Tournament: Alta | Round: 1 | Opponent: Eagle TW | Judge: Ashan Peiris

America is built on anti-blackness, while other forms of oppression may exist; the very structure of life in American civil society is predicated on the slave and its perfection. Africans were taken from Africa and came out in America as Blacks which is an inherently dead identity defined by slavery.

Pak 12
Yumi Pak (Prof of Phil), "Outside Relationality: Autobiographical Deformations and the Literary Lineage of Afro-Pessimism in 20th and 21st Century African American Literature."
Because the four authors I examine focus intensively on untangling and retangling  the nexus of
AND
blackness as being absent in the  dialectic, as "anti-Human."

If politics is white, the best liberation movement will be politically anti-political; therefore the alternative is Black Anarchism. Reclaiming Black social life seems unlikely but we must refuse the notion that White society can produce good absent total restructuring. Anarchist movements are key to Black liberation, ceding authority always risks whiteness coopting it. Alston 03:

~Ashanti Alston (Black Anarchist who was in the Black Panthers and the Black Liberation Army) "Black Anarchism" Speech given at Hunter College. October 24, 2003. http://weblog.liberatormagazine.com/2008/07/black-anarchism.html~~ SF
So, here I am, in the United States fighting for Black liberation,
AND
who can see differently when I am stuck, and thus live differently.

Educational systems have historically excluded Black thought to sustain White supremacy. Your role as a judge and educator is to reverse that – interjecting Black thought is a prerequisite to ethical debate. Schnyder 08:

Damien Michael Schnyder (PhD, University of California's President's Postdoctoral Fellow) "First Strike," https://www.lib.utexas.edu/etd/d/2009/schnyderd25688/schnyderd25688.pdf
Ms. Fox's clear disregard for her students belies a racist logic that dehumanizes Blackness
AND
their role is vital to the maintenance of state domination of Black subjects.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 4 | Opponent: Nueva JT | Judge: John Scoggin
If someone repeatedly tells the victim online that they is are worthless, useless, a waste of space or that they should kill themselves, soon the victim might – at least partially – begin to believe it. According to Psychcentral.com, signs that someone is experience low self-esteem include: • Self-critical or a negative opinion of themselves • Sensitivity to even constructive criticism • Fatigue, insomnia, headaches • Poor performance at school or work due to lack of trying or lethargy It is important for an individual to maintain a healthy self-esteem so that they can achieve in life. A cyberbullying victim may miss out on opportunities because the victim believes they is unworthy of achievement. It’s important to realize that these two effects go well beyond being in a bad mood and not liking something about oneself. Depression, Low Self-Esteem and Dating Abuse Research is inconclusive, but most would agree that people who are victimized in abusive dating relationships often choose those relationships because of their depression or low self-esteem. Findyouthinfo.gov states that past experience with stressful life events – cyberbullying, for example – can put someone at risk for entering an abusive dating relationship. This is especially true if the cyberabuse included abuse directed at a female victim’s sexuality, or lack thereof. Feelings of worthlessness and a negative outlook on life can throw a previously-cyberbullied victim into yet another abusive relationship. However, instead of faceless strangers and bullies dolling out abuse, it would be the victim’s significant other. Dating abuse can encompass many forms of abuse, including cyberabuse. According to Dosomething.com, other forms of abuse in dating relationships include: • Physical abuse – in the form of “hitting, punching, slapping, biting” and anything that causes physical pain. • Mental abuse – in the form of verbal putdowns and belittling. The abuser might call their victim names, “make threats, or accuse the other person of cheating.” • Emotional abuse – in the form of control over the victim’s “behavior, personality, and life.” • Sexual abuse – in the form of unwanted touching, pressuring the victim to have sex, or rape. It’s getting harder to track cyberbullying since most people make their online profiles and social networking pages private. Also, apps like Snapchat would allow cyberbullies to attack their victim and have the evidence wiped away within seconds. According to this tech expert, “Users are drawn to the impermanence of the site’s uploads and the anonymity that impermanence provides.” However impermanent the actual abusive message may be, the lasting effects of the abuse upon the psyche of the victim are anything but impermanent.

Tournament: USC | Round: 6 | Opponent: no one | Judge: no one
1NC – Generic
Climate change sets the new rules for life on Earth and humans have no future in it. The capitalist modern way of life is anthropocentric logic that justifies unsustainable draining of the nonhuman world. Ignorance of climate change makes us feel safe, but only accelerates human extinction and biospheric collapse. Cohen 12
Tom Cohen (Professor of Literary, Cultural, and Media Studies at University of Albany), “Murmurations—“Climate Change” and the Defacement of Theory”, Telemorphosis: Theory in the Era of Climate Change, Vol. 1. SF 

Warnings regarding the planet earth’s imminent depletion of reserves or “life as we know it” arrive today more as routine tweets than events that might give us pause, particularly as the current wars over global “sovereign debt” and economic “crises” swamp attention. The intensifying specter of megadebt—at a time of “peak everything” (peak water, peak oil, peak humans)—dumped into a future despoiled of reserves and earning capacity has a specific relation to this white-out—the “economical” and “ecological” tandem shifts all attention to the first term (or first “eco”). In a post-global present consolidating what is routinely remarked as a neo-feudal order, the titanic shift of hyperwealth to the corporatist few (the so-called 1) sets the stage for a shift to control societies anticipat- ing social disruption and the implications of “Occupy” style eruptions— concerning which the U.S. congress hastily passed new unconstitutional rules to apprehend citizens or take down websites. The Ponzi scheme logics of twenty-first century earthscapes portray an array of time-bubbles, catastrophic deferrals, telecratic capture, and a voracious present that seems to practice a sort of tempophagy on itself corresponding with its structural premise of hyper-consumption and perpetual “growth. The supposed urgencies of threatened economic and monetary “collapse” occlude and defer any attention to the imperatives of the biosphere, but this apparent pause or deferral of attention covers over an irreversible mutation. A new phase of unsustainability appears in which a faux status quo ante appears to will to sustain itself as long as possible and at whatever cost; the event of the twenty-first century is that there will be no event, that no crisis will disturb the expansion of consumption beyond all supposed limits or peaks. In such an environment other materialities emerge, reference systems default, and the legacies of anthropo-narcissm go into overdrive in mechanical ways. Supposedly advanced or post-theory theory is no exception—claiming on the one hand ever more verdant comings together of redemptive communities, and discretely restoring many phenomenological tropes that 20th century thought had displaced. This has been characterized as an unfolding eco-eco disaster—a complex at once eco- nomic and ecological.1 The logics of the double oikos appear, today, caught in a self-feeding default. The present volume, in diverse ways, reclaims a certain violence that has seemed occluded or anaesthetized (it is a “present,” after all, palpably beyond “tipping points” yet shy of their fully arrived implications— hence the pop proliferation of “zombie” metaphors: zombie banks, zom- bie politics, zombie “theory”). It departs from a problem inherent in the “eco” as a metaphoric complex, that of the home (oikos), and the suicidal fashion in which this supposed proper ground recuperates itself from a nonexistent position. The figure of an ecology that is ours and that must be saved precludes us from confronting the displacement and dispossession which conditions all production, including the production of home- lands. Memory regimes have insistently, silently and anonymously prolonged and defended the construct of “homeland security” (both in its political sense, and in the epistemological sense of being secure in our modes of cognition), but these systems of security have in fact accelerated the vortices of ecocatastrophic imaginaries. If a double logic of eco-eco disaster overlaps with the epoch in deep time geologists now refer to as the “anthropocene,” what critical reorientations, today, contest what has been characterized as a collective blind or psychotic foreclosure? Nor can one place the blame at the feet alone of an accidental and evil ‘1’ of corporate culture alone, since an old style revolutionary model does not emerge from this exitless network of sys- tems. More interesting is the way that ‘theory’, with its nostalgic agendas for a properly political world of genuine praxis or feeling has been com- plicit in its fashion. How might one read the implicit, unseen collabora- tion that critical agendas coming out of twentieth century master-texts unwittingly maintained with the accelerated trajectories in question? The mesmerizing fixation with cultural histories, the ethics of “others,” the enhancement of subjectivities, “human rights” and institutions of power not only partook of this occlusion but ‘we theorists’ have deferred addressing biospheric collapse, mass extinction events, or the implications of resource wars and “population” culling. It is our sense of justified propriety—our defense of cultures, affects, bodies and others—that allows us to remain secure in our homeland, unaware of all the ruses that maintain that spurious home. The rapacious present places the hidden metaphoric levers of the eco or oikos in an unsustainable exponential curve, compounding megadebt upon itself, and consuming futures in what has been portrayed as a sort of psychotic trance—what Hillis Miller calls, in this volume, a suicidal “auto-co-immunity” track.2 Yet the “Sovereign debt crisis” corresponds to a credibility crisis as well. The latter applies not only to the political classes of the post-democratic klepto-telecracies of the West but seems to taint the critical concepts, agendas, and terms received from twentieth-century itineraries that accompanied the last decades and that persist as currency. Far from opening beyond the propriety of the oikos theories of affect, living labor and critical legacies have doubled down on their investments, created guilds as reluctant as Wall St. to give up cognitive capital. All the while there is attention paid to ‘saving’ the humanities or a critical industry that might be extended for a while longer (as if with “sovereignty” itself). Bruno Latour 2010 presumes to call this recent and ongoing episode the “Modernist parenthesis” of thought. In his conjec- ture, the very pre-occupation with human on human histories, cultural- ism, archivism, and the institutions of power were complicit with a larger blind that, in his view, the ecological crisis belatedly discloses.3 At the moment of writing it is common to point to the 2011 “occupy” movement, viral and cloud-like, as the Bartlebyesque counter to a total- ization of the systems of this control. Bartleby has become the figure for a rejection of end-fixated production. Were one able to speak of an occupy movement applied to critical concepts and twentieth century derived idioms one might imagine a call to occupy critical theory and conceptual networks—but with what interruption of received programs (“Sovereign debt”), what alternative materialities, what purported “ethics” involving commodified futures (and the structure of debt), what mnemotechnics, and with resistance to what power, if it is the oikos itself, the metaphoric chimera and its capture of late anthropocene imaginaries that is at is- sue? This is one of the implications of what this volume terms telemor- phosis, the intricacy by which referential regimes, memory, and reading, participate in these twenty-first century disclosures. The occupy motif, at the moment, sets itself against a totalization or experience of foreclo- sure—political, mediacratic, financial, cognitive. Various strategies ap- pearing in this volume involve what could equally be called a disoccupy logic or meme. Such a logic of disoccupation assumes that the domain in question is already saturated, occupied in the militarist sense by a program that, un- wittingly, persists in the acceleration of destruction and takeover. Critical thought of recent decades would have walked hand in hand with the cur- rent foreclosures. The explication of ecocatastrophic logics, accordingly, are not found in Foucault nor, surprisingly, Derrida. Timothy Morton’s Ecology without Nature is one such effort at disoccupation—seeking to void the two terms of the title, and in the process disrupt the “revised organicisms” of contemporary critical schools which, he argues, have managed to lapse into sophisticated pre-critical modes not unrelated to a more general inertia. The meme of disoccupation resonates, for instance, with what Robert Markley in this volume proposes as a practice of “disidentification,” and is implied by Timothy Clark’s tracking of a “derangement of scale” in the perpetual cognitive disjunctures that come up against the ecocatastrophic present. One would disoccupy the figure of subjectivity, refusing not only the comforting commodifications of “the other” in cultural theory, but also the later moral appeals to other redemptive beings, such as the animal (as Joanna Zylinska argues with regard to post-humanism and its “animal studies”). What might be disoccupied would be the meta- phorics of the home, even where the latter would sustain itself today in cherished terms like trauma, affect, alterity, embodiment, or even culture. Yet a refusal of supposed redemptive ‘outsides’ to capitalism does not lead to a place of critical purity beyond the implied moralism of ‘occupy’ but the return of, and orientation to, a violence before which no model of sovereignty can be sustained. To imagine that one might disoccupy by refusing all the supposed redemptive ‘outsides’ to capitalism is not to find a place of critical purity beyond the moralism of ‘occupy.’ Occupation is never simply takeover and appropriation, but always involves destruction of what it claims. The viral migration of the “occupy” motif involves a premise of disoccupation covertly. In the present volume this takes different forms. If one is now beyond tipping points in a zone of irreversibility, what corresponds to this as a critical injunction? Catherine Malabou sets aside the entire way the figure of trauma and the “always already” have organized time. Claire Colebrook affirms, rather than accepting as tragic, extinction as a point of departure for thought, which can be used to work against the organicist ideologies of the present (such as sexual difference). Martin McQuillan shifts the referential spectrum of discourse to “other materialities” in the hypothesis of a post-carbon thought, while Robert Markley tracks the in-flux of geological times that displace human narrative matrices. Bernard Stiegler voids the biopolitical model, which he sees as exceeded by “the third limit of Capitalism” (when it impinges on the biosphere). From that point of excess he strategizes a counter-stroke to the capture of attention by telecratic circuits, initiating a noopolitics. Joana Zylinska disoccupies, to continue this motif, the covert model of soft “otherness” by which animal studies has invented itself as an anthropo-colonianism. Like post- humanism generally, Zylinska argues, animal studies sustains its sub- jectal hegemonies. Hillis Miller locates a source for the ecocatastrophic imaginary in the blind insistence of “organicist” models of reading that sustain the comforts of the oikos. Against this hermeneutics of security Miller posits an “ecotechnics” that is at once machinal and linguistically based (where language is not communicative, but literal and inscriptive in a manner exemplified by Kafka’s Odradek). Justin Read displaces any biopolitical model, again, by relinquishing trauma, the oikos, survival and interiorities of any manner, instead describing the circulation of data (or the “unicity”) from which the only remaining political gesture would be oriented to the ecocatrastrophic. Jason Groves shifts the refer- ential screen from, again, a human-centered index to the viral textualism of (alien) species invasion, the global rewriting of bio-geographies. Mike Hill transitions to the alteration of atmospherics under the imaginary of climate war technologies in a new horizon of invisible wars (and wars on visibility), which today include not only nanotechnologies but also the “autogenic” turning of wars without discrete (national) enemies into suicidal rages against the “homeland”—a sort of, again, auto-occupation that is accelerating.
The campaign of climate denial in universities is a crime against the world to breed apathy. Denialism hides truth so people can’t voice informed speech on climate change – turns case. Torcello 14 bracketed for clarity:
Lawrence Torcello (Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology), “Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?” The Conversation. March 13, 2014. https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111 SF

We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus. Criminal negligence is normally understood to result from failures to avoid reasonably foreseeable harms, or the threat of harms to public safety, consequent of certain activities. Those funding climate denial campaigns can reasonably predict the public’s diminished ability to respond to climate change as a result of their behaviour. Indeed, public uncertainty regarding climate science, and the resulting failure to respond to climate change, is the intentional aim of politically and financially motivated denialists. This probably raises an understandable, if misguided, concern regarding free speech. We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organised campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions. Protecting the latter as a form of free speech stretches the definition of free speech to a degree that undermines the very concept. 

