Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake MG | Judge: Rodrigo Paramo

Frame this round only in terms of education. You writing "Aff" on that paper has no impact on the USFG – the plan doesn't happen– you should focus on advocacy skills we can use as students – that's the neg. Our role of the ballot is to interrogate our ontology – that is the biggest internal link into education because it teaches us about us and those around us, allowing us to place our social location and existence in the context of a broader world.

This debate is question of mindset and ontology – the alternative  is a prerequisite to affirmative solvency because their ontological assumptions ensure serial policy failure –

Our interpretation: the judge should consider the mindset of the aff pre-fiat. Questions of mindset are key to advocacy skills – they affect how we advocate for improving the world every day.

Progress is the elaboration of civil society into the future. The politics of the 1AC can only reproduce the violence of the state -a state predicated off the violence of the black body- and their racial progress is only a justification for more violence –and create an Antiblack future.

Dillon 13 ~Stephen Dillon, Assistant Professor of Queer Studies at Hampshire College, Ph.D. in American Studies and Feminist / Sexuality Scholar, "'It's here, it's that time:' Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames"~
In one of the first lines of the film, a state newscaster covering the
AND
specifically about the continuation of sexual violence in the revolution, they respond:

Impact: Time does not pass; it accumulates and as a result, blackness marked as slavery since the middle passage has remained a death sentence even in the present – there's a history of violence.

Dillon 13 ~Stephen Dillon, Assistant Professor of Queer Studies at Hampshire College, Ph.D. in American Studies and Feminist / Sexuality Scholar, "'It's here, it's that time:' Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames"~
In Specters of the Atlantic: Finance Capital, Slavery, and the Philosophy of
AND
, but they are also temporal intensities that structure subjectivity and life chances.

The alternative is to burn down the conception of the future and time as a method to destroy the notions of temporality as we know it in order to stop the accumulation of time. Black bodies are always already dying and always have been – there is no tomorrow for those who die tonight. There is no time to care about their impacts when they are always already systematically destroyed in society.

Dillon 13 ~Stephen Dillon, Assistant Professor of Queer Studies at Hampshire College, Ph.D. in American Studies and Feminist / Sexuality Scholar, "'It's here, it's that time:' Race, queer futurity, and the temporality of violence in Born in Flames"~
In his 1972 text Blood in My Eye, published shortly after he was shot
AND
. The future was not coming and so the present could not wait.

Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: Union BS | Judge: Varad Agarwala

Nuclear energy is becoming one of the main sources of electricity for most countries – energy production will only increase with time

WNA 16 1 (The World Nuclear Association (WNA) is the international organization that promotes nuclear power and supports the companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. Its members come from all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining, uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel fabrication, plant manufacture, transport, and the disposition of used nuclear fuel as well as electricity generation itself. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx JC)
In the 1950s attention turned to the peaceful purposes of nuclear fission, notably for
AND
The rest of the improvement is due to better performance from existing units.

Nuclear energy is cheaper than coal – switching now will increase costs.

WNA 16 2("The Economics of Nuclear Power" The World Nuclear Association (WNA) is the international organization that promotes nuclear power and supports the companies that comprise the global nuclear industry. Its members come from all parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining, uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, nuclear fuel fabrication, plant manufacture, transport, and the disposition of used nuclear fuel as well as electricity generation itself. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx JC)
There have been many studies carried out examining the economics of future generation options,
AND
5-4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price

Electricity is key to the economy – even a 10 decreases causes an irreversible collapse

NRECA 15 (NRECA is the national service organization for more than 900 not-for-profit rural electric cooperatives and public power districts providing retail electric service to more than 42 million consumers in 47 states and whose retail sales account for approximately 12 percent of total electricity sales in the United States. "New Study Highlights Impact of Increased Electricity Prices" http://www.nreca.coop/new-study-highlights-impact-of-increased-electricity-prices/ JC)
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) released a new economic study detailing
AND
by electric cooperatives is 11.5 percent less than the national average.

Impacts – Choose 1

War

Economic decline causes war and an increased threat of terror attacks – multiple warrants.

Royal, 2010, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives' eds. Goldsmith and Brauer, ~Director Cooperative Threat Reduction DOD, Jedediah~, p. 213-215
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict
AND
with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection

SV

Economic decline disproportionally affect the black body racializing their daily lives and making their recovery inevitable.

White 15' (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/black-recession-housing-race/396725/
The ~A~ recession, while painful for everyone, was especially ~is
AND
slim, even as white Americans start to get back on their feet.

Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake MG | Judge: Rodrigo Paramo

We endorse the genealogy of the affirmative absent their prescription for action via an advocacy statement - Ending your genealogy with the simple, easily-digestible recommendation that we “insert advocacy” ruins the entire point of genealogical investigation in the first place – Foucault wrote genealogies as a direct rejection of Lenin's question "What is to be done?" – by providing a direct instruction manual for political action, the affirmative has corrupted the unsettling critical potential of genealogy – the goal of our genealogy is to make you feel uncomfortable with everything about how we are currently acting, and that uneasiness cannot be achieved if we tell you exactly what to do

lyvberg and Richardon 2 – dept of development @ Aalborg University (Bent, Aalborg University, Department of Development and Planning and Tim, University of Sheffield, Department of Town and Regional Planning, Planning and Foucault: In Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory, http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/DarkSide2.pdf
3. Towards Foucault Instead of side-stepping or seeking to remove the traces
AND
versus 'constitution' thinking, about struggle versus control, conflict versus consensus.

Genealogical strategies are easily coopted unless there is an unending, constant stream of critical investigation and epistemic questioning – their concrete advocacy is a closure of epistemic uncertainty in favor of a universal truth of what should be done – turns all of case and solidifies new hegemonies

Medina 11 prof @ Vanderbilt (Jose, Toward a Foucaultian Epistemology of Resistance: Counter-Memory, Epistemic Friction, and Guerrilla Pluralism, Foucault Studies, No. 12, pp. 9-35, October 2011)
As Foucault puts it, genealogies can be described as the ‚attempt to desubjugate
AND
conversation with other epistemological pluralistic approaches to memory and knowledge of the past.

