate norms rarely, if ever, see their own favorite forms of behavior as immoral. … Even when we do not pronounce outgroups' behavior positively vicious, we may declare it lazy and indolent, so as to justify our own aggressive behavior. Warfaring nations, for example, often gain ascendancy over more peaceloving nations (e.g., Native Americans). The conquerors then decide it was their own spiritual, aesthetic, and ethical superiority that enabled them to prevail, not their superior weapons, numbers, or bloodthirst.
And framing

Tournament: BACKFILING | Round: 2 | Opponent: HARVARD WESTLAKE ALL OF THEM | Judge: ALL THE PEOPLE I PUT AS STRIKES AND GOT ANYWAYS

The aff discusses the value of free speech as a political action and way of holding people accountable in the public. But that misses the point, our discourses should not be shaped around the value of varying political actions. BUT Rather the value of the political itself. The NEG is thus a method of recognition which is impossible in the political, Hedva  ,

In late 2014, I was sick with a chronic condition that, about every 12 to 18 months, gets bad enough to render me, for about five months each time, unable to walk, drive, do my job, sometimes speak or understand language, take a bath without assistance, and leave the bed. This particular flare coincided with the Black Lives Matter protests, which I would have attended unremittingly, had I been able to. I live one block away from MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, a predominantly Latino neighborhood and one colloquially understood to be the place where many immigrants begin their American lives. The park, then, is not surprisingly one of the most active places of protest in the city. I listened to the sounds of the marches as they drifted up to my window. Attached to the bed, I rose up my sick woman fist, in solidarity. I started to think about what modes of protest are afforded to sick people – it seemed to me that many for whom Black Lives Matter is especially in service, might not be able to be present for the marches because they were imprisoned by a job, the threat of being fired from their job if they marched, or literal incarceration, and of course the threat of violence and police brutality – but also because of illness or disability, or because they were caring for someone with an illness or disability. I thought of all the other invisible bodies, with their fists up, tucked away and out of sight. If we take Hannah Arendt’s definition of the political – which is still one of the most dominant in mainstream discourse – as being any action that is performed in public, we must contend with the implications of what that excludes. If being present in public is what is required to be political, then whole swathes ~portions~ of the population can be deemed a-political – simply because they are not physically able to get their bodies into the street. In my graduate program, Arendt was a kind of god, and so I was trained to think that her definition of the political was radically liberating. Of course, I can see that it was, in its own way, in its time (the late 1950s): in one fell swoop she got rid of the need for infrastructures of law, the democratic process of voting, the reliance on individuals who’ve accumulated the power to affect policy – she got rid of the need for policy at all. All of these had been required for an action to be considered political and visible as such. No, Arendt said, just get your body into the street, and bam: political. There are two failures here, though. The first is her reliance on a "public" – which requires a private, a binary between visible and invisible space. This meant that whatever takes place in private is not political. So, you can beat your wife in private and it doesn’t matter, for instance. You can send private emails containing racial slurs, but since they weren’t "meant for the public," you are somehow not racist. Arendt was worried that if everything can be considered political, then nothing will be, which is why she divided the space into one that is political and one that is not. But for the sake of this anxiety, she chose to sacrifice whole groups of people, to continue to banish them to invisibility and political irrelevance. She chose to keep them out of the public sphere. I’m not the first to take Arendt to task for this. The failure of Arendt’s political was immediately exposed in the civil rights activism and feminism of the 1960s and 70s. "The personal is political" can also be read as saying "the private is political." Because of course, everything you do in private is political: who you have sex with, how long your showers are, if you have access to clean water for a shower at all, and so on. There is another problem too. As Judith Butler put it in her 2015 lecture, "Vulnerability and Resistance," Arendt failed to account for who is allowed in to the public space, of who’s in charge of the public. Or, more specifically, who’s in charge of who gets in. Butler says that there is always one thing true about a public demonstration: the police are already there, or they are coming. This resonates with frightening force when considering the context of Black Lives Matter. The inevitability of violence at a demonstration – especially a demonstration that emerged to insist upon the importance of bodies who’ve been violently un-cared for – ensures that a certain amount of people won’t, because they can’t, show up. Couple this with physical and mental illnesses and disabilities that keep people in bed and at home, and we must contend with the fact that many whom these protests are for, are not able to participate in them – which means they are not able to be visible as political activists.