The apocalypse is a question of recognition. Accepting climate change recognizes humans as co-producers of nature, which shifts political obligation from regulating nature to the possibility of new environment. Swyngedouw 13:
Erik Swyngedouw (Professor of Geography at the School of Environment and Development at University of Manchester Lewis), “Apocalypse Now! Fear and Doomsday Pleasures,” Symposium on Apocalypse. Published 02/06/2013. SF

Against this cynical stand, the third, and for me proper, leftist response to the apocalyptic imaginary is twofold and cuts through the deadlock embodied by the first two responses. To begin with, the revelatory promise of the apocalyptic narrative has to be fully rejected. In the face of the cataclysmic imaginaries mobilized to assure that the apocalypse will NOT happen (if the right techno-managerial actions are taken), the only reasonable response is ‘‘Don’t worry (Al Gore, Prince Charles, many environmental activists....), you are really right, the environmental apocalypse WILL not only happen, it has already happened, IT IS ALREADY HERE.’’ Many are already living in the post-apocalyptic interstices of life, whereby the fusion of environmental transformation and social conditions, render life‘‘bare.’’ The fact that the socio-environmental imbroglio has already passed the point of no return has to be fully asserted. The socio-environmental Armageddon is already here for many; it is not some distant dystopian promise mobilized to trigger response today. Water conflicts, struggles for food, environmental refugees, etc. testify to the socio-ecological predicament that choreographs everyday life for the majority of the world’s population. Things are already too late; they have always already been too late. There is no Arcadian place, time, or environment to return to, no benign socio-ecological past that needs to be maintained or stabilized. Many already live in the interstices of the apocalypse, albeit a combined and uneven one. It is only within the realization of the apocalyptic reality of the now that a new politics might emerge. The second gesture of a proper leftist response is to reverse the order between the universal and the particular that today dominates the catastrophic political imaginary. This order maintains that salvaging the particular historical-geographical configuration we are in depends on re-thinking and re-framing the human environment articulation in a universal sense. We have to change our relationship with nature so that capitalism can continue somehow. Not only does this argument to preserve capitalism guarantee the prolongation of the combined and uneven apocalypse of the present, it forecloses considering fundamental change to the actually existing unequal forms of organizing the society-environment relations. Indeed, the apocalyptic imaginary is one that generally still holds on to a dualistic view of nature and culture. The argument is built on the view that humans have perturbed the ecological dynamic balance in ways inimical to human (and possibly non-human) long-term survival, and the solution consists broadly in bringing humans (in a universal sense) back in line with the possibilities and constraints imposed by ecological limits and dynamics. A universal transformation is required in order to maintain the present. And this can and should be done through managing the present particular configuration. This is the message of Al Gore or Prince Charles and many other environmental pundits. A left socio-environmental perspective has to insist that we need to transform this universal message into a particular one. The historically and geographically specific dynamics of capitalism have banned an external nature radically to a sphere beyond earth. On earth, there is no external nature left. It is from this particular historical-geographical configuration that a radical politics of transformation has to be thought and practiced. Only through the transformation of the particular socio-ecological relations of capitalism can a generic egalitarian, free, and common re-ordering of the human/non-human imbroglios be forged. Those who already recognized the irreversible dynamics of the socio-environ mental imbroglio that has been forged over the past few centuries coined a new term to classify the epoch we are in. ‘‘Welcome to the Anthropocene’’ became a popular catch-phrase to inform us that we are now in a new geological era, one in which humans are co-producers of the deep geological time that hitherto had slowly grinded away irrespective of humans’ dabbling with the surface layers of earth, oceans, and atmosphere. Noble prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen introduced ‘‘the Anthropocene,’’ coined about a decade ago as the successor name of the Holocene, the relatively benign geo-climatic period that allegedly permitted agriculture to flourish, cities to be formed, and humans to thrive (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000). Since the beginning of industrialization, so the Anthropocenic argument goes, humans’ increasing interactions with their physical conditions of existence have resulted in a qualitative shift in geo-climatic acting of the earth system. The Anthropocene is nothing else than the geological name for capitalism WITH nature. Acidification of oceans, biodiversity transformations, gene displacements and recombinations, climate change, big infrastructures effecting the earth’s geodetic dynamics, among others, resulted in knotting together ‘‘natural’’ and ‘‘social’’ processes such that humans have become active agents in co-shaping earth’s deep geological time. Now that the era has been named as the Anthropocene, we can argue at length over its meaning, content, existence, and possible modes of engagement. Nonetheless, it affirms that humans and nature are co-produced and that the particular historical epoch that goes under the name of capitalism forged this mutual determination. The Anthropocene is just another name for insisting on Nature’s death. This cannot be unmade, however hard we try. The past is forever closed and the future including nature’s future*is radically open, up for grabs. Indeed, the affirmation of the historical-geographical co-production of society WITH nature radically politicizes nature, makes nature enter into the domain of contested socio-physical relations and assemblages. We cannot escape‘ ‘producing nature’’; rather, it forces us to make choices about what socio-natural worlds we wish to inhabit. It is from this particular position, therefore, that the environmental conundrum ought to be approached so that a qualitative transformation of BOTH society AND nature has to be envisaged. This perspective moves the gaze from thinking through a ‘‘politics of the environment’’ to ‘‘politicizing the environment’’ (Swyngedouw 2011; 2012). The human world is now an active agent in shaping the non-human world. This extends the terrain of the political to domains hitherto left to the mechanics of nature. The non-human world becomes ‘‘enrolled’’ in a process of politicization. And that is precisely what needs to be fully endorsed. The Anthropocene opens up a terrain whereby different natures can be contemplated and actually co-produced. And the struggle over these trajectories and, from a leftist perspective, the process of the egalitarian socio-ecological production of the commons of life is precisely what our politics are all about. Yes, the apocalypse is already here, but do not despair, let us fully endorse the emancipatory possibilities of apocalyptic life. Perhaps we should modify the now over-worked statement of the Italian Marxist Amadeo Bordiga that ‘‘if the ship goes down, the first-class passengers drown too.’’ Amadeo was plainly wrong. Remember the movie Titanic (as well as the real catastrophe). A large number of the first-class passengers found a lifeboat; the others were trapped in the belly of the beast. Indeed the social and ecological catastrophe we are already in is not shared equally. While the elites fear both economic and ecological collapse, the consequences and implications are highly uneven. The elite’s fears are indeed only matched by the actually existing socio-ecological and economic catastrophes many already live in. The apocalypse is combined and uneven. And it is within this reality that political choices have to be made and sides taken.
The alternative is to die gracefully. It’s apocalypse now; we can lie to ourselves or find value by seeing ourselves as a changing unit in a large system of natural value. This requires rejecting their humanist appeals. The dead cannot speak.
Scranton 13:
Roy Scranton (Served in the United States Army from 2002 to 2006. He is a doctoral candidate in English at Princeton University, and co-editor of “Fire and Forget: Short Stories from the Long War.” He has written for The New York Times, Boston Review, Theory and Event and recently completed a novel about the Iraq War), “Learning How to Die in the Anthropocene”; November 10, 2013; http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/learning-how-to-die-in-the-anthropocene/?_r=0 SF