Tournament: Colleyville Heritage | Round: 1 | Opponent: Westwood JA | Judge:
Hate speech is protected under the first amendment
McGough 15, Michael. "Sorry, Kids, the 1st Amendment Does Protect 'hate Speech'." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 30 Oct. 2015. Web. 08 Jan. 2017. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-colleges-hate-speech-1st-amendment-20151030-story.html. SM
As Eugene Volokh of UCLA law school pointed out on his blog in the Washington Post: “Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the 1st 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.” (Volokh’s parenthesis about “whatever exactly that might mean” points to a different issue: the defining down of the word “hate.” Opposing same-sex marriage, a position embraced not that long ago by President Obama, is sometimes viewed as anti-gay hate speech. So is criticism of the Catholic Church. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League asserted that a Jon Stewart skit involving a Nativity scene "ranks with the most vulgar expression of hate speech ever aired on television.") So where does the idea that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech come from? Not from thin air. While the Supreme Court hasn't said that there is a "hate speech" exception to the 1st Amendment, it has in the past upheld some restrictions on hateful speech. “For instance," Volokh notes, "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.” Also, he notes, in the 1952 case of Beauharnais vs. Illinois the court "did ... uphold a ‘group libel’ law that outlawed statements that expose racial or religious groups to contempt or hatred, unless the speaker could show that the statements were true, and were said with ‘good motives’ and for ‘justifiable ends.' But this too was treated by the court as just a special case of a broader 1st Amendment exception — the one for libel generally. And Beauharnais is widely understood to no longer be good law, given the court’s later restrictions on the libel exception.” Some hateful speech is unprotected if it crosses over into conduct -- such as the use of a racial slur to threaten or intimidate someone. And hateful speech in the workplace can create a “hostile environment” that the courts have treated as a form of discrimination. (Some courts have also recognized an analogue to a hostile workplace environment in educational settings, though this is more controversial.) Outside those situations, hate speech is protected by the 1st Amendment against abridgment by the government, including a state university. (As a private institution, Williams College isn’t bound by the 1st Amendment in the way the University of California is. But its policies on speech have nothing to do with “legally recognized hate speech.”) “Haters gotta hate," the saying goes. But if they do, their words are protected by the Constitution -- whatever college students think.
Hate speech has long term silencing effects—that’s terminal defense on the aff. Even if people aren’t silenced they’re more likely to agree with the dominant voice to avoid opposition
West 12, Caroline. "Words that silence? Freedom of expression and racist hate speech." Speech and Harm: controversies over free speech (2012): 222-48.
In addition to its immediate disabling effects, racist hate speech may have indirect and longer-lived silencing effects. There is considerable evidence that being subjected to racist verbal abuse reduces the self-esteem of targets, especially when individuals are targeted repeatedly. It is not hard to see how this could work. If others repeatedly tell you that you are worthless or contemptible—if they say that you are dumb, dirty, or lazy, simply in virtue of your race which you are powerless to change or conceal—then it is likely that eventually you will come yourself to believe that this is so, especially if the message of inferiority is reinforced in subtle and not so subtle ways by the culture at large. 25 (One needs only to think of the well-known effects on children of parental verbal abuse to get a sense of the way in which racist hate speech may impact psychologically on its targets; and indeed there is evidence that some of the effects of racist abuse on its targets are not dissimilar to the short-term effects of sexual abuse on children.) 26 Low self-esteem has numerous adverse outcomes. One less commonly emphasized effect concerns its impact on speech. Individuals who suffer low self-esteem tend to believe they have nothing worth saying, and so are generally less likely to voice their opinions. Even when they do speak, they are less likely to persist in arguing their case in the face of disagreement or opposition. They tend to seek affirmation from others and typically desire to avoid confrontation. Insofar as being subjected to racist abuse contributes to a process whereby targets come to internalize feelings of worthlessness, it makes it less likely in general that they will speak at all; and less likely still that, when they do speak, the opinions that they voice will be ones that contest established opinions.
And this disproportionately harms minorities—it justifies their exclusion from discussions which perpetuates dominant ideologies
West 12, Caroline. "Words that silence? Freedom of expression and racist hate speech." Speech and Harm: controversies over free speech (2012): 222-48.
In these and other ways, racist hate speech may cause those it targets to withdraw from participation in public life and discourse. This is unfortu- nate for society as a whole, insofar as it adversely affects the quality of the deliberations that take place without the benefit of their input. But it is especially unfortunate for those who are silenced, not least because delib- erations that take place without their input may issue in decisions that fail to take account of their interests. While everyone may lose if some people are deterred from participating in collective decision-making, especially if those silenced have worthwhile things to say, those who are silenced are likely to bear a disproportionate share of the loss.
Hate speech leads to a cycle of marginalization in which members of the dominant group are able to easily dismiss the concerns of minorities, silencing them.
West 12, Caroline. "Words that silence? Freedom of expression and racist hate speech." Speech and Harm: controversies over free speech (2012): 222-48.
We should distinguish comprehension failure from another kind of silenc- ing that might occur when, for instance, an audience is caused to think that speakers are intellectually limited or otherwise inferior. In this case, the audience grasps what the speaker means to say perfectly well, but ignores it or dismisses it out of hand because they believe the speaker is not the kind of person worth listening to. This constitutes consideration failure. There is considerable evidence that racist hate speech—especially when directed by a member of a dominant group against a member of a historically marginalized group—functions to undermine the attention and consider- ation that is paid to the speech of those it targets. 33 This is not surprising. If certain groups are sufficiently pilloried this may have a purely causal impact on the audience, such that they are less likely to attend to what members of the targeted group have to say or to give it much consideration. Here is Lawrence again: Racist speech . . . distorts the marketplace of ideas by muting or devaluing the speech of Blacks and other despised minorities. Regardless of intrinsic value, their words and ideas become less saleable in the marketplace of ideas. An idea that would be embraced by large numbers of individuals if it were offered by a white individual will be rejected or given less credence if its author belongs to a group demeaned and stigmatized by racist beliefs. The point here is an important, if familiar, one. How much attention and consideration is paid to what a speaker has to say varies in accordance with the esteem in which the speaker is held in a community. Esteem matters less for a speaker’s ability to communicate ideas that conform to established opinion. Accepted opinions bring with them credence of their own; and the credence attached to established ideas may in fact sometimes spill over to confer additional credibility on the speaker in the eyes of the audience. Esteem is absolutely critical, however, when it comes to a speaker’s ability to communicate new or unfamiliar ideas, especially ideas that challenge prevailing orthodoxies. When a member of a respected group in society expresses an unorthodox or unpopular opinion they may not succeed in persuading others to their point of view, but their opinion tends at least to be listened to and given some consideration. This occurs simply in virtue of the fact that, however implausible the idea may at first sight seem, it is the opinion of someone esteemed, someone generally taken to be worth listening to. But when members of a group generally held in low regard express an unorthodox or unpopular view, that opinion is considerably less likely to be attended to or considered—at least, absent a conspicuous counter-veiling reason for thinking that the speaker in question has some special domain-specific expertise regarding the particular subject matter at hand. 35 This, I take it, is part of what Catharine Mackinnon has in mind when she notes that powerful and respected members of society get to do more, say more, have their words count for more, than do the powerless. 36 The ability to have one’s speech attended to and considered by others is both a consequence of occupying a position of social power and part of what constitutes and maintains that position of power, for it is a significant part of what enables individuals to use speech to influence others and so to shape the social and political environment around them. Conversely, the inability to have one’s speech attended to and considered is both a mark of powerlessness and part of what constitutes one as powerless. Those whose speech is widely ignored or unreflectively dismissed cannot use speech, as the powerful can, to influence the beliefs and attitudes of others and, through this, impact on the community around them. It should be clear why consideration failure is of special concern when those affected are members of historically marginalized groups. It is not that oppressed minorities are more virtuous or more likely to be right, although this may sometimes be true. It is rather that consideration failure can here form part of a self-reinforcing cycle of marginalization. Many of the groups most commonly targeted by hate speech have quite literally been denied a voice in public affairs. Only comparatively recently have many of them been granted the right to vote, for instance. As a result, they live in a society whose dominant culture and institutions have arisen substantially without their input and often without much if any concern for their interests. Effecting social reform by means of rational persuasion requires that members of these groups are in a position to use speech to challenge established patterns of thought and practice. This in turn re- quires that their views—which are likely frequently to be unfamiliar and sometimes confrontational—stand a reasonable chance of being given some consideration by others. Only then can minority views genuinely compete with established opinion. But the attitudes of intolerance and disrespect that underpin and sustain existing discrimination may them- selves prevent the views of those disadvantaged from receiving the fair hearing required to challenge these attitudes. Insofar as racist hate speech functions to reproduce and reinforce in its audience attitudes of hostility and contempt for minority groups it targets, it may operate as a kind of protective buffer to the ideology of racism, shielding it from challenge by sapping the power of minority speech to contest it. This cycle must somehow be interrupted if members of historically marginalized groups are to have a reasonable chance of reshaping the moral and political environment through speech.