And put away your state good turns, they don’t apply. My criticism is not of the existence of the state but rather it is a criticism of the concept of the Public Sphere as being the sphere where we challenge oppression and place value.

AND disabled bodies are relegated to the private spheres, for when we come into the public world, we encounter resistance to the mixing of the two worlds and their experiences are silenced. The fear of disability is so deeply embedded into our culture that there is no socially acceptable way of expressing our personal experiences.

Wendell, 89brakcets there originally except for square brackets
Susan, Summer 1989. "Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability," Hypatia, Vol. 4, No. 4, Feminist Ethics and Medicine, pp. 104-124. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3809809.pdf DOA: 6/28/16 KD
In the split between the public and the private worlds, women ~the disabled
AND
can be weighed against psychological harm
Thus the alternative is sick woman theory

Sick Woman Theory is a rallying cry for the invisible and a method of engagement for the visible, it is an all-encompassing method of relational understandings between agents, it is a resistance against the very world that makes us sick, Hedva  3,

Sick Woman Theory is for those who are faced with their vulnerability and unbearable fragility, every day, and so have to fight for their experience to be not only honored, but first made visible. For those who, in Audre Lorde’s words, were never meant to survive: because this world was built against their survival. It’s for my fellow spoonies. You know who you are, even if you’ve not been attached to a diagnosis: one of the aims of Sick Woman Theory is to resist(s) the notion that one needs to be legitimated by an institution, so that they can try to fix you. You don’t need to be fixed, my queens – it’s the world that needs the fixing. I offer this as a call to arms and a testimony of recognition. I hope that my thoughts can provide articulation and resonance, as well as tools of survival and resilience. And for those of you who are not chronically ill or disabled, Sick Woman Theory asks you to stretch your empathy this way. To face us, to listen, to see. Sick Woman Theory is an insistence that most modes of political protest are internalized, lived, embodied, suffering, and no doubt invisible. Sick Woman Theory redefines existence in a body as something that is primarily and always vulnerable, following from Judith Butler’s work on precarity and resistance. Because the premise insists that a body is defined by its vulnerability, not temporarily affected by it, the implication is that it is continuously reliant on infrastructures of support in order to endure, and so we need to re-shape the world around this fact. Sick Woman Theory maintains that the body and mind are sensitive and reactive to regimes of oppression – particularly our current regime of neoliberal, white-supremacist, imperial-capitalist, cis-hetero-patriarchy. It is that all of our bodies and minds carry the historical trauma of this, that it is the world itself that is making and keeping us sick.

And the Sick Woman is an all encompassing identity Hedva  4,

The Sick Woman is an identity and body that can belong to anyone denied the privileged existence – or the cruelly optimistic promise of such an existence – of the white, straight, healthy, neurotypical, upper and middle-class, cis- and able-bodied man who makes his home in a wealthy country, has never not had health insurance, and whose importance to society is everywhere recognized and made explicit by that society; whose importance and care dominates that society, at the expense of everyone else. The Sick Woman is anyone who does not have this guarantee of care. The Sick Woman is told that, to this society, her care, even her survival, does not matter. The Sick Woman is all of the "dysfunctional," "dangerous" and "in danger," "badly behaved," "crazy," "incurable," "traumatized," "disordered," "diseased," "chronic," "uninsurable," "wretched," "undesirable" and altogether "dysfunctional" bodies belonging to women, people of color, poor, ill, neuro-atypical, differently abled, queer, trans, and genderfluid people, who have been historically pathologized, hospitalized, institutionalized, brutalized, rendered "unmanageable," and therefore made culturally illegitimate and politically invisible. The Sick Woman is a black trans woman having panic attacks while using a public restroom, in fear of the violence awaiting her. The Sick Woman is the child of parents whose indigenous histories have been erased, who suffers from the trauma of generations of colonization and violence. The Sick Woman is a homeless person, especially one with any kind of disease and no access to treatment, and whose only access to mental-health care is a 72-hour hold in the county hospital. The Sick Woman is a mentally ill black woman whose family called the police for help because she was suffering an episode, and who was murdered in police custody, and whose story was denied by everyone operating under white supremacy. Her name is Tanesha Anderson. The Sick Woman is a 50-year-old gay man who was raped as a teenager and has remained silent and shamed, believing that men can’t be raped. The Sick Woman is a disabled person who couldn’t go to the lecture on disability rights because it was held in a venue without accessibility. The Sick Woman is a white woman with chronic illness rooted in sexual trauma who must take painkillers in order to get out of bed. The Sick Woman is a straight man with depression who’s been medicated (managed) since early adolescence and now struggles to work the 60 hours per week that his job demands. The Sick Woman is someone diagnosed with a chronic illness, whose family and friends continually tell them they should exercise more. The Sick Woman is a queer woman of color whose activism, intellect, rage, and depression are seen by white society as unlikeable attributes of her personality. The Sick Woman is a black man killed in police custody, and officially said to have severed his own spine. His name is Freddie Gray. The Sick Woman is a veteran suffering from PTSD on the months-long waiting list to see a doctor at the VA. The Sick Woman is a single mother, illegally emigrated to the "land of the free," shuffling between three jobs in order to feed her family, and finding it harder and harder to breathe. The Sick Woman is the refugee. The Sick Woman is the abused child.
And The aff is a method of caring which can destroy and change the public
AND
kicks the alt and votes that the rest of the k turns the aff

Tournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any
see aff page- if you message me ill send all 2nrs ive had on this tournament, also for berkely my wiki is being weird so im hvaing frances zhaung and barry her my two teamates put up my ncs for me so everything ive reaad before will be disclosed in one of those 2 places

Ask me before reading whatever disclosure interp your coaches wrote for you emoticon_smile I check Facebook more often, but if we aren't already friends, I usually won't see your message until way later.

Tournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any
fb msg me for cites, my wiki is down for golden desert so ill send it in person. Also some of my args are pretty personal so i dont feel comfortible putting them on the wiki anyways. Ask me before reading whatever disclosure interp your coaches wrote for you emoticon_smile I check Facebook more often, but if we aren't already friends, I usually won't see your message until way later.

If you got a problem you can....

CASH ME OUSSIDE HOW BOW DAT

Tournament: BACKFILING | Round: 2 | Opponent: HARVARD WESTLAKE ALL OF THEM | Judge: ALL THE PEOPLE I PUT AS STRIKES AND GOT ANYWAYS
Bob Marley Kritik

Link / Impact : The Affirmative engages in worrying.  They attempt to solve all these problems, but in the end, worrying is unproductive and merely detriments us.  
Miles, 2007 Michael Miles, of Effortless Abundance.
"Worrying is like a rocking chair, it gives you something to do, but it gets you nowhere." Glenn Turner
We live in a culture where everyone seems to worry. Turn on the news – someone got shot, there’s mercury in the fish we eat, the cows have got BSE, a new super-flu is coming, terrorists are regrouping, … On and on it goes. If you take all of this stuff seriously, it’s likely that you’ll never go out, never eat, never travel, never take any kind of risk at all. I’ve no doubt that people have always worried. Dale Carnegie’s book ‘How to Stop Worrying and Start Living,’ which was published in 1944, is packed with stories from the early part of the twentieth century (and even earlier in some cases) about people who worried about all kinds of things. But in fact, as Carnegie so ably and amusingly points out through his many examples, worry makes no sense at all. Here are some reasons why worry really is a pointless and damaging activity. I suspect we all know this deep down, but a reminder doesn’t hurt.  Things never happen the way you imagine. When you worry, you are predicting the future. You are saying, "I know that things will turn out badly." But this just isn’t the case. You have no idea how the future is going to turn out, except to say that it will not be what you think it will be. So why worry? Worry means you give away your power. Some people are so entrenched in worry that they cannot see any other way to live. But worry robs you of your power to be proactive. The truth is that you are in control and you can choose how to react to situations, so why choose to give that power away so easily and so unconsciously? Worrying is completely unproductive. Why waste your energy doing something that gets you nowhere. On a treadmill at least you get some exercise, but worry is a truly pointless activity. Spend your time and energy on something more useful.  Worry distorts reality. We live in an age where people live longer, have better access to health care, have more opportunity for personal and professional growth, more chance to travel, greater access to information and lifelong education, and many other wonderful things. Yes, there are risks and potential dangers, but worry magnifies these disproportionately and blinds us to the wonders of our age.Worrying is bad for your health. Worry is not a normal state of mind, and it adversely affects your health, even your physical health. When you worry, physical changes are happening in your body which is very damaging. It increases stress which can increase blood pressure, cause higher levels of stomach acid, cause muscle tension and headaches, among many other things. Worry is not natural. Do little children worry? Do animals worry? Do all adults worry? There is nothing inherent in being human that means you have to worry. Worry is a pathology, a distortion of our natural, healthy state.  Do you know the most frequent instruction given in the Bible? Surprisingly, it is not ‘love one another’ or ‘love God’ or anything like that. It is simply ‘do not be afraid.’ I don’t know how many times it appears, but I’ve seen estimates between 100 and 366 times. You don’t have to be religious to realize that this is good advice. So how can we break out of this worry habit? Like all habits, it might not be easy to do, but there are some clear, simple and effective steps you can take to eliminate worry from your life.  