There’s a word for this new era we live in: the Anthropocene. This term, taken up by geologists, pondered by intellectuals and discussed in the pages of publications such as The Economist and the The New York Times, represents the idea that we have entered a new epoch in Earth’s geological history, one characterized by the arrival of the human species as a geological force. The Nobel-Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen coined the term in 2002, and it has steadily gained acceptance as evidence has increasingly mounted that the changes wrought by global warming will affect not just the world’s climate and biological diversity, but its very geology — and not just for a few centuries, but for millenniums. The geophysicist David Archer’s 2009 book, “The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate,” lays out a clear and concise argument for how huge concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and melting ice will radically transform the planet, beyond freak storms and warmer summers, beyond any foreseeable future.¶ The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London — the scientists responsible for pinning the “golden spikes” that demarcate geological epochs such as the Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene — have adopted the Anthropocene as a term deserving further consideration, “significant on the scale of Earth history.”Working groups are discussing what level of geological time-scale it might be (an “epoch” like the Holocene, or merely an “age” like the Calabrian), and at what date we might say it began. The beginning of the Great Acceleration, in the middle of the 20th century? The beginning of the Industrial Revolution, around 1800? The advent of agriculture?¶ The challenge the Anthropocene poses is a challenge not just to national security, to food and energy markets, or to our “way of life” — though these challenges are all real, profound, and inescapable. The greatest challenge the Anthropocene poses may be to our sense of what it means to be human. Within 100 years — within three to five generations — we will face average temperatures 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than today, rising seas at least three to 10 feet higher, and worldwide shifts in crop belts, growing seasons and population centers. Within a thousand years, unless we stop emitting greenhouse gases wholesale right now, humans will be living in a climate the Earth hasn’t seen since the Pliocene, three million years ago, when oceans were 75 feethigher than they are today. We face the imminent collapse of the agricultural, shipping and energy networks upon which the global economy depends, a large-scale die-off in the biosphere that’s already well on its way, and our own possible extinction. If homo sapiens (or some genetically modified variant) survives the next millenniums, it will be survival in a world unrecognizably different from the one we have inhabited.¶ Geological time scales, civilizational collapse and species extinction give rise to profound problems that humanities scholars and academic philosophers, with their taste for fine-grained analysis, esoteric debates and archival marginalia, might seem remarkably ill suited to address. After all, how will thinking about Kant help us trap carbon dioxide? Can arguments between object-oriented ontology and historical materialism protect honeybees from colony collapse disorder? Are ancient Greek philosophers, medieval theologians, and contemporary metaphysicians going to keep Bangladesh from being inundated by rising oceans?¶ Of course not. But the biggest problems the Anthropocene poses are precisely those that have always been at the root of humanistic and philosophical questioning: “What does it mean to be human?” and “What does it mean to live?” In the epoch of the Anthropocene, the question of individual mortality — “What does my life mean in the face of death?” — is universalized and framed in scales that boggle the imagination. What does human existence mean against 100,000 years of climate change? What does one life mean in the face of species death or the collapse of global civilization? How do we make meaningful choices in the shadow of our inevitable end?¶ These questions have no logical or empirical answers. They are philosophical problems par excellence. Many thinkers, including Cicero, Montaigne, Karl Jaspers, and The Stone’s own Simon Critchley, have argued that studying philosophy is learning how to die. If that’s true, then we have entered humanity’s most philosophical age — for this is precisely the problem of the Anthropocene. The rub is that now we have to learn how to die not as individuals, but as a civilization.¶ III.¶ Learning how to die isn’t easy. In Iraq, at the beginning, I was terrified by the idea. Baghdad seemed incredibly dangerous, even though statistically I was pretty safe. We got shot at and mortared, and I.E.D.’s laced every highway, but I had good armor, we had a great medic, and we were part of the most powerful military the world had ever seen. The odds were good I would come home. Maybe wounded, but probably alive. Every day I went out on mission, though, I looked down the barrel of the future and saw a dark, empty hole.¶ “For the soldier death is the future, the future his profession assigns him,” wrote Simone Weil in her remarkable meditation on war, “The Iliad or the Poem of Force.” “Yet the idea of man’s having death for a future is abhorrent to nature. Once the experience of war makes visible the possibility of death that lies locked up in each moment, our thoughts cannot travel from one day to the next without meeting death’s face.” That was the face I saw in the mirror, and its gaze nearly paralyzed me.¶ I found my way forward through an 18th-century Samurai manual, Yamamoto Tsunetomo’s “Hagakure,” which commanded: “Meditation on inevitable death should be performed daily.” Instead of fearing my end, I owned it. Every morning, after doing maintenance on my Humvee, I’d imagine getting blown up by an I.E.D., shot by a sniper, burned to death, run over by a tank, torn apart by dogs, captured and beheaded, and succumbing to dysentery. Then, before we rolled out through the gate, I’d tell myself that I didn’t need to worry, because I was already dead. The only thing that mattered was that I did my best to make sure everyone else came back alive. “If by setting one’s heart right every morning and evening, one is able to live as though his body were already dead,” wrote Tsunetomo, “he gains freedom in the Way.”¶ I got through my tour in Iraq one day at a time, meditating each morning on my inevitable end. When I left Iraq and came back stateside, I thought I’d left that future behind. Then I saw it come home in the chaos that was unleashed after Katrina hit New Orleans. And then I saw it again when Sandy battered New York and New Jersey: Government agencies failed to move quickly enough, and volunteer groups like Team Rubicon had to step in to manage disaster relief.¶ Now, when I look into our future — into the Anthropocene — I see water rising up to wash out lower Manhattan. I see food riots, hurricanes, and climate refugees. I see 82nd Airborne soldiers shooting looters. I see grid failure, wrecked harbors, Fukushima waste, and plagues. I see Baghdad. I see the Rockaways. I see a strange, precarious world.¶ Our new home.¶ The human psyche naturally rebels against the idea of its end. Likewise, civilizations have throughout history marched blindly toward disaster, because humans are wired to believe that tomorrow will be much like today — it is unnatural for us to think that this way of life, this present moment, this order of things is not stable and permanent. Across the world today, our actions testify to our belief that we can go on like this forever, burning oil, poisoning the seas, killing off other species, pumping carbon into the air, ignoring the ominous silence of our coal mine canaries in favor of the unending robotic tweets of our new digital imaginarium. Yet the reality of global climate change is going to keep intruding on our fantasies of perpetual growth, permanent innovation and endless energy, just as the reality of mortality shocks our casual faith in permanence.¶ The biggest problem climate change poses isn’t how the Department of Defense should plan for resource wars, or how we should put up sea walls to protect Alphabet City, or when we should evacuate Hoboken. It won’t be addressed by buying a Prius, signing a treaty, or turning off the air-conditioning. The biggest problem we face is a philosophical one: understanding that this civilization is already dead. The sooner we confront this problem, and the sooner we realize there’s nothing we can do to save ourselves, the sooner we can get down to the hard work of adapting, with mortal humility, to our new reality.¶ The choice is a clear one. We can continue acting as if tomorrow will be just like yesterday, growing less and less prepared for each new disaster as it comes, and more and more desperately invested in a life we can’t sustain. Or we can learn to see each day as the death of what came before, freeing ourselves to deal with whatever problems the present offers without attachment or fear. If we want to learn to live in the Anthropocene, we must first learn how to die.
The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who provides the best method to reframe humanities relationship to nature. The imminence of the anthropocene makes this our foremost educational responsibility. Ecological Thoughtprint 11:
Ecological Thoughtprint (website for educators that promote sustainability education and teach ecological epistemology) “Dualism doesn’t make sense” December 4, 2011. https://ecologicalthoughtprint.org/2011/12/04/dualism-doesnt-make-sense/ SF
Have you ever asked someone, “Where is Nature?  Where is the environment?”  How do you think they would respond?  How would you respond? One icy afternoon, from the heated confines of a classroom, I asked this same question.  Student after student repeated a similar motion.  “There,” they said, immediately pointing across the room to the half-frosted window.  “Out there.” Through the third-storey window we could see frozen oak leaves fallen from near-barren branches, sailing through the air until they softly landed in rolling hills of rust, amber and gold.  Further out, the inlet waters lapped at decaying logs washed up on the rocks.  Glimmers of winter sunlight peeked out from the edge of heavy grey clouds. I turned back to the students.  “Okay, what about in here?” I asked, waving my hands around the room.  “Is this Nature too?” They exchanged puzzled looks.  A few shook their heads in firm disagreement, glancing at the tightly sealed glass window. I continued.  “Think about your body.  Your breathing.  Air is flowing in and out.  Where is the air coming from?  Where is it going?  If we open the window, what then?  Is ‘Nature’ coming in?  What if we were to go outside to a tree and pick an apple and eat it?  You would say the apple is part of Nature, right?  What about as it enters your mouth, as you bite, as you chew, swallow, digest, and absorb?  The apple is in you — did the Nature-part of the apple disappear?  Or is it still there?  Is Nature in you?  Is Nature now a part of you?” Taking a step back, I looked at the entire class.  “Conversely, are you a part of Nature?” Blurring the boundary. What I hoped is that students would begin to question a deep-seeded modern way of thinking known as dualism.  From a dualistic worldview, there is a clear division between the human world and natural world.  A concrete building is regarded as soundly in the human domain while a mountain is relegated to the realm of Nature — no matter that they are both composed from common aggregates of rock and minerals.  A pencil is of humans while a tree is of Nature — no matter that they share an “ancestry” of materials.  In this way of thinking, humans are seen as largely autonomous from the rest of the natural world; the environment is simply that — environs — one’s surroundings, that which lays around at a distance but not within. Whether through logic or intuition, upon examination the apparent separation between humans and Nature holds little truth.  As living beings, we are each conceived through the physical union of two “outsiders”, upon which the genesis for our individual lives grows in complete dependence on its mother-environment.  During development in the womb, there is never a precise dividing line between fetus and mother.  The two are fused.  Even upon birth, in which we might think of an infant being separated from its creator and thrust out into the larger environment, the child’s complete reliance upon the parent’s protection, direct nutrients and physical comfort sustains this unyielding connection.  Even as a child grows and develops, understanding her place in the world, she naturally maintains this sense of interconnectedness — that even as an individual she is an integral part of a grand system of life. It is only in certain cultures where this intuitive sense of connection is driven away.  These are the cultures rooted in the modern ecological thoughtprint.  In this industrial worldview, where we seek convenient and self-serving ways of thinking to legitimize our destructive behaviours toward the more-than-human world, a belief in the dualism of humanity and Nature is forced upon our youth.  Expanding urban life in cement cities reinforces the false understanding that Nature is “out there” and that human life is independent of all ecological support.  As David Suzuki recounts, we can live in air-conditioned boxes in the sky, be whisked down elevators to our air-conditioned cars in sealed parking garages, drive to underground garages at our workplaces and then up and away to air-conditioned offices connected directly to shopping malls — gaining the ability to go weeks with leaving the “inside” world. Where do we get food?  The grocery store.  Where does our energy come from?  The outlet in the wall.  Where does our water come from?  Pipes.  What about our waste and garbage?  It gets taken to this magical place called “Away”.  Placing the sources of our sustenance out of clear sight relieves us of the daily need to recognize our intractable dependence on Nature.  We are, in effect, exporting reality. Schools continue to hammer out holism — the belief that all is connected — through a sole emphasis on reason and categorical thinking.  In secondary education and beyond, we clearly define different subject areas — science, history, art, language — and then further subdivide these, asserting that knowledge is readily compartmentalized with little interaction between.  “Environment” is often relegated to science, where Nature tends to be dissected, devalued, and converted to a cold, lifeless, logical arrangement of compounds and governing laws.  While ecology lessons may teach simplistic food webs and food chains, it is the rare student (usually one who does not thrive in the academic world, for which they are punished) who resolutely preserves his intuitive sense of the endlessly complex interdependence of all of Creation, with himself included in the mix. Finally, it is our modern consumer products themselves which serve to propagate the illusion of dualism.  Plastic, for example, has a powerful property in that we cannot readily see — or even imagine — what elements of Nature have gone into its construction.  Our buildings are similar; uniform processed particle board and monotonous metallic infusions are mysterious materials seemingly born not out of the natural world but out of some autonomous synthetic factory in a distant industrial land.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 4 | Opponent: Nueva JT | Judge: John Scoggin
1nc – cyberbullying
No anti-cyberbullying laws in the 1AC b/c they are restrictions on free speech – increases cyberbullying
Hayward 13. John O. Hayward, Senior Lecturer in Law at Bentley Universityds, "Anti-Cyberbullying Laws Are a Threat to Free Speech," Netiquette and Online Ethics, Gale: Opposing Viewpoints in Context, 2013, http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/DocumentToolsPortletWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpointsandjsid=86b8d9990680ac70437ab043a7b61192andaction=2andcatId=anddocumentId=GALE7CEJ3010868216andu=nysl_we_bcsdandzid=e5792b8229fbb3d88a51bec521a1e8cf//AD
While forty-three states have anti-bullying statutes, only twenty-one prohibit cyber bullying, which usually is defined as "bullying" conducted by electronic means. Additionally, the laws can be grouped into prohibitions that explicitly include off-campus cyber bullying or implicitly include or exclude it. Typical legislative language is "immediately adjacent to school grounds," "directed at another student or students," "at a school activity," or "at school-sponsored activities or at a school-sanctioned event." The statutes also usually contain language prohibiting cyber bullying if it results in one or more of the following: (1) causes "substantial disruption" of the school environment or orderly operation of the school, (2) creates an "intimidating," "threatening" or "hostile" learning environment, (3) causes actual harm to a student or student's property or places a student in reasonable fear of harm to self or property, (4) interferes with a student's educational performance and benefits, (5) includes as a target school personnel or references "person" rather than "student," and (6) incites third parties to carry out bullying behavior. Five states prohibit cyber bullying if it is motivated by an actual or perceived characteristic or trait of a student. Presumably this protects gay and lesbian students and school personnel from criticism because of their sexual orientation but it could also shield obese, bulimic, short and tall students from disparagement due to their weight or height. While many applaud anti-cyber bullying legislation, some are concerned that it gives school officials unbridled authority that will be used to burnish their image, not protect bullying victims, or that it threatens student free speech. Furthermore, if their authority is unleashed beyond the school yard, it is essentially limitless. Thus no student, even in the privacy of their home, can write about controversial topics of concern to them without worrying that it may be "disruptive" or cause a "hostile environment" at school. In effect, students will be punished for off-campus speech based on the way people react to it at school. Many of the terms are so vague that they offer no guidance to distinguish permissible from impermissible speech. In this sense, they are akin to campus speech codes that courts invalidated in the 1990s for vagueness and overbreadth. Consequently, these laws don't simply "chill" student free speech, they plunge it into deep freeze. This viewpoint argues that for these reasons, some anti-cyber bullying laws violate the First Amendment and should be struck down as unconstitutional.
Anti-cyberbullying laws key to prevent cyberbullying – squo solves and checks off campus behavior
Patchin 10. Justin W. Patchin, Professor of Criminal Justice in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 09/28/10, "Cyberbullying Laws and School Policy: A Blessing or Curse?," Cyberbullying Research Center, http://cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying-laws-and-school-policy-a-blessing-or-curse//AD
Many schools are now in a difficult position of having to respond to a mandate to have a cyberbullying policy, without much guidance from the state about the circumstances under which they can (or must) respond. When folks ask me if I think there needs to be a “cyberbullying law” I basically respond by saying “perhaps – but not the kind of law most legislators would propose.” I would look for a law to be more “prescriptive” than “proscriptive.” By that, I mean I would like to see specific guidance from states about *how* and *when* schools can take action in cyberbullying incidents. Many states have taken the easy way out by simply passing laws saying effectively “schools need to deal with this.” Not only have they stopped short in terms of providing specific instructions or even a framework from which schools can evaluate their role, but they have not provided any additional resources to address these issues. Some states are now requiring schools to educate students and staff about cyberbullying or online safety more generally, but have provided no funding to carry out such activities. Unfunded mandates have become cliché in education, and this is just another example. Moreover, school administrators are in a precarious position because they see many examples in the media where schools have been sued because they took action against a student when they shouldn’t have or they failed to take action when they were supposed to. Schools need help determining where the legal line is. Many states already have existing criminal and civil remedies to deal with cyberbullying. Extreme cases would fall under criminal harassment or stalking laws or a target could pursue civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress or defamation, to name a few. Bullying (whatever the form) that occurs at school is no doubt already subject to an existing bullying policy. To be sure, schools should bring their bullying and harassment policies into the 21st Century by explicitly identifying cyberbullying as a proscribed behavior, but they need to move beyond the behaviors that occur on school grounds or those that utilize school-owned resources. But in order to do this they need guidance from their state legislators and Departments of Education so that they draft a policy and procedure that will be held up in court. School, technology, and privacy lawyers disagree about what should (or must) be in a policy. It’s no wonder many educators are simply throwing their hands up. We really like New Hampshire’s recently passed bullying law, even though like other efforts it demands a lot from schools without a corresponding increase in resources. This section is key: “Bullying or cyberbullying shall occur when an action or communication as defined in RSA 193-F:3: … (b) Occurs off of school property or outside of a school-sponsored activity or event, if the conduct interferes with a pupil’s educational opportunities or substantially disrupts the orderly operations of the school or school-sponsored activity or event.” This puts schools, students, and parents on notice that there are instances when schools can discipline students for their off campus behavior. It will take many years, though, before we will know if this law can be used as a model. Schools will need to pass policies based on the law; a school will then need to discipline a bully based on the new policy; then they will need to be sued; then the case will need to be appealed. Perhaps then the case will get to a significant enough court that it will matter. Hang on and see how it turns out. In the meantime, lobby your legislators to pass meaningful, prescriptive laws instead of laws that simply say “cyberbullying is wrong, now YOU do SOMETHING about it.” It’s election time, so I’m sure your local representative will be all ears…
Cyberbullying is conducive to abuse and kills self worth – impedes the ability to get education, turns case
ETCB 16, End To Cyber Bullying, The End to Cyber Bullying (ETCB) Organization was founded in 2011 to raise global awareness on cyberbullying, and to mobilize youth, educators, parents, and others in taking efforts to end cyberbullying, “A Surprising Long-Term Effect of Cyberbullying, ETCB Organization, 2016, http://www.endcyberbullying.org/a-surprising-long-term-effect-of-cyberbullying///AD
If someone repeatedly tells the victim online that they is are worthless, useless, a waste of space or that they should kill themselves, soon the victim might – at least partially – begin to believe it. According to Psychcentral.com, signs that someone is experience low self-esteem include: • Self-critical or a negative opinion of themselves • Sensitivity to even constructive criticism • Fatigue, insomnia, headaches • Poor performance at school or work due to lack of trying or lethargy It is important for an individual to maintain a healthy self-esteem so that they can achieve in life. A cyberbullying victim may miss out on opportunities because the victim believes they is unworthy of achievement. It’s important to realize that these two effects go well beyond being in a bad mood and not liking something about oneself. Depression, Low Self-Esteem and Dating Abuse Research is inconclusive, but most would agree that people who are victimized in abusive dating relationships often choose those relationships because of their depression or low self-esteem. Findyouthinfo.gov states that past experience with stressful life events – cyberbullying, for example – can put someone at risk for entering an abusive dating relationship. This is especially true if the cyberabuse included abuse directed at a female victim’s sexuality, or lack thereof. Feelings of worthlessness and a negative outlook on life can throw a previously-cyberbullied victim into yet another abusive relationship. However, instead of faceless strangers and bullies dolling out abuse, it would be the victim’s significant other. Dating abuse can encompass many forms of abuse, including cyberabuse. According to Dosomething.com, other forms of abuse in dating relationships include: • Physical abuse – in the form of “hitting, punching, slapping, biting” and anything that causes physical pain. • Mental abuse – in the form of verbal putdowns and belittling. The abuser might call their victim names, “make threats, or accuse the other person of cheating.” • Emotional abuse – in the form of control over the victim’s “behavior, personality, and life.” • Sexual abuse – in the form of unwanted touching, pressuring the victim to have sex, or rape. It’s getting harder to track cyberbullying since most people make their online profiles and social networking pages private. Also, apps like Snapchat would allow cyberbullies to attack their victim and have the evidence wiped away within seconds. According to this tech expert, “Users are drawn to the impermanence of the site’s uploads and the anonymity that impermanence provides.” However impermanent the actual abusive message may be, the lasting effects of the abuse upon the psyche of the victim are anything but impermanent.