Tournament: Colleyville Heritage | Round: 1 | Opponent: Westwood JA | Judge: 

Interpretation: The aff must defend that public colleges or universities may restrict no constitutionally protected speech. To clarify, they can't defend a restriction on only a kind, setting, or timing of speech.

B. Violation-

C. Reasons to prefer:

1. The term "any" is the res is the weak form of "any"  -  "not any" statements refer to "all".  Cambridge Dictionary 

We use any before nouns to refer to indefinite or unknown quantities or an unlimited entity: Did you bring any bread? Mr Jacobson refused to answer any questions. If I were able to travel back to any place and time in history, I would go to ancient China. Any as a determiner has two forms: a strong form and a weak form. The forms have different meanings. Weak form any: indefinite quantities We use any for indefinite quantities in questions and negative sentences. We use some in affirmative sentences: Have you got any eggs? I haven't got any eggs. I've got some eggs. Not: I've got any eggs. We use weak form any only with uncountable nouns or with plural nouns: ~talking about fuel for the car~ Do I need to get any petrol? (+ uncountable noun) There aren't any clean knives. They're all in the dishwasher. (+ plural noun) Warning: We don't use any with this meaning with singular countable nouns: Have you got any Italian cookery books? (or … an Italian cookery book?) Not: Have you got any Italian cookery book? Strong form any meaning 'it does not matter which' We use any to mean 'it does not matter which or what', to describe something which is not limited. We use this meaning of any with all types of nouns and usually in affirmative sentences. In speaking we often stress any:. (+ uncountable noun) When you make a late booking, you don't know where you're going to go, do you? It could be any destination. (+ singular countable noun) ~talking about a contract for new employees~ Do we have any form of agreement with new staff when they start? (+ singular countable noun) ~a parent talking to a child about a picture he has painted~ A: I don't think I've ever seen you paint such a beautiful picture before. Gosh! Did you choose the colours? B: We could choose any colours we wanted. (+ plural countable noun) See also: Determiners and types of noun Some and any Any as a pronoun Any can be used as a pronoun (without a noun following) when the noun is understood. A: Have you got some £1 coins on you? B: Sorry, I don't think I have any. (understood: I don't think I have any £1 coins.) ~parents talking about their children's school homework~ A: Do you find that Elizabeth gets lots of homework? Marie gets a lot. B: No not really. She gets hardly any. (understood: She gets hardly any homework.) A: What did you think of the cake? It was delicious, wasn't it? B: I don't know. I didn't get any. (understood: I didn't get any of the cake.) See also: Determiners used as pronouns Any of We use any with of before articles (a/an, the), demonstratives (this, these), pronouns (you, us) or possessives (his, their): Shall I keep any of these spices? I think they're all out of date. Not: … any these spices? We use any of to refer to a part of a whole: Are any of you going to the meeting? I couldn't answer any of these questions. I listen to Abba but I've never bought any of their music.  Any doesn't have a negative meaning on its own.  It must be used with a negative word to mean the same as no.  Compare Not Any: there aren't any biscuits left.  They've eaten them all.  No: There are no biscuits left.  They've eaten them all.     

Outweighs - it takes into account AFF definitions which assume a strong form of "any" that justifies singular cases.