Realize that you are in control. In The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Steven Covey tells us that the first step to a better life is the realization that we are free to choose how to react to circumstances. Worry is a choice – it’s inside our own head and, as such, it is within the sphere of our own influence.  Recognize that worry is a habit. Like all habits, there is a momentum to worry, and it might not be easy to break away from this, especially if you’ve been a worrier all your life. But it’s possible to change any habit.  Keep things in perspective. E. Joseph Crossman said, "If you want to test your memory, try to recall what you were worrying about one year ago today." Are you still worrying about those things? Will all this stuff matter a 100 years from now? Face your fears. Nelson DeMille said that "Somehow our devils are never quite what we expect when we meet them face to face." After you do something that scares you, you’ll probably find it wasn’t as bad as you thought. With time, all your worry will dissipate.  Stop trying to be in control of everything. You cannot control the whole world. Things happen that are truly outside our circle of influence, and so we need to relax and accept that sometimes things just happen as they will. This is part of life, and worry will not change it one little bit.   Stop taking yourself so seriously. If you fail, so what? If you screw up, is it the end of the world? Are you really so important that the world will stop turning if you get things wrong? Life is not that serious.  Finally, one of my favorite quotes from the master of quotes, Mark Twain. "I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened." Worry is a dangerous and poisonous thing. Don’t let it eat away at you. Take Dale Carnegie’s advice – stop worrying and start living!
Alt: Life is filled with its enjoyments.  “Don’t worrya ‘bout a thing.  ‘Cause every little thing gonna be alright.”
Bob Marley and the Wailers, 77
Bob Marley and the Wailers. Exodus. Three Little Birds – Track #4. 

Bob Marley
Rise up this mornin',
Smiled with the risin' sun,
Three little birds
Pitch by my doorstep
Singin' sweet songs
Of melodies pure and true,
Sayin', ("This is my message to you-ou-ou:")

Singin': "Don't worry 'bout a thing,
'Cause every little thing gonna be all right."
Singin': "Don't worry (don't worry) 'bout a thing,
'Cause every little thing gonna be all right!"

HAKUNA MATATATA CUCKOLDS

Tournament: BACKFILING | Round: 2 | Opponent: HARVARD WESTLAKE ALL OF THEM | Judge: ALL THE PEOPLE I PUT AS STRIKES AND GOT ANYWAYS

The ac has the wrong ontological starting point in forgetting disability which kills any reform to the system not based on our starting point- also means they link in performativity with their reading of the ac

Campbell 05 is a Senior Lecturer in Disability Studies at the School of Human Services and Social Work Griffith University (Brisbane) and Adjunct Professor in Disability Studies, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. "Legislating Disability: Negative Ontologies and the Government of Legal Identities" in "Foucault and Government of Disability" edited by Shelley Termain, University of Michigan Press, Pg 118-120
Sociological inquiry and legal investigation into disability1 must at some point implicitly return to,
AND
unthink disability and its resemblance to the essential (ableist) human self.

AND THE VERY OPERATION OF DEMOCRACY, PERSONAL OPINIONS, AND ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP WITHIN THE AFF IS PRINCIPLED ON THE ABLE BODIED. THE IDEA OF FREE SPEECH PRESUPPOSES THAT A) SOMEONE IS LISTENING CLOSE ENOUGH TO CARE B) WE HAVE AUTONOMY AND C) WE HAVE A VOICE TO SPEAK UP WITH, ALL OF WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FOR DISABLED PEOPLE.  RAISING OUR VOICE WILL JUST CONFLATE REPRESENTATION AND ASSOCIATION WITHIN THE SYSTEM that institutionally kills us or casts us aside to be forgotten,

Breckenridge and Volger 11 (Carol Appadurai is an Associate Professor of History, The New School Candace Vogler is an associate professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Chicago, where she teaches ethics, social and political philosophy, and gender and sexuality studies., "The Critical Limits of Embodiment: Disability's Criticism", Public Culture, Volume 13, Number 3, Fall 2011) DR 15
Disability studies teaches that an assumed able body is crucial to the smooth operation of
AND
disabled people relationship destroys our will to fight back and makes us conceded.

AND disabled bodies are relegated to the private spheres, for when we come into the public world, we encounter resistance to the mixing of the two worlds and their experiences are silenced. The fear of disability is so deeply embedded into our culture that there is no socially acceptable way of expressing our personal experiences. Thats a reason why we can't engage the aff method

Wendell, 89brakcets there originally except for square brackets
Susan, Summer 1989. "Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability," Hypatia, Vol. 4, No. 4, Feminist Ethics and Medicine, pp. 104-124. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3809809.pdf DOA: 6/28/16 KD
In the split between the public and the private worlds, women ~the disabled
AND
debater - this is the same thing except invisible and far more painful.

The alternative is to Unwork the space of the 1AC; that’s a refusal to play according to able-bodied logic. Instead, we embrace the wild extravagancy of disability by un-working institutions in order to carve out hospitable terrain

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
kicks the alt and votes that the rest of the k turns the aff

2nc overview and perm debate ANT

OVERVIEW:  THEY HAVE NO INDITES ON OUR METHOD OF ACTOR NETWORK THEORY LITERALLY COMMAND F THEIR SPEECH DOC AND THERE IS NOTHING THERE WHICH MEANS THAT ANT IS A NET GOOD IDEA. THATS ALREADY GAME OVER BECAUSE ANT HAS TO DO WITH CHANGING THE VERY DESIRES OF SPACES SO THAT DEBATE SOME TO SERVE AND EMPOWER THOSE CURRENTLY DISENFRANCHISED AND CAN DISEMPOWER THOSE WHO ARE EXCLUSIONARY WHICH MEANS WE ALREADY SOLVE BETTER THAN THE AC BECAUSE KILLING JOY  IS 1. NOT ONTOLOGICAL SO CAN'T CHANGE PERSPECTIVE 2. JUST MAKES PEOPLE SALTY THEN THEY MOVE ON- YOUR NOT TRANSFORMING THE SPACE SO IT STAYS A PRIVLEDGED BODYS GAME 3. WERE THE ONLY INTERSECTIONAL APPROACH.  THIS MEANS EVEN ABSENT A LINK WE HAVE THE BETTER METHODOLOGY FOR DEBATE WHICH JSUTIFIES AN AFF BALLOT
AND NO PERM
First is the layering DA: they say do the aff first and the neg later but later always means never the ac is simply trying to hide and smother us out of the round, Evans 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:
Second is political DA; the perm is a performative contradiction where they say we can value the private even as the ENGAGE WITH  the public side of debate ing etting ballots and recognition.
Third is methodology of engagement:
This is a method V method debate you don’t get a permutation as you are stuck with the method you introduced in the 1ac of speech as a revolutionary option. This is key to prevent aff shiftiness which necessitates that the neg loses every method debate.  Also we can probably only engage debate in one way at a time so having two methods is nonsensicle so you reject the perm on face.
The alt was always already the permutation. My beef with the aff is that it doesn’t go far enough and is negligent when it comes to relational understandings. The alternative resolves this beef.  Also probably means the alt is self sufficent we kill privledged peoples joy by disempowering them which means the perm has no net benefit and u vote neg.
They have not isolated a single net benefit of the permutation in the 1ar don’t allow the 2ar to re-extrapolate this. 
They cant access the alternative as it is a moment of critique that only the NC undergoes. This draws another solvency deficit as to why even if they win we can do both the alt is pre-requisite to ever being able to engage in the aff. Which means I’m still a prior question. 
Our problem with the nc is that it started at an ontologically flawed starting point which means there is no coming back- even if u dont buy cambell as a link it kills the perm
Fourth is the compromise da: they tell us that we can pass this one last ableist action and that long term the k solves back for its harms but every instance makes revolution harder and the method more difficult to achieve.
And even if they outweigh our DAs they dropped judge kick that means that the permutation is a test of competition u kick the alt and vote that links + imapct turn the aff lets go there now.