Harassment DA
Harassment cases persist because of a lack of clarity in requirements – a commitment to accountability is key. Saha 8/22

MADHUMITA SAHA The writer is an academic-turned journalist. She taught history at Drexel University and New York University before joining WION. Mon, 22 Aug 2016 http://www.dnaindia.com/world/column-academia-s-feet-of-clay-sexual-misconduct-and-gender-discrimination-in-schools-2247826

In the present context, Tyann Sorrell ’s recourse to legal action seems an obvious choice. But the legal history of sexual harassment shows that the road to public protest had been tough and long. Professor Carrie N. Baker shows in her book, The Women’s Movement against Sexual Harassment, how characterizations of sexual behaviour in workplaces have evolved from being considered a moral problem of a working woman, to a social problem of male lust and seduction, and eventually in the 1970s, such acts came to be interpreted as acts of violence against women and a violation of women’s civil rights.¶ In response to public awakening to the issue, the judges ruled in the William v. Saxbe federal court case of 1976 that sexual harassment is a form of illegal sex discrimination under Title VII. Before this verdict, the US courts were of the opinion that sexual harassment was merely disharmony in a personal relationship, the result of personal urges of individuals, and not part of company policy.¶ We trust in numbers: quantifying sexual harassment in the campus¶ ¶ American universities with the most reports of rape, 2014¶ University campuses are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment of various types. Different sorts of authorities - formal, informal, achieved as well as ascribed- are exercised over students, assistant professors, and administrative assistants. According to the federal campus safety data, nearly 100 US colleges and universities had at least 10 reports of rape on their main campuses in 2014, with Brown University and the University of Connecticut tied for the highest annual total of 43 each.¶ Recently, Association of American Universities (AAU) conducted a Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct among 150,000 students at 27 schools, including most of the Ivy League. Of the female undergraduate student respondents, 23.1 per cent informed the surveyors that they have experienced sexual misconduct due to physical force, threats of physical force, or incapacitation.¶ 2¶ Per cent of college students reporting sexual assault, 2015¶ One of the most disturbing revelations of the survey indicates that overall rates of reporting to campus officials and law enforcement were rather low.¶ Depending on the specific type of sexual harassment, only five per cent to 28 per cent of respondents claim to have reported their experience of sexual harassment to the appropriate authorities. According to the AAU Climate Survey, the most common reason for not reporting incidents of sexual assault and sexual misconduct was that it was not considered serious enough. Among other reasons, students cited they were “embarrassed, ashamed or that it would be too emotionally difficult,” and because they “did not think anything would be done about it.”¶ Taking it from here to a safer future¶ There is nothing peculiar about sexual harassment and misconduct in the US educational institutions. Embedded in the similar kind of power structure, I am sure, such acts of sexual transgression is common enough occurrence in any university under the sun. So, let’s not point a finger and try to make a case of western sexual promiscuity out of it; we are all living in fragile glass houses.¶ On 14 December 2015, Smriti Irani, the former human resource and development minister of India reported, that as per University Grants Commission (UGC), there have been 295 cases of sexual harassment against women during 2014-15 in various institutes of higher learning in India.¶ As various scholars and activists working on sexual misconduct have already pointed out, we have to be aware that even when a sexual assault has not taken place, a person can experience sexual harassment; a hostile, offensive and intimidating atmosphere - created in academic spaces - does count as sex harassment too.¶ Women belonging to minority groups of different race, caste, and religion are more vulnerable. As are people belonging to the third gender.¶ While acknowledging that women are more vulnerable to sexual conduct, we also need to come up with regulations that look into the harassment suffered by other genders too. Recently, the UGC has taken the right step towards this direction when it introduced the first gender neutral regulation on sexual harassment in India. Under this regulation, both male students and students of the third gender in universities can lodge complaints against sexual harassment faced by them.¶ Tyann Sorrell 's case, and similar other cases reported from academic institutions, should be used to create greater awareness. Sexual harassment is indeed ubiquitous; such heinous crime is not solely committed by blacks, poor and the uneducated, as is widely perceived. Power is deeply entrenched in such actions and, thus, the perpetrators often come from the most privileged section of our societies.

Successful lawsuits force school accountability to fight harassment. Silbaugh 15

Silbaugh, Katharine Law Alumni Scholar¶ BA magna cum laude, Amherst College¶ JD with high honors and Order of the Coif, University of Chicago¶ . "Reactive to Proactive: Title IX's Unrealized Capacity to Prevent Campus Sexual Assault." BUL Rev. 95 (2015): 1049.

In March of 2013, President Obama signed a re-authorization of the¶ Violence Against Women Act.97 Within the re-authorization were amendments¶ to the Clery Act, which requires educational institutions to disclose statistics¶ about the number of sexual assaults on campus in an annual report that must be¶ distributed to students and prospective students, engaging market pressures to¶ press universities into addressing sexual assault.98 The amendments to the¶ Clery Act (entitled the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act, or SaVE¶ Act)99 strengthen reporting requirements and go beyond DOE’s¶ “recommendation” that colleges educate staff and students to require¶ educational institutions to educate staff and students about campus sexual assault, including statements that sexual assault is prohibited, definitions of¶ sexual assault and consent, bystander tools, and awareness programs for new¶ students.100 The Clery Act is enforced by the DOE primarily through fines, but¶ it is not a part of Title IX. While the focus of the Clery Act remains the¶ accurate reporting of crimes, it will serve as a limited and defined mechanism¶ for getting colleges to introduce education and prevention strategies to¶ students. However, the Clery Act, unlike Title IX, does not mandate equality in¶ the provision of education; a school can check off requirements under the new¶ Clery Amendments without evaluating their efficacy or revising them toward¶ the particular goal of equal educational opportunity. Title IX has a far greater¶ capacity to address sexual assault prevention because colleges could be¶ compelled to take whatever reasonable steps can be shown to reduce assaults,¶ or combination of steps as research about efficacy continues to develop. The¶ DOE has the ability to develop a far more comprehensive approach to assault¶ prevention under Title IX than the specific prescriptions the Clery¶ Amendments mandate.¶ Does the Gebser framework constrain Title IX from doing prevention work?¶ Not for the DOE. To the contrary, the DOE has effectively used Title IX to¶ change campus culture more broadly already. Consider Title IX as the rest of¶ the world has: as sports law. Title IX applied pressure on institutions to offer¶ equality in programming and in the educational experience. Differences in¶ interest in participation couldn’t be offered as an excuse for noncompliance¶ with Title IX: if there was not a culture of sports for girls and women, schools¶ needed to create that culture to ensure equality.101 While it was not smooth¶ sailing throughout, schools largely achieved that cultural shift. This may have¶ been possible because relative to other institutions, schools are good creators¶ of culture. When schools first tried to say that they simply found the world as¶ is, with girls not wanting to participate in sports at the rate boys did, the DOE¶ pushed back. In response, schools became creative at expanding and¶ cultivating interest in sports among girls and women. The social change around¶ girls in sports resulted in large part from a charge to schools to cultivate that¶ change, taking concrete steps that would have the effect of changing cultural¶ dynamics. The colleges faced cultural resistance to change and allegations that¶ they were going too far in redesigning athletic programs and opportunities,102 much as colleges do today as they deliberate over the right sexual assault¶ prevention measures.103 But they demonstrated a powerful ability to transform¶ the culture and expectations of equality in sports participation.¶ Title IX operates primarily as a spending clause regulation overseen by the¶ DOE. The DOE should not have felt constrained by the doctrine developed to¶ address the individual cause of action. If poor reaction in response to an actual,¶ individual sexual assault can give rise to an individual cause of action, why¶ can’t high rates of sexual assault in a school’s population amount to sex¶ discrimination for purposes of DOE enforcement? If higher rates of assault¶ overall result when a school fails to take evidence-based steps to reduce the¶ overall rate of sexual assault, why wouldn’t the DOE nudge schools to be¶ proactive? What if schools have concrete tools at their disposal to reduce the¶ overall rate of assault? Isn’t that within the DOE’s enforcement purview?¶ Consider, by comparison, the legislative approach to school bullying. In the¶ past decade, nearly every state has passed laws addressing the obligations of a¶ school system to address incidents of bullying and to prevent bullying.104¶ While those statutes are aimed at both prevention and post-incident¶ intervention, the most recent and best-regarded statutes focus substantial¶ energy on requiring schools to deliver evidence-based bullying prevention¶ programming in an effort to reduce the amount of bullying within each¶ school.105 Prevention and culture change are at the core of these legal¶ interventions.106 Ideally, they would be at the core of the DOE’s approach to¶ Title IX’s guarantee of equal access to education on college campuses. Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of this exact reform: the DOE is¶ investigating schools, and, in turn, schools have stepped up their evaluations of¶ their own processes. If so, I would hope the next step will be a DOE guidance¶ on prevention measures, because to date, they’ve drawn colleges far into the¶ weeds on responses without adequately directing them toward prevention.

AFF causes a snowball effect that makes first amendment defenses impossible to beat. Schauer 04
Schauer, Frederick David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law. "The boundaries of the First Amendment: A preliminary exploration of constitutional salience." Harvard Law Review (2004): 1765-1809.
In addition to the properties of First Amendment claims that may¶ make them less likely to appear legally frivolous, the First Amend-¶ ment's magnetism may assist in ensuring that those claims will not¶ arise in isolation. There will often be multiple lawyers, multiple liti-¶ gants, and multiple public actors who perceive the virtues of the same¶ opportunistic strategy at roughly the same time, or who even may be¶ in active coordination with each other - as with the multiple chal-¶ lenges to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, the proliferation of First¶ Amendment rhetoric surrounding legal arguments regarding computer¶ source code, and the panoply of parallel claims about First Amend-¶ ment limitations on copyright. When this is the case, the multiplicity¶ of individually tenuous claims may produce a cascade effect160 such¶ that the claims no longer appear tenuous. The combination of, say,¶ four scarcely plausible but simultaneous court challenges and twenty¶ scarcely plausible public claims of a First Amendment problem could make all these individually implausible claims seem more credible¶ than they actually are.161 From the standpoint of an interest group¶ seeking to achieve change and to mobilize public support or the sup-¶ port of other interest groups,162 winning is better than losing publicly,¶ but losing publicly is perhaps still preferable to being ignored.¶ Once the claim or argument achieves a critical mass of plausibility,¶ the game may be over. Even if individual courts reject the claim, the¶ multiplicity of now-plausible claims may give the issue what is re-¶ ferred to in inside-the-Beltway political jargon as "traction" and in¶ newsroom jargon as "legs." Interestingly, this phenomenon sometimes¶ survives even authoritative rejection of the claim. With respect to the¶ argument that hostile-environment sexual harassment enforcement has¶ serious First Amendment implications, for example, neither the Su-¶ preme Court's rejection of this argument in dicta in R.A. V v. City of¶ St. Paul163 nor the Court's silent dismissal of the same claim in Harris¶ v. Forklift Systems, Inc.164 has slowed the momentum of those who¶ would wage serious First Amendment battle against hostile-¶ environment sexual harassment law.'65 Similarly, decades of judicial¶ rejection of the argument that copyright law must be substantially re-¶ stricted by the commands of the First Amendment have scarcely dis-¶ couraged those who urge otherwise; and in some respects the Supreme¶ Court's recent decision in Eldred v. Ashcroftl66 can be considered not a¶ defeat, but rather one further step toward the entry of copyright into¶ the domain of the First Amendment: the Supreme Court did grant cer-¶ tiorari, in part to determine "whether ... the extension of existing and¶ future copyrights violates the First Amendment;"'67 and the seven-¶ Justice majority, as well as Justice Breyer in dissent,'68 acknowledged¶ that the First Amendment was not totally irrelevant. 