Empirically proven—multiple court rulings agree with our interp. Elder 91 

The Michigan Supreme Court seemed to approve our dictionary definitions of "any" in Harrington v Interstate Business Men's Accident Ass'n, 210 Mich 327, 330; 178 NW 19 (1920), when it quoted Hopkins v Sanders, 172 Mich 227; 137 NW 709 (1912). The Court defined "any" like this: "In broad language, it covers 'arl'v final decree' in 'any suit at law or in chancery' in 'any circuit court.' Any' means ,every,' 'each one of all."' In a later case, the Michigan Supreme Court again held that the use of "any" in an agency contract meant "all." In Gibson v Agricultural Life Ins Co, 282 Mich 282, 284; 276 NW 450 (1937), the clause in controversy read: "14. The Company shall have, and is hereby given a first lien upon any commissions or renewals as security for any claim due or to become due to the Company from said Agent." (Emphasis added.) The Gibson court was not persuaded by the plaintiff's insistence that the word "any" meant less than "all": "Giving the wording of paragraph 14 oJ the agency contract its plain and unequivocable meaning, upon arriving at the conclusion that the sensible connotation of the word any' implies 'all' and not 'some,' the legal conclusion follows that the defendant is entitled to retain the earned renewal commissions arising from its agency contract with Gibson and cannot be held legally liable for same in this action," Gibson at 287 (quoting the trial court opinion). The Michigan Court of Appeals has similarly interpreted the word "any" as used in a Michigan statute. In McGrath v Clark, 89 Mich App 194; 280 NW2d 480 (1979), the plaintiff accepted defendant's offer of judgment. The offer said nothing about prejudgment interest. The statute the Court examined was MCL 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013: "Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment recovered in a civil action...." The Court held that "the word 'any' is to be considered all-inclusive," so the defendants were entitled to interest. McGrath at 197 Recently, the Court has again held that "~alny means 'every,' 'each one of all,' and is unlimited in its scope." Parker v Nationwide Mutual Ins Co, 188 Mich App 354, 356; 470 NW2d 416 (1991) (quoting Harrington v InterState Men's Accident Ass'n, supra)

2. Anything less than full freedom falls under regulation, not restriction. Taylor 12: 

Following Rawls and others, I distinguish between the "regulation" and the "restriction" of basic liberties like free speech. "The priority of these liberties," Rawls says, "is not infringed when they are merely regulated—as they must be—in order to be combined into one scheme as well as adapted to certain social conditions necessary for their enduring exercise" (Rawls 1993, 295). For instance, so-called "time, place, and manner" rules (e.g., scheduling speakers at a public forum on a "first-come, first-served" basis) usually qualify as regulations of speech, as they are merely intended to make communication mutually consistent or to protect the "central range of application" of other basic liberties. On the other hand, prohibitions on the advocacy of particular scientific or political doctrines count as restrictions of speech because they limit its content and thereby place at risk a core liberal value associated with open expression: intellectual autonomy achieved by way of the free exercise of public reason (Rawls 1993, 296; Kant 1996). Certain narrow limitations on the content of speech (e.g., bans on "fighting words," such as racial epithets used confrontationally) could be defended as regulations rather than restrictions, on the grounds that they do not threaten the free exercise of public reason and may protect the central range of application of other basic liberties (e.g., bodily security), but limitations on hate speech as I defined it above are prima facie restrictions, because they strike at the heart of such free exercise, which depends crucially on open access to all available arguments regarding scientific and political matters.2 ~…~ To begin, however, I should define my terms. For reasons that will become clear below, I define "hate speech" as a type of group libel: speech (oral or written) that argues for the mental, physical, and/or ethical inferiority of members of particular historically-oppressed groups (e.g., blacks, women, Jews, and homosexuals). Several other definitions of hate speech are available, of course, including ones that characterize it as "face-to-face vilification" by means of ~which I count as~ "fighting words" or as "hostile-environment harassment."

Framework – Topicality is decided based only on the meaning of terms in the resolution, not matters of fairness/education. Nebel 1: 

One reason why LDers may be suspicious of my view is because they see topicality as just another theory argument. But unlike other theory arguments, topicality involves two "interpretations." The first is an interpretation, in the ordinary sense of the word, of the resolution or of some part of it. ~and~ The second is a rule—namely, that the affirmative must defend the resolution.2 If we don't distinguish between these two interpretations, then the negative's view is merely that the affirmative must defend whatever proposition they think should be debated, not because it is the proposition expressed by the resolution, but rather because it would be good to debate. This failure to see what is distinctive about topicality leads quickly to the pragmatic approach, by ignoring what the interpretation is supposed to be an interpretation of. By contrast, the topicality rule—i.e., that the affirmative must defend the resolution—justifies the semantic approach. This rule is justified by appeals to fairness and education: it would be unfair to expect the negative to prepare against anything other than the resolution, because that is the only mutually acceptable basis for preparation; the educational benefits that are unique to debate stem from clash focused on a proposition determined beforehand. The inference to the priority of semantic considerations is simple. Consider the following argument: 1. We ought to debate the resolution. 2. The resolution means X. Therefore, 3. We ought to debate X. The first premise is just the topicality rule. The second premise is that X is the semantically correct interpretation. Pragmatic considerations for or against X do not, in themselves, support or deny this second premise. They ~Fairness and education~ might show that it would be better or worse if the resolution meant ~something else~ X, but sentences do not in general mean what it would be best for them to mean. At best, pragmatic considerations may ~they only~ show that we should debate some proposition other than the resolution. They are (if anything) reasons to change the topic, contrary to the topicality rule. Pragmatic considerations must, therefore, be weighed against the justifications for ~debating the topic~ the topicality rule, not against the semantic considerations: they are objections to the first premise, not the second premise, in the argument above.

Voter –.

Preempt ~#1 –

First, accepting the tournament invitation generates an obligation to debate the topic regardless of the consequences. Nebel 2:

A second strategy denies that such pragmatic benefits are ~not~ relevant. This strategy is more deontological. One version of this strategy appeals to the importance of consent or agreement. Suppose that you give your opponents prior notice that you'll be affirming ~a~ the September/October 2012 resolution instead of the current one. There is a sense in which your affirmation of that resolution is now predictable: your opponents know, or are in a position to know, what you will be defending. And suppose that the older resolution is conducive to better (i.e., more fair and more educational) debate. ~But~ Still, it's unfair of you to expect your opponents to follow suit. Why? Because they didn't agree to debate that topic. They registered for a tournament whose invitation specified the current resolution, not the Sept/Oct 2012 resolution or a free-for-all. The "social contract" argument for topicality holds that accepting a tournament invitation constitutes implicit consent to debate the specified topic. This claim might be contested, depending on what constitutes implicit consent. What is less contestable is this: given that some proposition must be debated in each round and that the tournament has specified a resolution, no one can reasonably reject a principle that requires everyone to debate the announced resolution as worded. This appeals to Scanlon's contractualism. Someone who wishes to debate only the announced resolution has ~I have~ a strong claim against changing the topic, and no one has a stronger claim against ~it~ debating the announced resolution (ignoring, for now, some possible exceptions to be discussed in the next subsection). So it is unfair to expect your opponent to debate anything other than the announced resolution. This unfairness is a constraint on the pursuit of education or other goods: it wrongs and is unjustifiable to ~me~ your opponent.