Sexual harassment in the classroom is a result of patriarchal violence that invades academia. Sexual harassment represents an oppressive use of power by professors and kills the participation and success of the harassed. Benson and Thomson 

Benson, Donna J., and Gregg E. Thomson. "Sexual harassment on a university campus: The confluence of authority relations, sexual interest and gender stratification." Social problems 29.3 (1982): 236-251.

It is precisely this widespread confluence of authority relations, sexual interest and gender¶ stratification which defines the problem of sexual harassment. There is, in other words, a nexus¶ of power and sexualprerogative often enjoyed by men with formal authority over women. Men¶ in such positions can engage in (or "get away with") overt sexual behaviors that would be rebuffed¶ or avoided were the relationship not one of superior and subordinate. They can also discharge selectively the power and rewards of their positions as a means to obligate women sexualy (Blau,¶ 1964).¶ As well as reward and punish women directly, men can manipulate and obscure their sexual in-¶ tentions toward female subordinates. Women learn that the "official" attention of a male¶ superior is often but a vehicle through which he can "press his pursuits" (Goffman, 1977). In¶ turn, what is often mistakenly perceived by men as an unfounded distrust or suspicion of motives¶ has its basis in previous experience with male "helpfulness." Therefore, as Thorne5 suggests, there¶ is an intrinsic ambiguity between the formal definition of the male superior/female subordinate¶ relationship and a sexual one, in which the gender of the woman can be made salient at the in-¶ itiative of the man.¶ Male Authority and Sexual Interest on the University Campus¶ At major universities, student access to individual instructors can be a scarce resource. Faculty¶ members serve as gatekeepers to the professions, yet an institutional priority on research severely¶ constrains the time and energy that they devote to instruction and interaction with under-¶ graduates (Blau, 1973). Moreover, though students are supposedly evaluated according to merit,¶ the teacher's role permits a wide latitude in the degree of interaction and helpfulness granted to¶ individual students. An instructor enjoys considerable discretionary power to provide or¶ withhold academic rewards (grades, recommendations) and related resources (help, psychological¶ support).6¶ As in the workplace, it is usually men who exercise this discretionary power over female univer-¶ sity students. While women now comprise more than half of all college students,¶ faculty-especially within higher ranks and at major universities-are overwhelmingly male.¶ About 95 percent of university full professors are men (Patterson and Engelberg, 1978). Nor-¶ mative requirements for career advancement at competitive universities are based on traditional,¶ male life-cycle patterns and work schedules that are not convenient to many women (Hochschild,¶ 1975).¶ In the past, it has been difficult for women to successfully enter any prestigious and male-¶ dominated - hence, "non-traditional" - field (Epstein, 1970). Social psychological analyses (Med-¶ nick et. al., 1975) have identified some of the barriers still faced by college women seeking such¶ careers. Yet a recent compendium of student responses to a University of California ad-¶ ministrative query about sex discrimination on campus is replete with testimony from male¶ students that female students' sexuality now gives them an unfair advantage in this competition¶ (University of California, Berkeley, 1977). While women allude to numerous sexist remarks and¶ behaviors by faculty which derogate the abilities of women as a group, the male respondents¶ claim that individual women profit from their sexual attributes because male instructors go out of¶ their way to be "extra friendly" and helpful to them. According to the male perception, then, the¶ latitude permitted in the faculty-student relationship works - at the initiative of either instructor¶ or student - to the advantage of attractive women.¶ Some sociologists of higher education view faculty-student sexual exchanges only as women at-¶ tempting to use their sexuality to compensate for a lack of academic accomplishment:¶ Innumerable girls have found that a pretty face and a tight sweater were an adequate substitute for diligence and cleverness when dealing with a male teacher. Some, having been frustrated in efforts to get¶ by on this basis, have pushed matters further and ended up in bed-though not necessarily with an A¶ (Jencks and Riesman, 1968:427n).¶ Similarly, Singer's (1964:148) empirical study of the relationship between personal attrac-¶ tiveness and university grades relies on unsupported conjecture about female manipulativeness to¶ conclude that ". . . the poor college professor is . . . enticed by the female students ... as he goes¶ about his academic and personal responsibilities." In both studies we find the unquestioned¶ assumption that women (unfairly) capitalize on their sexuality in an otherwise meritocratic and¶ asexual relationship.7¶ Our analysis of sexual harassment as the nexus of power and sexual prerogative implies that,¶ from the woman's perspective, the situation is more complex and decidedly less sanguine. Rather¶ than having a unilateral "sex advantage," female students face the possibility that male instruc-¶ tors may manipulate sexual interest and authority in ways which ultimately undermine the posi-¶ tion of women in academia. Because women can no longer be openly denied access to educational¶ and professional training legally, sexual harassment may remain an especially critical factor of¶ more covert discrimination.

We need to challenge the way masculinity invades the everyday spaces we occupy – challenging harassment is key. Cockburn 10

Cockburn 10 – visiting professor at Department of Sociology at City University London, honorary professor in the Centre for the study of gender and women at University of Warwick, Women in Black against War, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (Cynthia, “Getting to Peace: what kind of movement” womeninblack.org, http://www.womeninblack.org/old/files/OpenDemGettingtoPeace.pdf)

Diana Francis, in the third of her series of articles, asks ‘what underlies war’s continuing widespread acceptance?’ This is a useful approach to the roots of war, in my view, because it opens up to questions about society, people, you and me, who are implicitly the ones to accept (or question, or refuse) war. It invites us to interrogate a film like Avatar, which is so characteristic of the culture we live in, the culture that enables, limits and shapes us. It leads to an exploration of the continuum of violence, the connections between the explosive violence of actual war, the perennial violence inherent in our militarized condition, and violence in everyday life and everyday culture. If Mary Kaldor is right (see her contribution to this debate, ‘Reconceptualizing War‘) in saying that wars are very often fought, not to be won but rather as a kind of mutual enterprise in which the warring parties share some benefits, this too must point us towards an examination of cultures. Some of the benefits that war-making people and classes gain from the perpetuation of armed conflict will certainly be economic. But some may be advantages in self-identity as men, or regard and status with regard to other people and groups. What messages are we taking in, telling each other, that make fighting, deliberate injury and killing, seem reasonable, desirable – even glorious? Avatar is just one of a zillion instances of cultural production that normalize and glorify fighting, militarization and war. And this violent culture in which we’re immersed is profoundly gendered, as Diana Francis, and Shelley Anderson in her recent article ‘Vital Peace Constituencies’, point out. Gendered mindsets, expectations, behaviours and attitudes feed and are fed by films like this, by video games, advertising, the fashion industry and TV reality shows, that bombard our consciousness day in and day out. Masculinity and femininity are endlessly constituted in idealized, contrasted and complementary forms that are parodies of real human ‘being’. We are made over as avatars fitted out for a virtual world in which each sex is a truncated, incomplete human being, a world in which he will survive violence and deal it out, while she will allure, invite and comply. The feminist women and pro-feminist men who resist such deformation are so marginal to the narrative they scarcely make the list of credits. And, unfortunately, this is no cinema fantasy but the very world we live in. Gender struggle in the peace movement One thing I have discovered during research in and among peace movements is that a gender struggle goes on in them too. The majority of organizations are mixed. They have many women in the membership, though frequently the leading personalities and spokes-persons are male. In most countries however there are a handful of feminist antiwar, antimilitarist and peace organizations. These are often differentiated from the mainstream peace movements of which they are a part, and to which they contribute, by one particular quality. While they don’t fail to pay attention to the large-scale issues and events that concern all peace movements – weapons of mass destruction, huge global military expenditures, the worldwide system of United States military bases, and so on – they simultaneously call attention to more mundane violence and the individual lives it affects, to pain, care and responsibility. For instance, Okinawan Women Act Against Military Violence (OWAMMV), like the rest of the Japanese peace movement, are concerned with the huge burden of the US bases that spread their razor wire all over the archipelago. But they also campaign against the abuse, rape and murder of individual women that is too often associated with the areas of bars and brothels surrounding these bases. OWAAMV’s first act on learning of a new assault, however, is always to check on the wellbeing of the victim before launching (yet another) mass protest against the system that has harmed her. Likewise, In South Korea, Women Making Peace are notable for having introduced into the movement a stress on ‘peace culture’, changing lives and practices, starting with one’s own. Which does not mean they don’t go out to join demonstrations against sending troops to Afghanistan or Iraq, or join in the campaign for the reunification of Korea. They do that too. After spending time with the women of many such organizations, and as a member, myself, of both Women in Black and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, it seems to me that together we are introducing a fresh new thought into the field of international relations and war studies. We are saying: if the gendered cultures of violence in everyday life bring about ‘widespread acceptance of war’, then gender relations, as we know and live them, must be recognized as, in fact, causal in war. I have argued as much in an article appearing next month in the International Feminist Journal of Politics. A predisposing cause Most visible in the news analysis of any given war, of course, are economic factors (access to resources and markets). And yes, fair enough, capitalist expansionism and corporate interests certainly do motivate war-making governments and other social actors. Also visible, perhaps more hyped, in the conventional analysis are political factors. And, indeed, wars often are about the control or exclusion of particular kinds of people (the ones the wrong side of a border, the ones with the wrong god, or skin colour, or national name). Sometimes these two sets of motivations are summed up as ‘greed and grievance’, or ‘capitalism and nationalism’ or ‘class and race’. But the male power system (still widely called patriarchy, for lack of a better name) is intertwined with the capitalist mode of production and the nationstate system among the causes of war. As a source of cultures that produce sexual divisions – sexual divisions of labour, of war, of love – gender power relations ready us all the time for violence. They are a predisposing cause. Raewyn Connell, a well-known theoretician of masculinity and gender power, endorses this view. She writes that ‘masculinities are the forms in which many dynamics of violence take shape’. While the causes of war are many, therefore, and include ‘dispossession, poverty, greed, nationalism, racism, and other forms of inequality, bigotry and desire... Yet given the concentration of weapons and the practices of violence among men, gender patterns appear to be strategic’ 2. If gender relations are indeed one of the root causes of war, it follows that transformative change in gender relations must be part of the effort for peace. Gender work is peace work. This opens the door to men in the peace movement. To quote R.W.Connell once again, ‘Evidently, then, strategy for demilitarization and peace must include a strategy of change in masculinities. This is the new dimension in peace work which studies of men suggest: contesting the hegemony of masculinities which emphasise violence, confrontation and domination, and replacing them with patterns of masculinity more open to negotiation, cooperation and equality’. Men in the peace movement Men in the peace movement could step through that open door now and work on a critique of the manipulation of masculinity for militarism, making it a conscious part of their antiwar activism. They could say, as we wrote on our banner at the Women’s Gate of the Aldermaston Blockade a month ago, ‘No fists, no knives, no guns, no bombs. No to all violence’. Such a simple slogan links, in one giddy move, bedroom and battlefield, the violence of so-called peace and that of so-called war, in a single continuum. That is, I think, a concept with a perspective capable of inspiring a movement on a matching scale. War culture is hegemonic in our society. It’s the prevailing common-sense. The antiwar movement is, by comparison, patchy, disparate, and on some issues even divided. Parts of it focus on nuclear weapons, parts on the arms trade, parts on contemporary war-fighting. Its discourses include various kinds of socialism, pacifism, feminism – and those of various religions. These sectors and segments pull together on some issues, part company on others. To prevail over the taken-for granted militarism of the dominant culture I believe the movement has to follow the lead of organizations such as OWAAMV and Women Making Peace, and others like them in different countries, and allow a critique of gender to become a prompt to reinterpret and transform the peace movement, its aims, its structures and its own cultures. What is today a movement against war could become something wider and deeper, effectively a counter-hegemonic movement, a nonviolent movement for a nonviolent world.

And, diversity outweighs and turns the case – Chang 02

Chang, Mitchell J. "Perservation or Transformation: Where's the Real Educational Discourse on Diversity?." The Review of Higher Education 25.2 (2002): 125-140.

Historically, postsecondary institutions did not willingly embrace, let¶ alone collectively defend, diversity-related efforts. It took heavy-handed¶ intervention by the federal government to open wider the doors of higher¶ education to students of color. This change and subsequent institutional¶ alterations now considered under the rubric of diversity varied in the ease¶ with which different campuses implemented them; but it is fair to say that¶ much ongoing administrative resistance (Altbach, 1991; Olivas, 1993; Trent,¶ 1991a) and prolonged acrimonious debate (Levine, 1996) characterized the¶ typical campus dealing with diversity issues. Institutional conflicts typically¶ occurred because, as Hurtado (1996) observed, “These diversity issues¶ often required fundamental changes in premises and practices at many levels”¶ (p. 27), which, according to Chan (1989), threatened the very structure¶ of power both within and outside the university.¶ Because the diversity agenda and its related efforts seek to effect change¶ at almost all levels of higher education, it has been described as a “transformative¶ enterprise” (Nakanishi and Leong, 1978; Wei, 1993). In this view, diversity¶ initiatives are not simply innocuous extensions of preexisting¶ institutional interests but are instead efforts that challenge and seek to¶ transform traditional institutional practices and arrangements toward making¶ education more equitable, diverse, and inclusive, as well as more open¶ to alternative perspectives (Hirabayashi, 1997). Perhaps because the transformative¶ aims associated with diversity tend to challenge existing arrangements,¶ colleges and universities have not done all that they must do to¶ maximize the educational benefits associated with diversity (Allen, 1992;¶ Chang, 1999b). Hurtado (1996) held that “both resistance and change are¶ inevitable parts of the major transformation that is under way in the mission¶ of postsecondary institutions—a mission that includes diversity as a¶ key component” (p. 29). Therefore, she maintained, some tension and conflict¶ are likely at the level of deep institutional change in the history of individual¶ campus diversity efforts. In an educational setting, however, tension¶ and conflict are not necessarily problematic for learning (Gurin, 1999), unless¶ they prevent campuses from successfully implementing a multifaceted¶ approach to diversity.¶ Given that the transformative aims often clash with deep-seated institutional¶ assumptions and values, the educational benefits associated with diversity¶ emerge, more often than not, out of institutional transformation¶ and not out of preexisting ways of operating and behaving. In other words,¶ educational benefits for students emanate from changes that challenge prevailing¶ educational sensibilities and that enhance educational participation. Accordingly, retired Harvard professor Charles Willie pointed out in an interview¶ that the educational significance of diversity is best observed when¶ viewed as “the foundation for institutional change and self-correction” (qtd.¶ in Buchbinder, 1998) and not as an uncritical manifestation of preexisting¶ institutional values and ideals. As such, diversity calls into question not only¶ how learning is viewed and what is valued, but also how learning should be¶ assessed. In the next section, I will discuss further how the diversity agenda¶ seeks to transform higher education’s understanding of and impact on learning.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 4 | Opponent: Nueva JT | Judge: John Scoggin
Hate Speech DA
Current protections against hate speech are working – on campus harrassment is decreasing nationally now.
Sutton 16 Halley Sutton, Report shows crime on campus down across the country, Campus Security Report 13.4 (2016), 9/9/16,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casr.30185/full LADI
A recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics found an overall decrease in crimes at educational institutions across the country since 2001. The overall number of crimes reported by postsecondary institutions has dropped by 34 percent, from 41,600 per year in 2001 to 27,600 per year in 2013. The report, titled Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2015, covers higher education campuses as well as K–12 schools and includes such topics as victimization, teacher injury, bullying and cyberbullying, use of drugs and alcohol, and criminal incidents at postsecondary institutions. The report found significant decreases in instances of bullying, harassment due to sexual orientation, and violent crime at all levels of education. The number of on-campus crimes reported at postsecondary institutions in 2013 was lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses and murder.

The Constitution permits hate speech
Volokh 15 Eugene; 5-7-2015; "No, there’s no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment"; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ JC
I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans. To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)

Hate speech devalues life – it causes psychological harm, silences marginalized people, and outweighs the benefits
Garrett 2 Deanna M.; July 29, 2002; “Silenced Voices: Hate Speech Codes on Campus”; http://www.uvm.edu/~vtconn/?Page=v20/garrett.html JC
Hate speech is not defined by "isolated incidents" or "merely jokes"—it is specifically intended to degrade and cause harm to individuals. In the context of historical oppression and discrimination, hate speech has larger implications for all members of the targeted group, not just the individual. Victims of hate speech suffer both emotionally and physically. "Psychological responses to such stigmatization consists of feelings of humiliation, isolation, and self-hatred" (Delgado, 1993, p. 91). Hate speech takes away human dignity and self-worth, and causes self-doubt. For students at colleges and universities, the implications of hate speech are significant. Individuals subjected to harassing environments in which hate speech exists may not be able to focus their attention on academics. They cannot grow and develop in ways typical of their peers and are forced to live in hostile communities. Students who are busy worrying about their physical and emotional safety have no time or energy to participate in university activities. Student affairs professionals have an obligation to ensure a safe environment for students. If institutions value access to education for all students, they must not allow hate speech to interfere with such goals. Although one would want to protect the right to free speech as much as possible, there are certain circumstances in which the benefits of restricting speech outweigh the costs. When lives are at risk or an action is harmful to others, individuals’ rights are outweighed: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others" (Mill, 1989, p. 13). Laws are meant to protect people. Hate speech codes do just that; they protect individuals from racist and other hateful speech. Many opponents of hate speech codes argue that the right to free speech should never be compromised. However, certain laws already restrict free speech, and appropriately so. Speech laws prohibit falsely yelling "fire!" in a crowded area because it would cause panic and an ensuing stampede. In addition, the government also regulates speech that is libelous, slanderous, or false in nature. That we do not limit hateful speech against people of color, gays and lesbians, and other targeted groups seems suspect in light of these legal speech restrictions. Hate speech codes do not seek to limit constructive dialogue, which is necessary for gaining knowledge and reaching critical consciousness (Freire, 1970). They seek to protect individuals from harmful speech and allow such individuals to feel safe speaking out. By allowing only the most powerful individuals to speak, hate speech effectively silences the voices of minorities and maintains the status quo. Hate speech is not authentic dialogue (Freire, 1970) and therefore, does not deserve protection. According to Freire, dialogue is "an act of creation, it must not serve as a crafty instrument for the domination of one person by another" (p. 70). Advocates of hate speech codes contend that the inclusion of racist, sexist, and homophobic speech serves only to silence others’ voices. "Such speech not only interferes with equal educational opportunities, but also deters the exercise of other freedoms, including those secured by the First Amendment" (Strossen, 1994, p. 193). Faced with hate speech, many individuals are silenced or forced to flee, rather than engaging in dialogue (Lawrence, 1993). In higher education, dialogue is key to learning and gaining new knowledge. Students engage in dialogue with one another, challenge each other, and propose new ideas. However, racist speech does not invite this exchange but seeks to silence non-dominant individuals.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 2 | Opponent: Oakwood | Judge:
Counterplan Text
“Public colleges and universities in the United States ought to expand the view of sexual violence violations to include revenge pornography as harassment and restrict it accordingly.” Rennison and Addington 14 is the solvency advocate:
Callie Rennison (associate professor in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver) and Lynn Addington (associate professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Criminology, School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, DC), “Violence Against College Women: A Review to Identify Limitations in Defining the Problem and Inform Future Research” Trauma, Violence, and Abuse. July 2014. Vol. 15, no. 3. Pgs. 159-169. http://tva.sagepub.com/content/15/3/159.full#sec-11 SF

The current violence…
significant emotional harm).
The counterplan competes through mutual exclusivity; the aff defends all constitutionally protected speech and revenge pornography is federally protected under the first amendment.
ACLU v. Arizona gives the best precedent. Harrison 15:
Anne Harrison (Student Writer for the Journal of Gender, Race and Justice), “Revenge Porn: Protected by the Constitution?” The Journal of Gender, Race and Justice. Vol 18. February 2015. https://jgrj.law.uiowa.edu/article/revenge-porn-protected-constitution SF

Because the anti…
AND
 newsworthy, artistic, and historical images.”
Revenge porn is the Internet evolution of stalking and begets real stalking. It is constitutively psychological harassment. Robertson 15:
Hope Robertson (3L student at Campbell Law School), “The Criminalization of Revenge Porn” Campbell Law Observer. July 21, 2015. http://campbelllawobserver.com/the-criminalization-of-revenge-porn/ SF

With the advancement …..
AND
post on the websites.
Revenge Pornography is inherently sexist – there is no debate. Filipovic 13:
Jill Filipovic (Journalist) “’Revenge Porn’ Is About Degrading Women Sexually and Professionally.” The Guardian, 2013. Accessed 11/10/14. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/28/revenge-porn-degrades-women SF

Society sees …
AND
and harming them.
Don’t let them say free speech good; discursive objectification of women on college campuses takes away their speech. Turns case. Pinar 12:
William F. Pinar (American educator, curriculum theorist and international studies scholar; has taught at LSU, Colgate, Columbia, and Ohio State), “The Gender of Violence on Campus” Published in Gendered Futures in Higher Education: Critical Perspectives for Change. Edited by Becky Ropers-Huilman. Feb 1, 2012. SUNY Press SF

The culture of …
AND
more stupid questions.

Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake JG | Judge: Paras Kumar

satire

Counterplan Text: Public colleges and universities ought not restrict constitutionally protected journalistic speech except in the cases of satirical newspapers publishing hate.

Kowalski 16 Allison. "College Comedy Papers Struggle With 'Political Correctness' Climate." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 May 2016.
At MTU, a Daily Bull article in November called "Sexually Harassed Man Pretty
AND
Bull's funding and to withhold more until staffers had attended Title IX training.

Administrators slash funding to campus publications when satirical papers go too far. Means the CP lets universities single out satire papers while strengthening and legitimizing real journalism—solves the aff.

Kowalski 16 Allison. "College Comedy Papers Struggle With 'Political Correctness' Climate." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 May 2016.
The accusation had come in light of recent actions taken at a sister school's comedy
AND
racial slurs — the article spurred UCSD administrators into publicly denouncing the Koala.

Satire is counterproductive to civic engagement—strengthens the alt-right and turns the aff. People don't know when news is fake and when it's real, and now that Trump won fake news has an even broader reach. Solon 16

Solon, Olivia. "Facebook's failure: did fake news and polarized politics get Trump elected?" The Guardian. 11/10/16.
Facebook will need to change its business model if it does want to address these
AND
" that spreads on Facebook, creating a "dust cloud of nonsense".

Trump's embrace of fake news and disregard for truth destroys civic engagement and leads to extinction. Granoff 16

Johnathan Granoff, president of the Global Security Institute. "Donald Trump is an Existential Threat to America and the World." TIME.com Nov 7, 2016.
By invoking a return to an imaginary past and ignoring reality, Donald Trump is
AND
, has suggested proliferating nuclear weapons to Japan and South Korea.

Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 4 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake JG | Judge: Paras Kumar

T—Any

Interpretation: Any is defined as every

Your Dictionary NO DATE (Your Dictionary, online reference, "any," http://www.yourdictionary.com/any///LADI)
every: any child can do it

Any is an indefinite pronoun that refers to things generally

Language NO DATE (Online English grammar textbook, Unit 42: - Indefinite Pronouns," http://www.1-language.com/englishcoursenew/unit42_grammar.htm///LADI)
Indefinite pronouns replace specific things with general, non-specific concepts. For example
AND
anything from the supermarket. - Do you need anything from the supermarket?

Field context – legal restrictions use any to refer to all

Black's Law NO DATE (Black's Law Dictionary, online legal dictionary, "Law Dictionary: What is ABANDONMENT OF CHILD?" http://thelawdictionary.org/abandonment-of-child///LADI)
What is ABANDONMENT OF CHILD? Deserting a child and having no intention of fulfilling any obligations to the child. Cutting off all relations and obligations to the child.

Any refers to all legally – prefer our ev it's in the context of free speech

Danilina NO DATE (S., staff writer for black's law dictionary, "Is Flag Burning Illegal?" http://thelawdictionary.org/article/is-flag-burning-illegal///LADI)
Interesting that the burning of the flag has been against the law until 1969.
AND
decision to award the First Amendment protection to the burning of the flag.

Any refers to a broadening – it expands the scope to include everything

Simon 16 (Cecilia, reporter @ the NY Times, "Fighting for Free Speech on America's Campuses," August 1, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/education/edlife/fire-first-amendment-on-campus-free-speech.html//LADI *italics in original) LADI
Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in federally funded educational programs. In the
AND
a protection that such conduct had to be offensive to a reasonable person.