Second, even pragmatic concerns justify debating the topic. Nebel 3:

One reason why LDers may be suspicious of my view is because they see topicality as just another theory argument. But unlike other theory arguments, topicality involves two "interpretations." The first is an interpretation, in the ordinary sense of the word, of the resolution or of some part of it. The second is a rule—namely, that the affirmative must defend the resolution.2 If we don't distinguish between these two interpretations, then the negative's view is merely that the affirmative must defend whatever proposition they think should be debated, not because it is the proposition expressed by the resolution, but rather because it would be good to debate. This failure to see what is distinctive about topicality leads quickly to the pragmatic approach, by ignoring what the interpretation is supposed to be an interpretation of. By contrast, the topicality rule—i.e., that the affirmative must defend the resolution—justifies the semantic approach. This rule is justified by appeals to fairness and education: it would be unfair to expect the negative to prepare against anything other than the resolution, because that is the only mutually acceptable basis for preparation; the educational benefits that are unique to debate stem from clash focused on a proposition determined beforehand. The inference to the priority of semantic considerations is simple. Consider the following argument: 1. We ought to debate the resolution. 2. The resolution means X. Therefore, 3. We ought to debate X. The first premise is just the topicality rule. The second premise is that X is the semantically correct interpretation. Pragmatic considerations for or against X do not, in themselves, support or deny this second premise. They might show that it would be better or worse if the resolution meant ~something else~ X, but sentences do not in general mean what it would be best for them to mean. At best, pragmatic considerations may ~only~ show that we should debate some proposition other than the resolution. They are (if anything) reasons to change the topic, contrary to the topicality rule. Pragmatic considerations must, therefore, be weighed against the justifications for ~debating the topic~ the topicality rule, not against the semantic considerations: they are objections to the first premise, not the second premise, in the argument above. 1.1 The Topicality Rule vs. Pragmatic Considerations There is an obvious objection to my argument above. If the topicality rule is justified for reasons that have to do with fairness and education, then shouldn't we just directly appeal to such considerations when determining what proposition we ought to debate? There are at least three ways I see of responding to this objection. One way admits that such pragmatic considerations are relevant—i.e., they are ~may be~ reasons to change the topic—but holds that they are outweighed by the reasons for ~debating it~ the topicality rule. It would be better if everyone debated the resolution as worded, whatever it is, than if everyone debated whatever subtle variation on the resolution they favored. Affirmatives would unfairly abuse (and have already abused) the entitlement to choose their own unpredictable adventure, and negatives would respond (and have already responded) with strategies that are designed to avoid clash—including an essentially vigilantist approach to topicality in which debaters ~would~ enforce their own pet resolutions on an arbitrary, round-by-round basis. Think here of the utilitarian case for internalizing rules against lying, murder, and other intuitively wrong acts. As the great utilitarian Henry Sidgwick argued, wellbeing is maximized not by everyone doing what they think maximizes wellbeing, but rather (in general) by people sticking to the rules of common sense morality. Otherwise, people are more likely to act on mistaken utility calculations and engage in self-serving violations of useful rules, thereby undermin~e~ing ~the~ social practices that promote wellbeing in the long run. That is exactly what happens if we reject the topicality rule in favor of direct appeals to pragmatic considerations. Sticking to a rule that applies regardless of the topic, of the debaters' preferred variations on the topic, and of debaters' familiarity with the national circuit's flavor of the week, avoids these problems.