Violation: The plan ends restrictions surrounding specific forms of speech

Net Benefits—
Limits
Topical version of the aff
d. voters

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 4 | Opponent: Nueva JT | Judge: John Scoggin
Anti-minority rhetoric and rape-culture have skyrocketed as tribute to Trump’s election – the 1AC’s removal of speech restrictions is devastating for oppressed populations and great for white supremacists.
Dickerson and Saul ‘16: Caitlin Dickerson and Stephanie Saul write in “Campuses Confront Hostile Acts Against Minorities After Donald Trump’s Election” on November 10th, 2016 for New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/police-investigate-attacks-on-muslim-students-at-universities.html
The fliers depicting men in camouflage, wielding guns and an American flag, appeared in men’s restrooms throughout Texas State University: “Now that our man Trump is elected,” they said. “Time to organize tar and feather vigilante squads and go arrest and torture those deviant university leaders spouting off that diversity garbage.” A year after students at campuses nationwide pushed for greater sensitivity toward cultural differences, the distribution of the Texas State fliers was just one of several episodes this week suggesting that the surprise election of Donald J. Trump is provoking a round of backlash on campuses. At the same time, universities are trying to address more generalized fears about the country’s future, organizing campus meetings and counseling sessions and sending messages to students urging calm. “A lot of Muslim students are scared,” said Abdalla Husain, 21, a linguistics major at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, who is of Palestinian ancestry. He said some Muslim students on campus were afraid to go outside. “They’re scared that Trump has empowered people who have hate and would be hostile to them.” At San Jose State University in California, a Muslim woman complained that she had been grabbed by her hijab and choked. The police are investigating. At Wellesley College in Massachusetts, alma mater of Hillary Clinton, two male students from nearby Babson College drove through campus in a pickup truck adorned with a large Trump flag, parked outside a meeting house for black students, and spat a black female student, according to campus black student organizations. After being ejected by the campus police, the two students bragged in a video that was widely viewed over social media. Reports of hostility toward minorities were not limited to university campuses. In Durham, N.C., walls facing a busy intersection were painted with graffiti Tuesday with the message, “Black lives don’t matter and neither does your votes,” according to local news reports. Also according to local news reports, a baseball dugout in Wellsville, N.Y., was spray painted with a swastika and the message “Make America white again.” Another swastika, replacing the “T” in Trump, appeared on a storefront in Philadelphia, along with “Sieg heil 2016.” Incidents were also reported at several high schools. At York County School of Technology in York, Pa., a video circulated of students carrying a Trump sign and yelling “white power” as they walked through the hall on Wednesday.” “The whole situation is absolutely horrible,” someone posted on the PTA’s Facebook page. Students at Royal Oak Middle School in Royal Oak, Mich., chanted “build the wall” in the cafeteria on Wednesday, according to a statement by Shawn Lewis-Lakin, the superintendent, who said a video was shared on social media. Throughout the week, threatening messages on social media against racial and religious minorities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people have spiked. Racist episodes occur regularly at places throughout the United States, including college campuses. Mr. Trump’s election, though, seems to have worked as an accelerant. But the police said that at least some reported incidents on campuses were fake. A Muslim student at the University of Louisiana in Lafayette who said she was attacked on Wednesday by two men – one wearing a Trump hat – recanted her story on Thursday, admitting she had made it up, the police said. At Canisius College in Buffalo, in what officials said began as a prank, a black doll was photographed hanging from a curtain rod in a dorm room on Tuesday night. “One student created a meme with language about ‘Trump fans’ and sent it to friends,” a university statement said. “It’s evident that what may have started as a thoughtless, insensitive prank earlier in the evening in the elevator degraded into a very offensive, inappropriate act later that night,” said the statement by John J. Hurley, the college president. Just last year, a wave of anti-racism protests broke out on campuses across the country. In response, many universities cracked down on students’ insensitivity, and some fired school administrators. But this week, students began to worry that all their work was fruitless with Mr. Trump’s election success. To many, Mr. Trump is the champion of anti-political correctness and embodies the opposition to “safe spaces.” Gay, lesbian, and transgender students were also concerned, said Patrick R. Grzanka, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Tennessee. “Our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students are deeply concerned about Trump,” he said. “After enduring months of homophobic and transphobic rhetoric during the campaign, many of us – sexual minorities and gender nonconforming individuals – are asking ourselves, What happens next? Liberal-leaning college students around the country, in a state of shock over the election’s outcome gathered in spontaneous protest marches at some campuses and, at others, asked university leaders to schedule meetings across the campus to reflect on the results. Tennessee was among a large array of universities – public, private, liberal and conservative – that held meetings for concerned students. “Join us for a moment of reflection and gathering of solidarity,” the Office of Multicultural Students wrote in an invitation on Wednesday. “Counseling center staff will be available.” The University of Southern California invited students who had concerns about the election to attend a meeting on Wednesday. About 100 showed up, said Michael Quick, the provost. “We’re hearing a lot from our students, particularly our Muslim students, given the rhetoric of the campaign,” he said. “Given the feeling of many students from last year who expressed concerns about diversity and inclusion, now they’re feeling tremendously marginalized,” he added. Stanford University, in a note signed by its president Marc Tessier-Lavigne, said it would offer “supportive resources and opportunities to gather together” in the wake of the divisive election season. Columbia University scheduled what it called a “post-election conversation and reflection” for its students Wednesday afternoon. Earlier in the day, graduate journalism students at Columbia requested a meeting with faculty members. At Wellesley, which was founded as a safe space for its entirely female student body, the supporters of Mr. Trump driving around campus have rattled students, and administrators have sent a flurry of emails to students this week in response to the episode, which is being investigated by the university police. Wellesley could be considered ground zero for the culture of political correctness that Mr. Trump has criticized; in recent decades, it has introduced guidelines for appropriate language and other protections for addressing racial and religious minorities and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. After the election, even colleges that are unaccustomed to clashes over race or religion struggled to address student safety concerns while fostering free speech. When administrators at Texas State University in San Marcos, which has a mostly minority student body of more than 38,000, learned Wednesday that protests in the campus quad were growing tense, the university president, Denise M. Trauth, tried to head off conflict by releasing a statement to students. “Our aim should be to better understand that which causes divisions among us and to work toward strengthening our bond as a university community. Constructive dialogue is the best way to achieve this goal,” she said. But by late afternoon, the pamphlets depicting men wearing military clothing and bearing arms were already circulating on campus and social media Denise Cervantes, 20, who writes for the student newspaper and is Latina, said she was spat on by a male student wearing a Trump 2016 shirt, who told her she did not belong there anymore. “I didn’t realize that it would get this bad all of a sudden,” Ms. Cervantes said. Thursday evening, Ms. Trauth issued a stronger statement labeling the pamphlets vandalism and saying, “Threats absolutely have no place on our campus or in a free society.” But protests continued throughout the day, and students expressed concern about whether the atmosphere on campus would improve. “This is only two days after,” said Emily Sharp, 21, a senior majoring in communications. “I’m worried that we’re going to see other people doing these things and thinking it’s O.K.”

Current restrictions block the white nationalist movement, but white nationalists will exploit free speech to build their platform – empirically proven
Burley 16 Shane Burley, 10-6-2016, "How the Alt Right is trying to create a ‘safe space’ for racism on college campuses", http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/alt-right-safe-space-racism-college-campuses/
A murmur began in May around Berkeley and the surrounding Bay Area as posters appeared overnight on the sides of buildings and wrapped on poles. Adorned with images of statues of antiquity, these classical images of European men depicted as gods were intended to light a spark of memory in the mostly white faces that passed by them. With lines like “Let’s become great again” printed on them, the posters were blatant in their calls for European “pride,” clearly connecting romanticized European empires of the past to the populism of Donald Trump today. The posters were put up by Identity Europa, one of the lesser-known organizations amid that esoteric constellation of reactionary groups and figures known as the “Alt Right.” They were part of a campaign around the country enticing college-age white people to join a new kind of white nationalist movement. While similar posters emerged elsewhere on the West Coast and Midwest, in central California they pointed toward a public event — one directed specifically toward the tradition of free speech at the University of California at Berkeley. Shortly after the posters went up, a brief announcement came from Alt Right leader Richard Spencer and his think-tank, the National Policy Institute. They, along with Identity Europa and other white nationalist organizations, were planning to hold an “Alt Right Safe Space” in Berkeley’s Sproul Plaza on May 6. The “safe space” is a play on words for the Alt Right, using the phrase that many leftist-oriented facilities use for a code of conduct that bans oppressive or bigoted behavior. Instead, they intended to make a “safe space” for white racism, the public declaration of which has become unwelcome in most any space. The plan was to show up and publicly proselytize on the problems of multiculturalism and the need for “white identity.” Identity Europa founder Nathan Damigo joined Spencer, along with Johnny Monoxide, a podcaster and blogger from the white nationalist blog The Right Stuff, which has become popular in Internet racialist circles (racialist being a term they use, since racist carries a negative connotation) for its internal lingo and open use of racial slurs. Alt Right media outlet Red Ice Creations teamed up with Monoxide to livestream the event, bringing the white nationalist crowd together with their international audience of conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccine activists and alternative religion proponents. While live streaming to their crowd, they came ready to argue. “This guy’s anti-dialogical! He’s anti-white,” yelled Damigo when challenged on the racialist content of his talking points. Race and identity For decades, both the institutional and radical left in the United States has relied on campus activism as a key part of its organizing base. From the antiwar movement of the 1960s to the development of feminist and queer politics to the growing youth labor and Black Lives Matter movement, colleges have been a center for political encounters and mobilizations. The radicalization of students has often leaned to the left because the left’s challenges to systems of power seem like a perfect fit for people expanding their understanding of the world. Amid major shifts in U.S. politics, a space has opened for revolutionary right-wing politics that have not traditionally been accessible to those outside of the most extreme ranks of the white nationalist movement. Today, the Alt Right is repackaging many of the ideas normally associated with neo-Nazis and KKK members into a new, more middle-class culture by using the strategies and language traditionally associated with the left. This means a heavy focus on argumentation and academic legitimacy, as well as targeting campus locations (and millennials) for recruitment. Until Hillary Clinton’s August 21 speech, most people had never heard of the Alt Right. However, it is a movement that has been growing for almost a decade in backroom conferences and racially-charged blogs. It is a kind of cultural fascism, one birthed out of the post-war fascist movements of Europe and given character by a culture of Twitter trolls and populist American anger. Yet, when it appears on campus, the Alt Right’s recruiting is hardly different from the Klan’s attempts to openly recruit members by leaving bags of leaflets and candy at people’s doorsteps. While the Alt Right Safe Space was put together as a joint effort with several nationalist organizations, Identity Europa emphasizes focusing on the youth most of all. The name and branding of Identity Europa are new, but the organization was started years ago as the National Youth Front. Nathan Damigo was an Iraq war veteran going to school at the University of California at Stanislaus when he took over the organization, shifting its ideological orientation from “civic nationalism” to “race realism,” the notion that whites have higher average IQ’s and a smaller propensity for crime than blacks. While Damigo notes that they have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy when it comes to gay members, he said that bi-racial and transgendered people would be turned away. For Damigo and others who trade in white nationalist talking points like “race realism,” the differences between races are significant. “Ethnic and racial or religious diversity can actually wreak havoc on a social system, and cause tons of problems,” Damigo said. “I do believe that there are differences between human populations … The distribution of genes that affect behavior and intelligence are already known to not be equally distributed between all populations.” Identity Europa then represents a sort of “fraternal organization” where “European-descended” people can meet and network, working their way towards a kind of campus activism that challenges discourse and educational plans embedded with multiculturalism and egalitarianism. Such organizations have a long history on the right, stretching back to the 19th century fencing clubs and fraternities that popularized the pan-German ideas of Georg Schönerer — an immediate influence on Nazism. As organizers, however, Identity Europa do not follow the standard playbook for campus activism, which usually involves breaking broad political ideas into organized demands with reachable goals. Instead, they simply want to cultivate a subculture whose constituents will intervene in public discourse, thereby seeding their well-rehearsed talking points about racial inequality, white sovereignty and the return to heteronormative social roles. While Damigo brags about the growth of Identity Europa, it likely does not have membership beyond a few dozen people on campuses around the country at this point. However, there are reports of Identity Europa posters appearing at different places around the country almost weekly. Outreach to millennials Through its brand of social interruption, Identity Europa intends to foment a revolutionary right-wing culture — precisely the goal shared by Richard Spencer and his National Policy Institute. Spencer has been in right-wing politics for years, first joining as an assistant editor at the American Conservative after an article he published on the Duke Lacrosse sexual assault scandal made him a minor star. He later went to the controversial Taki’s Magazine, known for giving a voice to the shrinking paleoconservative movement and staffing dissident voices from the right who are regularly accused of racism. As he further cemented himself in this “dissident right” world, he developed the term “Alternative Right” to indicate the different strands that he saw uniting against multiculturalism, equality and American democracy. It was in this climate that Spencer founded the website Alternative Right, giving voice to a growing white nationalist movement that built on fascist intellectual traditions in Western Europe and challenged the right-wing connection to the American conservative movement. He eventually went on to take over the white nationalist think-tank, the National Policy Institute, or NPI, originally founded by William Regnery, using money inherited from the conservative publishing house, Regnery Publishing. The organization was meant to center on Samuel Francis, a former columnist with the Washington Times who was let go as he shifted further into white nationalism and associated with racialist organizations like American Renaissance and the Council of Conservative Citizens. Spencer took over the organization after Francis’s death, molding it into the intellectual core of the growing Alt Right movement. Spencer’s goal has always been the creation of a “meta-political” movement rather than one founded on contemporary political wedge issues. He hopes to draw together ideas like “white identitarianism” — a term used to brand the movement as being about European heritage — and the eugenics-invoking “human biodiversity.” Both are terms fostered by the so-called “European New Right” and its leading ideologues. What immediately distinguished Spencer’s role in the white nationalist movement from the older generation was his explicit focus on millennial outreach. For instance, his expensive NPI conferences are dramatically discounted for those under 30, and his new Radix Journal is marketed directly to an Internet culture of disaffected and angry white youths. He was an early proponent of podcasts as a main voice of the movement, a move that has given the Alt Right its conversational tone and made its ideas more accessible. With Damigo, Spencer developed the Alt Right Safe Space idea to exploit the projection of free speech on college campuses, despite the movement’s general rejection of human rights. “I think it’s symbolic as a way of saying, ‘we’re here,’” Spencer explained. Identity Europa is discussing doing a mini-tour with Spencer in the fall to East Coast universities, though he would prefer to be invited into an auditorium rather than the front quad. This may be unlikely given the notoriety he has gained, as well as the fact that many of the racial ideas he propounds are considered abhorrent by today’s standards. “It is very hard to find a student who will rent an auditorium or a classroom,” Spencer pointed out. “You might get shut down by the administration, but there are ways of doing it so that you can get away with it. The only problem with it is that the students will have to take responsibility for it, and students are not willing to do that at this point. And I totally understand.” Spencer has been shut down on campuses before — for example, when invited to speak by far-right campus groups like Youth for Western Civilization, or YWC, on issues like “anti-white discrimination” through affirmative action. YWC was known for riding on issues like immigration and gender rights, bringing radical right speakers like Bay Buchanan to campuses and naming extremist Colorado Congressmen Tom Tancredo as its honorary chairman. The group’s founder, Kevin DeAnna, went on to be a staff person with the evangelical Leadership Institute, which is ironic given that he had converted to a racialized form of Nordic paganism. As the Alt Right grows and gains public recognition in this election cycle, it is becoming less and less likely that it will simply go under the radar as just another radical student group. Instead, Spencer and Damigo hope to express their radicalism publicly, and argue for their own space in public discourse.