Preempt ~#2

Tournament: Colleyville Heritage | Round: 4 | Opponent: a | Judge:
Free Speech in the University only feeds systems of social death enacted by the university in which the words of the students are coopted and lose all mean because the university moots them itself twisting and turning the words of students until they become soley narratives of pain gobbled up by the academy feeding its exploitation of those within it.
Occupied UC Berkeley 2009 Occupied UC Berkeley, 18 November 2009. The Necrosocial: Civic Life, Social Death, and the UC. http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/the-necrosocial
Yes, very much a cemetery.  Only here there are no dirges, no prayers, only the repeated testing of our threshold for anxiety, humiliation, and debt.  The classroom just like the workplace just like the university just like the state just like the economy manages our social death, translating what we once knew from high school, from work, from our family life into academic parlance, into acceptable forms of social conflict.  Who knew that behind so much civic life (electoral campaigns, student body representatives, bureaucratic administrators, public relations officials, Peace and Conflict Studies, ad nauseam) was so much social death?  What postures we maintain to claim representation, what limits we assume, what desires we dismiss?  And in this moment of crisis they ask us to twist ourselves in a way that they can hear.  Petitions to Sacramento, phone calls to Congressmen—even the chancellor patronizingly congratulates our September 24th student strike, shaping the meaning and the force of the movement as a movement against the policies of Sacramento.  He expands his institutional authority to encompass the movement.  When students begin to hold libraries over night, beginning to take our first baby step as an autonomous movement he reins us in by serendipitously announcing library money.  He manages movement, he kills movement by funneling it into the electoral process.  He manages our social death.  He looks forward to these battles on his terrain, to eulogize a proposition, to win this or that—he and his look forward to exhausting us.  He and his look forward to a reproduction of the logic of representative governance, the release valve of the university plunges us into an abyss where ideas are wisps of ether—that is, meaning is ripped from action.  Let’s talk about the fight endlessly, but always only in their managed form: to perpetually deliberate, the endless fleshing-out-of—when we push the boundaries of this form they are quick to reconfigure themselves to contain us: the chancellor’s congratulations, the reopening of the libraries, the managed general assembly—there is no fight against the administration here, only its own extension.  Each day passes in this way, the administration on the look out to shape student discourse—it happens without pause, we don’t notice nor do we care to. It becomes banal, thoughtless.  So much so that we see we are accumulating days: one semester, two, how close to being this or that, how far?  This accumulation is our shared history.  This accumulation—every once in a while interrupted, violated by a riot, a wild protest, unforgettable fucking, the overwhelming joy of love, life shattering heartbreak—is a muted, but desirous life.  A dead but restless and desirous life.  The university steals and homogenizes our time yes, our bank accounts also, but it also steals and homogenizes meaning.  As much as capital is invested in building a killing apparatus abroad, an incarceration apparatus in California, it is equally invested here in an apparatus for managing social death.  Social death is, of course, simply the power source, the generator, of civic life with its talk of reform, responsibility, unity.  A ‘life,’ then, which serves merely as the public relations mechanism for death: its garrulous slogans of freedom and democracy designed to obscure the shit and decay in which our feet are planted. Yes, the university is a graveyard, but it is also a factory: a factory of  meaning which produces civic life and at the same time produces social death.  A factory which produces the illusion that meaning and reality can be separated; which everywhere reproduces the empty reactionary behavior of students based on the values of life (identity), liberty (electoral politics), and happiness (private property).  Everywhere the same whimsical ideas of the future. Everywhere democracy. Everywhere discourse to shape our desires and distress in a way acceptable to the electoral state, discourse designed to make our very moments here together into a set of legible and fruitless demands. Totally managed death. A machine for administering death, for the proliferation of technologies of death. As elsewhere, things rule. Dead objects rule. In this sense, it matters little what face one puts on the university—whether Yudof or some other lackey. These are merely the personifications of the rule of the dead, the pools of investments, the buildings, the flows of materials into and out of the physical space of the university—each one the product of some exploitation—which seek to absorb more of our work, more tuition, more energy. The university is a machine which wants to grow, to accumulate, to expand, to absorb more and more of the living into its peculiar and perverse machinery: high-tech research centers, new stadiums and office complexes. And at this critical juncture the only way it can continue to grow is by more intense exploitation, higher tuition, austerity measures for the departments that fail to pass the test of ‘relevancy.’ But the ‘irrelevant’ departments also have their place. With their ‘pure’ motives of knowledge for its own sake, they perpetuate the blind inertia of meaning ostensibly detached from its social context. As the university cultivates its cozy relationship with capital, war and power, these discourses and research programs play their own role, co-opting and containing radical potential. And so we attend lecture after lecture about how ‘discourse’ produces ‘subjects,’ ignoring the most obvious fact that we ourselves are produced by this discourse about discourse which leaves us believing that it is only words which matter, words about words which matter. The university gladly permits the precautionary lectures on biopower; on the production of race and gender; on the reification and the fetishization of commodities. A taste of the poison serves well to inoculate us against any confrontational radicalism. And all the while power weaves the invisible nets which contain and neutralize all thought and action, that bind revolution inside books, lecture halls. There is no need to speak truth to power when power already speaks the truth. The university is a graveyard– así es. The graveyard of liberal good intentions, of meritocracy, opportunity, equality, democracy. Here the tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. We graft our flesh, our labor, our debt to the skeletons of this or that social cliché. In seminars and lectures and essays, we pay tribute to the university’s ghosts, the ghosts of all those it has excluded—the immiserated, the incarcerated, the just-plain-fucked. They are summoned forth and banished by a few well-meaning phrases and research programs, given their book titles, their citations. This is our gothic—we are so morbidly aware, we are so practiced at stomaching horror that the horror is thoughtless. In this graveyard our actions will never touch, will never become the conduits of a movement, if we remain permanently barricaded within prescribed identity categories—our force will be dependent on the limited spaces of recognition built between us. Here we are at odds with one another socially, each of us: students, faculty, staff, homebums, activists, police, chancellors, administrators, bureaucrats, investors, politicians, faculty/ staff/ homebums/ activists/ police/ chancellors/ administrators/ bureaucrats/ investors/ politicians-to-be. That is, we are students, or students of color, or queer students of color, or faculty, or Philosophy Faculty, or Gender and Women Studies faculty, or we are custodians, or we are shift leaders—each with our own office, place, time, and given meaning. We form teams, clubs, fraternities, majors, departments, schools, unions, ideologies, identities, and subcultures—and thankfully each group gets its own designated burial plot. Who doesn’t participate in this graveyard?
 Far from wanting to silence free speech, the university is waiting to watch it with bated breath. white settler colonialism has always thought that scars make your body more interesting, that pain is more compelling than privilege, and that struggling hard in life makes you “real” and “authentic.” academics perversely fetishize suffering vicariously. they will never experience it, but love to valorize it. The campus will happily gobble up easily-consumable narrative of suffering and dysfunction feeding the colonialism inherent in the academy.
Tuck and Yang 14 – prof of nat am studies @ suny and prof of ethnic studies @ cal
(E. and K., R-words: Refusing research)
We are struck by the pervasive silence on questions regarding the contemporary rationale(s) for social science research. Though a variety of ethical and procedural protocols require researchers to compose statements regarding the objectives or purposes of a particular project, such protocols do not prompt reflection upon the underlying beliefs about knowledge and change that too often go unexplored or unacknowledged. The rationale for conducting social science research that collects pain narratives seems to be self-evident for many scholars, but when looked at more closely, the rationales may be unconsidered, and somewhat flimsy. Like a maritime archaeological site, such rationales might be best examined in situ, for fear of deterioration if extracted. Why do researchers collect pain narratives? Why does the academy want them?¶ An initial and partial answer is because settler colonial ideology believes that, in fiction author Sherril Jaffe’s words, “scars make your body more interesting,” (1996, p. 58). Jaffe’s work of short, short of fiction bearing that sentiment as title captures the exquisite crossing of wounds and curiosity and pleasure. Settler colonial ideology, constituted by its conscription of others, holds the wounded body as more engrossing than the body that is not wounded (though the person with a wounded body does not politically or materially benefit for being more engrossing). In settler colonial logic, pain is more compelling than privilege, scars more enthralling than the body unmarked by experience. In settler colonial ideology, pain is evidence of authenticity, of the verifiability of a lived life. Academe, formed and informed by settler colonial ideology, has developed the same palate for pain. Emerging and established social science researchers set out to document the problems faced by communities, and often in doing so, recirculate common tropes of dysfunction, abuse, and neglect.

The alternative is to reject the 1ac’s glorification of the university and retreat to the undercommons-The only possible relationship to the university is one of the fugitive-we must constantly steal from the university, deprive it of the labor and production it needs to survive while creating the possibility for work outside the university and speak out in proper ways- this is not a rejection of the state- but finding a niche within it to destroy it
Moten and Harney 2013 Stefano and Fred. Stefano Harney is Professor of Strategic Management Education at Singapore Management University and co-founder of the School for Study. Fred Moten is Helen L. Bevington Professor of Modern Poetry. “The University and the Undercommons.” Published In The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning and Black Study. By Stefano Harney and Fred Moten. Minor Compositions, 2013 pg. 26-30
The Only Possible Relationship to the University Today Is a Criminal One “To the university I’ll steal, and there I’ll steal,” to borrow from Pistol at the end of Henry V, as he would surely borrow from us. This is the only possible relationship to the American university today. This may be true of universities everywhere. It may have to be true of the university in general. But certainly, this much is true in the United States: it cannot be denied that the university is a place of refuge, and it cannot be accepted that the university is a place of enlightenment. In the face of these conditions one can only sneak into the university and steal what one can. To abuse its hospitality, to spite its mission, to join its refugee colony, its gypsy encampment, to be in but not of – this is the path of the subversive intellectual in the modern university. Worry about the university. This is the injunction today in the United States, one with a long history. Call for its restoration like Harold Bloom or Stanley Fish or Gerald Graff. Call for its reform like Derek Bok or Bill Readings or Cary Nelson. Call out to it as it calls to you. But for the subversive intellectual, all of this goes on upstairs, in polite company, among the rational men. After all, the subversive intellectual came under false pretenses, with bad documents, out of love. Her labor is as necessary as it is unwelcome. The university needs what she bears but cannot bear what she brings. And on top of all that, she disappears. She disappears into the underground, the downlow lowdown maroon community of the university, into the undercommons of enlightenment, where the work gets done, where the work gets subverted, where the revolution is still black, still strong. What is that work and what is its social capacity for both reproducing the university and producing fugitivity? If one were to say teaching, one would be performing the work of the university. Teaching is merely a profession and an operation of that onto-/auto-encyclopedic circle of the state” that Jacques Derrida calls the Universitas. But it is useful to invoke this operation to glimpse the hole in the fence where labor enters, to glimpse its hiring hall, its night quarters. The university needs teaching labor, despite itself, or as itself, self-identical with and thereby erased by it. It is not teaching that holds this social capacity, but something that produces the not visible other side of teaching, a thinking through the skin of teaching toward a collective orientation to the knowledge object as future project, and a commitment to what we want to call the prophetic organization. But it is teaching that brings us in. Before there are grants, research, conferences, books, and journals there is the experience of being taught and of teaching. Before the research post with no teaching, before the graduate students to mark the exams, before the string of sabbaticals, before the permanent reduction in teaching load, the appointment to run the Center, the consignment of pedagogy to a discipline called education, before the course designed to be a new book, teaching happened. The moment of teaching for food is therefore often mistakenly taken to be a stage, as if eventually one should not teach for food. If the stage persists, there is a social pathology in the university. But if the teaching is successfully passed on, the stage is surpassed, and teaching is consigned to those who are known to remain in the stage, the sociopathological labor of the university. Kant interestingly calls such a stage “self-incurred minority.” He tries to contrast it with having the “determination and courage to use one’s intelligence without being guided by another.” “Have the courage to use your own intelligence.” But what would it mean if teaching or rather what we might call “the beyond of teaching” is precisely what one is asked to get beyond, to stop taking sustenance? And what of those minorities who refuse, the tribe of moles who will not come back from beyond (that which is beyond “the beyond of teaching”), as if they will not be subjects, as if they want to think as objects, as minority? Certainly, the perfect subjects of communication, those successfully beyond teaching, will see them as waste. But their collective labor will always call into question who truly is taking the orders of the enlightenment. The waste lives for those moments beyond teaching when you give away the unexpected beautiful phrase – unexpected, no one has asked, beautiful, it will never come back. Is being the biopower of the enlightenment truly better than this? Perhaps the biopower of the enlightenment knows this, or perhaps it is just reacting to the objecthood of this labor as it must. But even as it depends on these moles, these refugees, it will call them uncollegial, impractical, naive, unprofessional. And one may be given one last chance to be pragmatic – why steal when one can have it all, they will ask. But if one hides from this interpellation, neither agrees nor disagrees but goes with hands full into the underground of the university, into the Undercommons – this will be regarded as theft, as a criminal act. And it is at the same time, the only possible act. In that undercommons of the university one can see that it is not a matter of teaching versus research or even the beyond of teaching versus the individualisation of research. To enter this space is to inhabit the ruptural and enraptured disclosure of the commons that fugitive enlightenment enacts, the criminal, matricidal, queer, in the cistern, on the stroll of the stolen life, the life stolen by enlightenment and stolen back, where the commons give refuge, where the refuge gives commons. What the beyond of teaching is really about is not finishing oneself, not passing, not completing; it’s about allowing subjectivity to be unlawfully overcome by others, a radical passion and passivity such that one becomes unfit for subjection, because one does not possess the kind of agency that can hold the regulatory forces of subjecthood, and one cannot initiate the auto-interpellative torque that biopower subjection requires and rewards. It is not so much the teaching as it is the prophecy in the organization of the act of teaching. The prophecy that predicts its own organization and has therefore passed, as commons, and the prophecy that exceeds its own organization and therefore as yet can only be organized. Against the prophetic organization of the undercommons is arrayed its own deadening labor for the university, and beyond that, the negligence of professionalization, and the professionalization of the critical academic. The undercommons is therefore always an unsafe neighborhood. As Fredric Jameson reminds us, the university depends upon “Enlightenment- type critiques and demystification of belief and committed ideology, in order to clear the ground for unobstructed planning and ‘development.’” This is the weakness of the university, the lapse in its homeland security. It needs labor power for this “enlightenmenttype critique,” but, somehow, labor always escapes. The premature subjects of the undercommons took the call seriously, or had to be serious about the call. They were not clear about planning, too mystical, too full of belief. And yet this labor force cannot reproduce itself, it must be reproduced. The university works for the day when it will be able to rid itself, like capital in general, of the trouble of labor. It will then be able to reproduce a labor force that understands itself as not only unnecessary but dangerous to the development of capitalism. Much pedagogy and scholarship is already dedicated in this direction. Students must come to see themselves as the problem, which, counter to the complaints of restorationist critics of the university, is precisely what it means to be a customer, to take on the burden of realisation and always necessarily be inadequate to it. Later, these students will be able to see themselves properly as obstacles to society, or perhaps, with lifelong learning, students will return having successfully diagnosed themselves as the problem. Still, the dream of an undifferentiated labor that knows itself as superfluous is interrupted precisely by the labor of clearing away the burning roadblocks of ideology. While it is better that this police function be in the hands of the few, it still raises labor as difference, labor as the development of other labor, and therefore labor as a source of wealth. And although the enlightenment-type critique, as we suggest below, informs on, kisses the cheek of, any autonomous development as a result of this difference in labor, there is a break in the wall here, a shallow place in the river, a place to land under the rocks. The university still needs this clandestine labor to prepare this undifferentiated labor force, whose increasing specialisation and managerialist tendencies, again contra the restorationists, represent precisely the successful integration of the division of labor with the universe of exchange that commands restorationist loyalty. Introducing this labor upon labor, and providing the space for its development, creates risks. Like the colonial police force recruited unwittingly from guerrilla neighborhoods, university labor may harbor refugees, fugitives, renegades, and castaways. But there are good reasons for the university to be confident that such elements will be exposed or forced underground. Precautions have been taken, book lists have been drawn up, teaching observations conducted, invitations to contribute made. Yet against these precautions stands the immanence of transcendence, the necessary deregulation and the possibilities of criminality and fugitivity that labor upon labor requires. Maroon communities of composition teachers, mentorless graduate students, adjunct Marxist historians, out or queer management professors, state college ethnic studies departments, closed-down film programs, visaexpired Yemeni student newspaper editors, historically black college sociologists, and feminist engineers. And what will the university say of them? It will say they are unprofessional. This is not an arbitrary charge. It is the charge against the more than professional. How do those who exceed the profession, who exceed and by exceeding escape, how do those maroons problematize themselves, problematize the university, force the university to consider them a problem, a danger? The undercommons is not, in short, the kind of fanciful communities of whimsy invoked by Bill Readings at the end of his book. The undercommons, its maroons, are always at war, always in hiding.

Tournament: Plano Senior | Round: 1 | Opponent: C | Judge: C

NASA DA

Space leadership high now but sustained exploration key

Empsak 3/16 (Jesse Empsak , a freelance science writer based in New York City. His work has appeared in Scientific American, The Economist, New Scientist, "Space Race Losers? US Leadership in Danger, Report Warns", http://www.space.com/32185-united-states-space-exploration-leadership.html_ , March 8th, 2016 ) AP
The United States could lose its long-held leadership position in space science,
AND
should be one sentence: 'Space is good — keep investing.'"

RPS key to maintain future space exploration

Nasa 14 (This is from the NASA official government website. NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA was started in 1958 as a part of the United States government. NASA is in charge of U.S. science and technology that has to do with airplanes or space. "Radioisoptope power systems". https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/overview.cfm. August 19th, 2014)AP
In 2011 the National Academy of Sciences completed a major study of the priorities for
AND
would maintain NASA's current space science capabilities and enable future space exploration missions.

RPS is the only possible long term fuel system for space exploration

Nasa 14 (This is from the NASA official government website. NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA was started in 1958 as a part of the United States government. NASA is in charge of U.S. science and technology that has to do with airplanes or space. "Radioisoptope power systems". https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/rps/overview.cfm. August 19th, 2014)AP
Power is the one thing a spacecraft cannot do without. Without the technology to
AND
That heat is produced by the natural radioactive decay of plutonium-238.

Deep Space exploration key to reestablishing faltering STEM leadership

Tina beller sharing a report by Col. Robert S. Kimbrough 13(Col. Robert S. Kimbrough, Chief of Robotics at the NASA Astronaut Office, who is a former alumnus and assistant professor of mathematics at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. "Army Astronaut promotes STEM, inspires space exploration "https://www.army.mil/article/102748. May 7th, 2013) AP
Becoming an astronaut takes more than just high physical fitness scores, mental abilities and
AND
can thrust forward and reestablish our country's position as the superpower of STEM." 

Failure of American space leadership allows China to overtake the US, causing conflict by miscalculation.

Dowd, 2K9
(Alan, Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute, Surrendering Outer Space, http://www.fraseramerica.org/commerce.web/article_details.aspx?pubID=6853 ~accessed 6/19/11~)
"I am concerned that America's real and perceived leadership in the standing of the
AND
"This situation will naturally and understandably lead to hedging against the unknown."

War with China causes extinction

Straits Times 6-25-2000
THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full
AND
should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation.

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: idk | Judge: idk

Ryan pushing for continuing resolution to solve shutdown now – leadership is key

Drum 9-14, Kevin. "Sam Wang Wants Everyone to Settle down." Mother Jones. N.p., 14 Sept. 2016. Web. 16 Sept. 2016. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/sam-wang-wants-everyone-settle-down.
Then sometime before the end of the month, the House will need to bring
AND
Democratic votes to pass a reasonable continuing resolution. But will he?1

====Nuclear power contentious issue - leads to partisan fights that destroy Ryan's control====
Siciliano 16 ~John Siciliano, Political Reporter @ the Washington Examiner, Washington Examiner, "The 2016 politics of nuclear energy", 1/10/16, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-2016-politics-of-nuclear-energy/article/2579855~~**
Nuclear power is one of the cleanest forms of electricity, yet the question of
AND
runner Hillary Clinton is "not going to endorse it," Zycher said.

New government shutdown would collapse the economy – largest risk facing the global economy

Matthews 2015 Chris Matthews. Fortune. "Let the Debt Ceiling Games Begin: The government has once again reached the $18.1 trillion debt ceiling. Are we headed for another shutdown?" http://fortune.com/2015/03/16/debt-ceiling/
2015 could wind up being the best economic year for the developed world in nearly
AND
2015. Let's hope the President and Congress can learn to play nice.

Global nuclear war

Kemp 10 Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia's Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first
AND
expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet's population.

Tournament: Plano Senior | Round: 1 | Opponent: A | Judge: A

CP-Thorium Reactors

1NC

Text: The aff actor ought to replace all uranium based reactors with thorium based reactors

Solvency

====CP solves the aff—Thorium based reactors have much better accident safeguards, produce significantly less nuclear waste, are extremely difficult to proliferate, and thorium is mined much more environmentally friendly than uranium====
Warmflash, David. "Thorium Power Is the Safer Future of Nuclear Energy."Discover. Discover Magazine, 16 Jan. 2015. Web. 15 Aug. 2016. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2015/01/16/thorium-future-nuclear-energy/~~#.V7JsF5grKUk.
Nuclear power has long been a contentious topic. It generates huge amounts of electricity
AND
term – and to dramatically improve the world's energy sustainability in the process.

And, the CP is mutually exclusive—you can't prohibit nuclear power production and create more means to do so—perm is severance

And, 2 net benefits to the CP—it doesn't link to the Navy subs or warming DA