Increased Trump rhetoric reinforces hypocrisy, fascism, and neo-nazism, it’s a testament and harbinger to American society’s catastrophic failure in politics - causes endless structural violence and increases militarism
Street ‘16: Paul Street writes in “The Empire Has No Clothes: Trump’s Class War Cabinet, the F-Word, and the Coming Resistance” for Counterpunch on December 14th, 2016. Paul Street will speak in Chicago at the Open University of the Left on Saturday December 17th (Lincoln Park Public Library, 1150 West Fullerton, 2:30 pm) on “The Resistance: Why Trump Won and What We Must Now Do.”  Street will examine the sources of Donald Trump’s remarkable victory in the U.S. presidential election, the dangers posed by Trump/Trumpism, the resistance that is now required, and the special role of the Left in leading that resistance. Street will examine the sources of Donald Trump’s victory, the dangers posed by Trump/Trumpism, the resistance that is now required, and the special role of the Left in leading that resistance.
Anyone who thought Donald Trump was going to live up to his populist-sounding rhetoric and stand up for the “forgotten working people of America” against the evil-doers on Wall Street has been served notice that his campaign oratory was a deceptive public relations act meant to get a selfish billionaire and a team of parasitic super-capitalists installed in the White House. Working Class Heroes A longstanding Washington maxim holds that personnel is policy. Look at Trump’s appointments. They include Steve Mnuchin, a filthy rich former Goldman Sachs partner and hedge-fund capitalist as Secretary of the Treasurer. Another and wealthier hedge fund vulture, Wilbur Ross, is Trump’s choice as Commerce Secretary. Both Mnuchin and Ross have feathered their uber-opulent nests by buying distressed properties and selling them for a profit – turning others’ losses into personal gain. Mnuchin co-founded a bank (OneWest) that foreclosed on thousands of homeowners during the 2008 financial crisis. He made millions after that. At one point, his bank foreclosed on a 90-year old woman after she made a 27-cent payment error. The Donald’s choice for Education Secretary is Betsy DeVos, a billionaire “neo-Calvinist” advocate of Big Business-run charter schools. She is a fierce and dedicated enemy of teachers’ unions and public education. Trump’s Labor Department pick is Andrew Puzder, a fast-food CEO who opposes unions, worker protections, and an increase in the federal minimum wage. Curiously enough considering candidate Trump’s nativist immigrant-bashing, Puzder is a fan of cheap migrant labor. Candidate Trump inveighed against a “financial elite” that bribes politicians in a “broken” system that leaves “millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache.” So what? His top economic adviser will be Gary Cohn, the CEO of Goldman Sachs. Every month, CNN reports, President Trump will consult with a group of top U.S. business executives convened by Steven Schwartzman, CEO of the infamous “alternative investment” firm the Blackstone Group. The group includes a “who’s who” of current and former Fortune 25 CEOs, featuring (so far) GM’s Mary Barra, JP Morgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, GE’s former CEO Jack Welch, Disney’s Bob Iger, and Walmart’s Doug McMillon. Quite a gathering of working class heroes! Trump’s top White House political advisor and strategist, Steve Bannon, is a fascist at worst and a vicious white nationalist at best. He is also a Goldman Sachs veteran – a former investment banker in that firm’s Merger and Acquisitions Department. Trump himself will be the richest U.S. president ever. He owes no small part of his fortune to the systematic long-term cheating of workers and consumers. War Cabinet One way to think of the coming Trump team is as a ruling class domestic and global War Cabinet. Mnuchin, Ross, Cohn, Puzder, and other leading Trump economic appointments (including multi-millionaire Chicago Cubs owner Tom Ricketts as Under-Secretary of Commerce) represent top down class war on the American middle, working, and lower classes. DeVos stands for a related business class war on public education and teachers. It isn’t just about class, of course. Trump’s coming majority-tipping Supreme Court appointment will wage war on women by attacking their right to control their own bodies and reproductive health. Trump’s picks for Attorney General (former right-wing Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions), Housing and Urban Development (the hapless Black neocon Dr. Ben Carson), and Homeland Security (retired U.S. Marines General John Kelly) complement top- down class war with related white-supremacist war on civil rights and liberties, Black Lives Matter, “illegal immigrants,” Latinos (naturalized and not), “radical” (and other) Muslims, and the Native American-led pipeline- and fossil fuel-fighters in North Dakota. Look for BLM and the Standing Rock heroes to be designated as domestic “terrorists” by Trump’s Justice and Homeland Security Departments. Expect neo-McCarthyite harassment and persecution of Left dissidents to be encouraged by the new right-wing federal government. The white-supremacist “Blues Lives Matter” gendarme class in and atop the nation’s ever-expanding militarized police state is eagerly anticipating the Inauguration of a new “law and order” corporate security comrades can look forward among other things to being deployed in the enforcement of

Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 2 | Opponent: Brentwood RY | Judge: Akhil Gandra

The 1AC misidentifies the problem. Limitations of free speech in colleges are ideologically grounded in safety. The ambiguity of "safety" allows the state to twists its limits of power.

Rampell, Catherine. "The Newest Excuse for Shutting down Campus Speech: 'Security'" The Washington Post. WP Company, 19 Sept. 2016. Web. 13 Dec. 2016. ED
Around the country, colleges have found a new excuse for shutting down free speech
AND
Creates regimes where breaking laws is ok in the name of safety.

Your use of the state causes us to devolve to bare life.

Agamben 2K (Giorgio, prof of phil @ the College International de Philosophie in Paris, Means Without End: Notes on Politics, p 5-6) ED
Thus, life originally appears in law only as the counterpart of a power that
AND
turned into the exception and included in the city is always naked life.

Your conception of rights is just something the biopolitical regime uses to manage its subjects.

Agamben 98 (Giorgio, professor of philosophy at university of Verona, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, pg. 126-128) ED
Hannah Arendt entitled the fifth chapter of her book on imperialism, which is dedicated
AND
(to be born)—thus closes the open circle of man's birth. 

Every action that participates in the political process is one that creates an exception and results in biopolitical control.

Agamben 98 (Giorgio, professor of philosophy at the University of Verona, Homo Sacer, pg. 8-9)
The protagonist of this book is bare life, that is, the life of
AND
the bare life of the citizen, the new biopolitical body of humanity.

By its very existence, law can be suspended by the sovereign, who is outside the law – it is impossible for even the strictest of laws to restrict sovereign power

Agamben 98 ~(Giorgio, prof of philosophy at univ of Verona) "HOMO SACER: Sovereign Power and Bare Life" available online. All parantheses except those modifying gendered language in original. *we don't endorse gendered language~ AT
Juridical = relating to the administration of law
1.1 The paradox of
AND
positive law define the normal case as the realm of its own validity.

The 1ACs conceptions of political discourse are militarized by the police state to create a permanent state of emergency.

McLoughlin 12 ~Daniel McLoughlin is a doctoral candidate in Philosophy at the University of New South Wales, working on the political philosophy of Giorgio Agamben. "Giorgio Agamben on Security, Government and the Crisis of Law", Griffith Law Review, Volume 21, Issue 3, 2012, msm~One of the decisive effects of total war, according to Junger, was the tendency to demolish the difference between war and peace – or, in Agamben's terms, between the emergency and normal conditions. Similarly, Agamben argues that we are currently faced with
AND
perpetuate prevailing forms of life and close down the possibility of the alternatives emerging. 

Timeframe based try or die calculations justify consolidation of power and radical, unprecented violence

Vivian 13 (Bradford – Professor of Communication and Rhetorical Studies at Syracuse University, Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University, "Times of Violence," Published in the Quarterly Journal of Speech, Volume 99, Issue 2, 2013, pg. 1, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00335630.2013.775704?journalCode=rqjs20~~#.VGaEkvnF90o)
The ways that authoritative institutions invoke and order time as a means of consolidating and
AND
national borders by citing as justification allegedly temporary episodes of state emergency.3

The state of exception destroys value to life. Extinction doesn't matter if there is no value to the lives lost.

Agamben 98 (Giorgio, professor of philosophy at university of Verona, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, pg. 139-140) ED
3.3.It is not our intention here to take a position on
AND
category.  It now dwells in the biological body of every living being. 

Controls the internal link to war and violence.

Dillon and Reid 2001 (Michael and Julian, Michael Dillon is Professor of Politics in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Lancaster and Julian Reid is a Doctoral Student in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Lancaster , Global Liberal Governance: Biopolitics, Security, and War, 2001Millennium - Journal of International Studies, pp.39-40) ED
For capitalist society biopolitics is what is most important, the biological, the somatic
AND
addition, a further way in which we seek to extend Foucault's project. 

Biopower is the root cause of racism

Mbembe Research Professor Institute of Social and Economic Research University of Witwatersrand 2008 Achille Foucault in an Age of Terror ed Morton and Bygrave page 156-157
In Foucault's formulation, biopower appears to function through dividing people into those who must
AND
he says, 'the condition for the acceptability of putting to death'.20 

The ROB is to challenge sovereign representations. This is key to preventing violence.

Agamben 2K (Giorgio, professor of philosophy at the College International de Philosophie in Paris, Means Without End: Notes on Politics, p. 93-95) ED

Exposition is the location of politics. If there is no animal politics, that
AND
media, while a new class of bureaucrats jealously watches over its management.

AND, Discursive autonomy is a prior question. Complacency in language render us unintelligible.
Agamben 2K (Giorgio, professor of philosophy at the College International de Philosophie in Paris, Means Without End: Notes on Politics, p. 95-97) ED

If what human beings had to communicate to each other were always
AND
exposition of the visage in all its nudity, it is a victory over character—it is word.

Vote negative to endorse the state of whatever being in resistance to sovereign power. Whatever being is the only way to solve. Working within the law only furthers sovereign control of life. Solves case because whateverbeing means that nothing can be distinguished which prevents the state from unequally applying the law and stripping us away to bare life.

Caldwell 4 (Anne, Asst Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Louisville, Theory and Event, 7.2shree)
Can we imagine another form of humanity, and another form of power? The
AND
calls up and depends upon the life caught within sovereignty: homo sacer.

Tournament: Voices | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake-VC | Judge: Kaya,Kris

Nuclear Ships are a key part of all major nations' militaries and are essential technology for maintaining naval competitiveness

WNA 16

"Nuclear Powered Ships." World Nuclear Association. N.p., June 2016. Web. 10 Aug. 2016. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx.
Russia built 248 nuclear submarines and five naval surface vessels (plus 9 icebreakers)
AND
US Naval Reactors' facilities since 1958 is 1.03 mSv per year.

Naval Prescence is key to conventional and nuclear deterrence in its ability to provide minimally intrusive and sustained combat power without prompting escalation.

Gerson and Whiteneck 09

Gerson, Michael, and Daniel Whiteneck (Principle Analyst and Project Director at Center for Naval Analyses.) "Deterrence and Influence: The Navy's Role in Preventing War." CNA (2009): 73-74. Mar. 2009. Web. https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0019315.A4.pdf.
Compared to air and land forces, maritime power has two inter-related characteristics
AND
additional costs without having to be stationed too close to the immediate battlespace.

Nuclear war leads to extinction

KATEB 92 
~George, 1992 The Inner Ocean: Individualism and Democratic Culture, "Thinking About Human Extinction (1): Nuclear Weapons and Individual Rights," p. 111-112~ 
Schell's work attempts to force on us an acknowledgment that sounds far-fetched and
AND
the form of escalation, can be counted on to seek expression later.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 4 | Opponent: Nueva JT | Judge: John Scoggin
A. The affirmative cannot read arguments in the AC that a) indict negative practices and have implications back to fairness and education, b) function as theoretical paradigmatic issues that would indict the negative practice of reading theory, c) advance theoretical weighing claims or d) advance potential theoretical voting issues in the AC. To clarify, the aff can make arguments that create topical burdens and ones that exist solely for clarification but may not read insert spikes here

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 1 | Opponent: general | Judge: general
I may read a position about sexual harassment and if that makes you uncomfortable let me know before the round and I'll read something else.

Tournament: Voices | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harvard Westlake-VC | Judge: Kaya,Kris

Nuclear power is critical to stop catastrophic warming

Waldman 15 - Susanne, PhD in Risk Communication at Carleton University ("Why we Need Nuclear Power to Save the Environment" http://energyforhumanity.org/climate-energy/need-nuclear-power-save-environment/)
The idea we might need nuclear power to save the environment may have seen farfetched
AND
they provide is typically quite cheap and not sensitive to fuel price volatility.

Plants close, emissions go up, even when the intent is to replace with renewables.

Lovering et al 16: Lovering et al 6/30 "In Most Cases, Closing A Nuclear Plant Is All Pain And No Gain". June 30 2016. Amber Robson and Jessica Lovering. Accessed August 9 2016. https://medium.com/@ThirdWayTweet/in-mostcases-closing-a-nuclear-plant-is-all-pain-and-no-gain-135911655b8e~~#.c3dvjddji. ~Premier~
Recent history backs up this case, confirming that when nuclear plants close, total
AND
plants like Diablo Canyon and the whole venture seems like a risky ordeal. 

Global warming definitively causes extinction

Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, "Climate Change and Implications for National Security," International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/)
Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was
AND
investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix!