Tournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All
If you have any questions or just want to talk, FB message or e-mail me.
Facebook name: Jong Hak Won
e-mail: jonghak.won@gmail.com

Tournament: Berkeley | Round: 2 | Opponent: University RH | Judge: Michael Harris

1AC – Zionism

Part 1: Framework

The role of the ballot is to evaluate the simulated consequences of the affirmative policy vs a competing neg policy option to reduce material oppression.

1. The aff deploys the state to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19,
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

2. Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism,
AND
level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175)

Part 2: Plan

Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the State of Israel.

Volokh 16 ~Eugene Volokh, teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation, "University of California Board of Regents is wrong about 'anti-Zionism' on campus," The Washington Post, March 16, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/16/university-of-california-board-of-regents-is-wrong-about-anti-zionism-on-campus/?utm_term=.cfab0cd93ad6~~ JW
The University of California Board of Regents has just released its Final Report of the
AND
, universities are the very places where such matters should indeed be discussed.

Empirics prove that there is systemic obstruction of pro-Palestine activism at public colleges and universities

PL 15 ~Palestine Legal, an independent organization dedicated to defending and advancing the civil rights and liberties of people in the US who speak out for Palestinian freedom, "The Palestine Exception," September 2015, http://palestinelegal.org/the-palestine-exception~~#notes~~ JW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the last decade, a dynamic movement in support of Palestinian human
AND
200 Middle East Studies professors it declared to be "anti-Israel."

Part 3: Advantages

Advantage 1: Racism

a) Islamophobia: Suppression of pro-Palestine movements on campus denies Palestinian students the ability to form solidarity

Nadeau and Sears 11 ~Mary-Jo Nadeau and Alan Sears, Mary-Jo Nadeau teaches at the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto-Mississauga. Alan Sears teaches at the Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, Toronto. "This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus," The Bullet, March 5, 2011, http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/475.php~~ JW
The silencing campaign is particularly dangerous given the overall political climate, which facilitates the
AND
attack, and one that resonates with the neoliberal restructuring of the universities.

Attempts to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism leads to campaigns by pro-Israel groups that demean and marginalize Muslim-American students

Solomon 16 ~Daniel J. Solomon, "Inflammatory Pro-Israel Posters Pop Up on Campus — Are They Islamophobic?," Forward, October 26, 2016, http://forward.com/news/national/352698/inflammatory-pro-israel-posters-pop-up-on-campus-are-they-islamophobic/~~ JW
A row over Israel on campus is as predictable as the fall of autumn leaves
AND
over a course that presented Zionism as a "settler colonialist" movement.

b) Anti-Semitism: Conflating criticism of Israel with criticism of Jews opens up Jewish students to attacks based on Israel's actions

Benin 04 ~Joel Benin, Professor of Middle East History at Stanford University and a former president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America, "The new American McCarthyism: policing thought about the Middle East," Institute of Race Relations 0306-3968 Vol. 46(1), 1004~ JW
Academic freedom and open debate on Middle East-related issues were very badly served
AND
minded organisations exposed American Jews to attack because they were identified with Israel.

Far right positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict that lead to censorship are also what justify marginalization within Jewish communities. Empirics with Hillel International prove

JVP 15 ~Jewish Voice for Peace, "STIFLING DISSENT HOW ISRAEL'S DEFENDERS USE FALSE CHARGES OF ANTI-SEMITISM TO LIMIT THE DEBATE OVER ISRAEL ON CAMPUS," Fall 2015, https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JVP_Stifling_Dissent_Full_Report_Key_90745869.pdf~~ JW
On college campuses across the country, there has been a concerted effort to purge
AND
, marginalize dissent, and exclude students from participating in campus iJewish life.

Advantage 2: Civic Engagement

a) Encouraging discourse about foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine is uniquely good because it builds coalitions across all racial groups to inspire new dialogues. The aff spills over to other reform movements

Hallward and Shaver 12 ~Maia Carter Hallward and Patrick Shaver,  Associate Professor of Middle East Politics at American university, "''WAR by other Means'' or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley's Divestment Bill," Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research, July 2012~ JW
Finally, proponents and opponents differed in their approaches to power. Opponents of the
AND
a momentum that spilled over onto other campuses and other California BDS initiatives. 

b) Israeli companies abuse West Bank occupation for their own profit while exploiting and suppressing local Palestinians. Every dollar that the divestment strategy gains translates into increased welfare in Palestine

Press 16 ~Eyal Press, author of "Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times, "When 'Made in Israel' Is a Human Rights Abuse," New York Times, January 26, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/when-made-in-israel-is-a-human-rights-abuse.html?_r=0~~ JW
From a biblical perspective, this view may be tenable. From a legal and
AND
obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations.

Tournament: Berkeley | Round: 3 | Opponent: Mountain View MS | Judge: Adam Young

1AC

Part 1 is Framework

First is the problem: Attempting to understand agents and ethics from an idealized, static, non-violent starting point fails
Ethical decision-making is inherently discriminatory- any obligation is violent to all other obligations. If I help one person, it means I cannot spend that time helping another.
Haggulund 04, THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND, 2004, p 56.
For the same reason, Derridaʼs notion of "infinite responsibility" should not be confl ated with Levinasʼs. For Derrida, the infinitude of responsibility answers to the fact that responsibility always takes place in relation to a negative infinity of others. The negative infinity of responsibility is both spatial (innumerable fi nite others that exceed my horizon) and temporal (innumerable times past and to come that exceed my horizon). Far from conf rming Levinasʼs sense of responsibility, the negative infi nity of others is fatal for his notion of an originary encounter that would give ethics the status of "first philosophy" and be the guiding principle for a metaphysical "goodness." Even if it were possible to sacrifi ce yourself completely to another, to devote all your forces to the one who is encountered face-to-face, it would mean that you had disregarded or denied all the others who demanded your attention or needed your help. For there are always more than two, as Richard Beardsworth has aptly put it ~137~. Whenever I turn toward another I turn away from yet another, and thus exercise discrimination. As Derrida points out in The Gift of Death, "I cannot respond to the call, the demand, the obligation, or even the love of another without sacrifi cing the other other, the other others" ~68~. Consequently, Derrida emphasizes that the concept of responsibility lends itself a priori to "scandal and aporia" ~68~. There are potentially an endless number of others to consider, and one cannot take any responsibility without excluding some others in favor of certain others. What makes it possible to be responsible is thus at the same time what makes it impossible for any responsibility to be fully responsible. Responsibility, then, is always more or less discriminating, and infi nite responsibility is but another name for the necessity of discrimination.
takes out all other frameworks that rely on an idealized starting point- they fail to guide action because the create infinite contradictory obligations that produce violence.
Impact turns idealized frameworks, which try to create absolute peace. This justifies absolute violence where nothing can ever occur.
Hagglund 2""~THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND~, 2004
"A possible objection here is that we must strive toward an ideal origin or end, an arkhe or telos that would prevail beyond the possibility of violence. Even if every community is haunted by victims of discrimination and forgetting, we should try to reach a state of being that does not exclude anyone, namely, a consummated presence that includes everyone. However, it is precisely with such an "ontological" thesis that Derridaʼs hauntological thinking takes issue. At several places in Specters of Marx he maintains that a completely present life—which would not be "out of joint," not haunted by any ghosts—would be nothing but a complete death. Derridaʼs point is not simply that a peaceful state of existence is impossible to realize, as if it were a desirable, albeit unattainable end. Rather, he challenges the very idea that absolute peace is desirable. In a state of being where all violent change is precluded, nothing can ever happen. Absolute peace is thus inseparable from absolute violence, as Derrida argued already in "Violence and Metaphysics." Anything that would finally put an end to violence (whether the end is a religious salvation, a universal justice, a harmonious intersubjectivity or some other ideal) would end the possibility of life in general. The idea of absolute peace is the idea of eliminating the undecidable future that is the con- dition for anything to happen. Thus, the idea of absolute peace is the idea of absolute violence." (49)  
2. Ontological Discrimination is constitutive of any theory because it requires one to distinguish between the ethical and the unethical. Thus violence is inevitable because making a decision for something requires excluding something else.
Hagglund 3 ""~THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND~, 2004
"Derrida targets precisely this logic of opposition. As he argues in Of Grammatology, metaphysics has always regarded violence as derivative of a primary peace. The possibility of violence can thus be accounted for only in terms of a Fall, that is, in terms of a fatal corruption of a pure origin. By deconstructing this figure of thought, Derrida seeks to elucidate why violence is not merely an empirical accident that befalls something that precedes it. Rather, violence stems from an essential impropriety that does not allow anything to be sheltered from death and forgetting. Consequently, Derrida takes issue with what he calls the "ethico-theoretical decision" of metaphysics, which postulates the simple to be before the complex, the pure before the impure, the sincere before the deceitful, and so on. All divergences from the positively valued term are thus explained away as symptoms of "alienation," and the desirable is conceived as the return to what supposedly has been lost or corrupted. In contrast, Derrida argues that what makes it possible for anything to be at the same time makes it impossible for anything to be in itself. The integrity of any "positive" term is necessarily compromised and threatened by its "other." Such constitutive alterity answers to an essential corruptibility,  which undercuts all ethico-theoretical decisions of how things ought  to be in an ideal world.11 A key term here is what Derrida calls "undecidability." With this term he  designates the necessary opening toward the coming of the future. The coming of the future is strictly speaking "undecidable," since it is a relentless displacement that unsettles any defi nitive assurance or given meaning. One can never know what will have happened. Promises may always be turned into threats, friendships into enmities, fidelities into betrayals, and so on. There is no opposition between undecidability and the making of decisions. On the contrary, Derrida emphasizes that one always acts in relation to what cannot be predicted, that one always is forced to make decisions even though the consequences of these decisions cannot be finally established. Any kind of decision (ethical, political ~decision~, juridical, and so forth) is more or less violent, but it is nevertheless necessary to make decisions. Once again, I want to stress that violent differentiation by no means should be understood as a Fall, where violence supervenes upon a harmony that precedes it. On the contrary, discrimination has to be regarded as a constitutive condition. Without divisional marks—which is to say: without segregating borders—there would be nothing at all. In effect, every attempt to organize life in accordance with ethical or political prescriptions will have been marked by a fundamental duplicity. On the one hand, it is necessary to draw boundaries, to demarcate, in order to form any community whatsoever. On the other hand, it is precisely because of these excluding borders that every kind of community is characterized by a more or less palpable instability. What cannot be included opens the threat as well as the chance that the prevalent order may be transformed or subverted. In Specters of Marx, Derrida pursues this argument in terms of an originary "spec- trality." A salient connotation concerns phantoms and specters as haunting reminders of the victims of historical violence, of those who have been excluded or extinguished from the formation of a society. The notion of spectrality is not, however, exhausted by these ghosts that question the good conscience of a state, a nation, or an ideology. Rather, Derridaʼs aim is to formulate a general "hauntology" (hantologie), in contrast to the traditional "ontology" that thinks being in terms of self-identical presence. What is important about the figure of the specter, then, is that it cannot be fully present: it has no being in itself but marks a relation to what is no longer or not yet. And since time— the disjointure between past and future—is a condition even for the slightest moment, Derrida argues that spectrality is at work in everything that happens. An identity or community can never escape the machinery of exclusion, can never fail to engender ghosts, since it must demarcate itself against a past that cannot be encompassed and a future that cannot be anticipated. Inversely, it will always be threatened by what it can- not integrate in itself—haunted by the negated, the neglected, and the unforeseeable. Thus, a rigorous deconstructive thinking maintains that we are always already in- scribed in an "economy of violence" where we are both excluding and being excluded. No position can be autonomous or absolute but is necessarily bound to other positions that it violates and by which it is violated. The struggle for justice can thus not be a struggle for peace, but only for what I will call "lesser violence." Derrida himself only uses this term briefly in his essay "Violence and Metaphysics," but I will seek to develop its significance.The starting point for my argument is that all decisions made in the name of justice are made in view of what is judged to be the lesser violence. If there is always an economy of violence, decisions of justice cannot be a matter of choosing what is nonviolent. To justify something is rather to contend that it is less violent than something else. This does not mean that decisions made in view of lesser violence are actually less violent than the violence they oppose. On the contrary, even the most horrendous acts are justified in view of what is judged to be the lesser violence. For example, justifications of genocide clearly appeal to an argument for lesser violence, since the extinction of the group in question is claimed to be less violent than the dangers it poses to another group. The disquieting point, however, is that all decisions of justice are ~is~ implicated in the logic of violence. The desire for lesser violence is never innocent, since it is a desire for violence in one form or another, and here can be no guarantee that it is in the service of perpetrating the better." (46-48)
3. Basic facts are always defined by social relations. The word green only refers to the color green rather than black because socially we defined it to mean that. These social relations are based on power and exclusion.
Butler 92 (Judith 1992. "Continent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of "Postmodernism" Feminists Theorize the Political)
"In a sense, the subject is constituted through an exclusion and differentiation, perhaps a repression, that is subsequently concealed, covered over, by the effect of autonomy. In this sense, autonomy is the logical consequence of a disavowed dependency, which is to say that the autonomous subject can maintain the illusion of its autonomy insofar as it covers over the break out of which it is constituted. This dependency and this break are already social relations, ones which precede _{and condition the}formation of the _subject.As a result, this is not a relation in which the subject finds itself, as one of the relations that forms it situation. The subject is constructed through acts of exclusion and differentiation that distinguish the subject from its constitutive outside, a domain of abjected alterity. There is no ontologically intact reflexivity to the subject _{which is then}placed within a cultural context; that cultural context, as it were, is already there as the disarticulated process of _{that subject's}production, one that is concealed by the frame that would situate a ready-made subject in an external web of cultural relations. We may be tempted to think that to assume the subject in advance is necessary in order to safeguard the agency of the subject. But to claim that the subject is constituted is not to claim that it is determined; on the contrary, the constituted character of the subject is the _veryprecondition of its agency. For what is it that enables a purposive and significant reconfiguration of cultural and political relations, if not a relation that can be turned against itself, reworked, resisted? Do we need to assume theoretically from the start a subject with agency before we can articulate the terms of a significant social and political task of transformation, resistance, radical democratization? If we do not offer in advance the theoretical guarantee of that agent, are we doomed to give up transformation and meaningful political practice? My suggestion is that agency belongs to a way of thinking about persons as instrumental actors who confront an external political field. But if we agree that politics and power exist already at the level at which the subject and its agency are articulated and made possible, then agency can be presumed only at the cost of refusing to inquire into its construction. Consider that "agency" has no formal existence or, if it does, it has no bearing on the question at hand. In a sense, the epistemological model that offers us a pregiven subject or agent is one that refuses to acknowledge that agency is always and only _apolitical _prerogative. As such, it seems crucial to question the conditions of its possibility, not to take it for granted as an a priori guarantee. We need instead to ask, what possibilities of mobilization that are produced on the basis of existing configurations of discourse and power? Where are the possibilities of reworking that very matrix of power by which we are constituted, of reconstituting the legacy of that constitution, and of working against each other those processes of regulation at can destabilize existing power regimes? For if the subject is constituted by power, that power does not cease at the moment the subject is constituted, for that subject is never fully constituted, but is subjected and produced time and again. That subject is neither a ground nor a product, but the permanent possibility of a certain resignifying process, one which gets detoured and stalled through other mechanisms of power, but which is power's own possibility of being reworked. The subject is an accomplishment regulate and produced in advance. And is as such fully political; indeed, perhaps most political at the point in which it is claimed to be prior to politics itself."
Takes out all other frameworks at their highest assumption- linguistics and basic assumptions are not neutral. All other framework must resolve this problem or else people have different starting points making it impossible to create moral agreement.
Takes out frameworks that rely on a static notion of identity like state bad or Kantianism- identity is defined by the social world and basic assumptions, which are constantly in flux.  
Second is the solution:
Conflict and violence are inevitable; the only way to organize it is through agonism. It frames those with opposing views as not the enemy who must be destroy, but an adversary whose ideas should be fought. I don't pretend to resolve exclusion, I just exclude the exclusionary thing.
Mouffe 2k brackets for gendered langauge, Chantal, THE DEMOCRATIC PARADOX, 2000
One of the principal theses that I have defended in my work is that properly political questions always involve decisions which require a choice between alternatives that are undecidable from a strictly rational point of view. This is something the liberal theory cannot admit due to the inadequate way it envisages pluralism. The liberal theory recognises that we live in a world where a multiplicity of perspectives and values coexist and, for reasons it believes to be empirical, accepts that it is impossible for each of us to adopt them all. But it imagines that these perspectives and values, brought together, constitute a harmonious and non-conflictual ensemble. This type of thought is therefore incapable of accounting for the necessarily conflictual nature of pluralism, which stems from the impossibility of reconciling all points of view, and it is what leads it to negate the political in its antagonistic dimension.  I myself argue that only by taking account of the political in its dimension of antagonism can one grasp the challenge democratic politics must face. Public life will never be able to dispense with antagonism for it concerns public action and the formation of collective identities. It attempts to constitute a 'we' in a context of diversity and conflict. Yet, in order to constitute a 'we', one must distinguish it from a 'they'. Consequently, the crucial question of democratic politics is not to reach a consensus without exclusion which would amount to creating a 'we' without a corollary 'they' but to manage to establish the we/they discrimination in a manner compatible with pluralism.  According to the 'agonistic pluralism' model that I developed in The Democratic Paradox (London: Verso, 2000) and On the Political (London: Routledge, 2005), pluralist democracy is characterised by the introduction of a distinction between the categories of enemy and adversary. This means that within the 'we' that constitutes the political community, the opponent is not considered an enemy to be destroyed but an adversary whose existence is legitimate. His ~Their~ ideas will be fought with vigour but ~their~his right to defend them will never be questioned. The category of enemy does not disappear, however, for it remains pertinent with regard to those who, by questioning the very principles of pluralist democracy, cannot form part of the agonistic space. With the distinction between antagonism (friend/enemy relation) and agonism (relation between adversaries) in place, we are better able to understand why the agonistic confrontation, far from representing a danger for democracy, is in reality the very condition of its existence. Of course, democracy cannot survive without certain forms of consensus, relating to adherence to the ethico-political values that constitute its principles of legitimacy, and to the institutions in which these are inscribed. But it must also enable the expression of conflict, which requires that citizens genuinely have the possibility of choosing between real alternatives.
The standard is consistency with agonistic democracy.
Prefer the standard 

1. Agonism outweighs regardless of the role of the ballot or framework. To make claims about the structure and shape of either the activity or morality relies on the initial assumption that debaters have the ability to contest these things. This entails that higher-level deliberation and contestation about how the ballot should function or what ethics is relies on the initial AC premise.
   2. Educational spaces must embrace contestation as a condition for resistance. Any attempt to exclude challenges reaffirms pedagogical imperialism, where the teacher knows best.
   Rickert 01 ~Thomas, ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World", JacOnline Journal~
   "This essay will employ Deleuze's and Zizek's theories to illustrate the limitations of writing pedagogies that rely on modernist strategies of critical distance or political agency. Implicit in such pedagogies is the faith that teaching writing can resist dominant social practices and empower students; however, the notion that we can actually foster resistance through teaching is questionable. As Paul Mann states, "all the forms of opposition have long since revealed themselves as means of advancing it. ... The mere fact that something feels like resistance and still manages to offend a few people (usually not even the right people) hardly makes it effective" (138). In light of Mann's statement, I urge us to take the following position: teaching writing is fully complicitous with dominant social practices, and inducing students to write in accordance with institutional precepts can be as disabling as it is enabling. By disabling, I do not mean that learning certain skills-typically those most associated with current-traditional rhetorics, such as superficial forms of grammatical correctness, basic organization, syntactic clarity, and such-are not useful. Such skills are useful, and they are often those most necessary for tapping the power that writing can wield. In learning such skills, however, we should also ask what students ~aren't~ are not learning. What other forms of writing and thinking are being foreclosed or distorted, forms of writing that have their own, different powers? If one of our goals as teachers of writing is to initiate students into rhetorics of power and resistance, we should also be equally attuned to rhetorics of contestation. Specifically, we must take on the responsibility that comes with the impossibility of knowing the areas of contention and struggle that will be the most important in our students' lives. Pedagogy could reflect this concern in its practices by attending to the idea that each student's life is its own telos, meaning that the individual struggles of each student cannot and should not necessarily mirror our own. Or, to put it another way, students must sooner or later overcome us, even though we may legitimate our sense of service with the idea that we have their best interests in mind. However, we should be suspicious of this presumptive ethic, for, as Mann astutely observes, "nothing is more aggressive than the desire to serve the other" (48)
   3. Impact Calc- Consequences are irrelevant to the framework, it is about creating the procedures for agonistic discourse
   a. being denied access to discourse is not a material condition but a procedure that is created through the structure of our actions- only institutional arrangements can ensure a proper discursive sphere
   b. aggregation is impermissible under the framework- it justifies why rationality and utility calculus are bad because they rely on idealized notions of subjects that we can compare and count.
   c. Problem of induction-We have no evidence that the past can be used to predict the future. The only evidence we could point to is that in the past, the past has always been used to predict the future accurately, but that assumes what we are trying to prove.
   Vickers 14, John, 2014, The Problem of Induction, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
   The original problem of induction can be simply put. It concerns the support or justification of inductive methods; methods that predict or infer, in Hume's words, that "instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience" (THN, 89). Such methods are clearly essential in scientific reasoning as well as in the conduct of our everyday affairs. The problem is how to support or justify them and it leads to a dilemma: the principle cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent, and only necessary truths can be proved deductively. Nor can it be supported inductively—by arguing that it has always or usually been reliable in the past—for that would beg the question by assuming just what is to be proved.

Part 2 is Advocacy

I defend the text of the resolution, Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. CX clarification solves for any ambiguities in the advocacy or role of the ballot since it's whole res. 

Part 3 is Contention

1. Censorship is never justifiable since censorship relies on the assumption that some viewpoint is not legitimate enough to be voiced. Institutions should foster free speech not destroy it.
   Mouffe 2 ~Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox"~
   I submit that this is a crucial insight which undermines the very objective that those who advocate the 'ddiberative' approach present as the aim of democracy: the establishment of a rational consensus on universal principles. They believe that through rational deliberation an impartial standpoint could be reached where decisions would be taken that are equally in the interests of alt.l :! Wittgenstein, on the contrary. suggests another view. If we follow his lead. we should acknowledge and valorize the diversity of ways in which the 'democratic game' can be played, instead of trying to reduce this diversity to a uniform model of citizenship. This would mean fostering a plurality of forms of being a democratic citizen and creating the institutions that would make it possible to follow the democratic rules in a plurality of ways. What Wittgenstein teaches us is that there cannot be one single best, more 'rational' way to obey those rules and that it is precisely such a recognition that is constitutive of a pluralist democracy. 'Following a rule', says Wittgenstein, 'is analogous to obeying an order. We are trained to do so we react to an order in a particular way. But what if one person reacts in one way and another in another to the order and the training? Which one is right?'23 This is indeed a crucial question for democratic theory. And it cannot be resolved, pace the rationalists, by claiming that there is a correct understanding of the rule that every rational person should accept. To be sure, we need to be able to distinguish between 'obeying the rule' and 'going against it'. But space needs to be provided for the many different practices in which obedience to the democratic rules can be inscribed. And this should not be envisaged as a temporary accommodation, as a stage in the process leading to the realization of the rational consensus, but as a constitutive feature of a democratic society. Democratic citizenship can take many diverse forms and such a diversity, far from being a danger for democracy, is in fact its very condition of existence. This will of course, create conflict and it would be a mistake to expect all those different understandings to coexist without dashing. But this struggle will not be one between 'enemies' but among 'adversaries', since all participants will recognize the positions of the others in the contest as legitimate ones. Such an understanding of democratic politics, which is precisely what I call 'agonistic pluralism', is unthinkable within a rationalistic problematic which, by necessity. tcods to erase diversity. A perspective inspired by Wittgenstein. on the contrary, can contribute to its formulation, and this is why his contribution to democratic thinking is invaluable.
   2 Censorship destroys agonistic discourse by turning speech into a weapon. Thus we must allow all instances of disagreement, which turns PICs.
   Butler 13, Judith, "Judith Butler's Remarks to Brooklyn College on BDS," Nation, https://www.thenation.com/article/judith-butlers-remarks-brooklyn-college-bds/
   And yet all of us here have to distinguish between the right to listen to a point of view and the right to concur or dissent from that point of view; otherwise, public discourse is destroyed by censorship. I wonder, what is the fantasy of speech nursed by the censor? There must be enormous fear behind the drive to censorship, but also enormous aggression, as if we were all in a war where speech has suddenly become artillery. Is there another way to approach language and speech as we think about this issue? Is it possible that some other use of words might forestall violence, bring about a general ethos of non-violence, and so enact, and open onto, the conditions for a public discourse that welcomes and shelters disagreement, even disarray?
   3. Consequential Frameworks affirm-
   A. Empirics show reverse enforcement and increased discrimination
   Strossen 01 (Nadine, Law @NYU, Incitement to Hatred: Should There Be a Limit Copyright (c) 2001 Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University Southern Illinois University Law Journal Winter, 2001 25 S. Ill. U. L. J. 243)
   Based on actual experience and observations in countries around the world, the respected international human rights organization, Human Rights Watch, concluded that suppressing hate speech does not effectively promote equality or reduce discrimination. In 1992, Human Rights Watch issued a report and policy statement opposing any restrictions on hate speech that go beyond the narrow confines permitted by traditional First Amendment principles. Human Rights Watch's policy statement explains its position as follows: The Human Rights Watch policy attempts to apply free speech principles in the anti-discrimination context in a manner that is respectful of both concerns, believing that they are complementary, not contradictory. While we recognize that the policy is closer to the American legal approach than to that of any other nation, it was arrived at after a careful review of the experience of many other countries . . . . This review has made clear that there is little connection in practice between draconian "hate speech" laws and the lessening of ethnic and racial violence or tension. Furthermore, most of the nations which invoke "hate speech" laws have a long way to go in implementing the provisions of the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination calling for the elimination of racial discrimination. Laws that penalize speech or membership are also subject to abuse by the dominant racial or ethnic group. Some of the most stringent "hate speech" laws, for example, have long been in force in South Africa, where they have been used almost exclusively against the black majority. n42 Similar conclusions were generated by an international conference in 1991 organized by the international free speech organization, Article 19, ~*259~ which is named after the free speech guarantee in the Universal Declaration of HumanRights. That conference brought together human rights activists, lawyers, and scholars, from fifteen different countries, to compare notes on the actual impact that anti-hate-speech laws had in promoting equality, and countering bias and discrimination, in their respective countries. The conference papers were subsequently published in a book, Striking A Balance: Hate Speech, Free Speech, and Non-Discrimination. n43 The conclusion of all these papers was clear: not even any correlation, let alone any causal relationship, could be shown between the enforcement of anti-hate-speech laws by the governments in particular countries and an improvement in equality or inter-group relations in those countries. In fact, often there was an inverse relationship. These findings were summarized in the book's concluding chapter by Sandra Coliver, who was then Article 19's Legal Director: Laws which restrict hate speech have been flagrantly abused by the authorities. Thus, the laws in Sri Lanka and South Africa have been used almost exclusively against the oppressed and politically weakest communities. In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union these laws were vehicles for the persecution of critics who were often also victims of state-tolerated or sponsored anti-Semitism. Selective or lax enforcement by the authorities, including in the United Kingdom, Israel and the former Soviet Union, allows governments to compromise the right of dissent and inevitably leads to feelings of alienation among minority groups. Such laws may also distract from the need for effective legislation to promote non-discrimination. The rise of racism and xenophobia throughout Europe, despite laws restricting racist speech, calls into question the effectiveness of such laws in the promotion of tolerance and non-discrimination. One worrying phenomenon is the sanitized language now adopted to avoid prosecution by prominent racists in Britain, France, Israel and other countries, which may have the effect of making their hateful messages more acceptable to a broader audience. n44
   B. Free speech on campus allows students to become critical advocators who demand liberation themselves
   DeBrabander 15: DeBrabander, Firmin. ~Associate Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art~ "Do Guns Make Us Free?: Democracy and the Armed Society." Yale University Press, May 19, 2015
   The famed education theorist Paolo Freire called mistrust a major tool of oppression. Freire was interested in educating the children of oppressed populations with a view to politically empowering them, teaching them to act and behave as invested, willful citizens such as democracy requires. In his most important work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire deplores what he calls the "banking concept" of education, whereby students are deemed fit only to fill up with useful information, digested via rote learning, so that they might become cogs in the machine of society, or in some cases, members of an existing oppressive system. 60 Freire wished that schools might produce individuals who could think critically for themselves, demand their rights, and freely choose their own paths. To that end, he favors "dialogical theory of education," which he describes as follows: "problem-posing education, which breaks with the vertical patterns characteristic of banking education, can fulfill its function as the practice of freedom only if … the teacher-of-the-students and the students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacher-student with students-teacher." 61 Dialogue carried out in this manner, problem-posing engaged in collectively by students and teachers, produces a community of questioners in the classroom. It introduces a horizontal relationship— a fundamental equality that will later be politically significant for emergent citizens. Most colleges in twenty-first-century America take Freire's approach— it's how they already conduct learning in the classroom: faculty are urged to create a decentered classroom where students are not intimidated by professors lecturing from the podium, but rather, engaged in discussion— and direct questioning— by professors who are seated at the same table as students, and who encourage students to speak their minds and experiment with their thoughts. Obviously, Freire's account does not map neatly onto, say, the kindergarten classroom. Children that age need a disciplinary figure, and democracy should not necessarily reign in kindergarten. But, Freire would say, his basic theory bears important intuitions even there: we must still strive to make young students responsive and critical learners, and teach them as far possible horizontally and collaboratively. They are not simply to be lectured to.

Tournament: Berkeley | Round: 5 | Opponent: Harker SS | Judge: Michael OKrent

1AC – Zionism

Part 1: Framework

The role of the ballot is to evaluate the simulated consequences of the affirmative policy vs a competing neg policy option to reduce material oppression.

1. The aff deploys the state to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19,
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

2. Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism,
AND
level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175)

Part 2: Plan

Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the State of Israel.

Volokh 16 ~Eugene Volokh, teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation, "University of California Board of Regents is wrong about 'anti-Zionism' on campus," The Washington Post, March 16, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/16/university-of-california-board-of-regents-is-wrong-about-anti-zionism-on-campus/?utm_term=.cfab0cd93ad6~~ JW
The University of California Board of Regents has just released its Final Report of the
AND
, universities are the very places where such matters should indeed be discussed.

Empirics prove that there is systemic obstruction of pro-Palestine activism at public colleges and universities

PL 15 ~Palestine Legal, an independent organization dedicated to defending and advancing the civil rights and liberties of people in the US who speak out for Palestinian freedom, "The Palestine Exception," September 2015, http://palestinelegal.org/the-palestine-exception~~#notes~~ JW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the last decade, a dynamic movement in support of Palestinian human
AND
200 Middle East Studies professors it declared to be "anti-Israel."

Part 3: Advantages

Advantage 1: Racism

a) Islamophobia: Suppression of pro-Palestine movements on campus denies Palestinian students the ability to form solidarity

Nadeau and Sears 11 ~Mary-Jo Nadeau and Alan Sears, Mary-Jo Nadeau teaches at the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto-Mississauga. Alan Sears teaches at the Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, Toronto. "This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus," The Bullet, March 5, 2011, http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/475.php~~ JW
The silencing campaign is particularly dangerous given the overall political climate, which facilitates the
AND
attack, and one that resonates with the neoliberal restructuring of the universities.

Attempts to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism leads to campaigns by pro-Israel groups that demean and marginalize Muslim-American students

Solomon 16 ~Daniel J. Solomon, "Inflammatory Pro-Israel Posters Pop Up on Campus — Are They Islamophobic?," Forward, October 26, 2016, http://forward.com/news/national/352698/inflammatory-pro-israel-posters-pop-up-on-campus-are-they-islamophobic/~~ JW
A row over Israel on campus is as predictable as the fall of autumn leaves
AND
over a course that presented Zionism as a "settler colonialist" movement.

b) Anti-Semitism: Conflating criticism of Israel with criticism of Jews opens up Jewish students to attacks based on Israel's actions

Benin 04 ~Joel Benin, Professor of Middle East History at Stanford University and a former president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America, "The new American McCarthyism: policing thought about the Middle East," Institute of Race Relations 0306-3968 Vol. 46(1), 1004~ JW
Academic freedom and open debate on Middle East-related issues were very badly served
AND
minded organisations exposed American Jews to attack because they were identified with Israel.

Far right positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict that lead to censorship are also what justify marginalization within Jewish communities. Empirics with Hillel International prove

JVP 15 ~Jewish Voice for Peace, "STIFLING DISSENT HOW ISRAEL'S DEFENDERS USE FALSE CHARGES OF ANTI-SEMITISM TO LIMIT THE DEBATE OVER ISRAEL ON CAMPUS," Fall 2015, https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JVP_Stifling_Dissent_Full_Report_Key_90745869.pdf~~ JW
On college campuses across the country, there has been a concerted effort to purge
AND
, marginalize dissent, and exclude students from participating in campus iJewish life.

Advantage 2: Civic Engagement

a) Encouraging discourse about foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine is uniquely good because it builds coalitions across all racial groups to inspire new dialogues. The aff spills over to other reform movements

Hallward and Shaver 12 ~Maia Carter Hallward and Patrick Shaver,  Associate Professor of Middle East Politics at American university, "''WAR by other Means'' or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley's Divestment Bill," Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research, July 2012~ JW
Finally, proponents and opponents differed in their approaches to power. Opponents of the
AND
a momentum that spilled over onto other campuses and other California BDS initiatives. 

b) Israeli companies abuse West Bank occupation for their own profit while exploiting and suppressing local Palestinians. Every dollar that the divestment strategy gains translates into increased welfare in Palestine

Press 16 ~Eyal Press, author of "Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times, "When 'Made in Israel' Is a Human Rights Abuse," New York Times, January 26, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/when-made-in-israel-is-a-human-rights-abuse.html?_r=0~~ JW
From a biblical perspective, this view may be tenable. From a legal and
AND
obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations.

Tournament: CPS | Round: 1 | Opponent: Polytechnic EM | Judge: Jackson Lallas

1AC – CPS

Part 1: Framework

Attempting to understand beings, communities, and ethics as pure will inevitably fail:

1. There is no possibility of understanding people in and of themselves. All identities are understood through the differentiation of social relations, which are by necessity constantly changing.

Butler 92 (Judith Butler. 1992. "Continent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of "Postmodernism" Feminists Theorize the Political)
"In a sense, the subject is constituted through an _{exclusion and}differentiation,
AND
the point in which it is claimed to be prior to politics itself." 

Implications:

A. Ethics has to start with the self – otherwise it can't guide action because its principle doesn't have a claim on what I ought to do. But, there is no single stable self. Any attempt to theorize the self would fail to understand the ontological status of the agent. Mills  ~Charles W. Mills, "Ideal Theory" as Ideology, 2005~

"An idealized social ontology. Moral~ity~ theory deals with the normative, but it cannot avoid some characterization of the human beings who make up the society, and whose interactions with one another are its subject. So some overt or tacit social ontology has to be presupposed. An idealized social ontology of the modern type (as against, say, a Platonic or Aristotelian type) will typically assume the abstract and undifferentiated equal atomic individuals of classical liberalism. Thus it will abstract away from relations of structural domination, exploitation, coercion, and oppression, which in reality, of course, will pro- foundly shape the ontology of those same individuals, locating them in superior and inferior positions in social hierarchies of various kinds." (168)

B. Constraints K impacts – a social ontology conditions the subject in a way that resists concrete and structural inequalities, that's a second implication from Mills.

2. Discrimination is constitutive of any moral theory because it requires one to distinguish between the ethical and anti-ethical. Differentiation becomes a condition for any decision, so justice is found in violence.

Hagglund ""~THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND~
"Derrida targets precisely this logic of opposition. As he argues in Of Grammatology
AND
is in the service of perpetrating the better." (46-48) 

====Impacts:====

====A. Controls the internal link to every other framework because any theory requires us to choose a conception of morality otherwise they are baseless and cannot prescribe an obligation. So, other theories would have to concede exclusion of beliefs as a condition for their normativity in the first place. ====

====B. Precedes idealized frameworks. The belief in absolute peace is self-contradictory and justifies absolute violence. ====
Hagglund 2"~THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND~
"A possible objection here is that we must striv~ing~e toward
AND
idea of absolute peace is the idea of absolute violence." (49)  

And, democratic agonism is the only thing that can overcome ontological violence:

1. The only way to resolve the inevitable conflict that comes with pluralism in our agency and ethics is to embrace that it is in fact inevitable. This requires an agonistic commitment, which recognizes that conflict is inevitable, but frames the other as a legitimate opponent instead of an enemy.

Mouffe 2k ~Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox"~
"A well-functioning democracy calls for a vibrant clash of democratic political positions
AND
antagonisms that can tear up the very basis of civility." (104)

2. Aiming toward consensus is a false goal because consensus is impossible, difference in inevitable. Contestation is key. Dividing people up and treating them as enemies is also a false goal because it denies that the existence of their opposing identity is what constructs yours.

Thus, the standard is promoting agonistic democracy. To clarify, it's a question of creating procedural elements that allow discussion, not specific ends. Prefer additionally:

1. Educational spaces must embrace contestation as a condition for resistance. Any attempt to exclude challenges reaffirms pedagogical imperialism.

Rickert 01 ~Thomas, ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World", JacOnline Journal~
"This essay will employ Deleuze's and Zizek's theories to illustrate the limitations of writing
AND
is more aggressive than the desire to serve the other" (48)

2. Agonism outweighs regardless of the role of the ballot. To make claims about the structure and shape of the activity relies on the initial assumption that debaters have the ability to contest the structure our activity.  This entails that higher-level deliberation and contestation about what judges should do or how the ballot should function relies on the initial AC premise.

3. Agonism controls the ability for us to engage in activism to solve oppression.

Harrigan 08 ~Casey, Associate Director of Debate at UGA, Master's in Communications – Wake Forest U., "A Defense of Switch Side Debate", Master's thesis at Wake Forest, Department of Communication, May, pp.43-45~
The Relevance Of Argumentation For Advancing Tolerant Politics Cannot Be Underestimated. The willingness to
AND
may be one of the most robust checks against violence in contemporary society.

4. Impact Calc: The framework is not consequentialist, rather, it cares about creating the structures that allow for agonistic deliberation.

Mouffe 2 ~Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox"~
"Following that line of thought we can realize that what is really at stake
AND
the types of practices and not the forms of argumentation." (95)

Part 2: Advocacy

I defend the resolution, resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. I will grant neg links to all disads, they just are irrelevant underneath aff framing.

Part 3: Contention

Subpoint A is intelligibility:

Censorship on college campuses is being used to stifle democratic thought itself. Sevcenko 16 ~Catherine Sevcenko, Email Congress about Campus Censorship Today, March 3, 2016, https://www.thefire.org/email-congress-about-campus-censorship-today/~~====
Nevertheless, colleges and universities have stifled political debate on campus on numerous occasions, especially advocacy for a particular candidate, on the mistaken ground that if Students for ~Insert Candidate's Name Here~ is allowed to advocate on campus, the school will lose its tax-exempt status and likely be put out of business. Educational institutions are, understandably, extremely careful not to do anything that might jeopardize their tax-exempt status. The IRS is equally zealous in making sure that institutions who have this benefit adhere to the rules needed to maintain it. So the incentive for schools to take a "better safe than sorry" approach to the regulations is high—even if it means censoring student speech.

Agonism forces everyone to acknowledge each other's beliefs as structurally legitimate to have engagement.

Mouffe 2 ~Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox"~
I submit that this is a crucial insight which undermines the very objective that those
AND
formulation, and this is why his contribution to democratic thinking is invaluable.

This means censorship is never justifiable since censorship relies on the assumption that some viewpoint is not legitimate enough to be voiced.

Pohlhaus and Wright. ~Using Wittgenstein Critically: A Political Approach to Philosophy Author(s): Gaile Pohlhaus and John R. Wright~
 Insofar as a plurality of positions can be accommodated within the 'we' through which
AND
In other words, by saying that they do not have to answer m 

Subpoint B is Discussion

Silencing bigots only re-entrenches their position and galvanizes their opposition to social justice movements

Levinovitz 16 ~Alan Levinovitz, assistant professor of religion at James Madison University, "How Trigger Warnings Silence Religious Students," The Atlantic, August 30, 2016, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/silencing-religious-students-on-campus/497951/~~ JW
 There is no doubt that in America, the perspective of white, heterosexual
AND
deeply held beliefs. It would be a shame to execute him again.

Allowing for freedom of discussion solves better for issues of hate speech.

ACLU ~American Civil Liberties Union, Hate Speech On Campus, https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus~~
Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more
AND
, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance. 

Censorship is deconstructive and regressive and turns any criticism – blocking the freedom of speech will only guarantee the domination of current prevailing discursive practices.

Ward 90 ( David V.  Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy at Widener University in Pennsylvania.    "Library Trends" Philosophical Issues in Censorship and Intellectual Freedom, Volume 39, Nos 1 and 2. Summer/Fall 1990. Pages 86-87)
Second, even if the opinion some wish to censor is largely false, it
AND
, rights to both free expression and access to the expressions of others. 

Subpoint C is adversarial democracy

Free speech was written into the constitution explicitly to be a counter-majoritarian right to promote agonistic discourse

Redish and Mollen 09 ~Martin H. Redish, Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy, Northwestern University School of Law, Abby Marie Mollen, B.A. 2001, J.D. 2008, Northwestern University, "UNDERSTANDING POST'S AND MEIKLEJOHN'S MISTAKES: THE CENTRAL ROLE OF ADVERSARY DEMOCRACY IN THE THEORY OF FREE EXPRESSION," Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 103, No. 3, 2009~ JW
According to Mansbridge, "the framers of the American Constitution explicitly espoused a philosophy
AND
individual autonomy, they constitutionalize individual interest and the conflict it may produce.

Tournament: CPS | Round: 4 | Opponent: Ashland NL | Judge: Charlotte Lawrence

1AC – CPS

Part 1: Framework

Attempting to understand beings, communities, and ethics as pure will inevitably fail:

1. There is no possibility of understanding people in and of themselves. All identities are understood through the differentiation of social relations, which are by necessity constantly changing.

Butler 92 (Judith Butler. 1992. "Continent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of "Postmodernism" Feminists Theorize the Political)
"In a sense, the subject is constituted through an _{exclusion and}differentiation,
AND
the point in which it is claimed to be prior to politics itself." 

Implications:

A. Ethics has to start with the self – otherwise it can't guide action because its principle doesn't have a claim on what I ought to do. But, there is no single stable self. Any attempt to theorize the self would fail to understand the ontological status of the agent. Mills  ~Charles W. Mills, "Ideal Theory" as Ideology, 2005~

"An idealized social ontology. Moral~ity~ theory deals with the normative, but it cannot avoid some characterization of the human beings who make up the society, and whose interactions with one another are its subject. So some overt or tacit social ontology has to be presupposed. An idealized social ontology of the modern type (as against, say, a Platonic or Aristotelian type) will typically assume the abstract and undifferentiated equal atomic individuals of classical liberalism. Thus it will abstract away from relations of structural domination, exploitation, coercion, and oppression, which in reality, of course, will pro- foundly shape the ontology of those same individuals, locating them in superior and inferior positions in social hierarchies of various kinds." (168)

B. Constraints K impacts – a social ontology conditions the subject in a way that resists concrete and structural inequalities, that's a second implication from Mills.

2. Discrimination is constitutive of any moral theory because it requires one to distinguish between the ethical and anti-ethical. Differentiation becomes a condition for any decision, so justice is found in violence.

Hagglund ""~THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND~
"Derrida targets precisely this logic of opposition. As he argues in Of Grammatology
AND
is in the service of perpetrating the better." (46-48) 

====Impacts:====

====A. Controls the internal link to every other framework because any theory requires us to choose a conception of morality otherwise they are baseless and cannot prescribe an obligation. So, other theories would have to concede exclusion of beliefs as a condition for their normativity in the first place. ====

====B. Precedes idealized frameworks. The belief in absolute peace is self-contradictory and justifies absolute violence. ====
Hagglund 2"~THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND~
"A possible objection here is that we must striv~ing~e toward
AND
idea of absolute peace is the idea of absolute violence." (49)  

And, democratic agonism is the only thing that can overcome ontological violence:

The only way to resolve the inevitable conflict that comes with pluralism in our agency and ethics is to embrace that it is in fact inevitable. This requires an agonistic commitment, which recognizes that conflict is inevitable, but frames the other as a legitimate opponent instead of an enemy.

Mouffe 2k ~Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox"~
"A well-functioning democracy calls for a vibrant clash of democratic political positions
AND
antagonisms that can tear up the very basis of civility." (104)

Thus, the standard is promoting agonistic democracy. To clarify, it's a question of creating procedural elements that allow discussion, not specific ends. Prefer additionally:

1. Educational spaces must embrace contestation as a condition for resistance. Any attempt to exclude challenges reaffirms pedagogical imperialism.

Rickert 01 ~Thomas, ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World", JacOnline Journal~
"This essay will employ Deleuze's and Zizek's theories to illustrate the limitations of writing
AND
is more aggressive than the desire to serve the other" (48)

2. Agonism controls the ability for us to engage in activism to solve oppression.

Harrigan 08 ~Casey, Associate Director of Debate at UGA, Master's in Communications – Wake Forest U., "A Defense of Switch Side Debate", Master's thesis at Wake Forest, Department of Communication, May, pp.43-45~
The Relevance Of Argumentation For Advancing Tolerant Politics Cannot Be Underestimated. The willingness to
AND
may be one of the most robust checks against violence in contemporary society.

Part 2: Advocacy

I defend the resolution, resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. I will grant neg links to all disads, they just are irrelevant underneath aff framing.

Part 3: Contention

Subpoint A is intelligibility:

Censorship on college campuses is being used to stifle democratic thought itself. Sevcenko 16 ~Catherine Sevcenko, Email Congress about Campus Censorship Today, March 3, 2016, https://www.thefire.org/email-congress-about-campus-censorship-today/~~====
Nevertheless, colleges and universities have stifled political debate on campus on numerous occasions, especially advocacy for a particular candidate, on the mistaken ground that if Students for ~Insert Candidate's Name Here~ is allowed to advocate on campus, the school will lose its tax-exempt status and likely be put out of business.
Educational institutions are, understandably, extremely careful not to do anything that might jeopardize
AND
to the regulations is high—even if it means censoring student speech.

Agonism forces everyone to acknowledge each other's beliefs as structurally legitimate to have engagement.

Mouffe 2 ~Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox"~
I submit that this is a crucial insight which undermines the very objective that those
AND
formulation, and this is why his contribution to democratic thinking is invaluable.

This means censorship is never justifiable since censorship relies on the assumption that some viewpoint is not legitimate enough to be voiced.

Pohlhaus and Wright. ~Using Wittgenstein Critically: A Political Approach to Philosophy Author(s): Gaile Pohlhaus and John R. Wright~
 Insofar as a plurality of positions can be accommodated within the 'we' through which
AND
In other words, by saying that they do not have to answer m 

Subpoint B is Discussion

Silencing bigots only re-entrenches their position and galvanizes their opposition to social justice movements

Levinovitz 16 ~Alan Levinovitz, assistant professor of religion at James Madison University, "How Trigger Warnings Silence Religious Students," The Atlantic, August 30, 2016, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/silencing-religious-students-on-campus/497951/~~ JW
 There is no doubt that in America, the perspective of white, heterosexual
AND
deeply held beliefs. It would be a shame to execute him again.

Allowing for freedom of discussion solves better for issues of hate speech.

ACLU ~Hate Speech On Campus, https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus~~
Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more
AND
, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance. 

Censorship is deconstructive and regressive and turns any criticism – blocking the freedom of speech will only guarantee the domination of current prevailing discursive practices.

Ward 90 ( David V.  Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy at Widener University in Pennsylvania.    "Library Trends" Philosophical Issues in Censorship and Intellectual Freedom, Volume 39, Nos 1 and 2. Summer/Fall 1990. Pages 86-87)
Second, even if the opinion some wish to censor is largely false, it
AND
, rights to both free expression and access to the expressions of others. 

Part 4: Underview

Tournament: CPS | Round: 5 | Opponent: Lynbrook YZ | Judge: Salim Damerdji

1AC – CPS

Part 1: Framework

Attempting to understand beings, communities, and ethics as pure will inevitably fail:

1. There is no possibility of understanding people in and of themselves. All identities are understood through the differentiation of social relations, which are by necessity constantly changing.

Butler 92 (Judith Butler. 1992. "Continent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of "Postmodernism" Feminists Theorize the Political)
"In a sense, the subject is constituted through an _{exclusion and}differentiation,
AND
the point in which it is claimed to be prior to politics itself." 

Implications:

A. Ethics has to start with the self – otherwise it can't guide action because its principle doesn't have a claim on what I ought to do. But, there is no single stable self. Any attempt to theorize the self would fail to understand the ontological status of the agent. Mills  ~Charles W. Mills, "Ideal Theory" as Ideology, 2005~

"An idealized social ontology. Moral~ity~ theory deals with the normative, but it cannot avoid some characterization of the human beings who make up the society, and whose interactions with one another are its subject. So some overt or tacit social ontology has to be presupposed. An idealized social ontology of the modern type (as against, say, a Platonic or Aristotelian type) will typically assume the abstract and undifferentiated equal atomic individuals of classical liberalism. Thus it will abstract away from relations of structural domination, exploitation, coercion, and oppression, which in reality, of course, will pro- foundly shape the ontology of those same individuals, locating them in superior and inferior positions in social hierarchies of various kinds." (168)

B. Constraints K impacts – a social ontology conditions the subject in a way that resists concrete and structural inequalities, that's a second implication from Mills.

2. Discrimination is constitutive of any moral theory because it requires one to distinguish between the ethical and anti-ethical. Differentiation becomes a condition for any decision, so justice is found in violence.

Hagglund ""~THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND~
"Derrida targets precisely this logic of opposition. As he argues in Of Grammatology
AND
is in the service of perpetrating the better." (46-48) 

====Impacts:====

====A. Controls the internal link to every other framework because any theory requires us to choose a conception of morality otherwise they are baseless and cannot prescribe an obligation. So, other theories would have to concede exclusion of beliefs as a condition for their normativity in the first place. ====

====B. Precedes idealized frameworks. The belief in absolute peace is self-contradictory and justifies absolute violence. ====
Hagglund 2"~THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND~
"A possible objection here is that we must striv~ing~e toward
AND
idea of absolute peace is the idea of absolute violence." (49)  

And, democratic agonism is the only thing that can overcome ontological violence:

1. The only way to resolve the inevitable conflict that comes with pluralism in our agency and ethics is to embrace that it is in fact inevitable. This requires an agonistic commitment, which recognizes that conflict is inevitable, but frames the other as a legitimate opponent instead of an enemy.

Mouffe 2k ~Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox"~
"A well-functioning democracy calls for a vibrant clash of democratic political positions
AND
antagonisms that can tear up the very basis of civility." (104)

2. Aiming toward consensus is a false goal because consensus is impossible, difference in inevitable. Contestation is key. Dividing people up and treating them as enemies is also a false goal because it denies that the existence of their opposing identity is what constructs yours.

Thus, the standard is promoting agonistic democracy. To clarify, it's a question of creating procedural elements that allow discussion, not specific ends. Prefer additionally:

1. Educational spaces must embrace contestation as a condition for resistance. Any attempt to exclude challenges reaffirms pedagogical imperialism.

Rickert 01 ~Thomas, ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World", JacOnline Journal~
"This essay will employ Deleuze's and Zizek's theories to illustrate the limitations of writing
AND
is more aggressive than the desire to serve the other" (48)

2. Agonism outweighs regardless of the role of the ballot. To make claims about the structure and shape of the activity relies on the initial assumption that debaters have the ability to contest the structure our activity.  This entails that higher-level deliberation and contestation about what judges should do or how the ballot should function relies on the initial AC premise.

3. Agonism controls the ability for us to engage in activism to solve oppression.

Harrigan 08 ~Casey, Associate Director of Debate at UGA, Master's in Communications – Wake Forest U., "A Defense of Switch Side Debate", Master's thesis at Wake Forest, Department of Communication, May, pp.43-45~
The Relevance Of Argumentation For Advancing Tolerant Politics Cannot Be Underestimated. The willingness to
AND
may be one of the most robust checks against violence in contemporary society.

4. Impact Calc: The framework is not consequentialist, rather, it cares about creating the structures that allow for agonistic deliberation.

Mouffe 2 ~Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox"~
"Following that line of thought we can realize that what is really at stake
AND
the types of practices and not the forms of argumentation." (95)

Part 2: Advocacy

I defend the resolution, resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. I will grant neg links to all disads, they just are irrelevant underneath aff framing.

Part 3: Contention

Subpoint A is intelligibility:

Censorship on college campuses is being used to stifle democratic thought itself. Sevcenko 16 ~Catherine Sevcenko, Email Congress about Campus Censorship Today, March 3, 2016, https://www.thefire.org/email-congress-about-campus-censorship-today/~~====
Nevertheless, colleges and universities have stifled political debate on campus on numerous occasions, especially advocacy for a particular candidate, on the mistaken ground that if Students for ~Insert Candidate's Name Here~ is allowed to advocate on campus, the school will lose its tax-exempt status and likely be put out of business.
Educational institutions are, understandably, extremely careful not to do anything that might jeopardize
AND
to the regulations is high—even if it means censoring student speech.

Agonism forces everyone to acknowledge each other's beliefs as structurally legitimate to have engagement.

Mouffe 2 ~Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox"~
I submit that this is a crucial insight which undermines the very objective that those
AND
formulation, and this is why his contribution to democratic thinking is invaluable.

This means censorship is never justifiable since censorship relies on the assumption that some viewpoint is not legitimate enough to be voiced.

Pohlhaus and Wright. ~Using Wittgenstein Critically: A Political Approach to Philosophy Author(s): Gaile Pohlhaus and John R. Wright~
 Insofar as a plurality of positions can be accommodated within the 'we' through which
AND
In other words, by saying that they do not have to answer m 

Subpoint B is Discussion

Silencing bigots only re-entrenches their position and galvanizes their opposition to social justice movements

Levinovitz 16 ~Alan Levinovitz, assistant professor of religion at James Madison University, "How Trigger Warnings Silence Religious Students," The Atlantic, August 30, 2016, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/silencing-religious-students-on-campus/497951/~~ JW
 There is no doubt that in America, the perspective of white, heterosexual
AND
deeply held beliefs. It would be a shame to execute him again.

Allowing for freedom of discussion solves better for issues of hate speech.

ACLU ~Hate Speech On Campus, https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus~~
Where racist, sexist and homophobic speech is concerned, the ACLU believes that more
AND
, possibly change them, and forge solidarity against the forces of intolerance. 

Censorship is deconstructive and regressive and turns any criticism – blocking the freedom of speech will only guarantee the domination of current prevailing discursive practices.

Ward 90 ( David V.  Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy at Widener University in Pennsylvania.    "Library Trends" Philosophical Issues in Censorship and Intellectual Freedom, Volume 39, Nos 1 and 2. Summer/Fall 1990. Pages 86-87)
Second, even if the opinion some wish to censor is largely false, it
AND
, rights to both free expression and access to the expressions of others.

Tournament: Cal RR | Round: 2 | Opponent: Dougherty Valley CS | Judge: Knell, Phillips

1AC – Zionism

Part 1: Framework

The role of the ballot is to evaluate the simulated consequences of the affirmative policy vs a competing neg policy option to reduce material oppression.

1. The aff deploys the state to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19,
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

2. Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism,
AND
level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175)

Part 2: Plan

Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the State of Israel.

Volokh 16 ~Eugene Volokh, teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation, "University of California Board of Regents is wrong about 'anti-Zionism' on campus," The Washington Post, March 16, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/16/university-of-california-board-of-regents-is-wrong-about-anti-zionism-on-campus/?utm_term=.cfab0cd93ad6~~ JW
The University of California Board of Regents has just released its Final Report of the
AND
, universities are the very places where such matters should indeed be discussed.

Empirics prove that there is systemic obstruction of pro-Palestine activism at public colleges and universities

PL 15 ~Palestine Legal, an independent organization dedicated to defending and advancing the civil rights and liberties of people in the US who speak out for Palestinian freedom, "The Palestine Exception," September 2015, http://palestinelegal.org/the-palestine-exception~~#notes~~ JW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the last decade, a dynamic movement in support of Palestinian human
AND
200 Middle East Studies professors it declared to be "anti-Israel."

Part 3: Advantages

Advantage 1: Racism

a) Islamophobia: Suppression of pro-Palestine movements on campus denies Palestinian students the ability to form solidarity

Nadeau and Sears 11 ~Mary-Jo Nadeau and Alan Sears, Mary-Jo Nadeau teaches at the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto-Mississauga. Alan Sears teaches at the Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, Toronto. "This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus," The Bullet, March 5, 2011, http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/475.php~~ JW
The silencing campaign is particularly dangerous given the overall political climate, which facilitates the
AND
attack, and one that resonates with the neoliberal restructuring of the universities.

Attempts to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism leads to campaigns by pro-Israel groups that demean and marginalize Muslim-American students

Solomon 16 ~Daniel J. Solomon, "Inflammatory Pro-Israel Posters Pop Up on Campus — Are They Islamophobic?," Forward, October 26, 2016, http://forward.com/news/national/352698/inflammatory-pro-israel-posters-pop-up-on-campus-are-they-islamophobic/~~ JW
A row over Israel on campus is as predictable as the fall of autumn leaves
AND
over a course that presented Zionism as a "settler colonialist" movement.

b) Anti-Semitism: Conflating criticism of Israel with criticism of Jews opens up Jewish students to attacks based on Israel's actions

Benin 04 ~Joel Benin, Professor of Middle East History at Stanford University and a former president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America, "The new American McCarthyism: policing thought about the Middle East," Institute of Race Relations 0306-3968 Vol. 46(1), 1004~ JW
Academic freedom and open debate on Middle East-related issues were very badly served
AND
minded organisations exposed American Jews to attack because they were identified with Israel.

Far right positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict that lead to censorship are also what justify marginalization within Jewish communities. Empirics with Hillel International prove

JVP 15 ~Jewish Voice for Peace, "STIFLING DISSENT HOW ISRAEL'S DEFENDERS USE FALSE CHARGES OF ANTI-SEMITISM TO LIMIT THE DEBATE OVER ISRAEL ON CAMPUS," Fall 2015, https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JVP_Stifling_Dissent_Full_Report_Key_90745869.pdf~~ JW
On college campuses across the country, there has been a concerted effort to purge
AND
, marginalize dissent, and exclude students from participating in campus iJewish life.

Advantage 2: Civic Engagement

Encouraging discourse about foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine is uniquely good because it builds coalitions across all racial groups to inspire new dialogues. The aff spills over to other reform movements

Hallward and Shaver 12 ~Maia Carter Hallward and Patrick Shaver,  Associate Professor of Middle East Politics at American university, "''WAR by other Means'' or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley's Divestment Bill," Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research, July 2012~ JW
Finally, proponents and opponents differed in their approaches to power. Opponents of the
AND
a momentum that spilled over onto other campuses and other California BDS initiatives. 

Israeli companies abuse West Bank occupation for their own profit while exploiting and suppressing local Palestinians. Every dollar that the divestment strategy gains translates into increased welfare in Palestine

Press 16 ~Eyal Press, author of "Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times, "When 'Made in Israel' Is a Human Rights Abuse," New York Times, January 26, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/when-made-in-israel-is-a-human-rights-abuse.html?_r=0~~ JW
From a biblical perspective, this view may be tenable. From a legal and
AND
obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations.

Tournament: Cal RR | Round: 4 | Opponent: Kinkaid JY | Judge: Phillips, Blumenthal

1AC – Zionism

Part 1: Framework

The role of the ballot is to evaluate the simulated consequences of the affirmative policy vs a competing neg policy option to reduce material oppression.

1. The aff deploys the state to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19,
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

2. Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism,
AND
level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175)

Part 2: Plan

Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the State of Israel.

Volokh 16 ~Eugene Volokh, teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation, "University of California Board of Regents is wrong about 'anti-Zionism' on campus," The Washington Post, March 16, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/16/university-of-california-board-of-regents-is-wrong-about-anti-zionism-on-campus/?utm_term=.cfab0cd93ad6~~ JW
The University of California Board of Regents has just released its Final Report of the
AND
, universities are the very places where such matters should indeed be discussed.

Empirics prove that there is systemic obstruction of pro-Palestine activism at public colleges and universities

PL 15 ~Palestine Legal, an independent organization dedicated to defending and advancing the civil rights and liberties of people in the US who speak out for Palestinian freedom, "The Palestine Exception," September 2015, http://palestinelegal.org/the-palestine-exception~~#notes~~ JW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the last decade, a dynamic movement in support of Palestinian human
AND
200 Middle East Studies professors it declared to be "anti-Israel."

Part 3: Advantages

Advantage 1: Racism

a) Islamophobia: Suppression of pro-Palestine movements on campus denies Palestinian students the ability to form solidarity

Nadeau and Sears 11 ~Mary-Jo Nadeau and Alan Sears, Mary-Jo Nadeau teaches at the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto-Mississauga. Alan Sears teaches at the Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, Toronto. "This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus," The Bullet, March 5, 2011, http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/475.php~~ JW
The silencing campaign is particularly dangerous given the overall political climate, which facilitates the
AND
attack, and one that resonates with the neoliberal restructuring of the universities.

Attempts to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism leads to campaigns by pro-Israel groups that demean and marginalize Muslim-American students

Solomon 16 ~Daniel J. Solomon, "Inflammatory Pro-Israel Posters Pop Up on Campus — Are They Islamophobic?," Forward, October 26, 2016, http://forward.com/news/national/352698/inflammatory-pro-israel-posters-pop-up-on-campus-are-they-islamophobic/~~ JW
A row over Israel on campus is as predictable as the fall of autumn leaves
AND
over a course that presented Zionism as a "settler colonialist" movement.

b) Anti-Semitism: Conflating criticism of Israel with criticism of Jews opens up Jewish students to attacks based on Israel's actions

Benin 04 ~Joel Benin, Professor of Middle East History at Stanford University and a former president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America, "The new American McCarthyism: policing thought about the Middle East," Institute of Race Relations 0306-3968 Vol. 46(1), 1004~ JW
Academic freedom and open debate on Middle East-related issues were very badly served
AND
minded organisations exposed American Jews to attack because they were identified with Israel.

Far right positions on the Israel-Palestine conflict that lead to censorship are also what justify marginalization within Jewish communities. Empirics with Hillel International prove

JVP 15 ~Jewish Voice for Peace, "STIFLING DISSENT HOW ISRAEL'S DEFENDERS USE FALSE CHARGES OF ANTI-SEMITISM TO LIMIT THE DEBATE OVER ISRAEL ON CAMPUS," Fall 2015, https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JVP_Stifling_Dissent_Full_Report_Key_90745869.pdf~~ JW
On college campuses across the country, there has been a concerted effort to purge
AND
, marginalize dissent, and exclude students from participating in campus iJewish life.

Advantage 2: Civic Engagement

a) Encouraging discourse about foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine is uniquely good because it builds coalitions across all racial groups to inspire new dialogues. The aff spills over to other reform movements

Hallward and Shaver 12 ~Maia Carter Hallward and Patrick Shaver,  Associate Professor of Middle East Politics at American university, "''WAR by other Means'' or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley's Divestment Bill," Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research, July 2012~ JW
Finally, proponents and opponents differed in their approaches to power. Opponents of the
AND
a momentum that spilled over onto other campuses and other California BDS initiatives. 

b) Israeli companies abuse West Bank occupation for their own profit while exploiting and suppressing local Palestinians. Every dollar that the divestment strategy gains translates into increased welfare in Palestine

Press 16 ~Eyal Press, author of "Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times, "When 'Made in Israel' Is a Human Rights Abuse," New York Times, January 26, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/when-made-in-israel-is-a-human-rights-abuse.html?_r=0~~ JW
From a biblical perspective, this view may be tenable. From a legal and
AND
obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations.

Tournament: DebateLA | Round: 1 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart DD | Judge: Aurelia Williams, Jordan Durrani

1AC

Part 1 is Framing

Patriotic Correctness runs rampant- dissent is charged with treason and lines of critical thought are silenced. Higher education has been coopted by the military industrial complex, reducing the roles of teachers to mere technicians. Thus the role of the ballot is to vote for the advocacy that best takes back the university from militarism. Educators should reject the call of abstraction and open up everything for contestation.
Giroux 13, Henry, Public Intellectuals Against the Neoliberal University, 2013, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19654-public-intellectuals-against-the-neoliberal-university
Increasingly, as universities are shaped by an audit culture, the call to be objective and impartial, whatever one's intentions, can easily echo what George Orwell called the official truth or the establishment point of view. Lacking a self-consciously democratic political focus, teachers are often reduced, or reduce themselves, to the role of a technician or functionary engaged in formalistic rituals, unconcerned with the disturbing and urgent problems that confront the larger society or the consequences of one's pedagogical practices and research undertakings. Hiding behind appeals to balance and objectivity, too many scholars refuse to recognize that being committed to something does not cancel out what C. Wright Mills once called hard thinking. Teaching needs to be rigorous, self-reflective, and committed not to the dead zone of instrumental rationality but to the practice of freedom, to a critical sensibility capable of advancing the parameters of knowledge, addressing crucial social issues, and connecting private troubles and public issues. In opposition to the instrumental model of teaching, with its conceit of political neutrality and its fetishization of measurement, I argue that academics should combine the mutually interdependent roles of critical educator and active citizen. This requires finding ways to connect the practice of classroom teaching with important social problems and the operation of power in the larger society while providing the conditions for students to view themselves as critical agents capable of making those who exercise authority and power answerable for their actions. Higher education cannot be decoupled from what Jacques Derrida calls a democracy to come, that is, a democracy that must always "be open to the possibility of being contested, of contesting itself, of criticizing and indefinitely improving itself."33 Within this project of possibility and impossibility, critical pedagogy must be understood as a deliberately informed and purposeful political and moral practice, as opposed to one that is either doctrinaire, instrumentalized or both. Moreover, a critical pedagogy should also gain part of its momentum in higher education among students who will go back to the schools, churches, synagogues and workplaces to produce new ideas, concepts and critical ways of understanding the world in which young people and adults live. This is a notion of intellectual practice and responsibility that refuses the professional neutrality and privileged isolation of the academy.  It also affirms a broader vision of learning that links knowledge to the power of self-definition and to the capacities of students to expand the scope of democratic freedoms, particularly those that address the crisis of education, politics, and the social as part and parcel of the crisis of democracy itself. In order for critical pedagogy, dialogue and thought to have real effects, they must advocate that all citizens, old and young, are equally entitled, if not equally empowered, to shape the society in which they live. This is a commitment we heard articulated by the brave students who fought tuition hikes and the destruction of civil liberties and social provisions in Quebec and to a lesser degree in the Occupy Wall Street movement. If educators are to function as public intellectuals, they need to listen to young people who are producing a new language in order to talk about inequality and power relations, attempting to create alternative democratic public spaces, rethinking the very nature of politics, and asking serious questions about what democracy is and why it no longer exists in many neoliberal societies. These young people who are protesting the 1 recognize that they have been written out of the discourses of justice, equality and democracy and are not only resisting how neoliberalism has made them expendable, they are arguing for a collective future very different from the one that is on display in the current political and economic systems in which they feel trapped.  These brave youth are insisting that the relationship between knowledge and power can be emancipatory, that their histories and experiences matter, and that what they say and do counts in their struggle to unlearn dominating privileges, productively reconstruct their relations with others, and transform, when necessary, the world around them.
Militarism makes people disposable- justifying and creating everyday violence like shootings and drone strikes. Heg Good doesn't impact turn the aff-military criticism is good because it stops the glorification of the military and violence, which spillsover.
Giroux 16, Henry, Gun Culture and the American Nightmare of Violence, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34349-gun-culture-and-the-american-nightmare-of-violence
Gun violence in the United States has produced a culture soaked in blood - a culture that threatens everyone and extends from accidental deaths, suicides and domestic violence to mass shootings. In late December, a woman in St. Cloud, Florida, fatally shot her own daughter after mistaking her for an intruder. Less than a month earlier, on December 2, in San Bernardino, California, was the mass shooting that left 14 people dead and more than 20 wounded. And just two months before that, on October 1, nine people were killed and seven wounded in a mass shooting at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon. Mass shootings have become routine in the United States and speak to a society that relies on violence to feed the coffers of the merchants of death. Given the profits made by arms manufacturers, the defense industry, gun dealers and the lobbyists who represent them in Congress, it comes as no surprise that the culture of violence cannot be abstracted from either the culture of business or the corruption of politics. Violence runs through US society like an electric current offering instant pleasure from all cultural sources, whether it be the nightly news or a television series that glorifies serial killers. At a policy level, violence drives the arms industry and a militaristic foreign policy, and is increasingly the punishing state's major tool to enforce its hyped-up brand of domestic terrorism, especially against Black youth. The United States is utterly wedded to a neoliberal culture in which cruelty is viewed as virtue, while mass incarceration is treated as the chief mechanism to "institutionalize obedience." At the same time, a shark-like mode of competition replaces any viable notion of solidarity, and a sabotaging notion of self-interest pushes society into the false lure of mass consumerism. The increasing number of mass shootings is symptomatic of a society engulfed in racism, fear, militarism, bigotry and massive inequities in wealth and power. Guns and the hypermasculine culture of violence are given more support than young people and life itself. Over 270 mass shootings have taken place in the United States in 2015 alone, proving once again that the economic, political and social conditions that underlie such violence are not being addressed. Sadly, these shootings are not isolated incidents. For example, one child under 12 years old has been killed every other day by a firearm, which amounts to 555 children killed by guns in three years. An even more frightening statistic and example of a shocking moral and political perversity was noted in data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which states that "2,525 children and teens died by gunfire in ~the United States~ in 2014; one child or teen death every 3 hours and 28 minutes, nearly 7 a day, 48 a week." Such figures indicate that too many youth in the United States occupy what might be called war zones in which guns and violence proliferate. In this scenario, guns and the hypermasculine culture of violence are given more support than young people and life itself. The predominance of a relatively unchecked gun culture and a morally perverse and politically obscene culture of violence is particularly evident in the power of the gun lobby and its political advocates to pass laws in eight states to allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons "into classrooms, dormitories and other buildings" on campuses. In spite of the rash of recent shootings on college campuses, Texas lawmakers, for instance, passed one such "campus carry bill," which will take effect in August 2016. To add insult to injury, they also passed an "open carry bill" that allows registered gun owners to carry their guns openly in public. Such laws not only reflect "the seemingly limitless legislative clout of gun interests," but also a rather irrational return to the violence-laden culture of the "Wild West." As in the past, individuals will be allowed to walk the streets, while openly carrying guns and packing heat as a measure of their love of guns and their reliance upon violence as the best way to address any perceived threat to their security. This return to the deadly practices of the " Wild West" is neither a matter of individual choice nor some far-fetched yet allegedly legitimate appeal to the Second Amendment. On the contrary, mass violence in the United States has to be placed within a broader historical, economic and political context in order to address the totality of the forces that produce it. Focusing merely on mass shootings or the passing of potentially dangerous gun legislation does not get to the root of the systemic forces that produce the United States' love affair with violence and the ideologies and criminogenic institutions that produce it. Imperial policies that promote aggression all across the globe are now matched by increasing levels of lawlessness and state repression, which mutually feed each other. On the home front, civil society is degenerating into a military organization, a space of lawlessness and warlike practices, organized primarily for the production of violence. For instance, as Steve Martinot observes at CounterPunch, the police now use their discourse of command and power to criminalize behavior; in addition, they use military weapons and surveillance tools as if they are preparing for war, and create a culture of fear in which militaristic principles replace legal principles. He writes: This suggests that there is an institutional insecurity that seeks to cover itself through social control ... the cops act out this insecurity by criminalizing individuals in advance. No legal principle need be involved. There is only the militarist principle.... When police shoot a fleeing subject and claim they are acting in self-defense (i.e. threatened), it is not their person but the command and control principle that is threatened. To defend that control through assault or murderous action against a disobedient person implies that the cop's own identity is wholly immersed in its paradigm. There is nothing psychological about this. Self-worth or insecurity is not the issue. There is only the military ethic of power, imposed on civil society through an assumption of impunity. It is the ethos of democracy, of human self-respect, that is the threat. The rise of violence and the gun culture in the United States cannot be separated from a transformation in governance in the United States. Political sovereignty has been replaced by economic sovereignty as corporate power takes over the reins of governance. The more money influences politics, the more corrupt the political culture becomes. Under such circumstances, holding office is largely dependent on having huge amounts of capital at one's disposal, while laws and policies at all levels of government are mostly fashioned by lobbyists representing big business corporations and financial institutions. Moreover, such lobbying, as corrupt and unethical as it may be, is now carried out in the open by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other individuals, groups and institutions invested in the militarization of US society. This lobbying is then displayed as a badge of honor - a kind of open testimonial to the lobbyists' disrespect for democratic governance. But money in politics is not the only major institutional factor in which everyday and state violence are nourished by a growing militarism. As David Theo Goldberg has argued in his essay "Mission Accomplished: Militarizing Social Logic," the military has also assumed a central role in shaping all aspects of society. Militarization is about more than the use of repressive power; it also represents a powerful social logic that is constitutive of values, modes of rationality and ways of thinking. According to Goldberg, The military is not just a fighting machine.... It serves and socializes. It hands down to the society, as big brother might, its more or less perfected goods, from gunpowder to guns, computing to information management ... In short, while militarily produced instruments might be retooled to other, broader social purpose - the military shapes pretty much the entire range of social production from commodities to culture, social goods to social theory. The militarization and corporatization of social logic permeates US society. The general public in the United States is largely depoliticized through the influence of corporations over schools, higher education and other cultural apparatuses. The deadening of public values, civic consciousness and critical citizenship are also the result of the work of anti-public intellectuals representing right-wing ideological and financial interests, a powerful set of corporate-controlled media agencies that are largely center-right and a market-driven public pedagogy that reduces the obligations of citizenship to the endless consumption and discarding of commodities. Military ideals permeate every aspect of popular culture, policy and social relations. In addition, a pedagogy of historical, social and racial amnesia is constructed and circulated through celebrity and consumer culture. A war culture now shapes every aspect of society as warlike values, a hypermasculinity and an aggressive militarism seep into every major institution in the United States, including schools, the corporate media and local police forces. The criminal legal system has become the default structure for dealing with social problems. More and more people are considered disposable because they offend the sensibilities of the financial elite, who are rapidly consolidating class power. Under such circumstances, violence occupies an honored place.
This outweighs
a. Root Cause- once violence becomes normalized, then anything including the neg impacts can occur and no one cares, making solving them impossible
b. Aggregation- Militarism impacts constantly occur which means they aggregate every single day. By the time the neg impacts occur- the aff will massively outweighs on magnitude.
Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed
Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or androcentrism, or white normativity—is that all theorizing, both moral and nonmoral, takes place in an intellectual realm dominated by concepts, assumptions, norms, values, and framing perspectives that reflect the experience and group interests of the privileged group (whether the bourgeoisie, or men, or whites). So a simple empiricism will not work as a cognitive strategy; one has to be self-conscious about the concepts that "spontaneously" occur to one, since many of these concepts will not arise naturally but as the result of social structures and hegemonic ideational patterns. In particular, it will often be the case that dominant concepts will obscure certain crucial realities, blocking them from sight, or naturalizing them, while on the other hand, concepts necessary for accurately mapping these realities will be absent. Whether in terms of concepts of the self, or of humans in general, or in the cartography of the social, it will be necessary to scrutinize the dominant conceptual tools and the way the boundaries are drawn. This is, of course, the burden of standpoint theory—that certain realities tend to be more visible from the perspective of the subordinated than the privileged (Harding 2003). The thesis can be put in a strong and implausible form, but weaker versions do have considerable plausibility, as illustrated by the simple fact that for the most part the crucial conceptual innovation necessary to map nonideal realities has not come from the dominant group. In its ignoring of oppression, ideal theory also ignores the consequences of oppression. If societies are not oppressive, or if in modeling them we can abstract away from oppression and assume moral cognizers of roughly equal skill, then the paradigmatic moral agent can be featureless. No theory is required about the particular group-based obstacles that may block the vision of a particular group. By contrast, nonideal theory recognizes that people will typically be cognitively affected by their social location, so that on both the macro and the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading.
Non-ideal theory necessitates consequentialism since instead of following rules that assume an already equal playing field; we take steps to correct the material injustice.

Part 2 Advocacy

Plan text -Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the military's policies.
Wilson 10, John K., Ph.D candidate with dissertation on the history of academic freedom in America and author of three books, early excerpt from Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies which was later published in 2010
In the wake of 9/11, academic freedom suffered under a wave of patriotic correctness in America. An institution of higher learning should not fear controversy or prefer bland clichés to intellectual content. All colleges should prohibit banning speakers, even if they dissent from a particular orthodoxy. The response to the terrible acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001, did not require an exception to the rules of academic freedom. To the contrary, the period after 9/11 was a moment when intellectual scrutiny of American foreign policy was more important than ever. Higher education did no worse, and perhaps better, than other American i n s t i t u t i on s , s u ch as Con g ress and the media, that accepted the Bush Administration plans, often without debate or inquiry. Sadly, though, the enemies of academic freedom too often succeeded in their aim of silencing dissent. Both the ideal and the practice of academic freedom have been under attack since 9/11, as America became a place where, in the words of Bush press secretary Ari Fleisher, you had to "watch what you say."31

Part 3 Offense

Patriotic correctness silences anti-military dissent. Multiple examples and empirical surveys prove.
Wilson 2, John K., Ph.D candidate with dissertation on the history of academic freedom in America and author of three books, early excerpt from Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies which was later published in 2010
Compared to earlier "wartime" situations, academic freedom is far more protected today than at any time in the past. But the danger posed to academic freedom cannot be ignored. Efforts to silence faculty and students, even when they are unsuccessful, can make others around the country more reluctant to speak openly. Only by denouncing all efforts at censorship and vigorously defending the right of freedom on college campuses, can we continue to protect academic freedom. The cliché of our times, constantly repeated but often true, is that 9/11 "changed everything." One thing that it changed was academic freedom. The controversy over the limits of free speech on college campuses across the nation began immediately. On the morning of September 11, 2001, University of New Mexico history professor Richard Berthold joked with his class, "Anyone who would blow up the Pentagon would have my vote." Berthold received death threats, keeping him off campus. On September 27, an unidentified person left a message on the provost's voice-mail saying if Berthold were not "ousted" within 24 hours, Berthold would be ousted by other sources. Berthold was threatened in front of his home by a biker who came at him screaming obscenities, and he received several angry e-mails and letters with messages such as "I'd like to blow you up." New Mexico state representative William Fuller declared,"Treason is giving aide or comfort to the enemy. Any terrorist who heard Berthold's comment was comforted." In the end, Berthold was pressured to retire from his job because of those 11 words he spoke on 9/11.Mohammad Rahat, an Iranian citizen and University of Miami medical technician who turned 22 years old on September 11, 2001, declared in a meeting that day, "Some birthday gift from Osama bin Laden." Although Rahat said that he meant it "in a sarcastic way," Rahat was suspended and then fired on September 25, 2001. Paula Musto, vice president of university relations, declared that Rahat's "comments were deeply disturbing to his co-workers and superiors at the medical school. They were inappropriate and unbecoming for someone working in a research laboratory. He was fired because he made those comments, certainly not because of his ethnic background." Rahat had received only positive evaluation in 13 months working in the lab. 6 At the University of California at Los Angeles, library assistant Jonnie Hargis was suspended without pay for one week after sending an e-mail response criticizing American policies in Iraq and Israel. Hargis' union successfully pursued a grievance; Hargis was repaid for his lost income, the incident was stricken from his job record, and the university was forced to clarify its e-mail policies.7On September 13, 2001, two resident assistants in Minnesota complained to the dean of students that undergraduates felt fearful and uneasy because some professors questioned the competence of the Bush Administration. According to the resident assistants,"The recent attacks extend beyond political debate, and for professors to make negative judgments on our government before any action has taken place only fosters a cynical attitude in the classroom." The administration asked faculty to think hard about what they said. Greg Kneser, dean of students, declared:"There were students who were just scared, and an intellectual discussion of the political ramifications of this was not helpful for them. They were frightened, and they look to their faculty not just for intellectual debate" but as "people they trust."8 Even hypothetical discussions were suspicious. Portland Community College philosophy professor Stephen Carey challenged students in his critical thinking class to consider an extreme rhetorical proposition that would cause great emotion, like "Bush should be hung, strung up upside down, and left for the buzzards." One student's mother, misunderstanding the example, called the FBI and accused Carey of threatening to kill the President, and the Secret Service investigated him.9 When four leftist faculty at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (UNC) criticized U.S. foreign policy at a teach-in, Scott Rubush of FrontPage magazine, declared, "They're using state resources to the practical effect of aiding and abetting the Taliban."The magazine recommended that these faculty be fired. "Tell the good folks at UNC–Chapel Hill what you think of their decision to allow anti-American rallies on their state-supported campus," FrontPage urged. The administration received hundreds of angry e-mails, and was denounced on the floor of the North Carolina legislature. Several antiwar faculty members received death threats.10 In addition to phys i cal threats and attack s , A rab and Muslim students also faced enormous scru t i ny from the authori t i e s . An October 2001 survey by the Am e ri can Association of Collegiate Registrars and Ad m i s s i ons Officers found thatat least 220 colleges had been contacted by law enforcement in the weeks after 9/11. Police or FBI agents made 99 requests for private "n on - d i re c t o ry "i n f o rm a t i on ,s u ch as course sch e d u l e s , that under law cannot be released without student con s e n t , a s u b p o e n a , or a pending danger (on ly 12 of the requests had a subpoena, a l t h o u g h the Immigra t i on and Na t u ra l i za t i on Se rvice doesn't re q u i reconsent for inform a t i on on foreign students). Most requests were for individual students, although 16 requests for student re c o rds were "based on ethnicity. " Law enforcement re c e i ve d the inform a t i on from 159 sch o o l s , and on ly eight denied any re q u e s t s . I n response to the violence and persecution against Muslim and Arab students, some colleges did try to restrict offensive speech in ways that resulted in threats to academic fre e d om . At Orange Coast Com mu n i ty College (OCC) on September 20, 2001, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them "terrorists." Hearlson denied the accusation. A tape recording of the class found that the most extreme statements were misheard, although Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.11 In a case at Johns Hopkins University, Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a September 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.12 I n response to the violence and persecution against Muslim and Arab students, some colleges did try to restrict offensive speech in ways that resulted in threats to academic fre e d om . At Orange Coast Com mu n i ty College (OCC) on September 20, 2001, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them "terrorists." Hearlson denied the accusation. A tape recording of the class found that the most extreme statements were misheard, although Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.11 In a case at Johns Hopkins University, Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a September 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.12 Anti-military views expressed in an e-mail could put a professor's job at risk. At Chicago's St. Xavier University, history professor Peter Kirstein sent this response to an Air Force cadet asking him to help promote an Air Force event: "You are a disgrace to this country and I am furious you would even think I would support you and your aggressive baby killing tactics of collateral damage." Although Kirstein apologized for his e-mail, many called for his dismissal. On November 15, 2002, St. Xavier president Richard Yanikoski announced that Kirstein would be immediately suspended, receive a reprimand, and undergo a post-tenure review during a Spring 2003 sabbatical.13 Another tenured professor was suspended for responding rudely to an unsolicited e-mail and saying that killing is wrong. While conservatives contended that a few cases of censorship proved that left-wing thought police rule over college campuses, my extensive survey of academic freedom and civil liberties at American universities found the opposite: left-wing critics of the Bush Administration suffered by far the most numerous and most serious violations of their civil liberties. Censorship of conservatives was rare, and almost always overturned in the few cases where it occurred. Patriotic correctness—not political correctness—reigned supreme after 9/11.
This censorship prevents higher education from being the uniquely key institution that can create a cultural shift away from militarism by teaching students to resist.
Jaschik and Giroux 07, Henry Giroux and Scott Jaschik, 'The University in Chains', (Interview), 2007, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/07/giroux
Q: How do you think the state of academic freedom has changed since 9/11? A: Criticisms of the university as a stronghold of dissent have a long and inglorious history in the United States, extending from attacks in the 19th century by religious fundamentalists to anti-communist witch-hunts conducted in the 1920s, 1930s, and again in the 1950s, during the infamous era of McCarthyism. Harkening back to the infamous McCarthy era, a newly reinvigorated war is currently being waged by Christian nationalists, reactionary neoconservatives, and corporate fundamentalists against the autonomy and integrity of all those independent institutions that foster social responsibility, critical thought, and critical citizenship. While the attack is being waged on numerous fronts, the universities are where the major skirmishes are taking place. What is unique about this attack on academic freedom are the range and scope of the forces waging an assault on higher education. It is much worse today, because corporations, the national security state, the Pentagon, powerful Christian evangelical groups, non-government agencies, and enormously wealthy right-wing individuals and institutions have created powerful alliances — the perfect storm so to speak — that are truly threatening the freedoms and semi-autonomy of American universities. Higher education in the United States is currently being targeted by a diverse number of right-wing forces that have assumed political power and are waging an aggressive and focused campaign against the principles of academic freedom, sacrificing critical pedagogical practice in the name of patriotic correctness and dismantling the ideal of the university as a bastion of independent thought, and uncorrupted inquiry. Ironically, it is through the vocabulary of individual rights, academic freedom, balance, and tolerance that these forces are attempting to slander, even vilify, an allegedly liberal and left-oriented professoriate, to cut already meager federal funding for higher education, to eliminate tenure, and to place control of what is taught and said in classrooms under legislative oversight. There is more at work in the current attack than the rampant anti-intellectualism and paranoid style of American politics outlined in Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, written over 40 years ago. There is also the collective power of radical right-wing organizations, which in their powerful influence on all levels of government in spite of a democratically controlled Congress and most liberal social institutions feel compelled to dismantle the open, questioning cultures of the academy. Underlying recent attacks on the university is an attempt not merely to counter dissent but to destroy it and in doing so to eliminate all of those remaining public spaces, spheres, and institutions that nourish and sustain a culture of questioning so vital to a democratic civil society. Dissent is often equated with treason; the university is portrayed as the weak link in the war on terror by powerful educational agencies; professors who advocate a culture of questioning and critical engagement run the risk of having their names posted on Internet web sites while being labeled as un-American; and various right-wing individuals and politicians increasingly attempt to pass legislation that renders critical analysis a liability and reinforces, with no irony intended, a rabid anti-intellectualism under the call for balance and intellectual diversity. Genuine politics begins to disappear as people methodically lose those freedoms and rights that enable them to speak, act, dissent, and exercise both their individual right to resistance and a shared sense of collective responsibility. While higher education is only one site, it is one of the most crucial institutional and political spaces where democratic subjects can be shaped, democratic relations can be experienced, and anti-democratic forms of power can be identified and critically engaged. It is also one of the few spaces left where young people can think critically about the knowledge they gain, learn values that refuse to reduce the obligations of citizenship to either consumerism or the dictates of the national security state, and develop the language and skills necessary to defend those institutions and social relations that are vital to a substantive democracy. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt insisted, a meaningful conception of politics appears only when concrete spaces exist for people to come together to talk, think critically, and act on their capacities for empathy, judgment, and social responsibility. What the current attack on higher education threatens is a notion of the academy that is faithful to its role as a crucial democratic public sphere, one that offers a space both to resist the "dark times" in which we now live and to embrace the possibility of a future forged in the civic struggles requisite for a viable democracy.
Education has already been corrupted- I control uniqueness on this issue- its time to act now. Chile empirically proves- the aff spillsover to real reform.  
Williams 15, Jo, Remaking education from below: the Chilean student movement as public pedagogy, 2015, Australian Journal of Adult Learning
More than ever the crisis of schooling represents, at large, the crisis of democracy itself and any attempt to understand the attack on public schooling and higher education cannot be separated from the wider assault on all forms of public life not driven by the logic of the market (Giroux, 2003:7) "Fin al lucro en educación, nuestros sueños no les pertenecen" (end profit making in education, nobody owns our dreams 1 ) (slogan of the Chilean student movement, inspired by the French student uprisings of May-June 1968) Over the past four decades, as the economic and ideological depravity of neoliberal policy and its market-driven logic (D. W. Hursh and Henderson, 2011) has been brought to bear on every aspect of education, the very concept of 'public' has been negated. Characteristics such as user-pays, competition, assaults on teachers, and mass standardised-testing and rankings, are among the features of a schooling, which is now very much seen as a private rather than public good (Giroux, 2003). The question of public education as a democratic force for the radical transformation of a violently unjust society seems rarely if ever asked, and a dangerous co-option and weakening of the language and practice of progressive pedagogy has occurred to the extent that notions of inclusion and success are increasingly limited to narrowly conceived individualist and competitive measures of market advantage. As Giroux notes "the forces of neo-liberalism dissolve public issues into utterly privatised and individualistic concerns (2004:62), and despite ongoing official rhetoric "the only form of citizenship increasingly being offered to young people is consumerism" (2003:7). Neoliberal education sees students and young people as passive consumers, the emphasis of schooling on learning how to be governed rather than how to govern (Giroux, 2003:7). In such a context the space for a public pedagogy, based on challenging the hegemony of neoliberal ideology and aligned with collective resistance, appears limited at best. And yet, every day people, teachers, students and communities do engage in political struggle, enacting pedagogies that seek to unveil rather than continue to mask the political structures and organisation that ensures power remains in the hands of the few, and at the service of the few, at the expense of the rest of us. Giroux characterises public pedagogies as defined by hope, struggle and a politicisation of the education process. He argues for …a politics of resistance that extends beyond the classroom as part of a broader struggle to challenge those forces of neo-liberalism that currently wage war against all collective structures capable of defending vital social institutions as a public good (Giroux, 2003:14). Central to Giroux's argument is the need for critical educators to look to, value, and engage in and with social movements as they emerge and develop as sites of resistance. To …take sides, speak out, and engage in the hard work of debunking corporate culture's assault on teaching and learning, orient their teaching for social change, connect learning to public life ~and~ link knowledge to the operations of power (Giroux, 2004:77). He argues that "~p~rogressive education in an age of rampant neoliberalism requires an expanded notion of the public, pedagogy, solidarity, and democratic struggle" (Giroux, 2003:13), and that moreover, educators need to work against a "politics of certainty" and instead develop and engage in pedagogical practice that problematises the world and fosters a sense of collective resistance and hope (2003:14). A neoliberal vision of the 'good citizen' and 'good student' presumes passivity, acceptance of the status quo and an individualistic disposition. Critical pedagogues must seek out and embrace opportunities to support and celebrate collective political action, not only because it develops a sense of social and political agency but also because it constitutes a powerful basis for authentic learning and active and critical citizenship in an unjust world (Freire, 1970). The Chilean student movement stands as one such example of challenging and inspiring counter-practice and a reclaiming of pedagogy as political and public. For ten years students have filled Chile's streets, occupied their schools and universities, and organised conferences, public Remaking education from below: the Chilean student movement as public pedagogy 499 meetings, political stunts, creative actions and protests. Students and young people have been at the centre of the largest and most sustained political action seen in Chile since the democratic movement of the 80s, which eventually forced out the Pinochet dictatorship. Despite global trends in the opposite direction, the Chilean students have fundamentally influenced a nationwide education reform program constituting significant changes to the existing system which has been described as an extreme example of market-driven policy (Valenzuela, Bellei, and Ríos, 2014:220). Most importantly, they have forced and led a nationwide dialogue on the question of education and social justice in Chile and an interrogation of the current, grossly inequitable and elitist model (Falabella, 2008). This article begins by reviewing the experiences of the Chilean student movement to date and offering a brief explanation of the historical development of the education system it seeks to dismantle. It then considers the movement as an example of public pedagogies, concluding with a discussion of how it might inform notions of radical educational practice and a return of the student and pedagogue as authentic and critical subjects.
Even if the militarism framing is wrong- discussion and education on the issue creates responsible citizens in other areas by enabling them to think about the world in a different way
Evans and Giroux 16, Brad Evans and Henry Giroux, The Violence of Forgetting, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/opinion/the-violence-of-forgetting.htmlB.E.: Considering Hannah Arendt's warning that the forces of domination and exploitation require "thoughtlessness" on behalf of the oppressors, how is the capacity to think freely and in an informed way key to providing a counter to violent practices? H.G.: Young people can learn to challenge violence, like those in the antiwar movement of the early '70s or today in the Black Lives Matter movement. Education does more than create critically minded, socially responsible citizens. It enables young people and others to challenge authority by connecting individual troubles to wider systemic concerns. This notion of education is especially important given that racialized violence, violence against women and the ongoing assaults on public goods cannot be solved on an individual basis. Violence maims not only the body but also the mind and spirit. As Pierre Bourdieu has argued, it lies "on the side of belief and persuasion." If we are to counter violence by offering young people ways to think differently about their world and the choices before them, they must be empowered to recognize themselves in any analysis of violence, and in doing so to acknowledge that it speaks to their lives meaningfully. There is no genuine democracy without an informed public. While there are no guarantees that a critical education will prompt individuals to contest various forms of oppression and violence, it is clear that in the absence of a formative democratic culture, critical thinking will increasingly be trumped by anti-intellectualism, and walls and war will become the only means to resolve global challenges. Creating such a culture of education, however, will not be easy in a society that links the purpose of education with being competitive in a global economy.There is a growing culture of conformity and quietism on university campuses, made evident in the current call for safe spaces and trigger warnings. This is not just conservative reactionism, but is often carried out by liberals who believe they are acting with the best intentions. Violence comes in many forms and can be particularly disturbing when confronted in an educational setting if handled dismissively or in ways that blame victims. Yet troubling knowledge cannot be condemned on the basis of making students uncomfortable, especially if the desire for safety serves merely to limit access to difficult knowledge and the resources needed to analyze it. Critical education should be viewed as the art of the possible rather than a space organized around timidity, caution and fear. Creating safe spaces runs counter to the notion that learning should be unsettling, that students should challenge common sense assumptions and be willing to confront disturbing realities despite discomfort. The political scientist Wendy Brown rightly argues that the "domain of free public speech is not one of emotional safety or reassurance," and is " not what the public sphere and political speech promise." A university education should, Brown writes, " call you to think, question, doubt" and " incite you to question everything you assume, think you know or care about." This is particularly acute when dealing with pedagogies of violence and oppression. While there is a need to be ethically sensitive to the subject matter, our civic responsibility requires, at times, confronting truly intolerable conditions. The desire for emotionally safe spaces can be invoked to protect one's sense of privilege — especially in the privileged sites of university education. This is further compounded by the frequent attempts by students to deny some speakers a platform because their views are controversial. While the intentions may be understandable, this is a dangerous road to go down. Confronting the intolerable should be challenging and upsetting. Who could read the testimonies of Primo Levi and not feel intellectually and emotionally exhausted? Or Martin Luther King Jr.'s words, not to mention those of Malcolm X? It is the conditions that produce violence that should upset us ethically and prompt us to act responsibly, rather than to capitulate to a privatized emotional response that substitutes a therapeutic language for a political and worldly one.

Tournament: DebateLA | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harard-Westlake CE | Judge: Chris Castillo, Adam Torson

1AC

Part 1 is Framing

Patriotic Correctness runs rampant- dissent is charged with treason and lines of critical thought are silenced. Higher education has been coopted by the military industrial complex, reducing the roles of teachers to mere technicians. Thus the role of the ballot is to vote for the advocacy that best takes back the university from militarism. Educators should reject the call of abstraction and open up everything for contestation.
Giroux 13, Henry, Public Intellectuals Against the Neoliberal University, 2013, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19654-public-intellectuals-against-the-neoliberal-university
Increasingly, as universities are shaped by an audit culture, the call to be objective and impartial, whatever one's intentions, can easily echo what George Orwell called the official truth or the establishment point of view. Lacking a self-consciously democratic political focus, teachers are often reduced, or reduce themselves, to the role of a technician or functionary engaged in formalistic rituals, unconcerned with the disturbing and urgent problems that confront the larger society or the consequences of one's pedagogical practices and research undertakings. Hiding behind appeals to balance and objectivity, too many scholars refuse to recognize that being committed to something does not cancel out what C. Wright Mills once called hard thinking. Teaching needs to be rigorous, self-reflective, and committed not to the dead zone of instrumental rationality but to the practice of freedom, to a critical sensibility capable of advancing the parameters of knowledge, addressing crucial social issues, and connecting private troubles and public issues. In opposition to the instrumental model of teaching, with its conceit of political neutrality and its fetishization of measurement, I argue that academics should combine the mutually interdependent roles of critical educator and active citizen. This requires finding ways to connect the practice of classroom teaching with important social problems and the operation of power in the larger society while providing th e conditions for students to view themselves as critical agents capable of making those who exercise authority and power answerable for their actions. Higher education cannot be decoupled from what Jacques Derrida calls a democracy to come, that is, a democracy that must always "be open to the possibility of being contested, of contesting itself, of criticizing and indefinitely improving itself."33 Within this project of possibility and impossibility, critical pedagogy must be understood as a deliberately informed and purposeful political and moral practice, as opposed to one that is either doctrinaire, instrumentalized or both. Moreover, a critical pedagogy should also gain part of its momentum in higher education among students who will go back to the schools, churches, synagogues and workplaces to produce new ideas, concepts and critical ways of understanding the world in which young people and adults live. This is a notion of intellectual practice and responsibility that refuses the professional neutrality and privileged isolation of the academy.  It also affirms a broader vision of learning that links knowledge to the power of self-definition and to the capacities of students to expand the scope of democratic freedoms, particularly those that address the crisis of education, politics, and the social as part and parcel of the crisis of democracy itself. In order for critical pedagogy, dialogue and thought to have real effects, they must advocate that all citizens, old and young, are equally entitled, if not equally empowered, to shape the society in which they live. This is a commitment we heard articulated by the brave students who fought tuition hikes and the destruction of civil liberties and social provisions in Quebec and to a lesser degree in the Occupy Wall Street movement. If educators are to function as public intellectuals, they need to listen to young people who are producing a new language in order to talk about inequality and power relations, attempting to create alternative democratic public spaces, rethinking the very nature of politics, and asking serious questions about what democracy is and why it no longer exists in many neoliberal societies. These young people who are protesting the 1 recognize that they have been written out of the discourses of justice, equality and democracy and are not only resisting how neoliberalism has made them expendable, they are arguing for a collective future very different from the one that is on display in the current political and economic systems in which they feel trapped.  These brave youth are insisting that the relationship between knowledge and power can be emancipatory, that their histories and experiences matter, and that what they say and do counts in their struggle to unlearn dominating privileges, productively reconstruct their relations with others, and transform, when necessary, the world around them.
Militarism makes people disposable- justifying and creating everyday violence like shootings and drone strikes. Heg Good doesn't impact turn the aff-military criticism is good because it stops the glorification of the military and violence, which spillsover.
Giroux 16, Henry, Gun Culture and the American Nightmare of Violence, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34349-gun-culture-and-the-american-nightmare-of-violence
Gun violence in the United States has produced a culture soaked in blood - a culture that threatens everyone and extends from accidental deaths, suicides and domestic violence to mass shootings. In late December, a woman in St. Cloud, Florida, fatally shot her own daughter after mistaking her for an intruder. Less than a month earlier, on December 2, in San Bernardino, California, was the mass shooting that left 14 people dead and more than 20 wounded. And just two months before that, on October 1, nine people were killed and seven wounded in a mass shooting at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon. Mass shootings have become routine in the United States and speak to a society that relies on violence to feed the coffers of the merchants of death. Given the profits made by arms manufacturers, the defense industry, gun dealers and the lobbyists who represent them in Congress, it comes as no surprise that the culture of violence cannot be abstracted from either the culture of business or the corruption of politics. Violence runs through US society like an electric current offering instant pleasure from all cultural sources, whether it be the nightly news or a television series that glorifies serial killers. At a policy level, violence drives the arms industry and a militaristic foreign policy, and is increasingly the punishing state's major tool to enforce its hyped-up brand of domestic terrorism, especially against Black youth. The United States is utterly wedded to a neoliberal culture in which cruelty is viewed as virtue, while mass incarceration is treated as the chief mechanism to "institutionalize obedience." At the same time, a shark-like mode of competition replaces any viable notion of solidarity, and a sabotaging notion of self-interest pushes society into the false lure of mass consumerism. The increasing number of mass shootings is symptomatic of a society engulfed in racism, fear, militarism, bigotry and massive inequities in wealth and power. Guns and the hypermasculine culture of violence are given more support than young people and life itself. Over 270 mass shootings have taken place in the United States in 2015 alone, proving once again that the economic, political and social conditions that underlie such violence are not being addressed. Sadly, these shootings are not isolated incidents. For example, one child under 12 years old has been killed every other day by a firearm, which amounts to 555 children killed by guns in three years. An even more frightening statistic and example of a shocking moral and political perversity was noted in data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which states that "2,525 children and teens died by gunfire in ~the United States~ in 2014; one child or teen death every 3 hours and 28 minutes, nearly 7 a day, 48 a week." Such figures indicate that too many youth in the United States occupy what might be called war zones in which guns and violence proliferate. In this scenario, guns and the hypermasculine culture of violence are given more support than young people and life itself. The predominance of a relatively unchecked gun culture and a morally perverse and politically obscene culture of violence is particularly evident in the power of the gun lobby and its political advocates to pass laws in eight states to allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons "into classrooms, dormitories and other buildings" on campuses. In spite of the rash of recent shootings on college campuses, Texas lawmakers, for instance, passed one such "campus carry bill," which will take effect in August 2016. To add insult to injury, they also passed an "open carry bill" that allows registered gun owners to carry their guns openly in public. Such laws not only reflect "the seemingly limitless legislative clout of gun interests," but also a rather irrational return to the violence-laden culture of the "Wild West." As in the past, individuals will be allowed to walk the streets, while openly carrying guns and packing heat as a measure of their love of guns and their reliance upon violence as the best way to address any perceived threat to their security. This return to the deadly practices of the " Wild West" is neither a matter of individual choice nor some far-fetched yet allegedly legitimate appeal to the Second Amendment. On the contrary, mass violence in the United States has to be placed within a broader historical, economic and political context in order to address the totality of the forces that produce it. Focusing merely on mass shootings or the passing of potentially dangerous gun legislation does not get to the root of the systemic forces that produce the United States' love affair with violence and the ideologies and criminogenic institutions that produce it. Imperial policies that promote aggression all across the globe are now matched by increasing levels of lawlessness and state repression, which mutually feed each other. On the home front, civil society is degenerating into a military organization, a space of lawlessness and warlike practices, organized primarily for the production of violence. For instance, as Steve Martinot observes at CounterPunch, the police now use their discourse of command and power to criminalize behavior; in addition, they use military weapons and surveillance tools as if they are preparing for war, and create a culture of fear in which militaristic principles replace legal principles. He writes: This suggests that there is an institutional insecurity that seeks to cover itself through social control ... the cops act out this insecurity by criminalizing individuals in advance. No legal principle need be involved. There is only the militarist principle.... When police shoot a fleeing subject and claim they are acting in self-defense (i.e. threatened), it is not their person but the command and control principle that is threatened. To defend that control through assault or murderous action against a disobedient person implies that the cop's own identity is wholly immersed in its paradigm. There is nothing psychological about this. Self-worth or insecurity is not the issue. There is only the military ethic of power, imposed on civil society through an assumption of impunity. It is the ethos of democracy, of human self-respect, that is the threat. The rise of violence and the gun culture in the United States cannot be separated from a transformation in governance in the United States. Political sovereignty has been replaced by economic sovereignty as corporate power takes over the reins of governance. The more money influences politics, the more corrupt the political culture becomes. Under such circumstances, holding office is largely dependent on having huge amounts of capital at one's disposal, while laws and policies at all levels of government are mostly fashioned by lobbyists representing big business corporations and financial institutions. Moreover, such lobbying, as corrupt and unethical as it may be, is now carried out in the open by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other individuals, groups and institutions invested in the militarization of US society. This lobbying is then displayed as a badge of honor - a kind of open testimonial to the lobbyists' disrespect for democratic governance. But money in politics is not the only major institutional factor in which everyday and state violence are nourished by a growing militarism. As David Theo Goldberg has argued in his essay "Mission Accomplished: Militarizing Social Logic," the military has also assumed a central role in shaping all aspects of society. Militarization is about more than the use of repressive power; it also represents a powerful social logic that is constitutive of values, modes of rationality and ways of thinking. According to Goldberg, The military is not just a fighting machine.... It serves and socializes. It hands down to the society, as big brother might, its more or less perfected goods, from gunpowder to guns, computing to information management ... In short, while militarily produced instruments might be retooled to other, broader social purpose - the military shapes pretty much the entire range of social production from commodities to culture, social goods to social theory. The militarization and corporatization of social logic permeates US society. The general public in the United States is largely depoliticized through the influence of corporations over schools, higher education and other cultural apparatuses. The deadening of public values, civic consciousness and critical citizenship are also the result of the work of anti-public intellectuals representing right-wing ideological and financial interests, a powerful set of corporate-controlled media agencies that are largely center-right and a market-driven public pedagogy that reduces the obligations of citizenship to the endless consumption and discarding of commodities. Military ideals permeate every aspect of popular culture, policy and social relations. In addition, a pedagogy of historical, social and racial amnesia is constructed and circulated through celebrity and consumer culture. A war culture now shapes every aspect of society as warlike values, a hypermasculinity and an aggressive militarism seep into every major institution in the United States, including schools, the corporate media and local police forces. The criminal legal system has become the default structure for dealing with social problems. More and more people are considered disposable because they offend the sensibilities of the financial elite, who are rapidly consolidating class power. Under such circumstances, violence occupies an honored place.
This outweighs
Root Cause- once violence becomes normalized, then anything including the neg impacts can occur and no one cares, making solving them impossible
Aggregation- Militarism impacts constantly occur which means they aggregate every single day. By the time the neg impacts occur- the aff will massively outweighs on magnitude.
Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed
Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or androcentrism, or white normativity—is that all theorizing, both moral and nonmoral, takes place in an intellectual realm dominated by concepts, assumptions, norms, values, and framing perspectives that reflect the experience and group interests of the privileged group (whether the bourgeoisie, or men, or whites). So a simple empiricism will not work as a cognitive strategy; one has to be self-conscious about the concepts that "spontaneously" occur to one, since many of these concepts will not arise naturally but as the result of social structures and hegemonic ideational patterns. In particular, it will often be the case that dominant concepts will obscure certain crucial realities, blocking them from sight, or naturalizing them, while on the other hand, concepts necessary for accurately mapping these realities will be absent. Whether in terms of concepts of the self, or of humans in general, or in the cartography of the social, it will be necessary to scrutinize the dominant conceptual tools and the way the boundaries are drawn. This is, of course, the burden of standpoint theory—that certain realities tend to be more visible from the perspective of the subordinated than the privileged (Harding 2003). The thesis can be put in a strong and implausible form, but weaker versions do have considerable plausibility, as illustrated by the simple fact that for the most part the crucial conceptual innovation necessary to map nonideal realities has not come from the dominant group. In its ignoring of oppression, ideal theory also ignores the consequences of oppression. If societies are not oppressive, or if in modeling them we can abstract away from oppression and assume moral cognizers of roughly equal skill, then the paradigmatic moral agent can be featureless. No theory is required about the particular group-based obstacles that may block the vision of a particular group. By contrast, nonideal theory recognizes that people will typically be cognitively affected by their social location, so that on both the macro and the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading.
Non-ideal theory necessitates consequentialism since instead of following rules that assume an already equal playing field; we take steps to correct the material injustice.

Part 2 Advocacy

Plan text- Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the military's policies.
Wilson 10, John K., Ph.D candidate with dissertation on the history of academic freedom in America and author of three books, early excerpt from Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies which was later published in 2010
In the wake of 9/11, academic freedom suffered under a wave of patriotic correctness in America. An institution of higher learning should not fear controversy or prefer bland clichés to intellectual content. All colleges should prohibit banning speakers, even if they dissent from a particular orthodoxy. The response to the terrible acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001, did not require an exception to the rules of academic freedom. To the contrary, the period after 9/11 was a moment when intellectual scrutiny of American foreign policy was more important than ever. Higher education did no worse, and perhaps better, than other American i n s t i t u t i on s , s u ch as Con g ress and the media, that accepted the Bush Administration plans, often without debate or inquiry. Sadly, though, the enemies of academic freedom too often succeeded in their aim of silencing dissent. Both the ideal and the practice of academic freedom have been under attack since 9/11, as America became a place where, in the words of Bush press secretary Ari Fleisher, you had to "watch what you say."31

Part 3 Offense

Patriotic correctness silences anti-military dissent. Multiple examples and empirical surveys prove.
Wilson 2, John K., Ph.D candidate with dissertation on the history of academic freedom in America and author of three books, early excerpt from Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies which was later published in 2010
Compared to earlier "wartime" situations, academic freedom is far more protected today than at any time in the past. But the danger posed to academic freedom cannot be ignored. Efforts to silence faculty and students, even when they are unsuccessful, can make others around the country more reluctant to speak openly. Only by denouncing all efforts at censorship and vigorously defending the right of freedom on college campuses, can we continue to protect academic freedom. The cliché of our times, constantly repeated but often true, is that 9/11 "changed everything." One thing that it changed was academic freedom. The controversy over the limits of free speech on college campuses across the nation began immediately. On the morning of September 11, 2001, University of New Mexico history professor Richard Berthold joked with his class, "Anyone who would blow up the Pentagon would have my vote." Berthold received death threats, keeping him off campus. On September 27, an unidentified person left a message on the provost's voice-mail saying if Berthold were not "ousted" within 24 hours, Berthold would be ousted by other sources. Berthold was threatened in front of his home by a biker who came at him screaming obscenities, and he received several angry e-mails and letters with messages such as "I'd like to blow you up." New Mexico state representative William Fuller declared,"Treason is giving aide or comfort to the enemy. Any terrorist who heard Berthold's comment was comforted." In the end, Berthold was pressured to retire from his job because of those 11 words he spoke on 9/11.Mohammad Rahat, an Iranian citizen and University of Miami medical technician who turned 22 years old on September 11, 2001, declared in a meeting that day, "Some birthday gift from Osama bin Laden." Although Rahat said that he meant it "in a sarcastic way," Rahat was suspended and then fired on September 25, 2001. Paula Musto, vice president of university relations, declared that Rahat's "comments were deeply disturbing to his co-workers and superiors at the medical school. They were inappropriate and unbecoming for someone working in a research laboratory. He was fired because he made those comments, certainly not because of his ethnic background." Rahat had received only positive evaluation in 13 months working in the lab. 6 At the University of California at Los Angeles, library assistant Jonnie Hargis was suspended without pay for one week after sending an e-mail response criticizing American policies in Iraq and Israel. Hargis' union successfully pursued a grievance; Hargis was repaid for his lost income, the incident was stricken from his job record, and the university was forced to clarify its e-mail policies.7On September 13, 2001, two resident assistants in Minnesota complained to the dean of students that undergraduates felt fearful and uneasy because some professors questioned the competence of the Bush Administration. According to the resident assistants,"The recent attacks extend beyond political debate, and for professors to make negative judgments on our government before any action has taken place only fosters a cynical attitude in the classroom." The administration asked faculty to think hard about what they said. Greg Kneser, dean of students, declared:"There were students who were just scared, and an intellectual discussion of the political ramifications of this was not helpful for them. They were frightened, and they look to their faculty not just for intellectual debate" but as "people they trust."8 Even hypothetical discussions were suspicious. Portland Community College philosophy professor Stephen Carey challenged students in his critical thinking class to consider an extreme rhetorical proposition that would cause great emotion, like "Bush should be hung, strung up upside down, and left for the buzzards." One student's mother, misunderstanding the example, called the FBI and accused Carey of threatening to kill the President, and the Secret Service investigated him.9 When four leftist faculty at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (UNC) criticized U.S. foreign policy at a teach-in, Scott Rubush of FrontPage magazine, declared, "They're using state resources to the practical effect of aiding and abetting the Taliban."The magazine recommended that these faculty be fired. "Tell the good folks at UNC–Chapel Hill what you think of their decision to allow anti-American rallies on their state-supported campus," FrontPage urged. The administration received hundreds of angry e-mails, and was denounced on the floor of the North Carolina legislature. Several antiwar faculty members received death threats.10 In addition to phys i cal threats and attack s , A rab and Muslim students also faced enormous scru t i ny from the authori t i e s . An October 2001 survey by the Am e ri can Association of Collegiate Registrars and Ad m i s s i ons Officers found thatat least 220 colleges had been contacted by law enforcement in the weeks after 9/11. Police or FBI agents made 99 requests for private "n on - d i re c t o ry "i n f o rm a t i on ,s u ch as course sch e d u l e s , that under law cannot be released without student con s e n t , a s u b p o e n a , or a pending danger (on ly 12 of the requests had a subpoena, a l t h o u g h the Immigra t i on and Na t u ra l i za t i on Se rvice doesn't re q u i reconsent for inform a t i on on foreign students). Most requests were for individual students, although 16 requests for student re c o rds were "based on ethnicity. " Law enforcement re c e i ve d the inform a t i on from 159 sch o o l s , and on ly eight denied any re q u e s t s . I n response to the violence and persecution against Muslim and Arab students, some colleges did try to restrict offensive speech in ways that resulted in threats to academic fre e d om . At Orange Coast Com mu n i ty College (OCC) on September 20, 2001, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them "terrorists." Hearlson denied the accusation. A tape recording of the class found that the most extreme statements were misheard, although Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.11 In a case at Johns Hopkins University, Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a September 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.12 I n response to the violence and persecution against Muslim and Arab students, some colleges did try to restrict offensive speech in ways that resulted in threats to academic fre e d om . At Orange Coast Com mu n i ty College (OCC) on September 20, 2001, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them "terrorists." Hearlson denied the accusation. A tape recording of the class found that the most extreme statements were misheard, although Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.11 In a case at Johns Hopkins University, Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a September 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.12 Anti-military views expressed in an e-mail could put a professor's job at risk. At Chicago's St. Xavier University, history professor Peter Kirstein sent this response to an Air Force cadet asking him to help promote an Air Force event: "You are a disgrace to this country and I am furious you would even think I would support you and your aggressive baby killing tactics of collateral damage." Although Kirstein apologized for his e-mail, many called for his dismissal. On November 15, 2002, St. Xavier president Richard Yanikoski announced that Kirstein would be immediately suspended, receive a reprimand, and undergo a post-tenure review during a Spring 2003 sabbatical.13 Another tenured professor was suspended for responding rudely to an unsolicited e-mail and saying that killing is wrong. While conservatives contended that a few cases of censorship proved that left-wing thought police rule over college campuses, my extensive survey of academic freedom and civil liberties at American universities found the opposite: left-wing critics of the Bush Administration suffered by far the most numerous and most serious violations of their civil liberties. Censorship of conservatives was rare, and almost always overturned in the few cases where it occurred. Patriotic correctness—not political correctness—reigned supreme after 9/11.
This censorship prevents higher education from being the uniquely key institution that can create a cultural shift away from militarism by teaching students to resist.
Jaschik and Giroux 07, Henry Giroux and Scott Jaschik, 'The University in Chains', (Interview), 2007, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/07/giroux
Q: How do you think the state of academic freedom has changed since 9/11? A: Criticisms of the university as a stronghold of dissent have a long and inglorious history in the United States, extending from attacks in the 19th century by religious fundamentalists to anti-communist witch-hunts conducted in the 1920s, 1930s, and again in the 1950s, during the infamous era of McCarthyism. Harkening back to the infamous McCarthy era, a newly reinvigorated war is currently being waged by Christian nationalists, reactionary neoconservatives, and corporate fundamentalists against the autonomy and integrity of all those independent institutions that foster social responsibility, critical thought, and critical citizenship. While the attack is being waged on numerous fronts, the universities are where the major skirmishes are taking place. What is unique about this attack on academic freedom are the range and scope of the forces waging an assault on higher education. It is much worse today, because corporations, the national security state, the Pentagon, powerful Christian evangelical groups, non-government agencies, and enormously wealthy right-wing individuals and institutions have created powerful alliances — the perfect storm so to speak — that are truly threatening the freedoms and semi-autonomy of American universities. Higher education in the United States is currently being targeted by a diverse number of right-wing forces that have assumed political power and are waging an aggressive and focused campaign against the principles of academic freedom, sacrificing critical pedagogical practice in the name of patriotic correctness and dismantling the ideal of the university as a bastion of independent thought, and uncorrupted inquiry. Ironically, it is through the vocabulary of individual rights, academic freedom, balance, and tolerance that these forces are attempting to slander, even vilify, an allegedly liberal and left-oriented professoriate, to cut already meager federal funding for higher education, to eliminate tenure, and to place control of what is taught and said in classrooms under legislative oversight. There is more at work in the current attack than the rampant anti-intellectualism and paranoid style of American politics outlined in Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, written over 40 years ago. There is also the collective power of radical right-wing organizations, which in their powerful influence on all levels of government in spite of a democratically controlled Congress and most liberal social institutions feel compelled to dismantle the open, questioning cultures of the academy. Underlying recent attacks on the university is an attempt not merely to counter dissent but to destroy it and in doing so to eliminate all of those remaining public spaces, spheres, and institutions that nourish and sustain a culture of questioning so vital to a democratic civil society. Dissent is often equated with treason; the university is portrayed as the weak link in the war on terror by powerful educational agencies; professors who advocate a culture of questioning and critical engagement run the risk of having their names posted on Internet web sites while being labeled as un-American; and various right-wing individuals and politicians increasingly attempt to pass legislation that renders critical analysis a liability and reinforces, with no irony intended, a rabid anti-intellectualism under the call for balance and intellectual diversity. Genuine politics begins to disappear as people methodically lose those freedoms and rights that enable them to speak, act, dissent, and exercise both their individual right to resistance and a shared sense of collective responsibility. While higher education is only one site, it is one of the most crucial institutional and political spaces where democratic subjects can be shaped, democratic relations can be experienced, and anti-democratic forms of power can be identified and critically engaged. It is also one of the few spaces left where young people can think critically about the knowledge they gain, learn values that refuse to reduce the obligations of citizenship to either consumerism or the dictates of the national security state, and develop the language and skills necessary to defend those institutions and social relations that are vital to a substantive democracy. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt insisted, a meaningful conception of politics appears only when concrete spaces exist for people to come together to talk, think critically, and act on their capacities for empathy, judgment, and social responsibility. What the current attack on higher education threatens is a notion of the academy that is faithful to its role as a crucial democratic public sphere, one that offers a space both to resist the "dark times" in which we now live and to embrace the possibility of a future forged in the civic struggles requisite for a viable democracy.
Education has already been corrupted- I control uniqueness on this issue- its time to act now. Chile empirically proves- the aff spillsover to real reform.  
Williams 15, Jo, Remaking education from below: the Chilean student movement as public pedagogy, 2015, Australian Journal of Adult Learning
More than ever the crisis of schooling represents, at large, the crisis of democracy itself and any attempt to understand the attack on public schooling and higher education cannot be separated from the wider assault on all forms of public life not driven by the logic of the market (Giroux, 2003:7) "Fin al lucro en educación, nuestros sueños no les pertenecen" (end profit making in education, nobody owns our dreams 1 ) (slogan of the Chilean student movement, inspired by the French student uprisings of May-June 1968) Over the past four decades, as the economic and ideological depravity of neoliberal policy and its market-driven logic (D. W. Hursh and Henderson, 2011) has been brought to bear on every aspect of education, the very concept of 'public' has been negated. Characteristics such as user-pays, competition, assaults on teachers, and mass standardised-testing and rankings, are among the features of a schooling, which is now very much seen as a private rather than public good (Giroux, 2003). The question of public education as a democratic force for the radical transformation of a violently unjust society seems rarely if ever asked, and a dangerous co-option and weakening of the language and practice of progressive pedagogy has occurred to the extent that notions of inclusion and success are increasingly limited to narrowly conceived individualist and competitive measures of market advantage. As Giroux notes "the forces of neo-liberalism dissolve public issues into utterly privatised and individualistic concerns (2004:62), and despite ongoing official rhetoric "the only form of citizenship increasingly being offered to young people is consumerism" (2003:7). Neoliberal education sees students and young people as passive consumers, the emphasis of schooling on learning how to be governed rather than how to govern (Giroux, 2003:7). In such a context the space for a public pedagogy, based on challenging the hegemony of neoliberal ideology and aligned with collective resistance, appears limited at best. And yet, every day people, teachers, students and communities do engage in political struggle, enacting pedagogies that seek to unveil rather than continue to mask the political structures and organisation that ensures power remains in the hands of the few, and at the service of the few, at the expense of the rest of us. Giroux characterises public pedagogies as defined by hope, struggle and a politicisation of the education process. He argues for …a politics of resistance that extends beyond the classroom as part of a broader struggle to challenge those forces of neo-liberalism that currently wage war against all collective structures capable of defending vital social institutions as a public good (Giroux, 2003:14). Central to Giroux's argument is the need for critical educators to look to, value, and engage in and with social movements as they emerge and develop as sites of resistance. To …take sides, speak out, and engage in the hard work of debunking corporate culture's assault on teaching and learning, orient their teaching for social change, connect learning to public life ~and~ link knowledge to the operations of power (Giroux, 2004:77). He argues that "~p~rogressive education in an age of rampant neoliberalism requires an expanded notion of the public, pedagogy, solidarity, and democratic struggle" (Giroux, 2003:13), and that moreover, educators need to work against a "politics of certainty" and instead develop and engage in pedagogical practice that problematises the world and fosters a sense of collective resistance and hope (2003:14). A neoliberal vision of the 'good citizen' and 'good student' presumes passivity, acceptance of the status quo and an individualistic disposition. Critical pedagogues must seek out and embrace opportunities to support and celebrate collective political action, not only because it develops a sense of social and political agency but also because it constitutes a powerful basis for authentic learning and active and critical citizenship in an unjust world (Freire, 1970). The Chilean student movement stands as one such example of challenging and inspiring counter-practice and a reclaiming of pedagogy as political and public. For ten years students have filled Chile's streets, occupied their schools and universities, and organised conferences, public Remaking education from below: the Chilean student movement as public pedagogy 499 meetings, political stunts, creative actions and protests. Students and young people have been at the centre of the largest and most sustained political action seen in Chile since the democratic movement of the 80s, which eventually forced out the Pinochet dictatorship. Despite global trends in the opposite direction, the Chilean students have fundamentally influenced a nationwide education reform program constituting significant changes to the existing system which has been described as an extreme example of market-driven policy (Valenzuela, Bellei, and Ríos, 2014:220). Most importantly, they have forced and led a nationwide dialogue on the question of education and social justice in Chile and an interrogation of the current, grossly inequitable and elitist model (Falabella, 2008). This article begins by reviewing the experiences of the Chilean student movement to date and offering a brief explanation of the historical development of the education system it seeks to dismantle. It then considers the movement as an example of public pedagogies, concluding with a discussion of how it might inform notions of radical educational practice and a return of the student and pedagogue as authentic and critical subjects.
Even if the militarism framing is wrong- discussion and education on the issue creates responsible citizens in other areas by enabling them to think about the world in a different way
Evans and Giroux 16, Brad Evans and Henry Giroux, The Violence of Forgetting, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/opinion/the-violence-of-forgetting.htmlB.E.: Considering Hannah Arendt's warning that the forces of domination and exploitation require "thoughtlessness" on behalf of the oppressors, how is the capacity to think freely and in an informed way key to providing a counter to violent practices? H.G.: Young people can learn to challenge violence, like those in the antiwar movement of the early '70s or today in the Black Lives Matter movement. Education does more than create critically minded, socially responsible citizens. It enables young people and others to challenge authority by connecting individual troubles to wider systemic concerns. This notion of education is especially important given that racialized violence, violence against women and the ongoing assaults on public goods cannot be solved on an individual basis. Violence maims not only the body but also the mind and spirit. As Pierre Bourdieu has argued, it lies "on the side of belief and persuasion." If we are to counter violence by offering young people ways to think differently about their world and the choices before them, they must be empowered to recognize themselves in any analysis of violence, and in doing so to acknowledge that it speaks to their lives meaningfully. There is no genuine democracy without an informed public. While there are no guarantees that a critical education will prompt individuals to contest various forms of oppression and violence, it is clear that in the absence of a formative democratic culture, critical thinking will increasingly be trumped by anti-intellectualism, and walls and war will become the only means to resolve global challenges. Creating such a culture of education, however, will not be easy in a society that links the purpose of education with being competitive in a global economy.There is a growing culture of conformity and quietism on university campuses, made evident in the current call for safe spaces and trigger warnings. This is not just conservative reactionism, but is often carried out by liberals who believe they are acting with the best intentions. Violence comes in many forms and can be particularly disturbing when confronted in an educational setting if handled dismissively or in ways that blame victims. Yet troubling knowledge cannot be condemned on the basis of making students uncomfortable, especially if the desire for safety serves merely to limit access to difficult knowledge and the resources needed to analyze it. Critical education should be viewed as the art of the possible rather than a space organized around timidity, caution and fear. Creating safe spaces runs counter to the notion that learning should be unsettling, that students should challenge common sense assumptions and be willing to confront disturbing realities despite discomfort. The political scientist Wendy Brown rightly argues that the "domain of free public speech is not one of emotional safety or reassurance," and is " not what the public sphere and political speech promise." A university education should, Brown writes, " call you to think, question, doubt" and " incite you to question everything you assume, think you know or care about." This is particularly acute when dealing with pedagogies of violence and oppression. While there is a need to be ethically sensitive to the subject matter, our civic responsibility requires, at times, confronting truly intolerable conditions. The desire for emotionally safe spaces can be invoked to protect one's sense of privilege — especially in the privileged sites of university education. This is further compounded by the frequent attempts by students to deny some speakers a platform because their views are controversial. While the intentions may be understandable, this is a dangerous road to go down. Confronting the intolerable should be challenging and upsetting. Who could read the testimonies of Primo Levi and not feel intellectually and emotionally exhausted? Or Martin Luther King Jr.'s words, not to mention those of Malcolm X? It is the conditions that produce violence that should upset us ethically and prompt us to act responsibly, rather than to capitulate to a privatized emotional response that substitutes a therapeutic language for a political and worldly one.

Tournament: DebateLA | Round: 5 | Opponent: Harker EM | Judge: Aaron Timmons, Rodrigo Paramo

1AC

Part 1 is Framing

Patriotic Correctness runs rampant- dissent is charged with treason and lines of critical thought are silenced. Higher education has been coopted by the military industrial complex, reducing the roles of teachers to mere technicians. Thus the role of the ballot is to vote for the advocacy that best takes back the university from militarism. Educators should reject the call of abstraction and open up everything for contestation.
Giroux 13, Henry, Public Intellectuals Against the Neoliberal University, 2013, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19654-public-intellectuals-against-the-neoliberal-university
Increasingly, as universities are shaped by an audit culture, the call to be objective and impartial, whatever one's intentions, can easily echo what George Orwell called the official truth or the establishment point of view. Lacking a self-consciously democratic political focus, teachers are often reduced, or reduce themselves, to the role of a technician or functionary engaged in formalistic rituals, unconcerned with the disturbing and urgent problems that confront the larger society or the consequences of one's pedagogical practices and research undertakings. Hiding behind appeals to balance and objectivity, too many scholars refuse to recognize that being committed to something does not cancel out what C. Wright Mills once called hard thinking. Teaching needs to be rigorous, self-reflective, and committed not to the dead zone of instrumental rationality but to the practice of freedom, to a critical sensibility capable of advancing the parameters of knowledge, addressing crucial social issues, and connecting private troubles and public issues. In opposition to the instrumental model of teaching, with its conceit of political neutrality and its fetishization of measurement, I argue that academics should combine the mutually interdependent roles of critical educator and active citizen. This requires finding ways to connect the practice of classroom teaching with important social problems and the operation of power in the larger society while providing th e conditions for students to view themselves as critical agents capable of making those who exercise authority and power answerable for their actions. Higher education cannot be decoupled from what Jacques Derrida calls a democracy to come, that is, a democracy that must always "be open to the possibility of being contested, of contesting itself, of criticizing and indefinitely improving itself."33 Within this project of possibility and impossibility, critical pedagogy must be understood as a deliberately informed and purposeful political and moral practice, as opposed to one that is either doctrinaire, instrumentalized or both. Moreover, a critical pedagogy should also gain part of its momentum in higher education among students who will go back to the schools, churches, synagogues and workplaces to produce new ideas, concepts and critical ways of understanding the world in which young people and adults live. This is a notion of intellectual practice and responsibility that refuses the professional neutrality and privileged isolation of the academy.  It also affirms a broader vision of learning that links knowledge to the power of self-definition and to the capacities of students to expand the scope of democratic freedoms, particularly those that address the crisis of education, politics, and the social as part and parcel of the crisis of democracy itself. In order for critical pedagogy, dialogue and thought to have real effects, they must advocate that all citizens, old and young, are equally entitled, if not equally empowered, to shape the society in which they live. This is a commitment we heard articulated by the brave students who fought tuition hikes and the destruction of civil liberties and social provisions in Quebec and to a lesser degree in the Occupy Wall Street movement. If educators are to function as public intellectuals, they need to listen to young people who are producing a new language in order to talk about inequality and power relations, attempting to create alternative democratic public spaces, rethinking the very nature of politics, and asking serious questions about what democracy is and why it no longer exists in many neoliberal societies. These young people who are protesting the 1 recognize that they have been written out of the discourses of justice, equality and democracy and are not only resisting how neoliberalism has made them expendable, they are arguing for a collective future very different from the one that is on display in the current political and economic systems in which they feel trapped.  These brave youth are insisting that the relationship between knowledge and power can be emancipatory, that their histories and experiences matter, and that what they say and do counts in their struggle to unlearn dominating privileges, productively reconstruct their relations with others, and transform, when necessary, the world around them.
Militarism makes people disposable- justifying and creating everyday violence like shootings and drone strikes. Heg Good doesn't impact turn the aff-military criticism is good because it stops the glorification of the military and violence, which spillsover.
Giroux 16, Henry, Gun Culture and the American Nightmare of Violence, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34349-gun-culture-and-the-american-nightmare-of-violence
Gun violence in the United States has produced a culture soaked in blood - a culture that threatens everyone and extends from accidental deaths, suicides and domestic violence to mass shootings. In late December, a woman in St. Cloud, Florida, fatally shot her own daughter after mistaking her for an intruder. Less than a month earlier, on December 2, in San Bernardino, California, was the mass shooting that left 14 people dead and more than 20 wounded. And just two months before that, on October 1, nine people were killed and seven wounded in a mass shooting at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon. Mass shootings have become routine in the United States and speak to a society that relies on violence to feed the coffers of the merchants of death. Given the profits made by arms manufacturers, the defense industry, gun dealers and the lobbyists who represent them in Congress, it comes as no surprise that the culture of violence cannot be abstracted from either the culture of business or the corruption of politics. Violence runs through US society like an electric current offering instant pleasure from all cultural sources, whether it be the nightly news or a television series that glorifies serial killers. At a policy level, violence drives the arms industry and a militaristic foreign policy, and is increasingly the punishing state's major tool to enforce its hyped-up brand of domestic terrorism, especially against Black youth. The United States is utterly wedded to a neoliberal culture in which cruelty is viewed as virtue, while mass incarceration is treated as the chief mechanism to "institutionalize obedience." At the same time, a shark-like mode of competition replaces any viable notion of solidarity, and a sabotaging notion of self-interest pushes society into the false lure of mass consumerism. The increasing number of mass shootings is symptomatic of a society engulfed in racism, fear, militarism, bigotry and massive inequities in wealth and power. Guns and the hypermasculine culture of violence are given more support than young people and life itself. Over 270 mass shootings have taken place in the United States in 2015 alone, proving once again that the economic, political and social conditions that underlie such violence are not being addressed. Sadly, these shootings are not isolated incidents. For example, one child under 12 years old has been killed every other day by a firearm, which amounts to 555 children killed by guns in three years. An even more frightening statistic and example of a shocking moral and political perversity was noted in data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which states that "2,525 children and teens died by gunfire in ~the United States~ in 2014; one child or teen death every 3 hours and 28 minutes, nearly 7 a day, 48 a week." Such figures indicate that too many youth in the United States occupy what might be called war zones in which guns and violence proliferate. In this scenario, guns and the hypermasculine culture of violence are given more support than young people and life itself. The predominance of a relatively unchecked gun culture and a morally perverse and politically obscene culture of violence is particularly evident in the power of the gun lobby and its political advocates to pass laws in eight states to allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons "into classrooms, dormitories and other buildings" on campuses. In spite of the rash of recent shootings on college campuses, Texas lawmakers, for instance, passed one such "campus carry bill," which will take effect in August 2016. To add insult to injury, they also passed an "open carry bill" that allows registered gun owners to carry their guns openly in public. Such laws not only reflect "the seemingly limitless legislative clout of gun interests," but also a rather irrational return to the violence-laden culture of the "Wild West." As in the past, individuals will be allowed to walk the streets, while openly carrying guns and packing heat as a measure of their love of guns and their reliance upon violence as the best way to address any perceived threat to their security. This return to the deadly practices of the " Wild West" is neither a matter of individual choice nor some far-fetched yet allegedly legitimate appeal to the Second Amendment. On the contrary, mass violence in the United States has to be placed within a broader historical, economic and political context in order to address the totality of the forces that produce it. Focusing merely on mass shootings or the passing of potentially dangerous gun legislation does not get to the root of the systemic forces that produce the United States' love affair with violence and the ideologies and criminogenic institutions that produce it. Imperial policies that promote aggression all across the globe are now matched by increasing levels of lawlessness and state repression, which mutually feed each other. On the home front, civil society is degenerating into a military organization, a space of lawlessness and warlike practices, organized primarily for the production of violence. For instance, as Steve Martinot observes at CounterPunch, the police now use their discourse of command and power to criminalize behavior; in addition, they use military weapons and surveillance tools as if they are preparing for war, and create a culture of fear in which militaristic principles replace legal principles. He writes: This suggests that there is an institutional insecurity that seeks to cover itself through social control ... the cops act out this insecurity by criminalizing individuals in advance. No legal principle need be involved. There is only the militarist principle.... When police shoot a fleeing subject and claim they are acting in self-defense (i.e. threatened), it is not their person but the command and control principle that is threatened. To defend that control through assault or murderous action against a disobedient person implies that the cop's own identity is wholly immersed in its paradigm. There is nothing psychological about this. Self-worth or insecurity is not the issue. There is only the military ethic of power, imposed on civil society through an assumption of impunity. It is the ethos of democracy, of human self-respect, that is the threat. The rise of violence and the gun culture in the United States cannot be separated from a transformation in governance in the United States. Political sovereignty has been replaced by economic sovereignty as corporate power takes over the reins of governance. The more money influences politics, the more corrupt the political culture becomes. Under such circumstances, holding office is largely dependent on having huge amounts of capital at one's disposal, while laws and policies at all levels of government are mostly fashioned by lobbyists representing big business corporations and financial institutions. Moreover, such lobbying, as corrupt and unethical as it may be, is now carried out in the open by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other individuals, groups and institutions invested in the militarization of US society. This lobbying is then displayed as a badge of honor - a kind of open testimonial to the lobbyists' disrespect for democratic governance. But money in politics is not the only major institutional factor in which everyday and state violence are nourished by a growing militarism. As David Theo Goldberg has argued in his essay "Mission Accomplished: Militarizing Social Logic," the military has also assumed a central role in shaping all aspects of society. Militarization is about more than the use of repressive power; it also represents a powerful social logic that is constitutive of values, modes of rationality and ways of thinking. According to Goldberg, The military is not just a fighting machine.... It serves and socializes. It hands down to the society, as big brother might, its more or less perfected goods, from gunpowder to guns, computing to information management ... In short, while militarily produced instruments might be retooled to other, broader social purpose - the military shapes pretty much the entire range of social production from commodities to culture, social goods to social theory. The militarization and corporatization of social logic permeates US society. The general public in the United States is largely depoliticized through the influence of corporations over schools, higher education and other cultural apparatuses. The deadening of public values, civic consciousness and critical citizenship are also the result of the work of anti-public intellectuals representing right-wing ideological and financial interests, a powerful set of corporate-controlled media agencies that are largely center-right and a market-driven public pedagogy that reduces the obligations of citizenship to the endless consumption and discarding of commodities. Military ideals permeate every aspect of popular culture, policy and social relations. In addition, a pedagogy of historical, social and racial amnesia is constructed and circulated through celebrity and consumer culture. A war culture now shapes every aspect of society as warlike values, a hypermasculinity and an aggressive militarism seep into every major institution in the United States, including schools, the corporate media and local police forces. The criminal legal system has become the default structure for dealing with social problems. More and more people are considered disposable because they offend the sensibilities of the financial elite, who are rapidly consolidating class power. Under such circumstances, violence occupies an honored place.
This outweighs
Root Cause- once violence becomes normalized, then anything including the neg impacts can occur and no one cares, making solving them impossible
Aggregation- Militarism impacts constantly occur which means they aggregate every single day. By the time the neg impacts occur- the aff will massively outweighs on magnitude.
Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed
Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or androcentrism, or white normativity—is that all theorizing, both moral and nonmoral, takes place in an intellectual realm dominated by concepts, assumptions, norms, values, and framing perspectives that reflect the experience and group interests of the privileged group (whether the bourgeoisie, or men, or whites). So a simple empiricism will not work as a cognitive strategy; one has to be self-conscious about the concepts that "spontaneously" occur to one, since many of these concepts will not arise naturally but as the result of social structures and hegemonic ideational patterns. In particular, it will often be the case that dominant concepts will obscure certain crucial realities, blocking them from sight, or naturalizing them, while on the other hand, concepts necessary for accurately mapping these realities will be absent. Whether in terms of concepts of the self, or of humans in general, or in the cartography of the social, it will be necessary to scrutinize the dominant conceptual tools and the way the boundaries are drawn. This is, of course, the burden of standpoint theory—that certain realities tend to be more visible from the perspective of the subordinated than the privileged (Harding 2003). The thesis can be put in a strong and implausible form, but weaker versions do have considerable plausibility, as illustrated by the simple fact that for the most part the crucial conceptual innovation necessary to map nonideal realities has not come from the dominant group. In its ignoring of oppression, ideal theory also ignores the consequences of oppression. If societies are not oppressive, or if in modeling them we can abstract away from oppression and assume moral cognizers of roughly equal skill, then the paradigmatic moral agent can be featureless. No theory is required about the particular group-based obstacles that may block the vision of a particular group. By contrast, nonideal theory recognizes that people will typically be cognitively affected by their social location, so that on both the macro and the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading.
Non-ideal theory necessitates consequentialism since instead of following rules that assume an already equal playing field; we take steps to correct the material injustice.

Part 2 Advocacy

Plan text- Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the military's policies.
Wilson 10, John K., Ph.D candidate with dissertation on the history of academic freedom in America and author of three books, early excerpt from Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies which was later published in 2010
In the wake of 9/11, academic freedom suffered under a wave of patriotic correctness in America. An institution of higher learning should not fear controversy or prefer bland clichés to intellectual content. All colleges should prohibit banning speakers, even if they dissent from a particular orthodoxy. The response to the terrible acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001, did not require an exception to the rules of academic freedom. To the contrary, the period after 9/11 was a moment when intellectual scrutiny of American foreign policy was more important than ever. Higher education did no worse, and perhaps better, than other American i n s t i t u t i on s , s u ch as Con g ress and the media, that accepted the Bush Administration plans, often without debate or inquiry. Sadly, though, the enemies of academic freedom too often succeeded in their aim of silencing dissent. Both the ideal and the practice of academic freedom have been under attack since 9/11, as America became a place where, in the words of Bush press secretary Ari Fleisher, you had to "watch what you say."31

Part 3 Offense

Patriotic correctness silences anti-military dissent. Multiple examples and empirical surveys prove.
Wilson 2, John K., Ph.D candidate with dissertation on the history of academic freedom in America and author of three books, early excerpt from Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies which was later published in 2010
Compared to earlier "wartime" situations, academic freedom is far more protected today than at any time in the past. But the danger posed to academic freedom cannot be ignored. Efforts to silence faculty and students, even when they are unsuccessful, can make others around the country more reluctant to speak openly. Only by denouncing all efforts at censorship and vigorously defending the right of freedom on college campuses, can we continue to protect academic freedom. The cliché of our times, constantly repeated but often true, is that 9/11 "changed everything." One thing that it changed was academic freedom. The controversy over the limits of free speech on college campuses across the nation began immediately. On the morning of September 11, 2001, University of New Mexico history professor Richard Berthold joked with his class, "Anyone who would blow up the Pentagon would have my vote." Berthold received death threats, keeping him off campus. On September 27, an unidentified person left a message on the provost's voice-mail saying if Berthold were not "ousted" within 24 hours, Berthold would be ousted by other sources. Berthold was threatened in front of his home by a biker who came at him screaming obscenities, and he received several angry e-mails and letters with messages such as "I'd like to blow you up." New Mexico state representative William Fuller declared,"Treason is giving aide or comfort to the enemy. Any terrorist who heard Berthold's comment was comforted." In the end, Berthold was pressured to retire from his job because of those 11 words he spoke on 9/11.Mohammad Rahat, an Iranian citizen and University of Miami medical technician who turned 22 years old on September 11, 2001, declared in a meeting that day, "Some birthday gift from Osama bin Laden." Although Rahat said that he meant it "in a sarcastic way," Rahat was suspended and then fired on September 25, 2001. Paula Musto, vice president of university relations, declared that Rahat's "comments were deeply disturbing to his co-workers and superiors at the medical school. They were inappropriate and unbecoming for someone working in a research laboratory. He was fired because he made those comments, certainly not because of his ethnic background." Rahat had received only positive evaluation in 13 months working in the lab. 6 At the University of California at Los Angeles, library assistant Jonnie Hargis was suspended without pay for one week after sending an e-mail response criticizing American policies in Iraq and Israel. Hargis' union successfully pursued a grievance; Hargis was repaid for his lost income, the incident was stricken from his job record, and the university was forced to clarify its e-mail policies.7On September 13, 2001, two resident assistants in Minnesota complained to the dean of students that undergraduates felt fearful and uneasy because some professors questioned the competence of the Bush Administration. According to the resident assistants,"The recent attacks extend beyond political debate, and for professors to make negative judgments on our government before any action has taken place only fosters a cynical attitude in the classroom." The administration asked faculty to think hard about what they said. Greg Kneser, dean of students, declared:"There were students who were just scared, and an intellectual discussion of the political ramifications of this was not helpful for them. They were frightened, and they look to their faculty not just for intellectual debate" but as "people they trust."8 Even hypothetical discussions were suspicious. Portland Community College philosophy professor Stephen Carey challenged students in his critical thinking class to consider an extreme rhetorical proposition that would cause great emotion, like "Bush should be hung, strung up upside down, and left for the buzzards." One student's mother, misunderstanding the example, called the FBI and accused Carey of threatening to kill the President, and the Secret Service investigated him.9 When four leftist faculty at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (UNC) criticized U.S. foreign policy at a teach-in, Scott Rubush of FrontPage magazine, declared, "They're using state resources to the practical effect of aiding and abetting the Taliban."The magazine recommended that these faculty be fired. "Tell the good folks at UNC–Chapel Hill what you think of their decision to allow anti-American rallies on their state-supported campus," FrontPage urged. The administration received hundreds of angry e-mails, and was denounced on the floor of the North Carolina legislature. Several antiwar faculty members received death threats.10 In addition to phys i cal threats and attack s , A rab and Muslim students also faced enormous scru t i ny from the authori t i e s . An October 2001 survey by the Am e ri can Association of Collegiate Registrars and Ad m i s s i ons Officers found thatat least 220 colleges had been contacted by law enforcement in the weeks after 9/11. Police or FBI agents made 99 requests for private "n on - d i re c t o ry "i n f o rm a t i on ,s u ch as course sch e d u l e s , that under law cannot be released without student con s e n t , a s u b p o e n a , or a pending danger (on ly 12 of the requests had a subpoena, a l t h o u g h the Immigra t i on and Na t u ra l i za t i on Se rvice doesn't re q u i reconsent for inform a t i on on foreign students). Most requests were for individual students, although 16 requests for student re c o rds were "based on ethnicity. " Law enforcement re c e i ve d the inform a t i on from 159 sch o o l s , and on ly eight denied any re q u e s t s . I n response to the violence and persecution against Muslim and Arab students, some colleges did try to restrict offensive speech in ways that resulted in threats to academic fre e d om . At Orange Coast Com mu n i ty College (OCC) on September 20, 2001, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them "terrorists." Hearlson denied the accusation. A tape recording of the class found that the most extreme statements were misheard, although Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.11 In a case at Johns Hopkins University, Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a September 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.12 I n response to the violence and persecution against Muslim and Arab students, some colleges did try to restrict offensive speech in ways that resulted in threats to academic fre e d om . At Orange Coast Com mu n i ty College (OCC) on September 20, 2001, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them "terrorists." Hearlson denied the accusation. A tape recording of the class found that the most extreme statements were misheard, although Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.11 In a case at Johns Hopkins University, Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a September 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.12 Anti-military views expressed in an e-mail could put a professor's job at risk. At Chicago's St. Xavier University, history professor Peter Kirstein sent this response to an Air Force cadet asking him to help promote an Air Force event: "You are a disgrace to this country and I am furious you would even think I would support you and your aggressive baby killing tactics of collateral damage." Although Kirstein apologized for his e-mail, many called for his dismissal. On November 15, 2002, St. Xavier president Richard Yanikoski announced that Kirstein would be immediately suspended, receive a reprimand, and undergo a post-tenure review during a Spring 2003 sabbatical.13 Another tenured professor was suspended for responding rudely to an unsolicited e-mail and saying that killing is wrong. While conservatives contended that a few cases of censorship proved that left-wing thought police rule over college campuses, my extensive survey of academic freedom and civil liberties at American universities found the opposite: left-wing critics of the Bush Administration suffered by far the most numerous and most serious violations of their civil liberties. Censorship of conservatives was rare, and almost always overturned in the few cases where it occurred. Patriotic correctness—not political correctness—reigned supreme after 9/11.
This censorship prevents higher education from being the uniquely key institution that can create a cultural shift away from militarism by teaching students to resist.
Jaschik and Giroux 07, Henry Giroux and Scott Jaschik, 'The University in Chains', (Interview), 2007, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/07/giroux
Q: How do you think the state of academic freedom has changed since 9/11? A: Criticisms of the university as a stronghold of dissent have a long and inglorious history in the United States, extending from attacks in the 19th century by religious fundamentalists to anti-communist witch-hunts conducted in the 1920s, 1930s, and again in the 1950s, during the infamous era of McCarthyism. Harkening back to the infamous McCarthy era, a newly reinvigorated war is currently being waged by Christian nationalists, reactionary neoconservatives, and corporate fundamentalists against the autonomy and integrity of all those independent institutions that foster social responsibility, critical thought, and critical citizenship. While the attack is being waged on numerous fronts, the universities are where the major skirmishes are taking place. What is unique about this attack on academic freedom are the range and scope of the forces waging an assault on higher education. It is much worse today, because corporations, the national security state, the Pentagon, powerful Christian evangelical groups, non-government agencies, and enormously wealthy right-wing individuals and institutions have created powerful alliances — the perfect storm so to speak — that are truly threatening the freedoms and semi-autonomy of American universities. Higher education in the United States is currently being targeted by a diverse number of right-wing forces that have assumed political power and are waging an aggressive and focused campaign against the principles of academic freedom, sacrificing critical pedagogical practice in the name of patriotic correctness and dismantling the ideal of the university as a bastion of independent thought, and uncorrupted inquiry. Ironically, it is through the vocabulary of individual rights, academic freedom, balance, and tolerance that these forces are attempting to slander, even vilify, an allegedly liberal and left-oriented professoriate, to cut already meager federal funding for higher education, to eliminate tenure, and to place control of what is taught and said in classrooms under legislative oversight. There is more at work in the current attack than the rampant anti-intellectualism and paranoid style of American politics outlined in Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, written over 40 years ago. There is also the collective power of radical right-wing organizations, which in their powerful influence on all levels of government in spite of a democratically controlled Congress and most liberal social institutions feel compelled to dismantle the open, questioning cultures of the academy. Underlying recent attacks on the university is an attempt not merely to counter dissent but to destroy it and in doing so to eliminate all of those remaining public spaces, spheres, and institutions that nourish and sustain a culture of questioning so vital to a democratic civil society. Dissent is often equated with treason; the university is portrayed as the weak link in the war on terror by powerful educational agencies; professors who advocate a culture of questioning and critical engagement run the risk of having their names posted on Internet web sites while being labeled as un-American; and various right-wing individuals and politicians increasingly attempt to pass legislation that renders critical analysis a liability and reinforces, with no irony intended, a rabid anti-intellectualism under the call for balance and intellectual diversity. Genuine politics begins to disappear as people methodically lose those freedoms and rights that enable them to speak, act, dissent, and exercise both their individual right to resistance and a shared sense of collective responsibility. While higher education is only one site, it is one of the most crucial institutional and political spaces where democratic subjects can be shaped, democratic relations can be experienced, and anti-democratic forms of power can be identified and critically engaged. It is also one of the few spaces left where young people can think critically about the knowledge they gain, learn values that refuse to reduce the obligations of citizenship to either consumerism or the dictates of the national security state, and develop the language and skills necessary to defend those institutions and social relations that are vital to a substantive democracy. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt insisted, a meaningful conception of politics appears only when concrete spaces exist for people to come together to talk, think critically, and act on their capacities for empathy, judgment, and social responsibility. What the current attack on higher education threatens is a notion of the academy that is faithful to its role as a crucial democratic public sphere, one that offers a space both to resist the "dark times" in which we now live and to embrace the possibility of a future forged in the civic struggles requisite for a viable democracy.
Education has already been corrupted- I control uniqueness on this issue- its time to act now. Chile empirically proves- the aff spillsover to real reform.  
Williams 15, Jo, Remaking education from below: the Chilean student movement as public pedagogy, 2015, Australian Journal of Adult Learning
More than ever the crisis of schooling represents, at large, the crisis of democracy itself and any attempt to understand the attack on public schooling and higher education cannot be separated from the wider assault on all forms of public life not driven by the logic of the market (Giroux, 2003:7) "Fin al lucro en educación, nuestros sueños no les pertenecen" (end profit making in education, nobody owns our dreams 1 ) (slogan of the Chilean student movement, inspired by the French student uprisings of May-June 1968) Over the past four decades, as the economic and ideological depravity of neoliberal policy and its market-driven logic (D. W. Hursh and Henderson, 2011) has been brought to bear on every aspect of education, the very concept of 'public' has been negated. Characteristics such as user-pays, competition, assaults on teachers, and mass standardised-testing and rankings, are among the features of a schooling, which is now very much seen as a private rather than public good (Giroux, 2003). The question of public education as a democratic force for the radical transformation of a violently unjust society seems rarely if ever asked, and a dangerous co-option and weakening of the language and practice of progressive pedagogy has occurred to the extent that notions of inclusion and success are increasingly limited to narrowly conceived individualist and competitive measures of market advantage. As Giroux notes "the forces of neo-liberalism dissolve public issues into utterly privatised and individualistic concerns (2004:62), and despite ongoing official rhetoric "the only form of citizenship increasingly being offered to young people is consumerism" (2003:7). Neoliberal education sees students and young people as passive consumers, the emphasis of schooling on learning how to be governed rather than how to govern (Giroux, 2003:7). In such a context the space for a public pedagogy, based on challenging the hegemony of neoliberal ideology and aligned with collective resistance, appears limited at best. And yet, every day people, teachers, students and communities do engage in political struggle, enacting pedagogies that seek to unveil rather than continue to mask the political structures and organisation that ensures power remains in the hands of the few, and at the service of the few, at the expense of the rest of us. Giroux characterises public pedagogies as defined by hope, struggle and a politicisation of the education process. He argues for …a politics of resistance that extends beyond the classroom as part of a broader struggle to challenge those forces of neo-liberalism that currently wage war against all collective structures capable of defending vital social institutions as a public good (Giroux, 2003:14). Central to Giroux's argument is the need for critical educators to look to, value, and engage in and with social movements as they emerge and develop as sites of resistance. To …take sides, speak out, and engage in the hard work of debunking corporate culture's assault on teaching and learning, orient their teaching for social change, connect learning to public life ~and~ link knowledge to the operations of power (Giroux, 2004:77). He argues that "~p~rogressive education in an age of rampant neoliberalism requires an expanded notion of the public, pedagogy, solidarity, and democratic struggle" (Giroux, 2003:13), and that moreover, educators need to work against a "politics of certainty" and instead develop and engage in pedagogical practice that problematises the world and fosters a sense of collective resistance and hope (2003:14). A neoliberal vision of the 'good citizen' and 'good student' presumes passivity, acceptance of the status quo and an individualistic disposition. Critical pedagogues must seek out and embrace opportunities to support and celebrate collective political action, not only because it develops a sense of social and political agency but also because it constitutes a powerful basis for authentic learning and active and critical citizenship in an unjust world (Freire, 1970). The Chilean student movement stands as one such example of challenging and inspiring counter-practice and a reclaiming of pedagogy as political and public. For ten years students have filled Chile's streets, occupied their schools and universities, and organised conferences, public Remaking education from below: the Chilean student movement as public pedagogy 499 meetings, political stunts, creative actions and protests. Students and young people have been at the centre of the largest and most sustained political action seen in Chile since the democratic movement of the 80s, which eventually forced out the Pinochet dictatorship. Despite global trends in the opposite direction, the Chilean students have fundamentally influenced a nationwide education reform program constituting significant changes to the existing system which has been described as an extreme example of market-driven policy (Valenzuela, Bellei, and Ríos, 2014:220). Most importantly, they have forced and led a nationwide dialogue on the question of education and social justice in Chile and an interrogation of the current, grossly inequitable and elitist model (Falabella, 2008). This article begins by reviewing the experiences of the Chilean student movement to date and offering a brief explanation of the historical development of the education system it seeks to dismantle. It then considers the movement as an example of public pedagogies, concluding with a discussion of how it might inform notions of radical educational practice and a return of the student and pedagogue as authentic and critical subjects.
Even if the militarism framing is wrong- discussion and education on the issue creates responsible citizens in other areas by enabling them to think about the world in a different way
Evans and Giroux 16, Brad Evans and Henry Giroux, The Violence of Forgetting, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/20/opinion/the-violence-of-forgetting.htmlB.E.: Considering Hannah Arendt's warning that the forces of domination and exploitation require "thoughtlessness" on behalf of the oppressors, how is the capacity to think freely and in an informed way key to providing a counter to violent practices? H.G.: Young people can learn to challenge violence, like those in the antiwar movement of the early '70s or today in the Black Lives Matter movement. Education does more than create critically minded, socially responsible citizens. It enables young people and others to challenge authority by connecting individual troubles to wider systemic concerns. This notion of education is especially important given that racialized violence, violence against women and the ongoing assaults on public goods cannot be solved on an individual basis. Violence maims not only the body but also the mind and spirit. As Pierre Bourdieu has argued, it lies "on the side of belief and persuasion." If we are to counter violence by offering young people ways to think differently about their world and the choices before them, they must be empowered to recognize themselves in any analysis of violence, and in doing so to acknowledge that it speaks to their lives meaningfully. There is no genuine democracy without an informed public. While there are no guarantees that a critical education will prompt individuals to contest various forms of oppression and violence, it is clear that in the absence of a formative democratic culture, critical thinking will increasingly be trumped by anti-intellectualism, and walls and war will become the only means to resolve global challenges. Creating such a culture of education, however, will not be easy in a society that links the purpose of education with being competitive in a global economy.There is a growing culture of conformity and quietism on university campuses, made evident in the current call for safe spaces and trigger warnings. This is not just conservative reactionism, but is often carried out by liberals who believe they are acting with the best intentions. Violence comes in many forms and can be particularly disturbing when confronted in an educational setting if handled dismissively or in ways that blame victims. Yet troubling knowledge cannot be condemned on the basis of making students uncomfortable, especially if the desire for safety serves merely to limit access to difficult knowledge and the resources needed to analyze it. Critical education should be viewed as the art of the possible rather than a space organized around timidity, caution and fear. Creating safe spaces runs counter to the notion that learning should be unsettling, that students should challenge common sense assumptions and be willing to confront disturbing realities despite discomfort. The political scientist Wendy Brown rightly argues that the "domain of free public speech is not one of emotional safety or reassurance," and is " not what the public sphere and political speech promise." A university education should, Brown writes, " call you to think, question, doubt" and " incite you to question everything you assume, think you know or care about." This is particularly acute when dealing with pedagogies of violence and oppression. While there is a need to be ethically sensitive to the subject matter, our civic responsibility requires, at times, confronting truly intolerable conditions. The desire for emotionally safe spaces can be invoked to protect one's sense of privilege — especially in the privileged sites of university education. This is further compounded by the frequent attempts by students to deny some speakers a platform because their views are controversial. While the intentions may be understandable, this is a dangerous road to go down. Confronting the intolerable should be challenging and upsetting. Who could read the testimonies of Primo Levi and not feel intellectually and emotionally exhausted? Or Martin Luther King Jr.'s words, not to mention those of Malcolm X? It is the conditions that produce violence that should upset us ethically and prompt us to act responsibly, rather than to capitulate to a privatized emotional response that substitutes a therapeutic language for a political and worldly one.

Tournament: Emory | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lexington VV | Judge: Brian Wiora

1AC - Zionism

Framework

The role of the ballot is to evaluate the simulated consequences of the affirmative policy vs a competing neg policy option to reduce material oppression.

1. The aff deploys the state to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19,
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

2. Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism,
AND
level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175)

Plan

Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the State of Israel.

Volokh 16 ~Eugene Volokh, teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation, "University of California Board of Regents is wrong about 'anti-Zionism' on campus," The Washington Post, March 16, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/16/university-of-california-board-of-regents-is-wrong-about-anti-zionism-on-campus/?utm_term=.cfab0cd93ad6~~ JW
The University of California Board of Regents has just released its Final Report of the
AND
, universities are the very places where such matters should indeed be discussed.

Defining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic chills on-campus discourse that attempts to criticize Israel or support Palestine

Emmons 16 ~Alex Emmons, Senate Responds to Trump-Inspired Anti-Semitism By Targeting Students Who Criticize Israel, The Intercept, December 2 2016~
A draft of the bill obtained by The Intercept encourages the Department of Education to 
AND
environment on the basis of national origin" for Jewish students on campus.

Advantages

Advantage 1: Islamophobia

I'll isolate two impacts

a) Suppression of pro-Palestine movements on campus denies Palestinian students the ability to form solidarity

Nadeau and Sears 11 ~Mary-Jo Nadeau and Alan Sears, Mary-Jo Nadeau teaches at the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto-Mississauga. Alan Sears teaches at the Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, Toronto. "This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus," The Bullet, March 5, 2011, http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/475.php~~ JW
The silencing campaign is particularly dangerous given the overall political climate, which facilitates the
AND
attack, and one that resonates with the neoliberal restructuring of the universities.

b) Attempts to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism leads to campaigns by pro-Israel groups that demean and marginalize Muslim-American students

Solomon 16 ~Daniel J. Solomon, "Inflammatory Pro-Israel Posters Pop Up on Campus — Are They Islamophobic?," Forward, October 26, 2016, http://forward.com/news/national/352698/inflammatory-pro-israel-posters-pop-up-on-campus-are-they-islamophobic/~~ JW
A row over Israel on campus is as predictable as the fall of autumn leaves
AND
over a course that presented Zionism as a "settler colonialist" movement.

Islamophobia empirically leads to hate crimes, fractures communities, and increases national security threats.

Foran 16 ~Clare Foran, Donald Trump and the Rise of Anti-Muslim Violence, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-muslims-islamophobia-hate-crime/500840/~~
A new report from California State University-San Bernardino's Center for the Study of
AND
a number of instances not just to hostility, but acts of violence." 

Advantage 2: Civic Engagement

Public universities are threatening cuts to funding in response to pro-Palestine divestment strategies. Empirically proven on University of California campuses where organizations that don't associate with pro-Palestine get funding while others don't

Friedman 15 ~Nora Barrows-Friedman, staff writer and associate editor at The Electronic Intifada, "UCLA student groups face funding cuts over Israel divestment," The Electronic Intifada, Dec 7, 2015, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/ucla-student-groups-face-funding-cuts-over-israel-divestment~~ JW
The Graduate Students Association at UCLA in California has put stipulations on funding for student
AND
by a landslide vote and was supported by more than 30 student organizations.

Impacts

A) Encouraging discourse about foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine is uniquely good because it builds coalitions across all racial groups to inspire new dialogues. The aff spills over to other reform movements

Hallward and Shaver 12 ~Maia Carter Hallward and Patrick Shaver,  Associate Professor of Middle East Politics at American university, "''WAR by other Means'' or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley's Divestment Bill," Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research, July 2012~ JW
Finally, proponents and opponents differed in their approaches to power. Opponents of the
AND
a momentum that spilled over onto other campuses and other California BDS initiatives. 

B) Israeli companies abuse West Bank occupation for their own profit while exploiting and suppressing local Palestinians. Every dollar that the divestment strategy gains translates into increased welfare in Palestine

Press 16 ~Eyal Press, author of "Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times, "When 'Made in Israel' Is a Human Rights Abuse," New York Times, January 26, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/when-made-in-israel-is-a-human-rights-abuse.html?_r=0~~ JW
From a biblical perspective, this view may be tenable. From a legal and
AND
obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations.

Tournament: Emory | Round: 5 | Opponent: Pine Crest Prep ZW | Judge: Jacob Nails

1AC - Zionism

Framework

The role of the ballot is to evaluate the simulated consequences of the affirmative policy vs a competing neg policy option to reduce material oppression.

1. The aff deploys the state to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19,
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

2. Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism,
AND
level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175)

Plan

Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the State of Israel.

Volokh 16 ~Eugene Volokh, teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation, "University of California Board of Regents is wrong about 'anti-Zionism' on campus," The Washington Post, March 16, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/16/university-of-california-board-of-regents-is-wrong-about-anti-zionism-on-campus/?utm_term=.cfab0cd93ad6~~ JW
The University of California Board of Regents has just released its Final Report of the
AND
, universities are the very places where such matters should indeed be discussed.

Defining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic chills on-campus discourse that attempts to criticize Israel or support Palestine

Emmons 16 ~Alex Emmons, Senate Responds to Trump-Inspired Anti-Semitism By Targeting Students Who Criticize Israel, The Intercept, December 2 2016~
A draft of the bill obtained by The Intercept encourages the Department of Education to 
AND
environment on the basis of national origin" for Jewish students on campus.

Advantages

Advantage 1: Islamophobia

I'll isolate two impacts

a) Suppression of pro-Palestine movements on campus denies Palestinian students the ability to form solidarity

Nadeau and Sears 11 ~Mary-Jo Nadeau and Alan Sears, Mary-Jo Nadeau teaches at the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto-Mississauga. Alan Sears teaches at the Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, Toronto. "This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus," The Bullet, March 5, 2011, http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/475.php~~ JW
The silencing campaign is particularly dangerous given the overall political climate, which facilitates the
AND
attack, and one that resonates with the neoliberal restructuring of the universities.

b) Attempts to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism leads to campaigns by pro-Israel groups that demean and marginalize Muslim-American students

Solomon 16 ~Daniel J. Solomon, "Inflammatory Pro-Israel Posters Pop Up on Campus — Are They Islamophobic?," Forward, October 26, 2016, http://forward.com/news/national/352698/inflammatory-pro-israel-posters-pop-up-on-campus-are-they-islamophobic/~~ JW
A row over Israel on campus is as predictable as the fall of autumn leaves
AND
over a course that presented Zionism as a "settler colonialist" movement.

Islamophobia empirically leads to hate crimes, fractures communities, and increases national security threats.

Foran 16 ~Clare Foran, Donald Trump and the Rise of Anti-Muslim Violence, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-muslims-islamophobia-hate-crime/500840/~~
A new report from California State University-San Bernardino's Center for the Study of
AND
a number of instances not just to hostility, but acts of violence." 

Advantage 2: Civic Engagement

Public universities are threatening cuts to funding in response to pro-Palestine divestment strategies. Empirically proven on University of California campuses where organizations that don't associate with pro-Palestine get funding while others don't

Friedman 15 ~Nora Barrows-Friedman, staff writer and associate editor at The Electronic Intifada, "UCLA student groups face funding cuts over Israel divestment," The Electronic Intifada, Dec 7, 2015, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/ucla-student-groups-face-funding-cuts-over-israel-divestment~~ JW
The Graduate Students Association at UCLA in California has put stipulations on funding for student
AND
by a landslide vote and was supported by more than 30 student organizations.

Impacts

A) Encouraging discourse about foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine is uniquely good because it builds coalitions across all racial groups to inspire new dialogues. The aff spills over to other reform movements

Hallward and Shaver 12 ~Maia Carter Hallward and Patrick Shaver,  Associate Professor of Middle East Politics at American university, "''WAR by other Means'' or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley's Divestment Bill," Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research, July 2012~ JW
Finally, proponents and opponents differed in their approaches to power. Opponents of the
AND
a momentum that spilled over onto other campuses and other California BDS initiatives. 

B) Israeli companies abuse West Bank occupation for their own profit while exploiting and suppressing local Palestinians. Every dollar that the divestment strategy gains translates into increased welfare in Palestine

Press 16 ~Eyal Press, author of "Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times, "When 'Made in Israel' Is a Human Rights Abuse," New York Times, January 26, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/when-made-in-israel-is-a-human-rights-abuse.html?_r=0~~ JW
From a biblical perspective, this view may be tenable. From a legal and
AND
obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations.

Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: Octas | Opponent: Harker SP | Judge: Panchal, Dosch, Saideean

1AC - Zionism

Framework

The role of the ballot is to evaluate the simulated consequences of the affirmative policy vs a competing neg policy option to reduce material oppression.

1. The aff deploys the state to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19,
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

2. Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism,
AND
level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175)

3. No act omission distinction for states means means based theories collapse to consequentialism.

Sunstein and Vermule 05~Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. The University of Chicago Law School. "Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs." JOHN M. OLIN LAW and ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 239. The Chicago Working Paper Series. March 2005~
In our view, both the argument from causation and the argument from intention go
AND
a set of policy instruments that do not adequately or fully discourage it. 

Plan

Resolved: Public colleges and universities ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the State of Israel's policies.

Emmons 16 ~Alex Emmons, Senate Responds to Trump-Inspired Anti-Semitism By Targeting Students Who Criticize Israel, The Intercept, December 2 2016~
A draft of the bill obtained by The Intercept encourages the Department of Education to 
AND
environment on the basis of national origin" for Jewish students on campus.

Advantages

Advantage 1: Islamophobia

I'll isolate two impacts

a) Suppression of pro-Palestine movements on campus denies Palestinian students the ability to form solidarity

Nadeau and Sears 11 ~Mary-Jo Nadeau and Alan Sears, Mary-Jo Nadeau teaches at the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto-Mississauga. Alan Sears teaches at the Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, Toronto. "This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus," The Bullet, March 5, 2011, http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/475.php~~ JW
The silencing campaign is particularly dangerous given the overall political climate, which facilitates the
AND
attack, and one that resonates with the neoliberal restructuring of the universities.

b) Attempts to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism leads to campaigns by pro-Israel groups that demean and marginalize Muslim-American students

Solomon 16 ~Daniel J. Solomon, "Inflammatory Pro-Israel Posters Pop Up on Campus — Are They Islamophobic?," Forward, October 26, 2016, http://forward.com/news/national/352698/inflammatory-pro-israel-posters-pop-up-on-campus-are-they-islamophobic/~~ JW
A row over Israel on campus is as predictable as the fall of autumn leaves
AND
over a course that presented Zionism as a "settler colonialist" movement.

Islamophobia empirically leads to hate crimes, fractures communities, and increases national security threats.

Foran 16 ~Clare Foran, Donald Trump and the Rise of Anti-Muslim Violence, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-muslims-islamophobia-hate-crime/500840/~~
A new report from California State University-San Bernardino's Center for the Study of
AND
a number of instances not just to hostility, but acts of violence." 

Advantage 2: Civic Engagement

Many clubs on college campuses can help create civic engagement for their students.

Cress et al 10 ~Christine M. Cress, PhD, is department chair of educational leadership and policy and professor of postsecondary, adult, and continuing education (PACE) at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, "A Processing Connection: Increasing College Access and Success through Civic Engagement," 2010, http://www.compact.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/A-Promising-Connection.pdf~~ JW
Both historical and contemporary higher education writers and researchers have asserted that the primary goal
AND
will create a strong educational, social, political, and economic fabric.

Public universities are threatening cuts to funding in response to pro-Palestine divestment strategies. Empirically proven on University of California campuses where organizations that don't associate with pro-Palestine get funding while others don't

Friedman 15 ~Nora Barrows-Friedman, staff writer and associate editor at The Electronic Intifada, "UCLA student groups face funding cuts over Israel divestment," The Electronic Intifada, Dec 7, 2015, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/ucla-student-groups-face-funding-cuts-over-israel-divestment~~ JW
The Graduate Students Association at UCLA in California has put stipulations on funding for student
AND
by a landslide vote and was supported by more than 30 student organizations.

Israeli companies abuse West Bank occupation for their own profit while exploiting and suppressing local Palestinians. Every dollar that the divestment strategy gains translates into increased welfare in Palestine

Press 16 ~Eyal Press, author of "Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times, "When 'Made in Israel' Is a Human Rights Abuse," New York Times, January 26, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/when-made-in-israel-is-a-human-rights-abuse.html?_r=0~~ JW
From a biblical perspective, this view may be tenable. From a legal and
AND
obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations.

Advantage 3: Spillover

Encouraging discourse about foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine is uniquely good because it builds coalitions across all racial groups to inspire new dialogues. The aff spills over to other reform movements

Hallward and Shaver 12 ~Maia Carter Hallward and Patrick Shaver,  Associate Professor of Middle East Politics at American university, "''WAR by other Means'' or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley's Divestment Bill," Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research, July 2012~ JW
Finally, proponents and opponents differed in their approaches to power. Opponents of the
AND
a momentum that spilled over onto other campuses and other California BDS initiatives.

Tournament: Harvard Westlake | Round: 1 | Opponent: Brentwood KR | Judge: Abbey Chapman

1AC

Part 1 is Framing

Patriotic Correctness runs rampant- dissent is charged with treason and lines of critical thought are silenced. Higher education has been coopted by the military industrial complex, reducing the roles of teachers to mere technicians. Thus the role of the ballot is to vote for the advocacy that best takes back the university from militarism. Educators should reject the call of abstraction and open up everything for contestation.
Giroux 13, Henry, Public Intellectuals Against the Neoliberal University, 2013, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19654-public-intellectuals-against-the-neoliberal-university
Increasingly, as universities are shaped by an audit culture, the call to be objective and impartial, whatever one's intentions, can easily echo what George Orwell called the official truth or the establishment point of view. Lacking a self-consciously democratic political focus, teachers are often reduced, or reduce themselves, to the role of a technician or functionary engaged in formalistic rituals, unconcerned with the disturbing and urgent problems that confront the larger society or the consequences of one's pedagogical practices and research undertakings. Hiding behind appeals to balance and objectivity, too many scholars refuse to recognize that being committed to something does not cancel out what C. Wright Mills once called hard thinking. Teaching needs to be rigorous, self-reflective, and committed not to the dead zone of instrumental rationality but to the practice of freedom, to a critical sensibility capable of advancing the parameters of knowledge, addressing crucial social issues, and connecting private troubles and public issues. In opposition to the instrumental model of teaching, with its conceit of political neutrality and its fetishization of measurement, I argue that academics should combine the mutually interdependent roles of critical educator and active citizen. This requires finding ways to connect the practice of classroom teaching with important social problems and the operation of power in the larger society while providing the conditions for students to view themselves as critical agents capable of making those who exercise authority and power answerable for their actions. Higher education cannot be decoupled from what Jacques Derrida calls a democracy to come, that is, a democracy that must always "be open to the possibility of being contested, of contesting itself, of criticizing and indefinitely improving itself."33 Within this project of possibility and impossibility, critical pedagogy must be understood as a deliberately informed and purposeful political and moral practice, as opposed to one that is either doctrinaire, instrumentalized or both. Moreover, a critical pedagogy should also gain part of its momentum in higher education among students who will go back to the schools, churches, synagogues and workplaces to produce new ideas, concepts and critical ways of understanding the world in which young people and adults live. This is a notion of intellectual practice and responsibility that refuses the professional neutrality and privileged isolation of the academy.  It also affirms a broader vision of learning that links knowledge to the power of self-definition and to the capacities of students to expand the scope of democratic freedoms, particularly those that address the crisis of education, politics, and the social as part and parcel of the crisis of democracy itself. In order for critical pedagogy, dialogue and thought to have real effects, they must advocate that all citizens, old and young, are equally entitled, if not equally empowered, to shape the society in which they live. This is a commitment we heard articulated by the brave students who fought tuition hikes and the destruction of civil liberties and social provisions in Quebec and to a lesser degree in the Occupy Wall Street movement. If educators are to function as public intellectuals, they need to listen to young people who are producing a new language in order to talk about inequality and power relations, attempting to create alternative democratic public spaces, rethinking the very nature of politics, and asking serious questions about what democracy is and why it no longer exists in many neoliberal societies. These young people who are protesting the 1 recognize that they have been written out of the discourses of justice, equality and democracy and are not only resisting how neoliberalism has made them expendable, they are arguing for a collective future very different from the one that is on display in the current political and economic systems in which they feel trapped.  These brave youth are insisting that the relationship between knowledge and power can be emancipatory, that their histories and experiences matter, and that what they say and do counts in their struggle to unlearn dominating privileges, productively reconstruct their relations with others, and transform, when necessary, the world around them.
Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed
Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or androcentrism, or white normativity—is that all theorizing, both moral and nonmoral, takes place in an intellectual realm dominated by concepts, assumptions, norms, values, and framing perspectives that reflect the experience and group interests of the privileged group (whether the bourgeoisie, or men, or whites). So a simple empiricism will not work as a cognitive strategy; one has to be self-conscious about the concepts that "spontaneously" occur to one, since many of these concepts will not arise naturally but as the result of social structures and hegemonic ideational patterns. In particular, it will often be the case that dominant concepts will obscure certain crucial realities, blocking them from sight, or naturalizing them, while on the other hand, concepts necessary for accurately mapping these realities will be absent. Whether in terms of concepts of the self, or of humans in general, or in the cartography of the social, it will be necessary to scrutinize the dominant conceptual tools and the way the boundaries are drawn. This is, of course, the burden of standpoint theory—that certain realities tend to be more visible from the perspective of the subordinated than the privileged (Harding 2003). The thesis can be put in a strong and implausible form, but weaker versions do have considerable plausibility, as illustrated by the simple fact that for the most part the crucial conceptual innovation necessary to map nonideal realities has not come from the dominant group. In its ignoring of oppression, ideal theory also ignores the consequences of oppression. If societies are not oppressive, or if in modeling them we can abstract away from oppression and assume moral cognizers of roughly equal skill, then the paradigmatic moral agent can be featureless. No theory is required about the particular group-based obstacles that may block the vision of a particular group. By contrast, nonideal theory recognizes that people will typically be cognitively affected by their social location, so that on both the macro and the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading.
Non-ideal theory necessitates consequentialism since instead of following rules that assume an already equal playing field; we take steps to correct the material injustice.

Part 2 Advocacy

Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the military's policies.
Wilson 15, John K., Ph.D candidate with dissertation on the history of academic freedom in America and author of three books, "Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies," Routledge, Nov 30, 2015
After 9/11 the enemies of academic freedom too often succeeded in their aim of silencing dissent. Both the ideal and the practice of academic free-dom have been under attack, as America became a place where, in the words of former Bush press secretary Ari Fleisher, you had to "watch what you say." Y1 In the wake of 9/11 academic freedom suffered under a wave of patriotic correctness in America, as professors were fired, free speech was silenced, and politicians demanded flag waving instead of political debate. An insti-tution of higher learning should never fear controversy. All colleges should actively seek to have commencement speakers who will address controversial views. All colleges should institute policies that prohibit banning speakers, even if they dissent from a particular orthodoxy. The response to the terrible acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001, did not require an exception to the rules of academic freedom. To the contrary, after 9/11 was a moment when intellectual scrutiny of American government policies (and the academic freedom required to utilize it) was more important than ever.

Part 3 Offense

Patriotic correctness silences anti-military dissent. The material consequence of the aff is allowing academics like Peter Kirstein and Richard Berthold and Jonnie Hargis to criticize drone strikes and NOT face militaristic wrath. In the status quo, these people have all been suspended and underwent post-tenure review. Only the aff can result in a world where professors and academics can freely think and talk about militarism.
Wilson 2, John K., Ph.D candidate with dissertation on the history of academic freedom in America and author of three books, "Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies," Routledge, Nov 30, 2015
Compared to earlier "wartime" situations, academic freedom is far more protected today than at any time in the past. But the danger posed to academic freedom cannot be ignored. Efforts to silence faculty and students, even when they are unsuccessful, can make others around the country more reluctant to speak openly. Only by denouncing all efforts at censorship and vigorously defending the right of freedom on college campuses, can we continue to protect academic freedom. The cliché of our times, constantly repeated but often true, is that 9/11 "changed everything." One thing that it changed was academic freedom. The controversy over the limits of free speech on college campuses across the nation began immediately. On the morning of September 11, 2001, University of New Mexico history professor Richard Berthold joked with his class, "Anyone who would blow up the Pentagon would have my vote." Berthold received death threats, keeping him off campus. On September 27, an unidentified person left a message on the provost's voice-mail saying if Berthold were not "ousted" within 24 hours, Berthold would be ousted by other sources. Berthold was threatened in front of his home by a biker who came at him screaming obscenities, and he received several angry e-mails and letters with messages such as "I'd like to blow you up." New Mexico state representative William Fuller declared,"Treason is giving aide or comfort to the enemy. Any terrorist who heard Berthold's comment was comforted." In the end, Berthold was pressured to retire from his job because of those 11 words he spoke on 9/11.Mohammad Rahat, an Iranian citizen and University of Miami medical technician who turned 22 years old on September 11, 2001, declared in a meeting that day, "Some birthday gift from Osama bin Laden." Although Rahat said that he meant it "in a sarcastic way," Rahat was suspended and then fired on September 25, 2001. Paula Musto, vice president of university relations, declared that Rahat's "comments were deeply disturbing to his co-workers and superiors at the medical school. They were inappropriate and unbecoming for someone working in a research laboratory. He was fired because he made those comments, certainly not because of his ethnic background." Rahat had received only positive evaluation in 13 months working in the lab. 6 At the University of California at Los Angeles, library assistant Jonnie Hargis was suspended without pay for one week after sending an e-mail response criticizing American policies in Iraq and Israel. Hargis' union successfully pursued a grievance; Hargis was repaid for his lost income, the incident was stricken from his job record, and the university was forced to clarify its e-mail policies.7On September 13, 2001, two resident assistants in Minnesota complained to the dean of students that undergraduates felt fearful and uneasy because some professors questioned the competence of the Bush Administration. According to the resident assistants,"The recent attacks extend beyond political debate, and for professors to make negative judgments on our government before any action has taken place only fosters a cynical attitude in the classroom." The administration asked faculty to think hard about what they said. Greg Kneser, dean of students, declared:"There were students who were just scared, and an intellectual discussion of the political ramifications of this was not helpful for them. They were frightened, and they look to their faculty not just for intellectual debate" but as "people they trust."8 Even hypothetical discussions were suspicious. Portland Community College philosophy professor Stephen Carey challenged students in his critical thinking class to consider an extreme rhetorical proposition that would cause great emotion, like "Bush should be hung, strung up upside down, and left for the buzzards." One student's mother, misunderstanding the example, called the FBI and accused Carey of threatening to kill the President, and the Secret Service investigated him.9 When four leftist faculty at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (UNC) criticized U.S. foreign policy at a teach-in, Scott Rubush of FrontPage magazine, declared, "They're using state resources to the practical effect of aiding and abetting the Taliban."The magazine recommended that these faculty be fired. "Tell the good folks at UNC–Chapel Hill what you think of their decision to allow anti-American rallies on their state-supported campus," FrontPage urged. The administration received hundreds of angry e-mails, and was denounced on the floor of the North Carolina legislature. Several antiwar faculty members received death threats.10 In addition to phys i cal threats and attack s , A rab and Muslim students also faced enormous scru t i ny from the authori t i e s . An October 2001 survey by the Am e ri can Association of Collegiate Registrars and Ad m i s s i ons Officers found thatat least 220 colleges had been contacted by law enforcement in the weeks after 9/11. Police or FBI agents made 99 requests for private "n on - d i re c t o ry "i n f o rm a t i on ,s u ch as course sch e d u l e s , that under law cannot be released without student con s e n t , a s u b p o e n a , or a pending danger (on ly 12 of the requests had a subpoena, a l t h o u g h the Immigra t i on and Na t u ra l i za t i on Se rvice doesn't re q u i reconsent for inform a t i on on foreign students). Most requests were for individual students, although 16 requests for student re c o rds were "based on ethnicity. " Law enforcement re c e i ve d the inform a t i on from 159 sch o o l s , and on ly eight denied any re q u e s t s . I n response to the violence and persecution against Muslim and Arab students, some colleges did try to restrict offensive speech in ways that resulted in threats to academic fre e d om . At Orange Coast Com mu n i ty College (OCC) on September 20, 2001, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them "terrorists." Hearlson denied the accusation. A tape recording of the class found that the most extreme statements were misheard, although Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.11 In a case at Johns Hopkins University, Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a September 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.12 I n response to the violence and persecution against Muslim and Arab students, some colleges did try to restrict offensive speech in ways that resulted in threats to academic fre e d om . At Orange Coast Com mu n i ty College (OCC) on September 20, 2001, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them "terrorists." Hearlson denied the accusation. A tape recording of the class found that the most extreme statements were misheard, although Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.11 In a case at Johns Hopkins University, Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a September 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.12 Anti-military views expressed in an e-mail could put a professor's job at risk. At Chicago's St. Xavier University, history professor Peter Kirstein sent this response to an Air Force cadet asking him to help promote an Air Force event: "You are a disgrace to this country and I am furious you would even think I would support you and your aggressive baby killing tactics of collateral damage." Although Kirstein apologized for his e-mail, many called for his dismissal. On November 15, 2002, St. Xavier president Richard Yanikoski announced that Kirstein would be immediately suspended, receive a reprimand, and undergo a post-tenure review during a Spring 2003 sabbatical.13 Another tenured professor was suspended for responding rudely to an unsolicited e-mail and saying that killing is wrong. While conservatives contended that a few cases of censorship proved that left-wing thought police rule over college campuses, my extensive survey of academic freedom and civil liberties at American universities found the opposite: left-wing critics of the Bush Administration suffered by far the most numerous and most serious violations of their civil liberties. Censorship of conservatives was rare, and almost always overturned in the few cases where it occurred. Patriotic correctness—not political correctness—reigned supreme after 9/11.
Anti-military dissent has been silenced throughout history, which prevents higher education from being the uniquely key institution that can create a cultural shift away from militarism by teaching students to refuse complicity with militarism
Jaschik and Giroux 07, Henry Giroux and Scott Jaschik, 'The University in Chains', (Interview), 2007, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/07/giroux
Q: How do you think the state of academic freedom has changed since 9/11? A: Criticisms of the university as a stronghold of dissent have a long and inglorious history in the United States, extending from attacks in the 19th century by religious fundamentalists to anti-communist witch-hunts conducted in the 1920s, 1930s, and again in the 1950s, during the infamous era of McCarthyism. Harkening back to the infamous McCarthy era, a newly reinvigorated war is currently being waged by Christian nationalists, reactionary neoconservatives, and corporate fundamentalists against the autonomy and integrity of all those independent institutions that foster social responsibility, critical thought, and critical citizenship. While the attack is being waged on numerous fronts, the universities are where the major skirmishes are taking place. What is unique about this attack on academic freedom are the range and scope of the forces waging an assault on higher education. It is much worse today, because corporations, the national security state, the Pentagon, powerful Christian evangelical groups, non-government agencies, and enormously wealthy right-wing individuals and institutions have created powerful alliances — the perfect storm so to speak — that are truly threatening the freedoms and semi-autonomy of American universities. Higher education in the United States is currently being targeted by a diverse number of right-wing forces that have assumed political power and are waging an aggressive and focused campaign against the principles of academic freedom, sacrificing critical pedagogical practice in the name of patriotic correctness and dismantling the ideal of the university as a bastion of independent thought, and uncorrupted inquiry. Ironically, it is through the vocabulary of individual rights, academic freedom, balance, and tolerance that these forces are attempting to slander, even vilify, an allegedly liberal and left-oriented professoriate, to cut already meager federal funding for higher education, to eliminate tenure, and to place control of what is taught and said in classrooms under legislative oversight. There is more at work in the current attack than the rampant anti-intellectualism and paranoid style of American politics outlined in Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, written over 40 years ago. There is also the collective power of radical right-wing organizations, which in their powerful influence on all levels of government in spite of a democratically controlled Congress and most liberal social institutions feel compelled to dismantle the open, questioning cultures of the academy. Underlying recent attacks on the university is an attempt not merely to counter dissent but to destroy it and in doing so to eliminate all of those remaining public spaces, spheres, and institutions that nourish and sustain a culture of questioning so vital to a democratic civil society. Dissent is often equated with treason; the university is portrayed as the weak link in the war on terror by powerful educational agencies; professors who advocate a culture of questioning and critical engagement run the risk of having their names posted on Internet web sites while being labeled as un-American; and various right-wing individuals and politicians increasingly attempt to pass legislation that renders critical analysis a liability and reinforces, with no irony intended, a rabid anti-intellectualism under the call for balance and intellectual diversity. Genuine politics begins to disappear as people methodically lose those freedoms and rights that enable them to speak, act, dissent, and exercise both their individual right to resistance and a shared sense of collective responsibility. While higher education is only one site, it is one of the most crucial institutional and political spaces where democratic subjects can be shaped, democratic relations can be experienced, and anti-democratic forms of power can be identified and critically engaged. It is also one of the few spaces left where young people can think critically about the knowledge they gain, learn values that refuse to reduce the obligations of citizenship to either consumerism or the dictates of the national security state, and develop the language and skills necessary to defend those institutions and social relations that are vital to a substantive democracy. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt insisted, a meaningful conception of politics appears only when concrete spaces exist for people to come together to talk, think critically, and act on their capacities for empathy, judgment, and social responsibility. What the current attack on higher education threatens is a notion of the academy that is faithful to its role as a crucial democratic public sphere, one that offers a space both to resist the "dark times" in which we now live and to embrace the possibility of a future forged in the civic struggles requisite for a viable democracy.
2 impacts 

A. Cultural shift-

 The aff teaches students to refuse the myth of militarism- this creates a cultural shift away from the glorification of violence
Chatterjee and Maira 14 ~Piya Chatterjee, Backstrand Chair and Professor of Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Scripps College, Sunaina Maira,  Professor of Asian American Studies at UC Davis, "The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent," University of Minnesota Press, 2014~ JW
State warfare and militarism have shored up deeply powerful notions of patriotism, intertwined with a politics of race, class, gender, sexuality, and religion , through the culture wars that have embroiled the U.S. academy. The fronts of "hot" and "cold" wars—military, cultural, and academic— have rested on an ideological framework that has defined the "enemy" as a threat to U.S. freedom and democracy. This enemy produced and propped up in the shifting culture wars— earlier the Communist, now the (Muslim) terrorist— has always been both external and internal. The overt policing of knowledge production, exemplified by right-wing groups such as ACTA, reveals an ideological battle cry in the "culture wars" that have burgeoned in the wake of the civil rights movement— and the containment and policing demanded within the academy. Defending the civilizational integrity of the nation requires producing a national subject and citizen by regulating the boundaries of what is permissible and desirable to express in national culture— and in the university. As Readings observed, "In modernity, the University becomes the model of the social bond that ties individuals in a common relation to the idea of the nation-state." 46 Belonging is figured through the metaphor of patriotic citizenship, in the nation and in the academy, through displays of what Henry Giroux has also called "patriotic correctness": "an ideology that privileges conformity over critical learning and that represents dissent as something akin to a terrorist act." 47 This is where the recent culture wars have shaped the politics of what we call academic containment. For right-wing activists, the nation must be fortified by an educational foundation that upholds, at its core, the singular superiority of Western civilization. A nation-state construed as being under attack is in a state of cultural crisis where any sign of disloyalty to the nation is an act of treachery, including acts perceived as intellectual betrayal. The culture wars have worked to uphold a powerful mythology about American democracy and the American Dream and a potent fiction about freedom of expression that in actuality contains academic dissent. This exceptionalist mythology has historically represented the U.S. nation as a beacon of individual liberty and a bulwark against the Evil Empire or Communist bloc ; Third Worldist and left insurgent movements, including uprisings within the United States in the 1960s and 1970s and in Central America in the 1980s; Islamist militancy and anti-imperial movements since the 1980s ; and the threat posed by all of these to the American "way of life." The battle against Communism, anti-imperial Third Worldism, and so-called Islamofascism entailed regulating and containing movements sympathetic to these forces at home, including intellectuals with left-leaning tendencies and radical scholars or students— all those likely to contaminate young minds and indoctrinate students in "subversive" or "anti-American" ideologies.
Militarism is part of the culture, making people disposable- justifying and creating everyday violence against the Middle Eastern Other. The aff allows student and professors to refuse this culture.
Chatterjee and Maira 2 ~Piya Chatterjee, Backstrand Chair and Professor of Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Scripps College, Sunaina Maira,  Professor of Asian American Studies at UC Davis, "The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent," University of Minnesota Press, 2014~ JW
The strategic co-optation of the language of pluralism for academic containment is nowhere more evident than in the assault on progressive scholarship in Middle East studies and postcolonial studies and in the intense culture wars over Islam, the War on Terror, and Israel-Palestine. The 9/ 11 attacks and the heightened Islamophobia they generated allowed Zionist and neoconservative groups to intensify accusations that progressive Middle East studies scholars and scholars critical of U.S. foreign policy were guilty of bias and " one-sided" partisanship , as observed in accounts of censure, suspicion, and vilification by Abowd, De Genova, and Salaita. The post-9/ 11 culture wars conjured up new and not-sonew phantoms of enemies— in particular , the racialized specter of the "terrorist." This figure, and the racial panic associated with it, has been sedimented in the national imaginary as synonymous with the "Muslim" and the "Arab" since the Iranian Revolution of 1978– 1979 and the First Intifada against Israeli occupation in the late 1980s. The War on Terror consolidated Orientalist caricatures of Muslim fanatics and Arab militants , but it is important to note that these also dredged up avatars of a historical logic of containment and annihilation of indigenous others. 59 The native, the barbarian, and the foreigner converge in this cultural imaginary that legitimizes violence against anti-Western, uncivilized regions incapable of democratic self-governance and that is produced by expert knowledge of other peoples and regions. The wars in Iraq and "Af-Pak" and the global hunt for terrorists entailed an intensified suspicion and scrutiny of ideologies that supported militant resistance or "anti-American" sentiments and necessitated academic research on communities that were supposedly "breeding grounds" for terrorism. The post-9/ 11 panic about Muslim terrorists and enemy aliens increasingly focused on the threat of "homegrown terrorism" as the War on Terror shifted its focus to "radicalized" communities within the United States, especially Muslim American youth. At the same time, as Godrej observes, the criminalization of those considered threats to national security has included the violent repression of Occupy activists and student protesters and indefinite detention authorized by the PATRIOT (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. Protests focused on higher education thus blur into dissent against U.S. warfare and the homeland security state in a climate of heightened campus securitization and university collaboration with the FBI in the interest of "public safety." Anarchists are considered domestic terror threats to be contained, and Muslim or Arab American students (or faculty) who are also anarchists are subjected to multiple levels of containment and scrutiny, as suggested in the chapter by Falcón et al. Academic containment is clearly part of a larger politics of repression and policing in the national security state that affects faculty and students as well as the campus climate in general.
This outweighs
Root Cause- once violence becomes normalized, then anything including the neg impacts can occur and no one cares, making solving them impossible
Aggregation- Militarism impacts constantly occur which means they aggregate every single day. By the time the neg impacts occur- the aff will massively outweighs on magnitude. 

B. Political Spillover

Academics have used state resources and their own academic freedom to create positive policy change proving that liberalizing the university creates concrete material impacts
Slaughter 88 ~Sheila Slaughter, associate professor in the Center for the Study of Higher Education and director of the Division of Educational Foundations and Administration, The University of Arizona, "Academic Freedom and the State: Reflections on the Uses of Knowledge," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 59, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1988), pp. 241-262~ JW
In the 1960s and 1970s, definitions of academic knowledge began to broaden. The university curriculum came to include subjects previously treated only in an incidental way-black studies, women's stud- ies, ethnic studies, and multiculturalism. Even China studies reentered the curriculum. The works of Marxists, feminists, anar- chists, and critical thinkers were included in social science courses where more conventional thought had once dominated. Methodologi- cal debates raged: the very possibility of objective knowledge and value-free science was seriously questioned ~20, 38~. The expanded, heavily state-funded university provided in large part the resource base for the growth of diverse forms of knowledge. Funds were available for the new departments and new courses, jour- nals, and library subscriptions. Professors were able to sustain these new areas with resources generated within the university. Professors representing broader forms of knowledge were able to make their presence felt in professional associations, many of which developed radical and feminist caucuses in the late 1960s and 1970s ~9, 36~. Professors engaged in generating alternative forms of knowledge also exchanged expertise with those outside the university, often using the university as their primary resource base. These external groups contributed symbolic support, some resources and very often used professors' expertise to fuel reform. Professors developing expertise in complementarity with these groups usually offer ideological and technical alternatives to current policy. In the area of foreign policy, for example, professors have worked with a wide variety of external groups to curb United States interventionist policies in Central America, particularly in Nicaragua. In many cases, these groups do more than simply call for an end to war; they present carefully thought-out policy alternatives for the region. Thus, the Institute for Policy Stud- ies drew on a number of professors in writing Policy Alternatives for the Caribbean and Central America. A great many professors have endorsed this long-term development plan for the Caribbean Basin. Academics have exchanged expertise with the Institute for Food and Development Policy in attempts to help Central American countries become self-sustaining in terms of food production. organizations such as Americas Watch and Amnesty International of- fer resources for new forms of expertise in Central America as do religious organizations such as Witness for Peace and Pledge of Resis- tance. Central America is only a single instance. State-supported professors exchange expertise with a wide variety of external groups trying to change prevailing policy. Examples of such exchanges are seen in professorial work with critical intellectual centers such as Public In- terest Research Groups, the Council on Economic Priorities, and the Union for Radical Political Economics; with special interest groups such as nuclear disarmament and pro-choice organizations; and with religious groups trying to create new theologies.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Nueva AK | Judge: Jovering, Haas, Fee

1AC

Part 1 is Advocacy

Public colleges and universities are the hallmark for society's commitment to critical education of students who will become the leaders of tomorrow. These institutions are renowned for their commitment to academic freedom that are glossed over in day-in day-out life. That changed post 9/11- now patriotic correctness runs rampant
Wilson 15, John K., Ph.D candidate with dissertation on the history of academic freedom in America and author of three books, "Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies," Routledge, Nov 30, 2015
After 9/11 the enemies of academic freedom too often succeeded in their aim of silencing dissent. Both the ideal and the practice of academic free-dom have been under attack, as America became a place where, in the words of former Bush press secretary Ari Fleisher, you had to "watch what you say." Y1 In the wake of 9/11 academic freedom suffered under a wave of patriotic correctness in America, as professors were fired, free speech was silenced, and politicians demanded flag waving instead of political debate. An insti-tution of higher learning should never fear controversy. All colleges should actively seek to have commencement speakers who will address controversial views. All colleges should institute policies that prohibit banning speakers, even if they dissent from a particular orthodoxy. The response to the terrible acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001, did not require an exception to the rules of academic freedom. To the contrary, after 9/11 was a moment when intellectual scrutiny of American government policies (and the academic freedom required to utilize it) was more important than ever.
Thus, the plan text, Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the military's policies.
 

Part 2 is Framing

Higher education has been coopted by the military industrial complex, reducing the roles of teachers to mere technicians. The role of the ballot is to vote for the advocacy that best takes back the university from militarism. Educators should reject the call of abstraction and open up everything for contestation.
Giroux 13, Henry, Public Intellectuals Against the Neoliberal University, 2013, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/19654-public-intellectuals-against-the-neoliberal-university
Increasingly, as universities are shaped by an audit culture, the call to be objective and impartial, whatever one's intentions, can easily echo what George Orwell called the official truth or the establishment point of view. Lacking a self-consciously democratic political focus, teachers are often reduced, or reduce themselves, to the role of a technician or functionary engaged in formalistic rituals, unconcerned with the disturbing and urgent problems that confront the larger society or the consequences of one's pedagogical practices and research undertakings. Hiding behind appeals to balance and objectivity, too many scholars refuse to recognize that being committed to something does not cancel out what C. Wright Mills once called hard thinking. Teaching needs to be rigorous, self-reflective, and committed not to the dead zone of instrumental rationality but to the practice of freedom, to a critical sensibility capable of advancing the parameters of knowledge, addressing crucial social issues, and connecting private troubles and public issues. In opposition to the instrumental model of teaching, with its conceit of political neutrality and its fetishization of measurement, I argue that academics should combine the mutually interdependent roles of critical educator and active citizen. This requires finding ways to connect the practice of classroom teaching with important social problems and the operation of power in the larger society while providing the conditions for students to view themselves as critical agents capable of making those who exercise authority and power answerable for their actions. Higher education cannot be decoupled from what Jacques Derrida calls a democracy to come, that is, a democracy that must always "be open to the possibility of being contested, of contesting itself, of criticizing and indefinitely improving itself."33 Within this project of possibility and impossibility, critical pedagogy must be understood as a deliberately informed and purposeful political and moral practice, as opposed to one that is either doctrinaire, instrumentalized or both. Moreover, a critical pedagogy should also gain part of its momentum in higher education among students who will go back to the schools, churches, synagogues and workplaces to produce new ideas, concepts and critical ways of understanding the world in which young people and adults live. This is a notion of intellectual practice and responsibility that refuses the professional neutrality and privileged isolation of the academy.  It also affirms a broader vision of learning that links knowledge to the power of self-definition and to the capacities of students to expand the scope of democratic freedoms, particularly those that address the crisis of education, politics, and the social as part and parcel of the crisis of democracy itself. In order for critical pedagogy, dialogue and thought to have real effects, they must advocate that all citizens, old and young, are equally entitled, if not equally empowered, to shape the society in which they live. This is a commitment we heard articulated by the brave students who fought tuition hikes and the destruction of civil liberties and social provisions in Quebec and to a lesser degree in the Occupy Wall Street movement. If educators are to function as public intellectuals, they need to listen to young people who are producing a new language in order to talk about inequality and power relations, attempting to create alternative democratic public spaces, rethinking the very nature of politics, and asking serious questions about what democracy is and why it no longer exists in many neoliberal societies. These young people who are protesting the 1 recognize that they have been written out of the discourses of justice, equality and democracy and are not only resisting how neoliberalism has made them expendable, they are arguing for a collective future very different from the one that is on display in the current political and economic systems in which they feel trapped.  These brave youth are insisting that the relationship between knowledge and power can be emancipatory, that their histories and experiences matter, and that what they say and do counts in their struggle to unlearn dominating privileges, productively reconstruct their relations with others, and transform, when necessary, the world around them.
Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed
Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or androcentrism, or white normativity—is that all theorizing, both moral and nonmoral, takes place in an intellectual realm dominated by concepts, assumptions, norms, values, and framing perspectives that reflect the experience and group interests of the privileged group (whether the bourgeoisie, or men, or whites). So a simple empiricism will not work as a cognitive strategy; one has to be self-conscious about the concepts that "spontaneously" occur to one, since many of these concepts will not arise naturally but as the result of social structures and hegemonic ideational patterns. In particular, it will often be the case that dominant concepts will obscure certain crucial realities, blocking them from sight, or naturalizing them, while on the other hand, concepts necessary for accurately mapping these realities will be absent. Whether in terms of concepts of the self, or of humans in general, or in the cartography of the social, it will be necessary to scrutinize the dominant conceptual tools and the way the boundaries are drawn. This is, of course, the burden of standpoint theory—that certain realities tend to be more visible from the perspective of the subordinated than the privileged (Harding 2003). The thesis can be put in a strong and implausible form, but weaker versions do have considerable plausibility, as illustrated by the simple fact that for the most part the crucial conceptual innovation necessary to map nonideal realities has not come from the dominant group. In its ignoring of oppression, ideal theory also ignores the consequences of oppression. If societies are not oppressive, or if in modeling them we can abstract away from oppression and assume moral cognizers of roughly equal skill, then the paradigmatic moral agent can be featureless. No theory is required about the particular group-based obstacles that may block the vision of a particular group. By contrast, nonideal theory recognizes that people will typically be cognitively affected by their social location, so that on both the macro and the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading.
Non-ideal theory necessitates consequentialism since instead of following rules that assume an already equal playing field; we take steps to correct material injustice.

Part 3 is Offense

In the status quo, members of college campuses are routinely fired if they criticize the military, causing a chilling effect on such discussion. Multiple empirical examples prove:  
Wilson 2, John K., Ph.D candidate with dissertation on the history of academic freedom in America and author of three books, "Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies," Routledge, Nov 30, 2015
Compared to earlier "wartime" situations, academic freedom is far more protected today than at any time in the past. But the danger posed to academic freedom cannot be ignored. Efforts to silence faculty and students, even when they are unsuccessful, can make others around the country more reluctant to speak openly. Only by denouncing all efforts at censorship and vigorously defending the right of freedom on college campuses, can we continue to protect academic freedom. The cliché of our times, constantly repeated but often true, is that 9/11 "changed everything." One thing that it changed was academic freedom. The controversy over the limits of free speech on college campuses across the nation began immediately. On the morning of September 11, 2001, University of New Mexico history professor Richard Berthold joked with his class, "Anyone who would blow up the Pentagon would have my vote." Berthold received death threats, keeping him off campus. On September 27, an unidentified person left a message on the provost's voice-mail saying if Berthold were not "ousted" within 24 hours, Berthold would be ousted by other sources. Berthold was threatened in front of his home by a biker who came at him screaming obscenities, and he received several angry e-mails and letters with messages such as "I'd like to blow you up." New Mexico state representative William Fuller declared,"Treason is giving aide or comfort to the enemy. Any terrorist who heard Berthold's comment was comforted." In the end, Berthold was pressured to retire from his job because of those 11 words he spoke on 9/11.Mohammad Rahat, an Iranian citizen and University of Miami medical technician who turned 22 years old on September 11, 2001, declared in a meeting that day, "Some birthday gift from Osama bin Laden." Although Rahat said that he meant it "in a sarcastic way," Rahat was suspended and then fired on September 25, 2001. Paula Musto, vice president of university relations, declared that Rahat's "comments were deeply disturbing to his co-workers and superiors at the medical school. They were inappropriate and unbecoming for someone working in a research laboratory. He was fired because he made those comments, certainly not because of his ethnic background." Rahat had received only positive evaluation in 13 months working in the lab. 6 At the University of California at Los Angeles, library assistant Jonnie Hargis was suspended without pay for one week after sending an e-mail response criticizing American policies in Iraq and Israel. Hargis' union successfully pursued a grievance; Hargis was repaid for his lost income, the incident was stricken from his job record, and the university was forced to clarify its e-mail policies.7On September 13, 2001, two resident assistants in Minnesota complained to the dean of students that undergraduates felt fearful and uneasy because some professors questioned the competence of the Bush Administration. According to the resident assistants,"The recent attacks extend beyond political debate, and for professors to make negative judgments on our government before any action has taken place only fosters a cynical attitude in the classroom." The administration asked faculty to think hard about what they said. Greg Kneser, dean of students, declared:"There were students who were just scared, and an intellectual discussion of the political ramifications of this was not helpful for them. They were frightened, and they look to their faculty not just for intellectual debate" but as "people they trust."8 Even hypothetical discussions were suspicious. Portland Community College philosophy professor Stephen Carey challenged students in his critical thinking class to consider an extreme rhetorical proposition that would cause great emotion, like "Bush should be hung, strung up upside down, and left for the buzzards." One student's mother, misunderstanding the example, called the FBI and accused Carey of threatening to kill the President, and the Secret Service investigated him.9 When four leftist faculty at the University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (UNC) criticized U.S. foreign policy at a teach-in, Scott Rubush of FrontPage magazine, declared, "They're using state resources to the practical effect of aiding and abetting the Taliban."The magazine recommended that these faculty be fired. "Tell the good folks at UNC–Chapel Hill what you think of their decision to allow anti-American rallies on their state-supported campus," FrontPage urged. The administration received hundreds of angry e-mails, and was denounced on the floor of the North Carolina legislature. Several antiwar faculty members received death threats.10 In addition to phys i cal threats and attack s , A rab and Muslim students also faced enormous scru t i ny from the authori t i e s . An October 2001 survey by the Am e ri can Association of Collegiate Registrars and Ad m i s s i ons Officers found thatat least 220 colleges had been contacted by law enforcement in the weeks after 9/11. Police or FBI agents made 99 requests for private "n on - d i re c t o ry "i n f o rm a t i on ,s u ch as course sch e d u l e s , that under law cannot be released without student con s e n t , a s u b p o e n a , or a pending danger (on ly 12 of the requests had a subpoena, a l t h o u g h the Immigra t i on and Na t u ra l i za t i on Se rvice doesn't re q u i reconsent for inform a t i on on foreign students). Most requests were for individual students, although 16 requests for student re c o rds were "based on ethnicity. " Law enforcement re c e i ve d the inform a t i on from 159 sch o o l s , and on ly eight denied any re q u e s t s . I n response to the violence and persecution against Muslim and Arab students, some colleges did try to restrict offensive speech in ways that resulted in threats to academic fre e d om . At Orange Coast Com mu n i ty College (OCC) on September 20, 2001, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them "terrorists." Hearlson denied the accusation. A tape recording of the class found that the most extreme statements were misheard, although Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.11 In a case at Johns Hopkins University, Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a September 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.12 I n response to the violence and persecution against Muslim and Arab students, some colleges did try to restrict offensive speech in ways that resulted in threats to academic fre e d om . At Orange Coast Com mu n i ty College (OCC) on September 20, 2001, government professor Ken Hearlson was suspended for 11 weeks after Muslim students accused him of being biased against them and calling them "terrorists." Hearlson denied the accusation. A tape recording of the class found that the most extreme statements were misheard, although Hearlson did apparently point a finger at Middle Eastern students while he blamed Arab countries for fomenting terrorism.11 In a case at Johns Hopkins University, Charles H. Fairbanks Jr., director of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), was demoted (but later reinstated) after a September 14 panel discussion on terrorism in which he criticized Iraq, Pakistan, and Palestinians.12 Anti-military views expressed in an e-mail could put a professor's job at risk. At Chicago's St. Xavier University, history professor Peter Kirstein sent this response to an Air Force cadet asking him to help promote an Air Force event: "You are a disgrace to this country and I am furious you would even think I would support you and your aggressive baby killing tactics of collateral damage." Although Kirstein apologized for his e-mail, many called for his dismissal. On November 15, 2002, St. Xavier president Richard Yanikoski announced that Kirstein would be immediately suspended, receive a reprimand, and undergo a post-tenure review during a Spring 2003 sabbatical.13 Another tenured professor was suspended for responding rudely to an unsolicited e-mail and saying that killing is wrong. While conservatives contended that a few cases of censorship proved that left-wing thought police rule over college campuses, my extensive survey of academic freedom and civil liberties at American universities found the opposite: left-wing critics of the Bush Administration suffered by far the most numerous and most serious violations of their civil liberties. Censorship of conservatives was rare, and almost always overturned in the few cases where it occurred. Patriotic correctness—not political correctness—reigned supreme after 9/11.
This is devastating because higher education is the uniquely key institution that can provide spaces for conversations and action that snowball into cultural shifts away from militarism. History proves, anti-military dissent has always been silenced when the State is hell-bent on imposing its agenda and quieting opposition. Voting aff helps teach students to refuse complicity with militarism
Jaschik and Giroux 07, Henry Giroux and Scott Jaschik, 'The University in Chains', (Interview), 2007, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/08/07/giroux
Q: How do you think the state of academic freedom has changed since 9/11? A: Criticisms of the university as a stronghold of dissent have a long and inglorious history in the United States, extending from attacks in the 19th century by religious fundamentalists to anti-communist witch-hunts conducted in the 1920s, 1930s, and again in the 1950s, during the infamous era of McCarthyism. Harkening back to the infamous McCarthy era, a newly reinvigorated war is currently being waged by Christian nationalists, reactionary neoconservatives, and corporate fundamentalists against the autonomy and integrity of all those independent institutions that foster social responsibility, critical thought, and critical citizenship. While the attack is being waged on numerous fronts, the universities are where the major skirmishes are taking place. What is unique about this attack on academic freedom are the range and scope of the forces waging an assault on higher education. It is much worse today, because corporations, the national security state, the Pentagon, powerful Christian evangelical groups, non-government agencies, and enormously wealthy right-wing individuals and institutions have created powerful alliances — the perfect storm so to speak — that are truly threatening the freedoms and semi-autonomy of American universities. Higher education in the United States is currently being targeted by a diverse number of right-wing forces that have assumed political power and are waging an aggressive and focused campaign against the principles of academic freedom, sacrificing critical pedagogical practice in the name of patriotic correctness and dismantling the ideal of the university as a bastion of independent thought, and uncorrupted inquiry. Ironically, it is through the vocabulary of individual rights, academic freedom, balance, and tolerance that these forces are attempting to slander, even vilify, an allegedly liberal and left-oriented professoriate, to cut already meager federal funding for higher education, to eliminate tenure, and to place control of what is taught and said in classrooms under legislative oversight. There is more at work in the current attack than the rampant anti-intellectualism and paranoid style of American politics outlined in Richard Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, written over 40 years ago. There is also the collective power of radical right-wing organizations, which in their powerful influence on all levels of government in spite of a democratically controlled Congress and most liberal social institutions feel compelled to dismantle the open, questioning cultures of the academy. Underlying recent attacks on the university is an attempt not merely to counter dissent but to destroy it and in doing so to eliminate all of those remaining public spaces, spheres, and institutions that nourish and sustain a culture of questioning so vital to a democratic civil society. Dissent is often equated with treason; the university is portrayed as the weak link in the war on terror by powerful educational agencies; professors who advocate a culture of questioning and critical engagement run the risk of having their names posted on Internet web sites while being labeled as un-American; and various right-wing individuals and politicians increasingly attempt to pass legislation that renders critical analysis a liability and reinforces, with no irony intended, a rabid anti-intellectualism under the call for balance and intellectual diversity. Genuine politics begins to disappear as people methodically lose those freedoms and rights that enable them to speak, act, dissent, and exercise both their individual right to resistance and a shared sense of collective responsibility. While higher education is only one site, it is one of the most crucial institutional and political spaces where democratic subjects can be shaped, democratic relations can be experienced, and anti-democratic forms of power can be identified and critically engaged. It is also one of the few spaces left where young people can think critically about the knowledge they gain, learn values that refuse to reduce the obligations of citizenship to either consumerism or the dictates of the national security state, and develop the language and skills necessary to defend those institutions and social relations that are vital to a substantive democracy. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt insisted, a meaningful conception of politics appears only when concrete spaces exist for people to come together to talk, think critically, and act on their capacities for empathy, judgment, and social responsibility. What the current attack on higher education threatens is a notion of the academy that is faithful to its role as a crucial democratic public sphere, one that offers a space both to resist the "dark times" in which we now live and to embrace the possibility of a future forged in the civic struggles requisite for a viable democracy.
2 impacts 

A. Cultural shift-

 The aff teaches students to refuse the myth of militarism- this creates a cultural shift away from the glorification of violence
Chatterjee and Maira 14 ~Piya Chatterjee, Backstrand Chair and Professor of Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Scripps College, Sunaina Maira,  Professor of Asian American Studies at UC Davis, "The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent," University of Minnesota Press, 2014~ JW
State warfare and militarism have shored up deeply powerful notions of patriotism, intertwined with a politics of race, class, gender, sexuality, and religion , through the culture wars that have embroiled the U.S. academy. The fronts of "hot" and "cold" wars—military, cultural, and academic— have rested on an ideological framework that has defined the "enemy" as a threat to U.S. freedom and democracy. This enemy produced and propped up in the shifting culture wars— earlier the Communist, now the (Muslim) terrorist— has always been both external and internal. The overt policing of knowledge production, exemplified by right-wing groups such as ACTA, reveals an ideological battle cry in the "culture wars" that have burgeoned in the wake of the civil rights movement— and the containment and policing demanded within the academy. Defending the civilizational integrity of the nation requires producing a national subject and citizen by regulating the boundaries of what is permissible and desirable to express in national culture— and in the university. As Readings observed, "In modernity, the University becomes the model of the social bond that ties individuals in a common relation to the idea of the nation-state." 46 Belonging is figured through the metaphor of patriotic citizenship, in the nation and in the academy, through displays of what Henry Giroux has also called "patriotic correctness": "an ideology that privileges conformity over critical learning and that represents dissent as something akin to a terrorist act." 47 This is where the recent culture wars have shaped the politics of what we call academic containment. For right-wing activists, the nation must be fortified by an educational foundation that upholds, at its core, the singular superiority of Western civilization. A nation-state construed as being under attack is in a state of cultural crisis where any sign of disloyalty to the nation is an act of treachery, including acts perceived as intellectual betrayal. The culture wars have worked to uphold a powerful mythology about American democracy and the American Dream and a potent fiction about freedom of expression that in actuality contains academic dissent. This exceptionalist mythology has historically represented the U.S. nation as a beacon of individual liberty and a bulwark against the Evil Empire or Communist bloc ; Third Worldist and left insurgent movements, including uprisings within the United States in the 1960s and 1970s and in Central America in the 1980s; Islamist militancy and anti-imperial movements since the 1980s ; and the threat posed by all of these to the American "way of life." The battle against Communism, anti-imperial Third Worldism, and so-called Islamofascism entailed regulating and containing movements sympathetic to these forces at home, including intellectuals with left-leaning tendencies and radical scholars or students— all those likely to contaminate young minds and indoctrinate students in "subversive" or "anti-American" ideologies.
Militarism is part of the culture, making people disposable- justifying and creating everyday violence against the Middle Eastern Other. The aff allows student and professors to refuse this culture.
Chatterjee and Maira 2 ~Piya Chatterjee, Backstrand Chair and Professor of Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Scripps College, Sunaina Maira,  Professor of Asian American Studies at UC Davis, "The Imperial University: Academic Repression and Scholarly Dissent," University of Minnesota Press, 2014~ JW
The strategic co-optation of the language of pluralism for academic containment is nowhere more evident than in the assault on progressive scholarship in Middle East studies and postcolonial studies and in the intense culture wars over Islam, the War on Terror, and Israel-Palestine. The 9/ 11 attacks and the heightened Islamophobia they generated allowed Zionist and neoconservative groups to intensify accusations that progressive Middle East studies scholars and scholars critical of U.S. foreign policy were guilty of bias and " one-sided" partisanship , as observed in accounts of censure, suspicion, and vilification by Abowd, De Genova, and Salaita. The post-9/ 11 culture wars conjured up new and not-sonew phantoms of enemies— in particular , the racialized specter of the "terrorist." This figure, and the racial panic associated with it, has been sedimented in the national imaginary as synonymous with the "Muslim" and the "Arab" since the Iranian Revolution of 1978– 1979 and the First Intifada against Israeli occupation in the late 1980s. The War on Terror consolidated Orientalist caricatures of Muslim fanatics and Arab militants , but it is important to note that these also dredged up avatars of a historical logic of containment and annihilation of indigenous others. 59 The native, the barbarian, and the foreigner converge in this cultural imaginary that legitimizes violence against anti-Western, uncivilized regions incapable of democratic self-governance and that is produced by expert knowledge of other peoples and regions. The wars in Iraq and "Af-Pak" and the global hunt for terrorists entailed an intensified suspicion and scrutiny of ideologies that supported militant resistance or "anti-American" sentiments and necessitated academic research on communities that were supposedly "breeding grounds" for terrorism. The post-9/ 11 panic about Muslim terrorists and enemy aliens increasingly focused on the threat of "homegrown terrorism" as the War on Terror shifted its focus to "radicalized" communities within the United States, especially Muslim American youth. At the same time, as Godrej observes, the criminalization of those considered threats to national security has included the violent repression of Occupy activists and student protesters and indefinite detention authorized by the PATRIOT (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act and the National Defense Authorization Act. Protests focused on higher education thus blur into dissent against U.S. warfare and the homeland security state in a climate of heightened campus securitization and university collaboration with the FBI in the interest of "public safety." Anarchists are considered domestic terror threats to be contained, and Muslim or Arab American students (or faculty) who are also anarchists are subjected to multiple levels of containment and scrutiny, as suggested in the chapter by Falcón et al. Academic containment is clearly part of a larger politics of repression and policing in the national security state that affects faculty and students as well as the campus climate in general.
This outweighs
once violence becomes normalized, then anything including the neg impacts can occur and no one cares, making solving them impossible
b. Aggregation- Militarism impacts constantly occur which means they aggregate every single day. By the time the neg impacts occur- the aff will massively outweighs on magnitude. 

B. Political Spillover

Academics have used state resources and their own academic freedom to create positive policy change proving that liberalizing the university creates concrete material impacts
Slaughter 88 ~Sheila Slaughter, associate professor in the Center for the Study of Higher Education and director of the Division of Educational Foundations and Administration, The University of Arizona, "Academic Freedom and the State: Reflections on the Uses of Knowledge," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 59, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1988), pp. 241-262~ JW
In the 1960s and 1970s, definitions of academic knowledge began to broaden. The university curriculum came to include subjects previously treated only in an incidental way-black studies, women's stud- ies, ethnic studies, and multiculturalism. Even China studies reentered the curriculum. The works of Marxists, feminists, anar- chists, and critical thinkers were included in social science courses where more conventional thought had once dominated. Methodologi- cal debates raged: the very possibility of objective knowledge and value-free science was seriously questioned ~20, 38~. The expanded, heavily state-funded university provided in large part the resource base for the growth of diverse forms of knowledge. Funds were available for the new departments and new courses, jour- nals, and library subscriptions. Professors were able to sustain these new areas with resources generated within the university. Professors representing broader forms of knowledge were able to make their presence felt in professional associations, many of which developed radical and feminist caucuses in the late 1960s and 1970s ~9, 36~. Professors engaged in generating alternative forms of knowledge also exchanged expertise with those outside the university, often using the university as their primary resource base. These external groups contributed symbolic support, some resources and very often used professors' expertise to fuel reform. Professors developing expertise in complementarity with these groups usually offer ideological and technical alternatives to current policy. In the area of foreign policy, for example, professors have worked with a wide variety of external groups to curb United States interventionist policies in Central America, particularly in Nicaragua. In many cases, these groups do more than simply call for an end to war; they present carefully thought-out policy alternatives for the region. Thus, the Institute for Policy Stud- ies drew on a number of professors in writing Policy Alternatives for the Caribbean and Central America. A great many professors have endorsed this long-term development plan for the Caribbean Basin. Academics have exchanged expertise with the Institute for Food and Development Policy in attempts to help Central American countries become self-sustaining in terms of food production. organizations such as Americas Watch and Amnesty International of- fer resources for new forms of expertise in Central America as do religious organizations such as Witness for Peace and Pledge of Resis- tance. Central America is only a single instance. State-supported professors exchange expertise with a wide variety of external groups trying to change prevailing policy. Examples of such exchanges are seen in professorial work with critical intellectual centers such as Public In- terest Research Groups, the Council on Economic Priorities, and the Union for Radical Political Economics; with special interest groups such as nuclear disarmament and pro-choice organizations; and with religious groups trying to create new theologies.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: Finals | Opponent: Harvard Westlake EE | Judge: Tambe, Harris, Jovering

1AC – Zionism

Part 1: Framework

The role of the ballot is to evaluate the simulated consequences of the affirmative policy vs a competing neg policy option to reduce material oppression.

1. The aff deploys the state to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19,
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

2. Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism,
AND
level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175)

Part 2: Plan

Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the State of Israel.

Volokh 16 ~Eugene Volokh, teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation, "University of California Board of Regents is wrong about 'anti-Zionism' on campus," The Washington Post, March 16, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/16/university-of-california-board-of-regents-is-wrong-about-anti-zionism-on-campus/?utm_term=.cfab0cd93ad6~~ JW
The University of California Board of Regents has just released its Final Report of the
AND
, universities are the very places where such matters should indeed be discussed.

Defining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic chills on-campus discourse that attempts to criticize Israel or support Palestine

Emmons 16 ~Alex Emmons, Senate Responds to Trump-Inspired Anti-Semitism By Targeting Students Who Criticize Israel, The Intercept, December 2 2016~
A draft of the bill obtained by The Intercept encourages the Department of Education to 
AND
environment on the basis of national origin" for Jewish students on campus.

Part 3: Advantages

Advantage 1: Islamophobia

I'll isolate two impacts

a) Suppression of pro-Palestine movements on campus denies Palestinian students the ability to form solidarity

Nadeau and Sears 11 ~Mary-Jo Nadeau and Alan Sears, Mary-Jo Nadeau teaches at the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto-Mississauga. Alan Sears teaches at the Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, Toronto. "This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus," The Bullet, March 5, 2011, http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/475.php~~ JW
The silencing campaign is particularly dangerous given the overall political climate, which facilitates the
AND
attack, and one that resonates with the neoliberal restructuring of the universities.

b) Attempts to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism leads to campaigns by pro-Israel groups that demean and marginalize Muslim-American students

Solomon 16 ~Daniel J. Solomon, "Inflammatory Pro-Israel Posters Pop Up on Campus — Are They Islamophobic?," Forward, October 26, 2016, http://forward.com/news/national/352698/inflammatory-pro-israel-posters-pop-up-on-campus-are-they-islamophobic/~~ JW
A row over Israel on campus is as predictable as the fall of autumn leaves
AND
over a course that presented Zionism as a "settler colonialist" movement.

Islamophobia empirically leads to hate crimes, fractures communities, and increases national security threats.

Foran 16 ~Clare Foran, Donald Trump and the Rise of Anti-Muslim Violence, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-muslims-islamophobia-hate-crime/500840/~~
A new report from California State University-San Bernardino's Center for the Study of
AND
a number of instances not just to hostility, but acts of violence." 

Advantage 2: Civic Engagement

Public universities are threatening cuts to funding in response to pro-Palestine divestment strategies. Empirically proven on University of California campuses where organizations that don't associate with pro-Palestine get funding while others don't

Friedman 15 ~Nora Barrows-Friedman, staff writer and associate editor at The Electronic Intifada, "UCLA student groups face funding cuts over Israel divestment," The Electronic Intifada, Dec 7, 2015, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/ucla-student-groups-face-funding-cuts-over-israel-divestment~~ JW
The Graduate Students Association at UCLA in California has put stipulations on funding for student
AND
by a landslide vote and was supported by more than 30 student organizations.

Encouraging discourse about foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine is uniquely good because it builds coalitions across all racial groups to inspire new dialogues. The aff spills over to other reform movements

Hallward and Shaver 12 ~Maia Carter Hallward and Patrick Shaver,  Associate Professor of Middle East Politics at American university, "''WAR by other Means'' or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley's Divestment Bill," Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research, July 2012~ JW
Finally, proponents and opponents differed in their approaches to power. Opponents of the
AND
obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 1 | Opponent: Oakwood AW | Judge: Braden James

1AC - Zionism

Framework

The role of the ballot is to evaluate the simulated consequences of the affirmative policy vs a competing neg policy option to reduce material oppression.

1. The aff deploys the state to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19,
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

2. Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism,
AND
level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175)

3. No act omission distinction means means based theories collapse to consequentialism.

Sunstein and Vermule 05~Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. The University of Chicago Law School. "Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs." JOHN M. OLIN LAW and ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 239. The Chicago Working Paper Series. March 2005~
In our view, both the argument from causation and the argument from intention go
AND
a set of policy instruments that do not adequately or fully discourage it. 

4. A priori reasoning is impossible: only empirics can serve as the basis for ethical reasoning.

Schwartz 09 ~"A Defense of Naïve Empiricism: It is Neither Self-Refuting Nor Dogmatic." Stephen P. Schwartz. Ithaca College. pp.1-14, 2009~
 The empirical support for the fundamental principle of empiricism is diffuse but salient.
AND
which such knowledge would be made possible. This is an empirical claim.

5. Global justice requires a reduction in inequality and a focus on material rights.

Okereke 07 ~Chukwumerije Okereke (Senior Research Associate at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia). Global Justice and Neoliberal Environmental Governance. Routledge 2007~
Notwithstanding these drawbacks, these scholars provide very compelling arguments against mainstream conceptions of justice
AND
of our heavily dominant Western civilization?' (Pogge 2002: 3). 

Plan

Resolved: Public colleges and universities ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the State of Israel.

Volokh 16 ~Eugene Volokh, teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation, "University of California Board of Regents is wrong about 'anti-Zionism' on campus," The Washington Post, March 16, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/16/university-of-california-board-of-regents-is-wrong-about-anti-zionism-on-campus/?utm_term=.cfab0cd93ad6~~ JW
The University of California Board of Regents has just released its Final Report of the
AND
, universities are the very places where such matters should indeed be discussed.

Defining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic chills on-campus discourse that attempts to criticize Israel or support Palestine

Emmons 16 ~Alex Emmons, Senate Responds to Trump-Inspired Anti-Semitism By Targeting Students Who Criticize Israel, The Intercept, December 2 2016~
A draft of the bill obtained by The Intercept encourages the Department of Education to 
AND
environment on the basis of national origin" for Jewish students on campus.

Advantages

Advantage 1: Islamophobia

I'll isolate two impacts

a) Suppression of pro-Palestine movements on campus denies Palestinian students the ability to form solidarity

Nadeau and Sears 11 ~Mary-Jo Nadeau and Alan Sears, Mary-Jo Nadeau teaches at the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto-Mississauga. Alan Sears teaches at the Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, Toronto. "This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus," The Bullet, March 5, 2011, http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/475.php~~ JW
The silencing campaign is particularly dangerous given the overall political climate, which facilitates the
AND
attack, and one that resonates with the neoliberal restructuring of the universities.

b) Attempts to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism leads to campaigns by pro-Israel groups that demean and marginalize Muslim-American students

Solomon 16 ~Daniel J. Solomon, "Inflammatory Pro-Israel Posters Pop Up on Campus — Are They Islamophobic?," Forward, October 26, 2016, http://forward.com/news/national/352698/inflammatory-pro-israel-posters-pop-up-on-campus-are-they-islamophobic/~~ JW
A row over Israel on campus is as predictable as the fall of autumn leaves
AND
over a course that presented Zionism as a "settler colonialist" movement.

Islamophobia empirically leads to hate crimes, fractures communities, and increases national security threats.

Foran 16 ~Clare Foran, Donald Trump and the Rise of Anti-Muslim Violence, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-muslims-islamophobia-hate-crime/500840/~~
A new report from California State University-San Bernardino's Center for the Study of
AND
a number of instances not just to hostility, but acts of violence." 

Advantage 2: Civic Engagement

Public universities are threatening cuts to funding in response to pro-Palestine divestment strategies. Empirically proven on University of California campuses where organizations that don't associate with pro-Palestine get funding while others don't

Friedman 15 ~Nora Barrows-Friedman, staff writer and associate editor at The Electronic Intifada, "UCLA student groups face funding cuts over Israel divestment," The Electronic Intifada, Dec 7, 2015, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/ucla-student-groups-face-funding-cuts-over-israel-divestment~~ JW
The Graduate Students Association at UCLA in California has put stipulations on funding for student
AND
by a landslide vote and was supported by more than 30 student organizations.

Impacts

A) Encouraging discourse about foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine is uniquely good because it builds coalitions across all racial groups to inspire new dialogues. The aff spills over to other reform movements

Hallward and Shaver 12 ~Maia Carter Hallward and Patrick Shaver,  Associate Professor of Middle East Politics at American university, "''WAR by other Means'' or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley's Divestment Bill," Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research, July 2012~ JW
Finally, proponents and opponents differed in their approaches to power. Opponents of the
AND
a momentum that spilled over onto other campuses and other California BDS initiatives. 

B) Israeli companies abuse West Bank occupation for their own profit while exploiting and suppressing local Palestinians. Every dollar that the divestment strategy gains translates into increased welfare in Palestine

Press 16 ~Eyal Press, author of "Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times, "When 'Made in Israel' Is a Human Rights Abuse," New York Times, January 26, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/when-made-in-israel-is-a-human-rights-abuse.html?_r=0~~ JW
From a biblical perspective, this view may be tenable. From a legal and
AND
obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 3 | Opponent: North Hollywood JS | Judge: Eliza Haas

1AC - Zionism

Part 1: Framework

The role of the ballot is to evaluate the simulated consequences of the affirmative policy vs a competing neg policy option to reduce material oppression.

1. The aff deploys the state to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19,
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

2. Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism,
AND
level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175)

3. No act omission distinction means means based theories collapse to consequentialism.

Sunstein and Vermule 05~Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. The University of Chicago Law School. "Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs." JOHN M. OLIN LAW and ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 239. The Chicago Working Paper Series. March 2005~
In our view, both the argument from causation and the argument from intention go
AND
a set of policy instruments that do not adequately or fully discourage it. 

4. A priori reasoning is impossible: only empirics can serve as the basis for ethical reasoning.

Schwartz 09 ~"A Defense of Naïve Empiricism: It is Neither Self-Refuting Nor Dogmatic." Stephen P. Schwartz. Ithaca College. pp.1-14, 2009~
 The empirical support for the fundamental principle of empiricism is diffuse but salient.
AND
which such knowledge would be made possible. This is an empirical claim.

Part 2: Plan

Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the State of Israel.

Volokh 16 ~Eugene Volokh, teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation, "University of California Board of Regents is wrong about 'anti-Zionism' on campus," The Washington Post, March 16, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/16/university-of-california-board-of-regents-is-wrong-about-anti-zionism-on-campus/?utm_term=.cfab0cd93ad6~~ JW
The University of California Board of Regents has just released its Final Report of the
AND
, universities are the very places where such matters should indeed be discussed.

Defining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic chills on-campus discourse that attempts to criticize Israel or support Palestine

Emmons 16 ~Alex Emmons, Senate Responds to Trump-Inspired Anti-Semitism By Targeting Students Who Criticize Israel, The Intercept, December 2 2016~
A draft of the bill obtained by The Intercept encourages the Department of Education to 
AND
environment on the basis of national origin" for Jewish students on campus.

Part 3: Advantages

Advantage 1: Islamophobia

I'll isolate two impacts

a) Suppression of pro-Palestine movements on campus denies Palestinian students the ability to form solidarity

Nadeau and Sears 11 ~Mary-Jo Nadeau and Alan Sears, Mary-Jo Nadeau teaches at the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto-Mississauga. Alan Sears teaches at the Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, Toronto. "This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus," The Bullet, March 5, 2011, http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/475.php~~ JW
The silencing campaign is particularly dangerous given the overall political climate, which facilitates the
AND
attack, and one that resonates with the neoliberal restructuring of the universities.

b) Attempts to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism leads to campaigns by pro-Israel groups that demean and marginalize Muslim-American students

Solomon 16 ~Daniel J. Solomon, "Inflammatory Pro-Israel Posters Pop Up on Campus — Are They Islamophobic?," Forward, October 26, 2016, http://forward.com/news/national/352698/inflammatory-pro-israel-posters-pop-up-on-campus-are-they-islamophobic/~~ JW
A row over Israel on campus is as predictable as the fall of autumn leaves
AND
over a course that presented Zionism as a "settler colonialist" movement.

Islamophobia empirically leads to hate crimes, fractures communities, and increases national security threats.

Foran 16 ~Clare Foran, Donald Trump and the Rise of Anti-Muslim Violence, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-muslims-islamophobia-hate-crime/500840/~~
A new report from California State University-San Bernardino's Center for the Study of
AND
a number of instances not just to hostility, but acts of violence." 

Advantage 2: Civic Engagement

Public universities are threatening cuts to funding in response to pro-Palestine divestment strategies. Empirically proven on University of California campuses where organizations that don't associate with pro-Palestine get funding while others don't

Friedman 15 ~Nora Barrows-Friedman, staff writer and associate editor at The Electronic Intifada, "UCLA student groups face funding cuts over Israel divestment," The Electronic Intifada, Dec 7, 2015, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/ucla-student-groups-face-funding-cuts-over-israel-divestment~~ JW
The Graduate Students Association at UCLA in California has put stipulations on funding for student
AND
by a landslide vote and was supported by more than 30 student organizations.

Impacts

A) Encouraging discourse about foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine is uniquely good because it builds coalitions across all racial groups to inspire new dialogues. The aff spills over to other reform movements

Hallward and Shaver 12 ~Maia Carter Hallward and Patrick Shaver,  Associate Professor of Middle East Politics at American university, "''WAR by other Means'' or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley's Divestment Bill," Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research, July 2012~ JW
Finally, proponents and opponents differed in their approaches to power. Opponents of the
AND
a momentum that spilled over onto other campuses and other California BDS initiatives. 

B) Israeli companies abuse West Bank occupation for their own profit while exploiting and suppressing local Palestinians. Every dollar that the divestment strategy gains translates into increased welfare in Palestine

Press 16 ~Eyal Press, author of "Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times, "When 'Made in Israel' Is a Human Rights Abuse," New York Times, January 26, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/when-made-in-israel-is-a-human-rights-abuse.html?_r=0~~ JW
From a biblical perspective, this view may be tenable. From a legal and
AND
obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations.

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 6 | Opponent: Nueva JT | Judge: Matt Conrad

1AC - Zionism

Framework

The role of the ballot is to evaluate the simulated consequences of the affirmative policy vs a competing neg policy option to reduce material oppression.

1. The aff deploys the state to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19,
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

2. Ideal theory strips away particularities making ethics inaccessible and epistemically skewed

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
"The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism,
AND
level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading." (175)

3. No act omission distinction for states means means based theories collapse to consequentialism.

Sunstein and Vermule 05~Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule. The University of Chicago Law School. "Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs." JOHN M. OLIN LAW and ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 239. The Chicago Working Paper Series. March 2005~
In our view, both the argument from causation and the argument from intention go
AND
of policy instruments that do not adequately or fully discourage it.
 

Plan

Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech that criticizes the State of Israel.

Volokh 16 ~Eugene Volokh, teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation, "University of California Board of Regents is wrong about 'anti-Zionism' on campus," The Washington Post, March 16, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/16/university-of-california-board-of-regents-is-wrong-about-anti-zionism-on-campus/?utm_term=.cfab0cd93ad6~~ JW
The University of California Board of Regents has just released its Final Report of the
AND
, universities are the very places where such matters should indeed be discussed.

Defining anti-Zionism as anti-Semitic chills on-campus discourse that attempts to criticize Israel or support Palestine

Emmons 16 ~Alex Emmons, Senate Responds to Trump-Inspired Anti-Semitism By Targeting Students Who Criticize Israel, The Intercept, December 2 2016~
A draft of the bill obtained by The Intercept encourages the Department of Education to 
AND
environment on the basis of national origin" for Jewish students on campus.

Advantages

Advantage 1: Islamophobia

I'll isolate two impacts

a) Suppression of pro-Palestine movements on campus denies Palestinian students the ability to form solidarity

Nadeau and Sears 11 ~Mary-Jo Nadeau and Alan Sears, Mary-Jo Nadeau teaches at the Department of Sociology, University of Toronto-Mississauga. Alan Sears teaches at the Department of Sociology, Ryerson University, Toronto. "This Is What Complicity Looks Like: Palestine and the Silencing Campaign on Campus," The Bullet, March 5, 2011, http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/475.php~~ JW
The silencing campaign is particularly dangerous given the overall political climate, which facilitates the
AND
attack, and one that resonates with the neoliberal restructuring of the universities.

b) Attempts to conflate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism leads to campaigns by pro-Israel groups that demean and marginalize Muslim-American students

Solomon 16 ~Daniel J. Solomon, "Inflammatory Pro-Israel Posters Pop Up on Campus — Are They Islamophobic?," Forward, October 26, 2016, http://forward.com/news/national/352698/inflammatory-pro-israel-posters-pop-up-on-campus-are-they-islamophobic/~~ JW
A row over Israel on campus is as predictable as the fall of autumn leaves
AND
over a course that presented Zionism as a "settler colonialist" movement.

Islamophobia empirically leads to hate crimes, fractures communities, and increases national security threats.

Foran 16 ~Clare Foran, Donald Trump and the Rise of Anti-Muslim Violence, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-muslims-islamophobia-hate-crime/500840/~~
A new report from California State University-San Bernardino's Center for the Study of
AND
a number of instances not just to hostility, but acts of violence." 

Advantage 2: Civic Engagement

Public universities are threatening cuts to funding in response to pro-Palestine divestment strategies. Empirically proven on University of California campuses where organizations that don't associate with pro-Palestine get funding while others don't

Friedman 15 ~Nora Barrows-Friedman, staff writer and associate editor at The Electronic Intifada, "UCLA student groups face funding cuts over Israel divestment," The Electronic Intifada, Dec 7, 2015, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/ucla-student-groups-face-funding-cuts-over-israel-divestment~~ JW
The Graduate Students Association at UCLA in California has put stipulations on funding for student
AND
by a landslide vote and was supported by more than 30 student organizations.

Impacts

A) Encouraging discourse about foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine is uniquely good because it builds coalitions across all racial groups to inspire new dialogues. The aff spills over to other reform movements

Hallward and Shaver 12 ~Maia Carter Hallward and Patrick Shaver,  Associate Professor of Middle East Politics at American university, "''WAR by other Means'' or Nonviolent Resistance? Examining the Discourses Surrounding Berkeley's Divestment Bill," Peace and Change: A Journal of Peace Research, July 2012~ JW
Finally, proponents and opponents differed in their approaches to power. Opponents of the
AND
a momentum that spilled over onto other campuses and other California BDS initiatives. 

B) Israeli companies abuse West Bank occupation for their own profit while exploiting and suppressing local Palestinians. Every dollar that the divestment strategy gains translates into increased welfare in Palestine

Press 16 ~Eyal Press, author of "Beautiful Souls: The Courage and Conscience of Ordinary People in Extraordinary Times, "When 'Made in Israel' Is a Human Rights Abuse," New York Times, January 26, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/when-made-in-israel-is-a-human-rights-abuse.html?_r=0~~ JW
From a biblical perspective, this view may be tenable. From a legal and
AND
obligated to treat the settlements as part of Israel in future trade negotiations.

Tournament: USC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Servite PA | Judge: Dan Armitage

1AC

Part 1 is Framework

First is the problem: Attempting to understand agents and ethics from an idealized, static, non-violent starting point fails
Ethical decision-making is inherently discriminatory- any obligation is violent to all other obligations. If I help one person, it means I cannot spend that time helping another.
Haggulund 04, THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND, 2004, p 56.
For the same reason, Derridaʼs notion of "infinite responsibility" should not be confl ated with Levinasʼs. For Derrida, the infinitude of responsibility answers to the fact that responsibility always takes place in relation to a negative infinity of others. The negative infinity of responsibility is both spatial (innumerable fi nite others that exceed my horizon) and temporal (innumerable times past and to come that exceed my horizon). Far from conf rming Levinasʼs sense of responsibility, the negative infi nity of others is fatal for his notion of an originary encounter that would give ethics the status of "first philosophy" and be the guiding principle for a metaphysical "goodness." Even if it were possible to sacrifi ce yourself completely to another, to devote all your forces to the one who is encountered face-to-face, it would mean that you had disregarded or denied all the others who demanded your attention or needed your help. For there are always more than two, as Richard Beardsworth has aptly put it ~137~. Whenever I turn toward another I turn away from yet another, and thus exercise discrimination. As Derrida points out in The Gift of Death, "I cannot respond to the call, the demand, the obligation, or even the love of another without sacrifi cing the other other, the other others" ~68~. Consequently, Derrida emphasizes that the concept of responsibility lends itself a priori to "scandal and aporia" ~68~. There are potentially an endless number of others to consider, and one cannot take any responsibility without excluding some others in favor of certain others. What makes it possible to be responsible is thus at the same time what makes it impossible for any responsibility to be fully responsible. Responsibility, then, is always more or less discriminating, and infi nite responsibility is but another name for the necessity of discrimination.
takes out all other frameworks that rely on an idealized starting point- they fail to guide action because the create infinite contradictory obligations that produce violence.
Impact turns idealized frameworks, which try to create absolute peace. This justifies absolute violence where nothing can ever occur.
Hagglund 2""~THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND~, 2004
"A possible objection here is that we must strive toward an ideal origin or end, an arkhe or telos that would prevail beyond the possibility of violence. Even if every community is haunted by victims of discrimination and forgetting, we should try to reach a state of being that does not exclude anyone, namely, a consummated presence that includes everyone. However, it is precisely with such an "ontological" thesis that Derridaʼs hauntological thinking takes issue. At several places in Specters of Marx he maintains that a completely present life—which would not be "out of joint," not haunted by any ghosts—would be nothing but a complete death. Derridaʼs point is not simply that a peaceful state of existence is impossible to realize, as if it were a desirable, albeit unattainable end. Rather, he challenges the very idea that absolute peace is desirable. In a state of being where all violent change is precluded, nothing can ever happen. Absolute peace is thus inseparable from absolute violence, as Derrida argued already in "Violence and Metaphysics." Anything that would finally put an end to violence (whether the end is a religious salvation, a universal justice, a harmonious intersubjectivity or some other ideal) would end the possibility of life in general. The idea of absolute peace is the idea of eliminating the undecidable future that is the con- dition for anything to happen. Thus, the idea of absolute peace is the idea of absolute violence." (49)  
2. Ontological Discrimination is constitutive of any theory because it requires one to distinguish between the ethical and the unethical. Thus violence is inevitable because making a decision for something requires excluding something else.
Hagglund 3 ""~THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND~, 2004
"Derrida targets precisely this logic of opposition. As he argues in Of Grammatology, metaphysics has always regarded violence as derivative of a primary peace. The possibility of violence can thus be accounted for only in terms of a Fall, that is, in terms of a fatal corruption of a pure origin. By deconstructing this figure of thought, Derrida seeks to elucidate why violence is not merely an empirical accident that befalls something that precedes it. Rather, violence stems from an essential impropriety that does not allow anything to be sheltered from death and forgetting. Consequently, Derrida takes issue with what he calls the "ethico-theoretical decision" of metaphysics, which postulates the simple to be before the complex, the pure before the impure, the sincere before the deceitful, and so on. All divergences from the positively valued term are thus explained away as symptoms of "alienation," and the desirable is conceived as the return to what supposedly has been lost or corrupted. In contrast, Derrida argues that what makes it possible for anything to be at the same time makes it impossible for anything to be in itself. The integrity of any "positive" term is necessarily compromised and threatened by its "other." Such constitutive alterity answers to an essential corruptibility,  which undercuts all ethico-theoretical decisions of how things ought  to be in an ideal world.11 A key term here is what Derrida calls "undecidability." With this term he  designates the necessary opening toward the coming of the future. The coming of the future is strictly speaking "undecidable," since it is a relentless displacement that unsettles any defi nitive assurance or given meaning. One can never know what will have happened. Promises may always be turned into threats, friendships into enmities, fidelities into betrayals, and so on. There is no opposition between undecidability and the making of decisions. On the contrary, Derrida emphasizes that one always acts in relation to what cannot be predicted, that one always is forced to make decisions even though the consequences of these decisions cannot be finally established. Any kind of decision (ethical, political ~decision~, juridical, and so forth) is more or less violent, but it is nevertheless necessary to make decisions. Once again, I want to stress that violent differentiation by no means should be understood as a Fall, where violence supervenes upon a harmony that precedes it. On the contrary, discrimination has to be regarded as a constitutive condition. Without divisional marks—which is to say: without segregating borders—there would be nothing at all. In effect, every attempt to organize life in accordance with ethical or political prescriptions will have been marked by a fundamental duplicity. On the one hand, it is necessary to draw boundaries, to demarcate, in order to form any community whatsoever. On the other hand, it is precisely because of these excluding borders that every kind of community is characterized by a more or less palpable instability. What cannot be included opens the threat as well as the chance that the prevalent order may be transformed or subverted. In Specters of Marx, Derrida pursues this argument in terms of an originary "spec- trality." A salient connotation concerns phantoms and specters as haunting reminders of the victims of historical violence, of those who have been excluded or extinguished from the formation of a society. The notion of spectrality is not, however, exhausted by these ghosts that question the good conscience of a state, a nation, or an ideology. Rather, Derridaʼs aim is to formulate a general "hauntology" (hantologie), in contrast to the traditional "ontology" that thinks being in terms of self-identical presence. What is important about the figure of the specter, then, is that it cannot be fully present: it has no being in itself but marks a relation to what is no longer or not yet. And since time— the disjointure between past and future—is a condition even for the slightest moment, Derrida argues that spectrality is at work in everything that happens. An identity or community can never escape the machinery of exclusion, can never fail to engender ghosts, since it must demarcate itself against a past that cannot be encompassed and a future that cannot be anticipated. Inversely, it will always be threatened by what it can- not integrate in itself—haunted by the negated, the neglected, and the unforeseeable. Thus, a rigorous deconstructive thinking maintains that we are always already in- scribed in an "economy of violence" where we are both excluding and being excluded. No position can be autonomous or absolute but is necessarily bound to other positions that it violates and by which it is violated. The struggle for justice can thus not be a struggle for peace, but only for what I will call "lesser violence." Derrida himself only uses this term briefly in his essay "Violence and Metaphysics," but I will seek to develop its significance.The starting point for my argument is that all decisions made in the name of justice are made in view of what is judged to be the lesser violence. If there is always an economy of violence, decisions of justice cannot be a matter of choosing what is nonviolent. To justify something is rather to contend that it is less violent than something else. This does not mean that decisions made in view of lesser violence are actually less violent than the violence they oppose. On the contrary, even the most horrendous acts are justified in view of what is judged to be the lesser violence. For example, justifications of genocide clearly appeal to an argument for lesser violence, since the extinction of the group in question is claimed to be less violent than the dangers it poses to another group. The disquieting point, however, is that all decisions of justice are ~is~ implicated in the logic of violence. The desire for lesser violence is never innocent, since it is a desire for violence in one form or another, and here can be no guarantee that it is in the service of perpetrating the better." (46-48)
3. Basic facts are always defined by social relations. The word green only refers to the color green rather than black because socially we defined it to mean that. These social relations are based on power and exclusion.
Butler 92 (Judith 1992. "Continent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of "Postmodernism" Feminists Theorize the Political)
"In a sense, the subject is constituted through an exclusion and differentiation, perhaps a repression, that is subsequently concealed, covered over, by the effect of autonomy. In this sense, autonomy is the logical consequence of a disavowed dependency, which is to say that the autonomous subject can maintain the illusion of its autonomy insofar as it covers over the break out of which it is constituted. This dependency and this break are already social relations, ones which precede _{and condition the}formation of the _subject.As a result, this is not a relation in which the subject finds itself, as one of the relations that forms it situation. The subject is constructed through acts of exclusion and differentiation that distinguish the subject from its constitutive outside, a domain of abjected alterity. There is no ontologically intact reflexivity to the subject _{which is then}placed within a cultural context; that cultural context, as it were, is already there as the disarticulated process of _{that subject's}production, one that is concealed by the frame that would situate a ready-made subject in an external web of cultural relations. We may be tempted to think that to assume the subject in advance is necessary in order to safeguard the agency of the subject. But to claim that the subject is constituted is not to claim that it is determined; on the contrary, the constituted character of the subject is the _veryprecondition of its agency. For what is it that enables a purposive and significant reconfiguration of cultural and political relations, if not a relation that can be turned against itself, reworked, resisted? Do we need to assume theoretically from the start a subject with agency before we can articulate the terms of a significant social and political task of transformation, resistance, radical democratization? If we do not offer in advance the theoretical guarantee of that agent, are we doomed to give up transformation and meaningful political practice? My suggestion is that agency belongs to a way of thinking about persons as instrumental actors who confront an external political field. But if we agree that politics and power exist already at the level at which the subject and its agency are articulated and made possible, then agency can be presumed only at the cost of refusing to inquire into its construction. Consider that "agency" has no formal existence or, if it does, it has no bearing on the question at hand. In a sense, the epistemological model that offers us a pregiven subject or agent is one that refuses to acknowledge that agency is always and only _apolitical _prerogative. As such, it seems crucial to question the conditions of its possibility, not to take it for granted as an a priori guarantee. We need instead to ask, what possibilities of mobilization that are produced on the basis of existing configurations of discourse and power? Where are the possibilities of reworking that very matrix of power by which we are constituted, of reconstituting the legacy of that constitution, and of working against each other those processes of regulation at can destabilize existing power regimes? For if the subject is constituted by power, that power does not cease at the moment the subject is constituted, for that subject is never fully constituted, but is subjected and produced time and again. That subject is neither a ground nor a product, but the permanent possibility of a certain resignifying process, one which gets detoured and stalled through other mechanisms of power, but which is power's own possibility of being reworked. The subject is an accomplishment regulate and produced in advance. And is as such fully political; indeed, perhaps most political at the point in which it is claimed to be prior to politics itself."
Takes out all other frameworks at their highest assumption- linguistics and basic assumptions are not neutral. All other framework must resolve this problem or else people have different starting points making it impossible to create moral agreement.
Takes out frameworks that rely on a static notion of identity like state bad or Kantianism- identity is defined by the social world and basic assumptions, which are constantly in flux.  
Second is the solution:
Conflict and violence are inevitable; the only way to organize it is through agonism. It frames those with opposing views as not the enemy who must be destroy, but an adversary whose ideas should be fought. I don't pretend to resolve exclusion, I just exclude the exclusionary thing.
Mouffe 2k brackets for gendered langauge, Chantal, THE DEMOCRATIC PARADOX, 2000
One of the principal theses that I have defended in my work is that properly political questions always involve decisions which require a choice between alternatives that are undecidable from a strictly rational point of view. This is something the liberal theory cannot admit due to the inadequate way it envisages pluralism. The liberal theory recognises that we live in a world where a multiplicity of perspectives and values coexist and, for reasons it believes to be empirical, accepts that it is impossible for each of us to adopt them all. But it imagines that these perspectives and values, brought together, constitute a harmonious and non-conflictual ensemble. This type of thought is therefore incapable of accounting for the necessarily conflictual nature of pluralism, which stems from the impossibility of reconciling all points of view, and it is what leads it to negate the political in its antagonistic dimension.  I myself argue that only by taking account of the political in its dimension of antagonism can one grasp the challenge democratic politics must face. Public life will never be able to dispense with antagonism for it concerns public action and the formation of collective identities. It attempts to constitute a 'we' in a context of diversity and conflict. Yet, in order to constitute a 'we', one must distinguish it from a 'they'. Consequently, the crucial question of democratic politics is not to reach a consensus without exclusion which would amount to creating a 'we' without a corollary 'they' but to manage to establish the we/they discrimination in a manner compatible with pluralism.  According to the 'agonistic pluralism' model that I developed in The Democratic Paradox (London: Verso, 2000) and On the Political (London: Routledge, 2005), pluralist democracy is characterised by the introduction of a distinction between the categories of enemy and adversary. This means that within the 'we' that constitutes the political community, the opponent is not considered an enemy to be destroyed but an adversary whose existence is legitimate. His ~Their~ ideas will be fought with vigour but ~their~his right to defend them will never be questioned. The category of enemy does not disappear, however, for it remains pertinent with regard to those who, by questioning the very principles of pluralist democracy, cannot form part of the agonistic space. With the distinction between antagonism (friend/enemy relation) and agonism (relation between adversaries) in place, we are better able to understand why the agonistic confrontation, far from representing a danger for democracy, is in reality the very condition of its existence. Of course, democracy cannot survive without certain forms of consensus, relating to adherence to the ethico-political values that constitute its principles of legitimacy, and to the institutions in which these are inscribed. But it must also enable the expression of conflict, which requires that citizens genuinely have the possibility of choosing between real alternatives.
The standard is consistency with agonistic democracy.
Prefer the standard 

1. Agonism outweighs regardless of the role of the ballot or framework. To make claims about the structure and shape of either the activity or morality relies on the initial assumption that debaters have the ability to contest these things. This entails that higher-level deliberation and contestation about how the ballot should function or what ethics is relies on the initial AC premise.
   2. Educational spaces must embrace contestation as a condition for resistance. Any attempt to exclude challenges reaffirms pedagogical imperialism, where the teacher knows best.
   Rickert 01 ~Thomas, ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World", JacOnline Journal~
   "This essay will employ Deleuze's and Zizek's theories to illustrate the limitations of writing pedagogies that rely on modernist strategies of critical distance or political agency. Implicit in such pedagogies is the faith that teaching writing can resist dominant social practices and empower students; however, the notion that we can actually foster resistance through teaching is questionable. As Paul Mann states, "all the forms of opposition have long since revealed themselves as means of advancing it. ... The mere fact that something feels like resistance and still manages to offend a few people (usually not even the right people) hardly makes it effective" (138). In light of Mann's statement, I urge us to take the following position: teaching writing is fully complicitous with dominant social practices, and inducing students to write in accordance with institutional precepts can be as disabling as it is enabling. By disabling, I do not mean that learning certain skills-typically those most associated with current-traditional rhetorics, such as superficial forms of grammatical correctness, basic organization, syntactic clarity, and such-are not useful. Such skills are useful, and they are often those most necessary for tapping the power that writing can wield. In learning such skills, however, we should also ask what students ~aren't~ are not learning. What other forms of writing and thinking are being foreclosed or distorted, forms of writing that have their own, different powers? If one of our goals as teachers of writing is to initiate students into rhetorics of power and resistance, we should also be equally attuned to rhetorics of contestation. Specifically, we must take on the responsibility that comes with the impossibility of knowing the areas of contention and struggle that will be the most important in our students' lives. Pedagogy could reflect this concern in its practices by attending to the idea that each student's life is its own telos, meaning that the individual struggles of each student cannot and should not necessarily mirror our own. Or, to put it another way, students must sooner or later overcome us, even though we may legitimate our sense of service with the idea that we have their best interests in mind. However, we should be suspicious of this presumptive ethic, for, as Mann astutely observes, "nothing is more aggressive than the desire to serve the other" (48)
   Impact Calc- Consequences are irrelevant to the framework, it is about creating the procedures for agonistic discourse
   a. being denied access to discourse is not a material condition but a procedure that is created
   through the structure of our actions- only institutional arrangements can ensure a proper discursive sphere
   b. aggregation is impermissible under the framework- it justifies why rationality and utility calculus are bad because they rely on idealized notions of subjects that we can compare and count.
   c. Problem of induction-We have no evidence that the past can be used to predict the future. The only evidence we could point to is that in the past, the past has always been used to predict the future accurately, but that assumes what we are trying to prove.
   Vickers 14, John, 2014, The Problem of Induction, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
   The original problem of induction can be simply put. It concerns the support or justification of inductive methods; methods that predict or infer, in Hume's words, that "instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience" (THN, 89). Such methods are clearly essential in scientific reasoning as well as in the conduct of our everyday affairs. The problem is how to support or justify them and it leads to a dilemma: the principle cannot be proved deductively, for it is contingent, and only necessary truths can be proved deductively. Nor can it be supported inductively—by arguing that it has always or usually been reliable in the past—for that would beg the question by assuming just what is to be proved.

Part 2 is Advocacy

I defend the text of the resolution, Resolved: Public colleges and universities in the United States ought not restrict any constitutionally protected speech. CX clarification solves for any ambiguities in the advocacy or role of the ballot since it's whole res. 

Part 3 is Contention

1. Censorship is never justifiable since censorship relies on the assumption that some viewpoint is not legitimate enough to be voiced. Institutions should foster free speech not destroy it.
   Mouffe 2 ~Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox"~
   I submit that this is a crucial insight which undermines the very objective that those who advocate the 'ddiberative' approach present as the aim of democracy: the establishment of a rational consensus on universal principles. They believe that through rational deliberation an impartial standpoint could be reached where decisions would be taken that are equally in the interests of alt.l :! Wittgenstein, on the contrary. suggests another view. If we follow his lead. we should acknowledge and valorize the diversity of ways in which the 'democratic game' can be played, instead of trying to reduce this diversity to a uniform model of citizenship. This would mean fostering a plurality of forms of being a democratic citizen and creating the institutions that would make it possible to follow the democratic rules in a plurality of ways. What Wittgenstein teaches us is that there cannot be one single best, more 'rational' way to obey those rules and that it is precisely such a recognition that is constitutive of a pluralist democracy. 'Following a rule', says Wittgenstein, 'is analogous to obeying an order. We are trained to do so we react to an order in a particular way. But what if one person reacts in one way and another in another to the order and the training? Which one is right?'23 This is indeed a crucial question for democratic theory. And it cannot be resolved, pace the rationalists, by claiming that there is a correct understanding of the rule that every rational person should accept. To be sure, we need to be able to distinguish between 'obeying the rule' and 'going against it'. But space needs to be provided for the many different practices in which obedience to the democratic rules can be inscribed. And this should not be envisaged as a temporary accommodation, as a stage in the process leading to the realization of the rational consensus, but as a constitutive feature of a democratic society. Democratic citizenship can take many diverse forms and such a diversity, far from being a danger for democracy, is in fact its very condition of existence. This will of course, create conflict and it would be a mistake to expect all those different understandings to coexist without dashing. But this struggle will not be one between 'enemies' but among 'adversaries', since all participants will recognize the positions of the others in the contest as legitimate ones. Such an understanding of democratic politics, which is precisely what I call 'agonistic pluralism', is unthinkable within a rationalistic problematic which, by necessity. tcods to erase diversity. A perspective inspired by Wittgenstein. on the contrary, can contribute to its formulation, and this is why his contribution to democratic thinking is invaluable.
   2 Censorship destroys agonistic discourse by turning speech into a weapon. Thus we must allow all instances of disagreement, which turns PICs.
   Butler 13, Judith, "Judith Butler's Remarks to Brooklyn College on BDS," Nation, https://www.thenation.com/article/judith-butlers-remarks-brooklyn-college-bds/
   And yet all of us here have to distinguish between the right to listen to a point of view and the right to concur or dissent from that point of view; otherwise, public discourse is destroyed by censorship. I wonder, what is the fantasy of speech nursed by the censor? There must be enormous fear behind the drive to censorship, but also enormous aggression, as if we were all in a war where speech has suddenly become artillery. Is there another way to approach language and speech as we think about this issue? Is it possible that some other use of words might forestall violence, bring about a general ethos of non-violence, and so enact, and open onto, the conditions for a public discourse that welcomes and shelters disagreement, even disarray?
   3. Consequential Frameworks affirm-
   A. Empirics show reverse enforcement and increased discrimination
   Strossen 01 (Nadine, Law @NYU, Incitement to Hatred: Should There Be a Limit Copyright (c) 2001 Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University Southern Illinois University Law Journal Winter, 2001 25 S. Ill. U. L. J. 243)
   Based on actual experience and observations in countries around the world, the respected international human rights organization, Human Rights Watch, concluded that suppressing hate speech does not effectively promote equality or reduce discrimination. In 1992, Human Rights Watch issued a report and policy statement opposing any restrictions on hate speech that go beyond the narrow confines permitted by traditional First Amendment principles. Human Rights Watch's policy statement explains its position as follows: The Human Rights Watch policy attempts to apply free speech principles in the anti-discrimination context in a manner that is respectful of both concerns, believing that they are complementary, not contradictory. While we recognize that the policy is closer to the American legal approach than to that of any other nation, it was arrived at after a careful review of the experience of many other countries . . . . This review has made clear that there is little connection in practice between draconian "hate speech" laws and the lessening of ethnic and racial violence or tension. Furthermore, most of the nations which invoke "hate speech" laws have a long way to go in implementing the provisions of the Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination calling for the elimination of racial discrimination. Laws that penalize speech or membership are also subject to abuse by the dominant racial or ethnic group. Some of the most stringent "hate speech" laws, for example, have long been in force in South Africa, where they have been used almost exclusively against the black majority. n42 Similar conclusions were generated by an international conference in 1991 organized by the international free speech organization, Article 19, ~*259~ which is named after the free speech guarantee in the Universal Declaration of HumanRights. That conference brought together human rights activists, lawyers, and scholars, from fifteen different countries, to compare notes on the actual impact that anti-hate-speech laws had in promoting equality, and countering bias and discrimination, in their respective countries. The conference papers were subsequently published in a book, Striking A Balance: Hate Speech, Free Speech, and Non-Discrimination. n43 The conclusion of all these papers was clear: not even any correlation, let alone any causal relationship, could be shown between the enforcement of anti-hate-speech laws by the governments in particular countries and an improvement in equality or inter-group relations in those countries. In fact, often there was an inverse relationship. These findings were summarized in the book's concluding chapter by Sandra Coliver, who was then Article 19's Legal Director: Laws which restrict hate speech have been flagrantly abused by the authorities. Thus, the laws in Sri Lanka and South Africa have been used almost exclusively against the oppressed and politically weakest communities. In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union these laws were vehicles for the persecution of critics who were often also victims of state-tolerated or sponsored anti-Semitism. Selective or lax enforcement by the authorities, including in the United Kingdom, Israel and the former Soviet Union, allows governments to compromise the right of dissent and inevitably leads to feelings of alienation among minority groups. Such laws may also distract from the need for effective legislation to promote non-discrimination. The rise of racism and xenophobia throughout Europe, despite laws restricting racist speech, calls into question the effectiveness of such laws in the promotion of tolerance and non-discrimination. One worrying phenomenon is the sanitized language now adopted to avoid prosecution by prominent racists in Britain, France, Israel and other countries, which may have the effect of making their hateful messages more acceptable to a broader audience. n44
   B. Free speech on campus allows students to become critical advocators who demand liberation themselves
   DeBrabander 15: DeBrabander, Firmin. ~Associate Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art~ "Do Guns Make Us Free?: Democracy and the Armed Society." Yale University Press, May 19, 2015
   The famed education theorist Paolo Freire called mistrust a major tool of oppression. Freire was interested in educating the children of oppressed populations with a view to politically empowering them, teaching them to act and behave as invested, willful citizens such as democracy requires. In his most important work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire deplores what he calls the "banking concept" of education, whereby students are deemed fit only to fill up with useful information, digested via rote learning, so that they might become cogs in the machine of society, or in some cases, members of an existing oppressive system. 60 Freire wished that schools might produce individuals who could think critically for themselves, demand their rights, and freely choose their own paths. To that end, he favors "dialogical theory of education," which he describes as follows: "problem-posing education, which breaks with the vertical patterns characteristic of banking education, can fulfill its function as the practice of freedom only if … the teacher-of-the-students and the students-of-the-teacher cease to exist and a new term emerges: teacher-student with students-teacher." 61 Dialogue carried out in this manner, problem-posing engaged in collectively by students and teachers, produces a community of questioners in the classroom. It introduces a horizontal relationship— a fundamental equality that will later be politically significant for emergent citizens. Most colleges in twenty-first-century America take Freire's approach— it's how they already conduct learning in the classroom: faculty are urged to create a decentered classroom where students are not intimidated by professors lecturing from the podium, but rather, engaged in discussion— and direct questioning— by professors who are seated at the same table as students, and who encourage students to speak their minds and experiment with their thoughts. Obviously, Freire's account does not map neatly onto, say, the kindergarten classroom. Children that age need a disciplinary figure, and democracy should not necessarily reign in kindergarten. But, Freire would say, his basic theory bears important intuitions even there: we must still strive to make young students responsive and critical learners, and teach them as far possible horizontally and collaboratively. They are not simply to be lectured to.
   C. Studies show that counterspeech is more likely to happen.
   Strossen 90  (Nadine, National President, American Civil Liberties Union; Professor of Law, New York Law School, 25 S. Ill. U. L. J. 243, "Incitement to Hatred: Should There Be a Limit?", lexis)
   A study that was done by a professor at Smith College in Massachusetts demonstrated the effectiveness of this kind of counterspeech in combating bias and prejudice. It showed that when a student who hears a statement conveying discriminatory attitudes also promptly hears a rebuttal to that statement-especially from someone in a leadership position-then the student will probably not be persuaded by the initial statement. Dr. Fletcher ~*276~ Blanchard, a psychologist at the college who conducted the experiment, concluded that "A few outspoken people who are vigorously anti-racist can establish the kind of social climate that discourages racist acts." n82 Thus, this study provides empirical social scientific support for the free speech maxim, discussed above, that the appropriate response to any speech with which one disagrees is not suppression but rather counterspeech.

Tournament: Damus | Round: 2 | Opponent: Chaminade JB | Judge: Olivia Panchal

Part 1 is Framework:

I affirm—all brackets for offensive language or clarity.
The role of the judge is to endorse the best tangible policy that minimizes oppression
Curry 14, Tommy, The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century, Victory Briefs, 2014,
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real world consequences of dialogue, thinking, and (personal) politics when addressing issues of racism, sexism, economic disparity, global conflicts, and death, many of the discussions concerning these ongoing challenges to humanity are fixed to a paradigm which sees the adjudication of material disparities and sociological realities as the conquest of one ideal theory  "Ideal Theory as Ideology," Charles Mills outlines the problem contemporary theoretical-performance styles in policy debate and value-weighing in Lincoln-Douglass are confronted with in their attempts to get at the concrete problems in our societies. At the outset, Mills concedes that "ideal theory applies to moral theory as a whole (at least to normative ethics as against metaethics); ~s~ince ethics deals by definition with normative/prescriptive/evaluative issues, against factual/descriptive issues." At the most general level, the~re is a~ conceptual chasm between what emerges as actual problems in the world (e.g.: racism, sexism, poverty, disease, etc.) and how we frame such problems theoretically—the assumptions and shared ideologies we depend upon for our problems to be heard and accepted as a worthy "problem" by an audience—is the most obvious call for an anti-ethical paradigm, since such a paradigm insists on the actual as the basis of what can be considered normatively. Mills, however, describes this chasm as a problem of an ideal-as-descriptive model which argues that for any actual-empirical-observable social phenomenon (P), an ideal of (P) is necessarily a representation of that phenomenon. In the idealization of a social phenomenon (P), one "necessarily has to abstract away from certain features" of (P) that is observed before abstraction occurs.  This gap between what is actual (in the world), and what is represented by theories and politics of debaters proposed in rounds threatens any real discussions about the concrete nature of oppression and the racist economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations. As Mills states: "What distinguishes ideal theory is the reliance on idealization to the exclusion, or at least marginalization, of the actual," so what we are seeking to resolve on the basis of "thought" is in fact incomplete, incorrect, or ultimately irrelevant to the actual problems which our "theories" seek to address. Our attempts to situate social disparity cannot simply appeal to the ontologization of social phenomenon—meaning we cannot suggest that the various complexities of social problems (which are constantly emerging and undisclosed beyond the effects we observe) are totalizable by any one set of theories within an ideological frame be it our most cherished notions of Afro-pessimism, feminism, Marxism, or the like. At best, theoretical endorsements make us aware of sets of actions to address ever developing problems in our empirical world, but even this awareness does not command us to only do X, but rather do X and the other ideas which compliment the material conditions addressed by the action X. As a whole, debate (policy and LD) neglects the need to do X in order to remedy our cast-away-ness among our ideological tendencies and politics. How then do we pull ourselves from this seeming ir-recoverability of thought in general and in our endorsement of socially actualizable values like that of the living wage? It is my position that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s thinking about the need for a living wage was a unique, and remains an underappreciated, resource in our attempts to impose value reorientation (be it through critique or normative gestures) upon the actual world. In other words, King aims to ~we must~ reformulate the values which deny the legitimacy of the living wage, and those values predicated on the flawed views of the ~oppressed~ worker, Blacks, and the colonized (dignity, justice, fairness, rights, etc.) used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters.
The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater whose advocacy best breaks down militarism. Three warrants—

1. Militarism dominates status quo policies, manifesting itself through a politics of disposability that smothers ethical and critical dialogue. Educational spaces are key to fighting back.  
   Giroux 05, Henry, Held positions at Boston University, Miami University, and Penn State, The Curse of Totalitarianism and The Challenge of Critical Pedagogy, 2005, http://philosophersforchange.org/2015/10/13/the-curse-of-totalitarianism-and-the-challenge-of-critical-pedagogy
   The forces of free-market fundamentalism are on the march ushering in a terrifying horizon of what Hannah Arendt once called "dark times." Across the globe, the tension between democratic values and market fundamentalism has reached a breaking point.~1~ The social contract is under assault, neo-Nazism is on the rise, right-wing populism is propelling extremist political candidates and social movements into the forefront of political life, anti-immigrant sentiment is now wrapped in the poisonous logic of nationalism and exceptionalism, racism has become a mark of celebrated audacity and a politics of disposability comes dangerously close to its endgame of extermination for those considered excess. Under such circumstances, it becomes frightfully clear that the conditions for totalitarianism and state violence are still with us smothering critical thought, social responsibility, the ethical imagination and politics itself. As Bill Dixon observes: ~T~he totalitarian form is still with us because the all too protean origins of totalitarianism are still with us: loneliness as the normal register of social life, the frenzied lawfulness of ideological certitude, mass poverty and mass homelessness, the routine use of terror as a political instrument, and the ever growing speeds and scales of media, economics, and warfare.~2~ In the United States, the extreme right in both political parties no longer needs the comfort of a counterfeit ideology in which appeals are made to the common good, human decency and democratic values. On the contrary, power is now concentrated in the hands of relatively few people and corporations while power is global and free from the limited politics of the democratic state. In fact, the state for all intents and purposes has become the corporate state. Dominant power is now all too visible and the policies, practices and wrecking ball it has imposed on society appear to be largely unchecked. Any compromising notion of ideology has been replaced by a discourse of command and certainty backed up by the militarization of local police forces, the surveillance state and all of the resources brought to bear by a culture of fear and a punishing state aligned with the permanent war on terror. Informed judgment has given way to a corporate-controlled media apparatus that celebrates the banality of balance and the spectacle of violence, all the while reinforcing the politics and value systems of the financial elite.~3~ Following Arendt, a dark cloud of political and ethical ignorance has descended on the United States creating both a crisis of memory and agency.~4~ Thoughtlessness has become something that now occupies a privileged, if not celebrated, place in the political landscape and the mainstream cultural apparatuses. A new kind of infantilism and culture of ignorance now shapes daily life as agency devolves into a kind of anti-intellectual foolishness evident in the babble of banality produced by Fox News, celebrity culture, schools modeled after prisons and politicians who support creationism, argue against climate change and denounce almost any form of reason. Education is no longer viewed as a public good but a private right, just as critical thinking is devalued as a fundamental necessity for creating an engaged and socially responsible populace. Politics has become an extension of war, just as systemic economic uncertainty and state-sponsored violence increasingly find legitimation in the discourses of privatization and demonization, which promote anxiety, moral panics and fear, and undermine any sense of communal responsibility for the well-being of others. Too many people today learn quickly that their fate is solely a matter of individual responsibility, irrespective of wider structural forces. This is a much promoted hypercompetitive ideology with a message that surviving in a society demands reducing social relations to forms of social combat. People today are expected to inhabit a set of relations in which the only obligation is to live for one's own self-interest and to reduce the responsibilities of citizenship to the demands of a consumer culture. Yet, there is more at work here than a flight from social responsibility, if not politics itself. Also lost is the importance of those social bonds, modes of collective reasoning, public spheres and cultural apparatuses crucial to the formation of a sustainable democratic society. With the return of the Gilded Age and its dream worlds of consumption, privatization and deregulation, both democratic values and social protections are at risk. At the same time, the civic and formative cultures that make such values and protections central to democratic life are in danger of being eliminated altogether. As market mentalities and moralities tighten their grip on all aspects of society, democratic institutions and public spheres are being downsized, if not altogether disappearing. As these institutions vanish – from public schools to health-care centers – there is also a serious erosion of the discourses of community, justice, equality, public values and the common good. One consequence is a society stripped of its inspiring and energizing public spheres and the "thick mesh of mutual obligations and social responsibilities to be found in" any viable democracy.~5~ This grim reality marks a failure in the power of the civic imagination, political will and open democracy.~6~ It is also part of a politics that strips the social of any democratic ideals and undermines any understanding of higher education as a public good and pedagogy as an empowering practice, a practice that acts directly upon the conditions that bear down on our lives in order to change them when necessary. At a time when the public good is under attack and there seems to be a growing apathy toward the social contract, or any other civic-minded investment in public values and the larger common good, education has to be seen as more than a credential or a pathway to a job. It has to be viewed as crucial to understanding and overcoming the current crisis of agency, politics and historical memory faced by many young people today. One of the challenges facing the current generation of educators and students is the need to reclaim the role that education has historically played in developing critical literacies and civic capacities. There is a need to use education to mobilize students to be critically engaged agents, attentive to addressing important social issues and being alert to the responsibility of deepening and expanding the meaning and practices of a vibrant democracy. At the heart of such a challenge is the question of what education should accomplish in a democracy. What work do educators have to do to create the economic, political and ethical conditions necessary to endow young people with the capacities to think, question, doubt, imagine the unimaginable and defend education as essential for inspiring and energizing the people necessary for the existence of a robust democracy? In a world in which there is an increasing abandonment of egalitarian and democratic impulses, what will it take to educate young people to challenge authority and in the words of James Baldwin "rob history of its tyrannical power, and illuminate that darkness, blaze roads through that vast forest, so that we will not, in all our doing, lose sight of its purpose, which is after all, to make the world a more human dwelling place"?~7~
   2. Militarism epistemologically corrupts political thought, meaning the aff is a prior question for other role of the ballots.
   Pieterse 07, Jan, professor of sociology at the University of Illinois, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 14, No. 3, Aug, Political and Economic Brinkmanship, ," p. 473-4
   Brinkmanship and producing instability carry several meanings. The American military spends 48 of world military spending (2005) and rep resents a vast, virtually continuously growing establishment that is a world in itself with its own lingo, its own reasons, internecine battles and projects. That this large security establishment is a bipartisan project makes it politically relatively immune. That for security reasons it is an insular world shelters it from scrutiny. For reasons of 'deniability' the president is insulated from certain operations (Risen, 2006). That it is a completely hierarchical world onto itself makes it relatively unaccountable. Hence, to quote 'stuff happens'. In part this is the familiar theme of the Praetorian Guard and the shadow state (Stockwell, 1991). It includes a military on the go, a military that seeks career advancement through role expansion, seeks expansion through threat inflation, and in inflated threats finds rationales for ruthless action and is thus subject to feedback from its own echo chambers. Misinformation broadcast by part of the intelligence apparatus blows back to other security circles where it may be taken for real (Johnson, 2000). Inhabiting a hall of mirrors this apparatus operates in a perpetual state of self hypnosis with, since it concerns classified information and covert ops, limited checks on its functioning. The military stages phirric victories that come at a price of lasting instability. In Afghanistan the US staged a swift settlement by backing and funding the Northern Alliance, which brought warlords and drug lords to power and a corrupt power structure that eventually precipitated the comeback of the Taliban. In Iraq the US backed the Kurds and permitted Shiite militias to operate (until the Samarra bombing of April 2006) and thus created conditions for lasting instability. The American rules of engagement are self-serving. But because the military inhabits a parallel universe and the media are clogged with 'defense experts', discussion of these tactics and hence the capacity for self-correction is limited. Part of the backdrop is the trend of the gradual erosion of state capacities because of 25 years, since the Reagan era, of cutting government services except the military and security. The laissez-faire state in the US has created an imbalance in which the military remains the major growing state capability, which leaves military power increasingly unchecked because monitoring institutions have been downsized or dismantled too. When recently the Pentagon wanted to review all the subcontracts it has outsourced this task was outsourced too. This redistribution of power within the US government played a key part leading up to the war and in the massive failure in Iraq. Diplomacy was under resourced, intelligence was manipulated and the Pentagon and the Office of Strategic Planning ignored experts' advice and State Department warnings on the need for postwar planning (Packer, 2005; Lang, 2004).
   3. Militarism leads to a laundry list of bad impacts and causes epistemic biasing in favor of false solutions. We have reached the tipping point—the aff is try or die.
   CACC 11, Admin, Rejecting Militarism, 2011, Canadians for Emergency action on Climate Change, http://climatesoscanada.org/blog/2011/02/15/rejecting-militarism/, Resources: ~1~ http://www.fcnl.org/budget/budget-proposal11.htm ~2~ Miriam Pemberton with Jonathan Glyn, Military vs. Climate Security: The 2011 Budgets Compared. Institute for Policy Studies. http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/military_vs_climate_security_the_2011_budgets_compared ~3~ Many resources can be found on the various market mechanisms and other false solutions, here: www.climatesos.org/resources ~4~ Anita Dancs, Mary Orisich, Suzanne Smith, The Military Costs of Securing Energy (National Priorities Project – October 2008) ~5~ http://www.iacenter.org/o/world/climatesummit_pentagon121809/ ~6~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-sanders/the-green-zone-the-worst-_b_70173.html ~7~ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html ~8~ http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0327-21.htm ~9~ http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/2010/03/the-impact-of-militarism-on-climate-change-must-no-longer-be-ignored/ (and personal communication with the author) ~10~ http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-27/the-economic-crisis-and-the-hidden-cost-of-the-wars/full/ ~11~ http://www.kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article32304 ~12~ http://www.peace-action.org/Peace20Action20Military20Spending20Primer.pdf ~13~ Will R. Turner, et al. (2010). Climate change: helping nature survive the human response. Conservation Letters, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123523083/abstract?CRETRY=1andSRETRY=0 http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/08/06/the.worst.impact.climate.change.may.be.how.humanity.reacts.it ~14~ http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2010/developed-countries-attempt-to-launder-aid-money-through-world-bank-and-call-it-climate-funds, http://www.foe.org/un-advisory-group-climate-finance-report-falls-flat, http://www.ituc-csi.org/climate-finance-closing-the.html?lang=en ~15~ 2003 Pentagon report: http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf About the report authors: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=doug_randall_1 ~16~ http://www.indymedia.org/pt/2009/12/932387.shtml More resources: Top 25 Censored Stories: US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-us-department-of-defense-is-the-worst-polluter-on-the-planet/ Al Jazeera Video: Empire – The new arms race (The world has entered a new arms race, but what justifies this global military addiction?) http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=viewandid=31andItemid=74andjumival=5796 Why large scale biofuels production worsens global warming, not reduce it: www.biofuelwatch.org.uk Cost of War Calculator http://www.stwr.org/special-features/cost-of-war-calculator.html
   Militarism, through wars and military actions (overt and covert) around the world, has inflicted massive suffering and civilian casualties. · Militarism is likely the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions on the planet, yet the IPCC does not indicate in a separate category the extent of military contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. · Access to more oil, the burning of which is a fundamental cause of climate change – is the primary underlying motive for current wars. · Both warfare and climate change are rendering large areas uninhabitable – displacing millions of people as refugees, and yet the rights of immigrants are increasingly limited, threatened and abused. · Climate change is likely to result in far more wars, being a "threat multiplier" and now recognized as the greatest looming threat to "security". Access to resources – including land, food, water – is already becoming increasingly challenging, and scarcities will likely trigger conflict and further displacement in the future. · Militarism is the largest source of toxic chemical and radioactive poisoning of peoples and environment around the globe, and plays a major role in promoting false solutions that only worsen the problems (biofuels, nuclear technologies, climate geoengineering etc.) · The global economy is in shambles, funding for a "fair and just transition" – to ensure that people are not negatively impacted by the necessary transitions, is not forthcoming. "Green" jobs remain scarce, millions lack access to basic healthcare. · Major greenhouse gas emitting developed states have lead the efforts to obstruct progress among nations, consistently refusing to pay their "ecological debt", owed to peoples of non-industrialized countries… All while spending trillions on furthering wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere. · Our global commons (air, water, forests) is being bought and sold in carbon markets under the guise that this is the ONLY feasible means of generating funds to take necessary actions to prevent and adapt to impacts of climate change. The result is further concentration of wealth and power, at the expense of the planet and humanity. We will not accept the death spiral of militarism, war and climate change. 

Part 2 is Harms:

The Supreme Court established that the state could abuse citizen's constitutional rights as long as they "reasonably believe" it was legal. This standard lets police violence go unanswered. From Michael Brown being shot in the street to innocent people being held in maximum-security prisons, the "reasonable belief" standard creates large-scale unaccountable state violence.
Chemerinky 14, Erwin, Dean of the School of Law at the University of California, Irvine; he is a prominent scholar in US constitutional law and federal civil procedure, How the Supreme Court Protects Bad Cops, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/opinion/how-the-supreme-court-protects-bad-cops.html?_r=0
Because it is so difficult to sue government entities, most victims' only recourse is to sue the officers involved. But here, too, the Supreme Court has created often insurmountable obstacles. The court has held that all government officials sued for monetary damages can raise "immunity" as a defense. Police officers and other law enforcement personnel who commit perjury have absolute immunity and cannot be sued for money, even when it results in the imprisonment of an innocent person. A prosecutor who commits misconduct, as in Mr. Thompson's case, also has absolute immunity to civil suits. When there is not absolute immunity, police officers are still protected by "qualified immunity" when sued for monetary damages. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2011, ruled that a government officer can be held liable only if "every reasonable official" would have known that his ~their~ conduct was unlawful. For example, the officer who shot Michael Brown can be held liable only if every reasonable officer would have known that the shooting constituted the use of excessive force and was not self-defense. The Supreme Court has used this doctrine in recent years to deny damages to an eighth-grade girl who was strip-searched by school officials on suspicion that she had prescription-strength ibuprofen. It has also used it to deny damages to a man who, under a material-witness warrant, was held in a maximum-security prison for 16 days and on supervised release for 14 months, even though the government had no intention of using him as a material witness or even probable cause to arrest him. In each instance, the court stressed that the government officer could not be held liable, even though the Constitution had clearly been violated. Taken together, these rulings have a powerful effect. They mean that the officer who shot Michael Brown and the City of Ferguson will most likely never be held accountable in court. How many more deaths and how many more riots will it take before the Supreme Court changes course?
The reasonableness standard of qualified immunity is nearly impossible to overcome in the status quo because it doubles up with the 4th amendement reasonableness standard.
Hassel 09, Diana, EXCESSIVE REASONABLENESS, Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law, 2009, https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol43p117.pdf
B. Qualified Immunity Meanwhile, the Court was refining the standard for qualified immunity. Qualified immunity was initially understood to be similar to the good faithdefense available under common law in 1871 when § 1983 was adopted. The 33 common law immunity foreclosed liability when a government officer acted with good faith and probable cause in making an arrest. The Court was particularly 34 concerned with the unfairness of imposing liability on a government official based on newly developed law: police officers should "not ~be~ charged with predicting the future course of constitutional law." In time, the qualified 35 immunity defense was expanded beyond law enforcement officials to cover virtually any kind of government actor. So long as the officer reasonably and 36 with good faith believed that he ~they were~ was acting within constitutional limits, immunity would be granted. Because the qualified immunity defense contained a subjective element—that the officer acted in good faith—factual disputes with respect to the officer's state of mind could easily defeat a summary judgment motion on the issue of qualified immunity. Because few qualified immunity defenses could be resolved prior to trial, government officials might well be involved in lengthy, but essentially meritless, litigation. This concern led the Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, to 37 eliminate the subjective component of qualified immunity. The newly 38 articulated qualified immunity test provided that "government officials . . . generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." The Court hoped that the elimination 39 of the subjective good faith portion of the standard would make it possible to dismiss frivolous suits at the summary judgment stage. No longer would a 40 plaintiff be able to prolong a civil rights suit by alleging that the defendant acted in bad faith. The objective qualified immunity standard was seen to represent the proper balance between conflicting interests: the interest in providing compensation for, and deterring unconstitutional conduct against the need to protect against frivolous lawsuits and to encourage vigorous enforcement of the law.42 Evaluation of a qualified immunity defense requires courts to determine whether the acts alleged by the plaintiff constitute a violation of a federal right and, if so, to determine whether that violation has been sufficiently established so that a reasonable official would know his acts violate the law. For example, in Jennings, the excessive force case discussed earlier, the court determined that 43 even if the police officer's actions had violated the Fourth Amendment, he was nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity. The court first determined that the 44 unlawfulness of using an "ankle turn control technique" in the circumstances confronted by the officer, had not been clearly established by prior case law.45 The court then determined that even if the law had been clearly established, the defendant was still entitled to qualified immunity because any misapprehension of the law or the factual circumstances he might have had would be reasonable given the ambiguity of the situation with which he was confronted. 46 As articulated by Harlow and as subsequently interpreted by the courts, qualified immunity has provided a broad and generally successful defense to most civil rights claims. As the Court has explained, qualified immunity 47 ensures that only "the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law" will be found liable under § 1983. Qualified immunity has moved closer 48 to a system of absolute immunity for most defendants, resulting in a finding of liability for only the most extreme and most shocking misuses of police power.C. Application of the Two Standards Operating on two different fronts, the Court, by the late 1980s, had created two almost identical objective reasonableness tests: One governed excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and the other governed qualified immunity. Difficulty arose, however, when these two standards were called into play at thesame time in considering the liability of a defendant in a civil rights action. When these two standards are both operating, a court must first determine whether a defendant's actions are objectively reasonable. Then, assuming that the actions were not objectively reasonable, the court must determine whether it was nonetheless objectively reasonable for the defendant to have believed his actions were objectively reasonable. The application of this nonsensical series of questions leads to skewed results. Most problematically the two doctrines lead to two levels of protection for a defendant. Additionally, courts must jump through convoluted analytical hoops that result in unclear and needlessly complicated decisions. The problem of having two reasonableness standards could come into play in any Fourth Amendment claim, but the difficulty is most acute in an action concerning excessive force. Although other Fourth Amendment questions, such as the legality of searches or the legality of arrests, are also ultimately based on reasonableness, the standards governing such actions are much more concrete and specific than those governing excessive force. The excessive force 49 standard, as articulated by Graham is just a generalized reasonableness test—thus, the closest parallel to the qualified immunity doctrine. Following the convergence of the qualified immunity doctrine and the excessive force standards, the courts of appeals attempted to apply the odd doctrinal regime. Although some courts attempted to comply with the message from the Court in Anderson v. Creighton, that the Fourth Amendment inquiry 50 was separate from the qualified immunity question even in an excessive force case, others found such an application impossible. For example, in Roy v. City 51 of Lewiston, the First Circuit Court of Appeals grappled with the qualified immunity defense in a case alleging excessive force in the course of an arrest. 53 Determining that the substantive liability issue and the qualified immunity issue were the same, the court expressed doubt that, in an excessive force case, the issue of the Fourth Amendment violation could have a different outcome from the qualified immunity question. In another attempt to work with the qualified 54 immunity doctrine, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Finnegan v. Fountain, separated the two different prongs of qualified immunity. The 55 56 aspect of the qualified immunity defense that precludes liability when the conduct of the defendant does not violate clearly established rights was available in an excessive force claim. But the second prong of the qualified immunity 57 defense, which asks whether the defendant's belief that his actions were lawful was objectively reasonable, would already have been answered in a determination that the actions violated the Fourth Amendment. In the end, the 58 Tenth, Ninth, Seventh, Sixth, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals abandoned the attempt to follow Anderson's guidance and held that the two questions—use of excessive force and qualified immunity—merged into one inquiry.59
The lack of accountability spills over to create a politics of disposability. Neighborhoods become a war zone and state violence is justified.
Giroux 16, Henry, The Racist Killing Machine in the Age of Anti-Politics, 2016, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/08/the-racist-killing-machine-in-the-age-of-anti-politics/
The killing machine has become spectacularized, endlessly looped through the mainstream cultural apparatuses both as a way to increase ratings and as an unconscious testimony to the ruthlessness of the violence waged by a racist state. Once again, Americans and the rest of the world are witness to a brutal killing machine, a form of domestic terrorism, responsible for the deaths of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling who were shot point blank by white policemen who follow the script of a racist policy of disposability that suggests that black lives not only do not matter, but that black people can be killed with impunity since the police in the United States are rarely held accountable for such crimes. In the Castile case, the police fired into the car with a child in the back seat–a point rarely mentioned in the mainstream press. At the same time, the power of violence as a tool for expending rage and addressing deeply felt injustices has resulted in a young black man mimicking the tools of state violence by deliberately killing five police officers and wounding seven others in Dallas, Texas. This is a horrendous and despicable act of violence but it must be understood in a system in which violence is disproportionately waged against poor blacks, immigrants, Muslims, and others who are now defined as excess and pathologized as disposable. The killings in Dallas speak to a brutal mindset and culture of mistrust and fear in which violence has become the only legitimate form of mediation In the increasingly violent landscape of anti-politics, mediation disappears, dissent is squelched, repression operates with impunity, the ethical imagination withers, and the power of representation is on the side of spectacularized state violence. Violence both at the level of the state and in the hands of everyday citizens has become a substitute for genuine forms of agency, citizenship, and mutually informed dialogue and community interaction. Etienne Balibar has pointed out that "as citizenship is emptied of its content,"~i~ the right to be represented is ceded to the financial elite and the institutions of repression or what Althusser once called the "repressive state apparatuses." Under such circumstances, politics is replaced by a form of "antipolitics" in which the representative and repressive machineries of the state combine to objectify, dehumanize, and humiliate through racial profiling, eliminate crucial social provisions, transform poor black neighborhoods into war zones, militarize the police, undermine the system of justice, and all too willingly use violence to both punish blacks and to signal to them that any form of dissent can cost them their lives. But such apparatuses do more, they willfully exclude and repress the historical memories of racial violence waged by both the police and other racist institutions.~ii~ They have no choice since such histories point to the deeply embedded structural nature of such violence as a reproach to the bad cops theory of racist violence. What we are observing is not simply the overt face of a militarized police culture, the lack of community policing, deeply entrenched anti-democratic tendencies, or the toxic consequences of a culture of violence that saturates every day life. We are in a new historical era, one that is marked a culture of lawlessness, extreme violence, and disposability, fueled, in part, by a culture of fear, a war on terror, and a deeply overt racist culture that is unapologetic in its disciplinary and exclusionary practices. This deep seated racism is reinforced by a culture of cruelty that is the modus operandi of neoliberal capitalism–a cage culture, a culture of combat, a hyper masculine culture that views killing those most vulnerable as sport, entertainment, and policy. 

Part 3 is the Plan

Resolved: The United States Supreme Court shall reverse the Harlow V. Fitzgerald ruling, establishing an objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity for police officers that only applies when there has been a change in the law, not merely a new application of an established doctrine. All decisions in conflict with this ruling shall be declared null and void. 

Part 4 is Solvency

The plan stops the absolute defense of qualified immunity, rupturing state violence and militarism. It also still allows police a limited defense stopping any chilling effect.
Hassel 2, Diana, EXCESSIVE REASONABLENESS, Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law, 2009, https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol43p117.pdf
The Court's development of the qualified immunity doctrine has stretched the rationale underlying the defense to a breaking point. Instead of providing protection only to those government actors who violate the law unwittingly and reasonably, qualified immunity has metastasized into an almost absolute defense to all but the most outrageous conduct. The values of deterrence of unlawful behavior and compensation for civil rights victims have been overshadowed by the desire to protect government agents, particularly police officers, from almost all claims against them. The balance originally struck by the qualified immunity defense—protection for the innocent wrongdoer versus compensation for the victim—has gone awry. This Article focuses on the most significant feature of the imbalance that now exists in the qualified immunity doctrine: the Court's insistence on applying the objective reasonableness standard of qualified immunity in conjunction with a duplicative underlying constitutional standard. This problem is most acute in excessive force claims. An apparent duplication of the objective reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment in excessive force cases and the same objective reasonableness standard in the qualified immunity doctrine has created a nearly impenetrable defense to excessive force claims. Despite critical scholarly commentary and the Supreme Court's own attempts to quiet the controversy created by this excessive reasonableness, the problem remains unresolved. Meanwhile, far removed from the debate over doctrinal niceties, the operational problem of how to address the use of unjustified force by police officers persists. The current legal regime has largely failed in its attempt to control excessive police violence. At least in part that failure flows from the 8 difficulty faced by claimants under § 1983 to overcome the insulation from liability that defendants derive from both the Fourth Amendment requirements and the qualified immunity standard. Until the nearly insurmountable barrier to recovery created by excessive reasonableness is somehow relieved, civil actions based on the Fourth Amendment will not effectively deter police violence. Addressing the problem of police violence, providing balance to doctrine overly protective of defendants, and simplifying the procedural morass that qualified immunity has created in excessive force cases requires a radical modification of the doctrine. In excessive force cases, the doctrine should be modified to protect a defendant only when there has been a genuine change in the legal standard governing his actions—not merely an application of established doctrine to a somewhat new set of facts. Currently, qualified immunity prevents liability if the defendant's actions do not violate clearly established law "of which a reasonable person would have known." Instead, the standard should be 9 that the defendant will be liable unless his actions violate a newly developed legal standard. In the excessive force context, the protection provided by the reasonableness standard of Fourth Amendment, in conjunction with this more limited defense based on a newly developed law, will provide ample protection for the reasonably mistaken officer and will make compensation for the victim possible.
Even if insurers absorb the cost, insurance companies will hold the police accountable themselves.
Rappaport 16, John, Assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, Cops can ignore Black Lives Matter protesters. They can't ignore their insurers, 2016, . https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cops-can-ignore-black-lives-matter-protesters-they- cant-ignore-their-insurers/2016/05/04/c823334a-01cb-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html
The arrangement creates a potential moral-hazard problem — a risk that insured municipalities will be less vigilant against police misconduct than they'd be in the absence of insurance. But it also empowers insurers, which are committed to strategies of "loss prevention." In an age when police departments, backed by politicians and powerful unions, are said to resist complaints about brutality and abuse, some insurance companies are playing an unheralded role: as private regulators of police activity. Insurers work closely with police departments on policies and training. Do you want to know how to conduct a strip search without violating the Constitution? Travelers Insurance has apamphlet on that. Insurers provide video libraries and online training systems, and they even do some classroom instruction. The companies sometimes bring in outside consultants — usually police veterans — to do this work or send departments off-the-shelf rules from policy-writing services such as Lexipol. Insurance companies also subsidize the use of otherwise prohibitively expensive use-of-force virtual-reality simulators. The Kentucky League of Cities Insurance Services, for example, purchases three new simulators every three years and circulates them among the agencies it covers. Early academic research shows that these simulators help cops prevent crises and decrease the number of unjustified shootings. Underwriters don't just train; they follow up, too. Audits are common. Insurance officers review internal documentation, make site visits and do ride-alongs. Many keep a "watch list" of departments that have been having problems and audit them more frequently and intensely. My favorite audit technique is from an insurer out West who said she sends representatives to visit "cop bars" incognito to listen to the local gossip. And when they uncover problems that may turn into lawsuits, insurers pressure agencies to make changes or even terminate "bad apples" from the beat. In Irwindale, Calif., the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority forced the police department to implement a "performance improvement plan" in 2013 in order to keep its coverage. That same year, the city of Niota, Tenn., fired two officers even though the charges against them (in connection with a beating) had been dismissed. The city's insurer had threatened to drop its coverage if the officers went back on duty. The carrots and sticks here all have to do with the availability and pricing of coverage. Both affect the public treasury directly; the consequences of "going bare" can be severe. Inkster, Mich., recentlyraised property taxes by an average of $178 per household to finance a seven-figure settlement involving a police officer. In extreme cases, municipalities have even shut down their police forces after their insurers pulled coverage. Niota has been down that road; so have Point Marion, Pa.; Sorrento, La.; Lincoln Heights, Ohio; and Maywood, Calif. Civil rights activists have often claimed that police departments are unaccountable — a complaint that intensified after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., and the birth of the Black Lives Matter movement. But if police leaders sometimes avoid political accountability, they still answer to their underwriters, which therefore have significant leverage over them.
AND
Indemnification doesn't answer the scenario. Most police officers aren't terrible people who enjoy abusing people's rights, they think they are doing the right thing. Bringing them to trial and having a judge declare that what they were doing was wrong is enough to stop the normalization of violence. Even if the individual officers isn't deterred, this shows the public that what the officer did was not okay and that the victim deserves compensation, shifting away from militarism. 

Part 5: Underview

1. Imaging state solutions is key to getting students into politics and prevent a ceding of power to political elites, empirics confirm. This is a pre-fiat reason to vote them down if they read a non-policy alt. It has dangerous representations.
   Giroux 06, Henry, Sociologist, "The abandoned generation: The urban debate league and the politics of possibility," 2006
   The decline of democratic values and informed citizenship can be seen in research studies done by The Justice Project in 2001 in which a substantial number of teenagers and young people were asked what they thought democracy meant. The answers testified to a growing depoliticization of American life and largely consisted of statements along the following lines: "Nothing," "I don't know," or "My rights, just like, pride, I guess, to some extent, and paying taxes," or "I just think, like, what does it really mean? I know its our, like, our government, but I don't know what it 6 technically is." The transition from being ignorant about democracy to actually sup- porting antidemocratic Tendencies can be seen in a number of youth surveys that have been taken since 2000. For instance, a survey released by the University of California, Berkeley, revealed that 69 percent of students support school prayer and 44 percent of young people aged fifteen to twenty-two support government restric- tions on abortions. A 2004 survey of 112,003 high school students on First Amendment rights showed that one third of students surveyed believed that the First Amendment went too far in the rights it guarantees and 36 percent believed that the press enjoyed too much freedom. This suggests not just a failing of education, but a crisis of citizenship and democracy. One consequence of the decline in democratic values and citizenship literacy is that all levels of government are being hollowed our, their role reduced to dismantling the gains of the welfare state as they increasingly construct policies that criminalize social problems and prioritize penal methods over social investments. When citizenship is reduced to consumerism, it should come as no surprise that people develop an indifference to civic engagement and participation in democratic public life. Unlike some theorists who suggest that politics as critical exchange and social engagement is either dead or in a state of terminal arrest, I believe that the current depressing state of politics points to an urgent challenge: reformulating the crisis of democracy as a fundamental crisis of vision, meaning, education, and political agency. Central to my argument is the assumption that politics is not simply about power, but also, as Cornelius Castoriadis points out, "has to do with political judgments and value choices," meaning that questions of civic education—learning how 8 to become a skilled citizen—afe central to democracy itself. Educators at all levels need to challenge the assumption that politics is dead, or the nature of politics will be determined exclusively by government leaders and experts m the heat of moral frenzy. Educators need to take a more critical position, arguing that knowledge, debate, and dialogue about pressing social problems offer individuals and groups some hope in shaping the conditions that bear down on their lives. Public civic engagement is essential if the concepts of social life and the public sphere are to be used to revitalize the language of civic education and democratization as part of a broader discourse of political agency and critical citizenship in a global world. Linking the social to democratic public values represents an attempt, however incom- plete, to link democracy to public action, as part of a comprehensive attempt to revitalize civic activism and citizen access to decision-making while simultaneously addressing basic problems of social justice and global democracy. Educators within public schools need to find ways to engage political issues by making social problems visible and by debating them in the political sphere. They also need to be at the forefront of the defense of the most progressive historical advances and gains of the state. 1-rcnch sociologist Pierre Bourdieu is right when he calls for collective work by educators to prevent those who arc mobilized against the welfare state from destroying the most precious democratic conquests in labor legis- lation, health, social protection, and education.'' At the very least, this would suggest that educators should defend schools as democratic public spheres, struggle against the de-skilling of teachers and students that has accompanied the emphasis on teach- ing for test-taking, and argue for pedagogy grounded in democratic values rather than testing schemes that severely limit the creative, ethical, and liberatory potential of education.
   2. The narrative of "no progress" is affectively appealing but statistically false. Abandoning the state means abandoning all the progress we have made.
   Feldscher 13, Karen,  (Senior Writer/Project Manager at Harvard School of Public Health), "Progress, but challenges in reducing racial disparities," Harvard School of Public Health, 9 September 2013. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/progress-but-challenges-in-reducing-racial-disparities/
   September 19, 2013 — Disparities between blacks and whites in the U.S. remain pronounced—and health is no exception. A panel of experts at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) discussed these disparities—what they are, why they persist, and what to do about them—at a September 12, 2013 event titled "Dialogue on Race, Justice, and Public Health." The event was held in Kresge G-1 and featured panelists Lisa Coleman, Harvard University's chief diversity officer; David Williams, Florence Sprague Norman and Laura Smart Norman Professor of Public Health in the HSPH Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences; Chandra Jackson, Yerby Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the HSPH Department of Nutrition; and Zinzi Bailey, a fifth-year doctoral student in the HSPH Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences. Robert Blendon, Richard L. Menschel Professor of Public Health and Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at HSPH, moderated the discussion. Gains, but pains Health care disparities are troubling, Coleman said. One study found that doctors recommended coronary revascularization—bypass surgery that replaces blocked blood vessels with new ones—among white patients with heart disease 50 of the time, but just 23 of the time for blacks. Black women are less likely to be given a bone marrow density test than white women, even when it's known they've had prior fractures. And the black infant mortality rate is 2.3 times higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. Each speaker acknowledged that racial minorities have made significant gains over the past half-century, but said there is much more work still to do. They cited statistics providing stark evidence of continuing disparities in health, wealth, education, income, arrest and incarceration rates, foreclosure rates, and poverty. Coleman called the data "disconcerting; in some cases, alarming." Schools are desegregated, she said, but not integrated; median income is $50,000 per year for whites but $31,000 a year for blacks and $37,000 a year for Hispanics; since the 1960s, the unemployment rate among blacks has been two to two-and-a-half times higher than for whites; and one in three black men can expect to spend time in prison during their lifetimes. Blendon shared results from surveys that accentuate sharp differences of opinion about how well blacks are faring in the U.S. For instance, in a survey that asked participants if they thought that the lives of black Americans had changed dramatically over the past 50 years, 54 of whites said yes but only 29 of blacks did. Another survey asked whether or not people approved of the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial; 51 of whites approved but only 9 of blacks did. Reducing disparities through research, education Jackson talked about growing up in a segregated neighborhood in Atlanta and attending a school with 99 black students and inadequate resources. She became the first in her family to attend college. Now, through her research, she hopes to expose and reduce racial health disparities. In a recent study in the American Journal of Epidemiology, Jackson and colleagues reported that blacks—particularly black professionals—get less sleep than whites, which can have potentially negative impacts on health. Bailey discussed what's known as the "school-to-prison pipeline"—a trajectory in which black teens do poorly in school, get held back a grade, drop out, commit a crime, then end up in jail. On the flip side, she said, there are "diversity pipelines" to recruit minority students into higher education. "Often these programs target students who have already avoided the school-to-prison pipeline," Bailey said, noting that she would like to see higher education institutions connect with black students at earlier ages to steer them toward positive choices.
   3. Discursive forums can resolve militarism because it is a discursive process
   Lutz 02, Catherine, American Anthropologist University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. "Making War at Home in the United States: Militarization and the Current Crisis." Jstore. New Series, Vol. 104, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 723-735
   By militarization, I mean "the contradictory and tense social process in which civil society organizes itself for the production of violence" (Geyer 1989:79). This process involves  an intensification of the labor and resources allocated to  military purposes, including the shaping of other institutions in synchrony with military goals. Militarization is simultaneously a discursive process, involving a shift in general societal beliefs and values in ways necessary to legitimate the use of force, the organization of large standing armies and their leaders, and the higher taxes or tribute  used to pay for them. Militarization  is intimately connected  not only to the obvious increase in the size of armies and  resurgence of militant nationalisms and militant funda-mentalisms but also to the less visible deformation of human potentials into the hierarchies of race, class, gender,  and sexuality, and to the shaping of national histories in  ways that glorify and legitimate military action (Bernstein  1999; Linenthal and Engelhardt 1996). While it is often  called by such names as "military strength," or framed as a  tool to defend freedom, militarization is a process that  helped spawn the violence of September 11 and the violent  response  of October  7: To understand  militarization,  so many  must hope, is to put some impediment in its deadly path.  While militarization has been shaped within innu-  merable states, corporations, and localities, the United States is now the largest wellspring for this global process.  

4. Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12  ~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
. Instead we prefer to shout and denounce. Good luck with that.

Tournament: Damus | Round: 4 | Opponent: Servite PA | Judge: Scott Wheeler

Part 1 is Framework:

I affirm—all brackets for offensive language or clarity. 

The role of the judge is to endorse the best tangible policy that minimizes oppression

Curry 14, Tommy, The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century, Victory Briefs, 2014,
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
vote for the debater whose advocacy best breaks down militarism. Three warrants—

1. Militarism dominates status quo policies, manifesting itself through a politics of disposability that smothers ethical and critical dialogue. Educational spaces are key to fighting back.

Giroux 05, Henry, Held positions at Boston University, Miami University, and Penn State, The Curse of Totalitarianism and The Challenge of Critical Pedagogy, 2005, http://philosophersforchange.org/2015/10/13/the-curse-of-totalitarianism-and-the-challenge-of-critical-pedagogy
The forces of free-market fundamentalism are on the march ushering in a terrifying
AND
all, to make the world a more human dwelling place"?~7~ 

2. Militarism epistemologically corrupts political thought, meaning the aff is a prior question for other role of the ballots.

Pieterse 07, Jan, professor of sociology at the University of Illinois, Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 14, No. 3, Aug, Political and Economic Brinkmanship, ," p. 473-4
Brinkmanship and producing instability carry several meanings. The American military spends 48 of
AND
the need for postwar planning (Packer, 2005; Lang, 2004).

3. Militarism leads to a laundry list of bad impacts and causes epistemic biasing in favor of false solutions. We have reached the tipping point—the aff is try or die.

CACC 11, Admin, Rejecting Militarism, 2011, Canadians for Emergency action on Climate Change, http://climatesoscanada.org/blog/2011/02/15/rejecting-militarism/, Resources: ~1~ http://www.fcnl.org/budget/budget-proposal11.htm ~2~ Miriam Pemberton with Jonathan Glyn, Military vs. Climate Security: The 2011 Budgets Compared. Institute for Policy Studies. http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/military_vs_climate_security_the_2011_budgets_compared ~3~ Many resources can be found on the various market mechanisms and other false solutions, here: www.climatesos.org/resources ~4~ Anita Dancs, Mary Orisich, Suzanne Smith, The Military Costs of Securing Energy (National Priorities Project – October 2008) ~5~ http://www.iacenter.org/o/world/climatesummit_pentagon121809/ ~6~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-sanders/the-green-zone-the-worst-_b_70173.html ~7~ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html ~8~ http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0327-21.htm ~9~ http://www.actforclimatejustice.org/2010/03/the-impact-of-militarism-on-climate-change-must-no-longer-be-ignored/ (and personal communication with the author) ~10~ http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-10-27/the-economic-crisis-and-the-hidden-cost-of-the-wars/full/ ~11~ http://www.kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article32304 ~12~ http://www.peace-action.org/Peace20Action20Military20Spending20Primer.pdf ~13~ Will R. Turner, et al. (2010). Climate change: helping nature survive the human response. Conservation Letters, http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123523083/abstract?CRETRY=1andSRETRY=0 http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/08/06/the.worst.impact.climate.change.may.be.how.humanity.reacts.it ~14~ http://www.foei.org/en/media/archive/2010/developed-countries-attempt-to-launder-aid-money-through-world-bank-and-call-it-climate-funds, http://www.foe.org/un-advisory-group-climate-finance-report-falls-flat, http://www.ituc-csi.org/climate-finance-closing-the.html?lang=en ~15~ 2003 Pentagon report: http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf About the report authors: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=doug_randall_1 ~16~ http://www.indymedia.org/pt/2009/12/932387.shtml More resources: Top 25 Censored Stories: US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-us-department-of-defense-is-the-worst-polluter-on-the-planet/ Al Jazeera Video: Empire – The new arms race (The world has entered a new arms race, but what justifies this global military addiction?) http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=viewandid=31andItemid=74andjumival=5796 Why large scale biofuels production worsens global warming, not reduce it: www.biofuelwatch.org.uk Cost of War Calculator http://www.stwr.org/special-features/cost-of-war-calculator.html
Militarism, through wars and military actions (overt and covert) around the world
AND
will not accept the death spiral of militarism, war and climate change. 

Part 2 is Harms:

The Supreme Court established that the state could abuse citizen's constitutional rights as long as they "reasonably believe" it was legal. This standard lets police violence go unanswered. From Michael Brown being shot in the street to innocent people being held in maximum-security prisons, the "reasonable belief" standard creates large-scale unaccountable state violence.

Chemerinky 14, Erwin, Dean of the School of Law at the University of California, Irvine; he is a prominent scholar in US constitutional law and federal civil procedure, How the Supreme Court Protects Bad Cops, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/opinion/how-the-supreme-court-protects-bad-cops.html?_r=0
Because it is so difficult to sue government entities, most victims' only recourse is
AND
how many more riots will it take before the Supreme Court changes course?

The reasonableness standard of qualified immunity is nearly impossible to overcome in the status quo because it doubles up with the 4th amendement reasonableness standard.

Hassel 09, Diana, EXCESSIVE REASONABLENESS, Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law, 2009, https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol43p117.pdf
B. Qualified Immunity Meanwhile, the Court was refining the standard for qualified immunity
AND
use of excessive force and qualified immunity—merged into one inquiry.59

The lack of accountability spills over to create a politics of disposability. Neighborhoods become a war zone and state violence is justified.

Giroux 16, Henry, The Racist Killing Machine in the Age of Anti-Politics, 2016, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/08/the-racist-killing-machine-in-the-age-of-anti-politics/
The killing machine has become spectacularized, endlessly looped through the mainstream cultural apparatuses both
AND
that views killing those most vulnerable as sport, entertainment, and policy. 

Part 3 is the Plan

Resolved: The Supreme Court of the United States shall reverse the Harlow V. Fitzgerald ruling, establishing an objective reasonableness standard for qualified immunity for police officers that only applies when there has been a change in the law, not merely a new application of an established doctrine. All decisions in conflict with this ruling shall be declared null and void.

Part 4 is Solvency

The plan stops the absolute defense of qualified immunity, rupturing state violence and militarism. It also still allows police a limited defense stopping any chilling effect.

Hassel 2, Diana, EXCESSIVE REASONABLENESS, Professor, Roger Williams University School of Law, 2009, https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol43p117.pdf
The Court's development of the qualified immunity doctrine has stretched the rationale underlying the defense
AND
for the reasonably mistaken officer and will make compensation for the victim possible. 

Even if insurers absorb the cost, insurance companies will hold the police accountable themselves.

Rappaport 16, John, Assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, Cops can ignore Black Lives Matter protesters. They can't ignore their insurers, 2016, . https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cops-can-ignore-black-lives-matter-protesters-they- cant-ignore-their-insurers/2016/05/04/c823334a-01cb-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html
The arrangement creates a potential moral-hazard problem — a risk that insured municipalities
AND
not okay and that the victim deserves compensation, shifting away from militarism. 

Part 5: Underview

1. Aff gets RVI's on theory

a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
c) It's logical: you should lose for needlessly calling me a cheater

2. Imaging state solutions is key to getting students into politics and prevent a ceding of power to political elites, empirics confirm. This is a pre-fiat reason to vote them down if they read a non-policy alt. It has dangerous representations.

Giroux 06, Henry, Sociologist, "The abandoned generation: The urban debate league and the politics of possibility," 2006
The decline of democratic values and informed citizenship can be seen in research studies done
AND
schemes that severely limit the creative, ethical, and liberatory potential of education

3. Discursive forums can resolve militarism because it is a discursive process

Lutz 02, Catherine, American Anthropologist University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. "Making War at Home in the United States: Militarization and the Current Crisis." Jstore. New Series, Vol. 104, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 723-735
By militarization, I mean "the contradictory and tense social process in which civil
AND
, the United States is now the largest wellspring for this global process.  

4. Withdrawal from the state triggers authoritarian impacts

Boggs 2K ~Carl Boggs, Professor of Social Sciences at National University in Los Angeles, Adjunct Professor at Antioch University in Los Angeles, "The End of Politics," 2000~ JW
But it is a very deceptive and misleading minimalism.  While Oakeshott debunks political mechanisms
AND
run counter to the facile antirationalism of Oakeshott's Burkean muddling-through theories.  

5. Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12  ~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
. Instead we prefer to shout and denounce. Good luck with that.

Tournament: Damus | Round: 5 | Opponent: Peninsula IG | Judge: Adam Torson

AC

Framework

Attempting to understand beings, communities, and ethics as pure will inevitably fail:

1. There is no possibility of understanding people in and of themselves. All identities are understood through the differentiation of social relations, which are by necessity constantly changing. BUTLER:

(Judith Butler. 1992. "Continent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of "Postmodernism" Feminists Theorize the Political)
"In a sense, the subject is constituted through an _{exclusion and}differentiation,
AND
the point in which it is claimed to be prior to politics itself." 

Implications:

A. Ethics has to start with the self – otherwise it can't guide action because its principle doesn't have a claim on what I ought to do. But, there is no single stable self. Any attempt to theorize the self would fail to understand the ontological status of the agent. MILLS:  Charles W. Mills, "Ideal Theory" as Ideology, 2005

"An idealized social ontology. Moral~ity~ theory deals with the normative, but it cannot avoid some characterization of the human beings who make up the society, and whose interactions with one another are its subject. So some overt or tacit social ontology has to be presupposed. An idealized social ontology of the modern type (as against, say, a Platonic or Aristotelian type) will typically assume the abstract and undifferentiated equal atomic individuals of classical liberalism. Thus it will abstract away from relations of structural domination, exploitation, coercion, and oppression, which in reality, of course, will pro- foundly shape the ontology of those same individuals, locating them in superior and inferior positions in social hierarchies of various kinds." (168)

B. Constraints K impacts – a social ontology conditions the subject in a way that resists concrete and structural inequalities, that's a second implication from Mills.

2. Discrimination is constitutive of any moral theory because it requires one to distinguish between the ethical and anti-ethical. Differentiation becomes a condition for any decision, so justice is found in violence. HÄGGLUND:

"THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND
"Derrida targets precisely this logic of opposition. As he argues in Of Grammatology
AND
is in the service of perpetrating the better." (46-48) 

====Impacts:====

====A. Controls the internal link to every other framework because any theory requires us to choose a conception of morality otherwise they are baseless and cannot prescribe an obligation. So, other theories would have to concede exclusion of beliefs as a condition for their normativity in the first place. ====

====B. Precedes idealized frameworks. The belief in absolute peace is self-contradictory and justifies absolute violence. HÄGGLUND 2: "THE NECESSITY OF DISCRIMINATION DISJOINING DERRIDA AND LEVINAS" MARTIN HÄGGLUND====
"A possible objection here is that we must striv~ing~e toward an ideal origin or end, an arkhe or telos that would prevail beyond the possibility of violence. Even if every community is haunted by victims of discrimination and forgetting, we should try to reach a state of being that does not exclude anyone, namely, a consummated presence that includes everyone. However, it is precisely with such an "ontological" ~the~ thesis that Derridaʼs hauntological thinking takes issue. At several places in Specters of Marx he maintains that a completely present life—which would not be "out of joint," not haunted by any ghosts—would be nothing but a complete death. Derridaʼs point is not simply that a peaceful state of existence is impossible to realize, as if it were a desirable, albeit unattainable end. Rather, he challenges the very idea that absolute peace is desirable. In a state of being where all violent change is precluded, nothing can ever happen. Absolute peace is thus inseparable from absolute violence, as Derrida argued already in "Violence and Metaphysics." Anything that would finally put an end to violence (whether the end is a religious salvation, a universal justice, a harmonious intersubjectivity or some other ideal) would end the possibility of life in general. The idea of absolute peace is the idea of eliminating the undecidable future that is the con- dition for anything to happen. Thus, the idea of absolute peace is the idea of absolute violence." (49)  

And, democratic agonism is the only thing that can overcome ontological violence:

1. The only way to resolve the inevitable conflict that comes with pluralism in our agency and ethics is to embrace that it is in fact inevitable. This requires an agonistic commitment, which recognizes that conflict is inevitable, but frames the other as a legitimate opponent instead of an enemy. MOUFFE:  "The Democratic Paradox" by Chantal Mouffe 2000

"A well-functioning democracy calls for a vibrant clash of democratic political positions. If this is missing there is the danger that this democratic confrontation will be replaced by a confrontation among other forms of collective identification, as is the case with identity politics. Too much emphasis on consensus and the refusal of confrontation lead to apathy and disaffection with political participation. Worse still, the result can be the crystallization of collective passions around issues which cannot be managed by the democratic process and an explosion of antagonisms that can tear up the very basis of civility." (104)

Our starting point is key- we don't pretend to overcome all exclusion, we just exclude the exclusionary thing. MOUFFE:

(Chantal Mouffe, Professor at the Department of Political Science of the Institute for Advanced Studies. June 2000. "The Democratic Paradox")
"To avoid any confusion, I should specify that, contrary to some postmodern
AND
outright and those who, while accepting them, fight for conflicting interpretations." 

Aiming toward consensus is a false goal because consensus is impossible, difference in inevitable. Contestation is key. Dividing people up and treating them as enemies is also a false goal because it denies that the existence of their opposing identity is what constructs yours.

Thus, the standard is promoting agonistic democracy. To clarify, it's a question of creating procedural elements that allow discussion, not specific ends. Prefer additionally:

1. Educational spaces must embrace contestation as a condition for resistance. Any attempt to exclude challenges reaffirms pedagogical imperialism. RICKERT:

(Thomas, ""Hands Up, You're Free": Composition in a Post-Oedipal World", JacOnline Journal,)
"This essay will employ Deleuze's and Zizek's theories to illustrate the limitations of writing
AND
is more aggressive than the desire to serve the other" (48)

Plan

Resolved: The United States should limit the qualified immunity of police officers by removing the "clearly established" element of qualified immunity in doctrine. Wright 15

 (Journalist and PHD in Law. "Want to Fight Police Misconduct? Reform Qualified Immunity." http://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/want-to-fight-police-misconduct-reform-qualified-immunity/)
And change should begin with an act of Congress rolling back qualified immunity. Removing
AND
show that that conduct's illegality has already been clearly established in the courts? 

Contention 1- Surveillance

SCOTUS's interpretation of the fourth Amendment gives police incredible search power.

Carbado 16
Carbado, Devon "Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes." ,2016
By prohibiting the government from engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fourth Amendment
AND
they engage people (the "immunities" protection of the Fourth Amendment).

The impact is that fourth Amendment power has become non-existent- only the plan solves. Carbado 16

Carbado, Devon "Blue-on-Black Violence: A Provisional Model of Some of the Causes." ,2016
With respect to whether the officer's conduct violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights, the standard
AND
a significant doctrinal hurdle to holding police officers accountable for acts of violence.

Diluted 4^th Amendment protections massively expand government power, enabling mass surveillance – that chills democratic deliberation and kills privacy

Hafetz 13 ~Jonathan Hafetz, "How NSA surveillance endangers the Fourth Amendment," National Constitution Center, 8/13/2013~
The New York Times has reported that the National Security Agency (NSA) is
AND
liberty in name of protecting the United States from terrorism or other threats.

Contention 2- Recourse

Limiting qualified immunity creates a good form of recourse in the law that makes contestation possible. Wright 15

 (Journalist and PHD in Law. "Want to Fight Police Misconduct? Reform Qualified Immunity." http://abovethelaw.com/2015/11/want-to-fight-police-misconduct-reform-qualified-immunity/)
As usual, I've not buried the lede: that something is qualified immunity reform
AND
show that that conduct's illegality has already been clearly established in the courts?

The plan is key to understanding nuances in the law- in the status quo- there is one option- if no precedent exists, nothing happens. Removing this interpretation opens up the law for argumentation. Outweighs turns since proves that the way the law procedurally has been set up is already bad.

That's key- in the context of the law, nothing can ever define the rule we should adopt in every single instance. So the stance of not being charged in every instance without statute is bad.

Carroll  Nullification as Law JENNY E. CARROLL* Associate Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law. © 2014, Jenny E. Carroll. Thanks to Adam Steinman, Larry Solum, Paul Butler, Daryl Brown, Charles A. Sullivan, L. Song Richardson, Brian Sheppard, Alice Ristroph, Rachel Godsil, D. Michael Risinger, John Copacino, Wally Mylenic, and Michael Cahill for their helpful suggestions. This Article has also benefited greatly from comments received during presentations at Seton Hall University School of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Brooklyn Law School, University of Alabama School of Law, Southwestern Law School, Wayne State Law School and the University of Idaho School of Law. Finally, I would like to especially thank members of Larry Solum's Advanced Constitutional Law Seminar for their critiques as well as the careful editing of The Georgetown Law Journal staff Rules, like history, draw their meaning from the context of the lives they regulate. Answering the question of whether a rule applies to any given set of factual circumstances inevitably requires some external examination. 165 In the end, the rule does not define itself; it must be defined by those who would apply it and those to whom it would be applied.166 In response to those who would argue that rules require context and interpretation, formalists could embrace the notion that the ideal requires only general legal directives.167 But this in turn creates a new dilemma. If the rule is to survive because it is general or vague, then formalism's promise of clear rules may not be possible. The rule's aim may be uncertain. Even specific rules are fraught with ambiguity because language itself is, by its nature, open to shifting interpretations that can render even the best-defined rules unclear.168 In the end, the dilemma of the formalist ideal would seem to be that law cannot be capable of both shifting and being static. In moments when the law must evolve to survive or to promote substantive values, adherence to formalism may create an impossible quandary for the citizen who ironically finds instability in the law's inability to change with shifting social values. The third construction of the rule of law in Fallon's world is the legal process ideal type.169 The legal process ideal rejects the notion that the law consists only of rules that preexist their application and are static in their construction, and instead defines the law in terms of procedure that seeks to sustain substantive goals.170 In this, adherents to the legal process ideal root law in "current, normative" consensus and acknowledge that legal doctrine—no matter which formal body creates it—must strive to reflect evolving standards and expectations. 171 This is not to say that adherents to the legal process ideal abandon stability; rather, they claim that stability is best located in the creation of processes that promote fairness through the development of legal norms as opposed to rigid rules.172 The ideal seeks to create an internal connection between the law itself and the citizen's expectations of reasonableness, which guides not only law creation but also subsequent legal interpretation.173 Precedent serves as a basis for the determination of particular cases.174 But in the end, the ideal places stock in judicial review to serve as the basis for procedural fairness and as the guarantor that other lawmaking bodies, including the legislative and executive branches and administrative decision makers, do not exceed their authority or create laws inconsistent with the normative consensus.175 The legal process ideal wrestles with the dilemma created by the historicist and formalist ideals' allegiance to a rigid construction of law by acknowledging that law must include some process of interpretation. The law itself, unable to contemplate every possible application in advance, must undergo some process of synthesis in the lives of those it governs.176 The ideal therefore defines the conception of law ~means~ not only in terms of its literal creation (in legislative or administrative bodies), but also in its subsequent interpretation by those who apply it; the ideal defines law in terms of a consensus that shifts with the communal values. It finds stability in its ability to control the realm of the appropriate decision makers in the system of governance, ceding substantive and procedural control to formal decision makers,177 and it finds stability by defining the substantive goal of reasonableness to which the decision makers must constantly adhere in order to legitimate their interpretations.178 In this, the legal process ideal departs from formalism by abandoning the notion of a static law, while simultaneously maintaining the concept by regulating proper sources of interpretation.179

Impact Calc: This means that the aff cares about not treating the law as defined, since that's a form of structural antagonism that denies the possibility for contestation.

Underview

1. Reject low probability impacts.

Kessler and Daase 08 ~Oliver Kessler and Christopher Daase, Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Department of Political Science, University of Munich, "From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Risk and the Paradox of Security Politics," Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 33, No. 2, The Social Construction and Control of Danger in Counterterrorism (Apr.-June 2008), pp. 211-232~
The problem of the second method is that it is very difficult to "calculate
AND
prevail than in situations where security problems can be assessed with relative certainty. 

2. Aff gets RVI's on theory

a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
c) It's logical: you should lose for needlessly calling me a cheater

AND
reduced to dismantling the gains of the welfare state as they increasingly construct policies

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 1 | Opponent: Keurlings Catholic ZB | Judge: Matt Delateur

AC

FW

Non-ideal theory is the most epistemologically sound starting point for moral decisions- other methods foreclose viewpoints.

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or androcentrism, or white normativity—is that all theorizing, both moral and nonmoral, takes place in an intellectual realm dominated by concepts, assumptions, norms, values, and framing perspectives that reflect the experience and group interests of the privileged group (whether the bourgeoisie, or men, or whites). So a simple empiricism will not work as a cognitive strategy; one has to be self-conscious about the concepts that "spontaneously" occur to one, since many of these concepts will not arise naturally but as the result of social structures and hegemonic ideational patterns. In particular, it will often be the case that dominant concepts will obscure certain crucial realities, blocking them from sight, or naturalizing them, while on the other hand, concepts necessary for accurately mapping these realities will be absent. Whether in terms of concepts of the self, or of humans in general, or in the cartography of the social, it will be necessary to scrutinize the dominant conceptual tools and the way the boundaries are drawn. This is, of course, the burden of standpoint theory—that certain realities tend to be more visible from the perspective of the subordinated than the privileged (Harding 2003). The thesis can be put in a strong and implausible form, but weaker versions do have considerable plausibility, as illustrated by the simple fact that for the most part the crucial conceptual innovation necessary to map nonideal realities has not come from the dominant group. In its ignoring of oppression, ideal theory also ignores the consequences of oppression. If societies are not oppressive, or if in modeling them we can abstract away from oppression and assume moral cognizers of roughly equal skill, then the paradigmatic moral agent can be featureless. No theory is required about the particular group-based obstacles that may block the vision of a particular group. By contrast, nonideal theory recognizes that people will typically be cognitively affected by their social location, so that on both the macro and the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading. Think of the original challenge Marxist models of capitalism posed to liberalism's social ontology: the claim that to focus on relations of aparently equal exchange, free and fair, among equal individuals was illusory, since at the level of the relations of production, the real ontology of worker and capitalist manifested a deep structure of constraint that limited proletarian freedom. Think of the innovation of using patriarchy to force people to recognize, and condemn as political and oppressive, rather than natural, apolitical, and unproblematic, male domination of women. Think of the recent resurrection of the concept of white supremacy to map the reality of a white domination that has continued in more subtle forms past the ending of de jure segregation. These are all global, high-level concepts, undeniable abstractions. But they map accurately (at least arguably) crucial realities that differentiate the statuses of the human beings within the systems they describe; so while they abstract, they do not idealize. Or consider conceptual innovation at the more local level: the challenge to the traditional way the public/private distinction was drawn, the concept of sexual harassment. In the first case, a seemingly neutral and innocuous conceptual divide turned out, once it was viewed from the perspective of gender subordination, as contributing to the reproduction of the gender system by its relegation of "women's issues" to a seemingly apolitical and naturalized space. In the case of sexual harassment, a familiar reality—a staple of cartoons in men's magazines for years (bosses chasing secretaries around the desk and so on)—was reconceptualized as negative (not something funny, but something morally wrong) and a contributor to making the workplace hostile for women. These realizations, these recognitions, did not spontaneously crystallize out of nowhere; they required conceptual labor, a different map of social reality, a valorization of the distinctive experience of women. As a result of having these concepts as visual aids, we can now see better: our perceptions are no longer ~ignorant~ blinded to realities to which we were previously obtuse. In some sense, an ideal observer should have been able to see them—yet they did not, as shown by the nonappearance of these realities in male-dominated philosophical literature.
Impacts
only non-ideal theory is epistemologically sound- other theories have a
AND
the material injustice.
Thus the standard is minimizing oppression.
Prefer 

1. Debate should deal with the real-world consequences of oppression.

Curry 14, Tommy, The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century, Victory Briefs, 2014,
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
open people while that would be repugnant for a normal person to do. 

Plantext

Resolved: In the case of White v. Pauly, the Supreme Court of the United States shall limit qualified immunity for police officers by forcing lower courts to give reason for exercising Pearson constitutional discretion, effectively overturning the precedent set in Pearson v. Callahan.

Walker 15 ~Christopher J. Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, "The New Qualified Immunity," Southern California Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1-65, Oct. 19, 2015~ JW
Whereas the core constitutional stagnation fear expressed about Pearson discretion is probably exaggerated, the
AND
, courts should be required to give reasons for not doing so."235

Inherency

Pearson v. Callahan established a precedent of deference to the lower courts which creates confusion on which rights the Constitution guarantees

Walker 2 ~Christopher J. Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, "The New Qualified Immunity," Southern California Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1-65, Oct. 19, 2015~ JW
Qualified immunity, however, is more than just substantively controversial; it also creates
AND
will get bogged down in debates about when to decide constitutional questions.26

Stats prove that Pearson increased constitutional stagnation as courts refuse to answer constitutional questions

Walker 3~Christopher J. Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, "The New Qualified Immunity," Southern California Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1-65, Oct. 19, 2015~ JW
On the other hand, if one is concerned not only with courts reaching constitutional
AND
for the post-Pearson constitutional stagnation theory discussed in Part I.D

Advantage 1: Decision-Making

A requirement would lead to better judicial rulings-multiple warrants

Walker 4 ~Christopher J. Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, "The New Qualified Immunity," Southern California Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1-65, Oct. 19, 2015~ PW
The reasons for reason giving discussed above should have a great deal of purchase in
AND
, which in turn increases the transparency and rigoursness by which policing occurs. 

Advantage 2: Judicial Legitimacy

Judicial Legitimacy is low now- the court is in danger.

Posner 15, Eric, The Supreme Court's Loss of Prestige, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2015/10/the_supreme_court_is_losing_public_approval_and_prestige.html
The Supreme Court begins its term this year with a smorgasbord of ideologically tasty morsels
AND
be "the touchstone of legitimacy in the liberal, administrative state."269

Judicial Legitimacy is key to the Court's power

Gibson et al 14, James Gibson, Department of Political Science Professor of African and African American Studies Director, Program on Citizenship and Democratic Values Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy and Michael Nelson, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science Graduate Student Associate, Center for Empirical Research in the Law, 2014, http://mjnelson.wustl.edu/papers/AnnualReview.pdf
The Supreme Court has little meaningful inherent or constitutional jurisdiction; instead, it gets
AND
is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the Nation (865-866).

Court power is key to check back the legislator from hugely oppressive laws- Brown v. Board proves.

Somin 16, Ilya, The Supreme Court Is a Check on Big Government, Protection for Minorities, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/07/06/is-the-supreme-court-too-powerful/the-supreme-court-is-a-check-on-big-government-protection-for-minorities
The Supreme Court gets many things wrong. Yet America would be a far worse
AND
War II. Weakening the court would increase the incidence of such outrages.

Underview

1. The aff deploys the state as a heuristic to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 – (May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19, http://www.naazneenbarma.com/uploads/2/9/6/9/29695681/using_scenarios_in_political_science_isp_2015.pdf)
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

3. Aff gets RVI's on theory and T

a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
c) It's logical: you should lose for needlessly calling me a cheater 

AND
the negative. Since he has equal access to offense, there's no abuse

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 4 | Opponent: Greenhill BZ | Judge: Jeff Joseph

AC

FW

Non-ideal theory is the most epistemologically sound starting point for moral decisions- other methods foreclose viewpoints.

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or androcentrism, or white normativity—is that all theorizing, both moral and nonmoral, takes place in an intellectual realm dominated by concepts, assumptions, norms, values, and framing perspectives that reflect the experience and group interests of the privileged group (whether the bourgeoisie, or men, or whites). So a simple empiricism will not work as a cognitive strategy; one has to be self-conscious about the concepts that "spontaneously" occur to one, since many of these concepts will not arise naturally but as the result of social structures and hegemonic ideational patterns. In particular, it will often be the case that dominant concepts will obscure certain crucial realities, blocking them from sight, or naturalizing them, while on the other hand, concepts necessary for accurately mapping these realities will be absent. Whether in terms of concepts of the self, or of humans in general, or in the cartography of the social, it will be necessary to scrutinize the dominant conceptual tools and the way the boundaries are drawn. This is, of course, the burden of standpoint theory—that certain realities tend to be more visible from the perspective of the subordinated than the privileged (Harding 2003). The thesis can be put in a strong and implausible form, but weaker versions do have considerable plausibility, as illustrated by the simple fact that for the most part the crucial conceptual innovation necessary to map nonideal realities has not come from the dominant group. In its ignoring of oppression, ideal theory also ignores the consequences of oppression. If societies are not oppressive, or if in modeling them we can abstract away from oppression and assume moral cognizers of roughly equal skill, then the paradigmatic moral agent can be featureless. No theory is required about the particular group-based obstacles that may block the vision of a particular group. By contrast, nonideal theory recognizes that people will typically be cognitively affected by their social location, so that on both the macro and the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading. Think of the original challenge Marxist models of capitalism posed to liberalism's social ontology: the claim that to focus on relations of aparently equal exchange, free and fair, among equal individuals was illusory, since at the level of the relations of production, the real ontology of worker and capitalist manifested a deep structure of constraint that limited proletarian freedom. Think of the innovation of using patriarchy to force people to recognize, and condemn as political and oppressive, rather than natural, apolitical, and unproblematic, male domination of women. Think of the recent resurrection of the concept of white supremacy to map the reality of a white domination that has continued in more subtle forms past the ending of de jure segregation. These are all global, high-level concepts, undeniable abstractions. But they map accurately (at least arguably) crucial realities that differentiate the statuses of the human beings within the systems they describe; so while they abstract, they do not idealize. Or consider conceptual innovation at the more local level: the challenge to the traditional way the public/private distinction was drawn, the concept of sexual harassment. In the first case, a seemingly neutral and innocuous conceptual divide turned out, once it was viewed from the perspective of gender subordination, as contributing to the reproduction of the gender system by its relegation of "women's issues" to a seemingly apolitical and naturalized space. In the case of sexual harassment, a familiar reality—a staple of cartoons in men's magazines for years (bosses chasing secretaries around the desk and so on)—was reconceptualized as negative (not something funny, but something morally wrong) and a contributor to making the workplace hostile for women. These realizations, these recognitions, did not spontaneously crystallize out of nowhere; they required conceptual labor, a different map of social reality, a valorization of the distinctive experience of women. As a result of having these concepts as visual aids, we can now see better: our perceptions are no longer ~ignorant~ blinded to realities to which we were previously obtuse. In some sense, an ideal observer should have been able to see them—yet they did not, as shown by the nonappearance of these realities in male-dominated philosophical literature.
Impacts
only non-ideal theory is epistemologically sound- other theories have a
AND
excluded from academia which means it offers unique education about liberating the oppressed. 

Thus the standard is minimizing oppression.

Prefer 

1. Debate should deal with the real-world consequences of oppression.

Curry 14, Tommy, The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century, Victory Briefs, 2014,
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters.

Inherency

Previously, to disregard qualified immunity, courts first determined if officers violated clearly established constitutional law and then determined if it was reasonable for the officer to act the way they did. Pearson v Callahan in 2009 allowed lower courts to decide the order in which they answered those questions, which has led to lower courts skipping the first question—stats prove.

Walker 2 ~Christopher J. Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, "The New Qualified Immunity," Southern California Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1-65, Oct. 19, 2015~ JW
On the other hand, if one is concerned not only with courts reaching constitutional
AND
for the post-Pearson constitutional stagnation theory discussed in Part I.D

Plantext

Thus the plan text—Resolved: Using White v. Pauly, a case in that is currently in the 10^th circuit court of appeals, the Supreme Court of the United States shall limit qualified immunity for police officers by forcing lower courts to give reason for exercising Pearson constitutional discretion, effectively overturning the precedent set in Pearson v. Callahan.

Walker 15 ~Christopher J. Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, "The New Qualified Immunity," Southern California Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1-65, Oct. 19, 2015~ JW
Whereas the core constitutional stagnation fear expressed about Pearson discretion is probably exaggerated, the
AND
why they are skipping the first question of constitutionality if they choose to. 

Advantage 1: Decision-Making

A requirement would lead to better judicial rulings-multiple warrants

Walker 3 ~Christopher J. Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, "The New Qualified Immunity," Southern California Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1-65, Oct. 19, 2015~ PW
The reasons for reason giving discussed above should have a great deal of purchase in
AND
, which in turn increases the transparency and rigoursness by which policing occurs. 

Advantage 2: Judicial Legitimacy

Judicial Legitimacy is low now- the court is in danger.

Posner 15, Eric, The Supreme Court's Loss of Prestige, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2015/10/the_supreme_court_is_losing_public_approval_and_prestige.html
The Supreme Court begins its term this year with a smorgasbord of ideologically tasty morsels
AND
Court, but that number used to be in the 70 percent range.

====Providing reasons is the keystone of court legitimacy====
Walker 4 ~Christopher J. Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, "The New Qualified Immunity," Southern California Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1-65, Oct. 19, 2015~ PW
Not only does reason giving facilitate judicial review and public scrutiny, but it also
AND
be "the touchstone of legitimacy in the liberal, administrative state."269

Judicial Legitimacy is key to the Court's power

Gibson et al 14, James Gibson, Department of Political Science Professor of African and African American Studies Director, Program on Citizenship and Democratic Values Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy and Michael Nelson, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science Graduate Student Associate, Center for Empirical Research in the Law, 2014, http://mjnelson.wustl.edu/papers/AnnualReview.pdf
The Supreme Court has little meaningful inherent or constitutional jurisdiction; instead, it gets
AND
is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the Nation (865-866).

Court power is key to check back the legislator from hugely oppressive laws- Brown v. Board proves.

Somin 16, Ilya, The Supreme Court Is a Check on Big Government, Protection for Minorities, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/07/06/is-the-supreme-court-too-powerful/the-supreme-court-is-a-check-on-big-government-protection-for-minorities
The Supreme Court gets many things wrong. Yet America would be a far worse
AND
War II. Weakening the court would increase the incidence of such outrages.

Underview

1. Aff gets RVI's on theory and T
   a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
   b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
   c) Topicality is uniquely an RVI because its unreciprocal, only neg can garner offense on T. This is structural unequal, unlike theory, because I literally cannot access this layer.
   2. Prefer reasonable aff interps and drop the argument on T. The judge should use reasonability with a bright line of the presence of link and impact turn ground for the negative. Since he has equal access to offense, there's no abuse because structural access to the ballot is the same.
   A. There are multiple legitimate interpretations of the topic and the aff goes into the round with no knowledge of 1NC strategy. I had to choose between mutually exclusive interps and the neg can always read T so don't punish me for having to set grounds.

3. The aff deploys the state as a heuristic to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 – (May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19, http://www.naazneenbarma.com/uploads/2/9/6/9/29695681/using_scenarios_in_political_science_isp_2015.pdf)
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

4. The best statistical evidence empirically shows that we are progressing. You ignore historical reality.

Feldscher 13, Karen,  (Senior Writer/Project Manager at Harvard School of Public Health), "Progress, but challenges in reducing racial disparities," Harvard School of Public Health, 9 September 2013. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/progress-but-challenges-in-reducing-racial-disparities/
September 19, 2013 — Disparities between blacks and whites in the U.S
AND
connect with black students at earlier ages to steer them toward positive choices.

5. Understanding the intricacies of politics and the state is a prerequisite to addressing state violence – link turns the K.  Bryant 12

Bryant 12, Levi, professor of Philosophy at Collin College and Chair of the Critical Philosophy program at the New Centre for Research and Practice, "War Machines and Military Logistics: Some Cards on the Table, https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/war-machines-and-military-logistics-some-cards-on-the-table/).  
We need answers to these questions to intervene effectively. We can call them questions
AND
over time we get to explore more types of methods in greater depth.

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Millard North PK | Judge: Mitali Mathur

AC

FW

Non-ideal theory is the most epistemologically sound starting point for moral decisions- other methods foreclose viewpoints.

Mills 05, Charles, 2005, Ideal Theory" as Ideology,
The crucial common claim—whether couched in terms of ideology and fetishism, or androcentrism, or white normativity—is that all theorizing, both moral and nonmoral, takes place in an intellectual realm dominated by concepts, assumptions, norms, values, and framing perspectives that reflect the experience and group interests of the privileged group (whether the bourgeoisie, or men, or whites). So a simple empiricism will not work as a cognitive strategy; one has to be self-conscious about the concepts that "spontaneously" occur to one, since many of these concepts will not arise naturally but as the result of social structures and hegemonic ideational patterns. In particular, it will often be the case that dominant concepts will obscure certain crucial realities, blocking them from sight, or naturalizing them, while on the other hand, concepts necessary for accurately mapping these realities will be absent. Whether in terms of concepts of the self, or of humans in general, or in the cartography of the social, it will be necessary to scrutinize the dominant conceptual tools and the way the boundaries are drawn. This is, of course, the burden of standpoint theory—that certain realities tend to be more visible from the perspective of the subordinated than the privileged (Harding 2003). The thesis can be put in a strong and implausible form, but weaker versions do have considerable plausibility, as illustrated by the simple fact that for the most part the crucial conceptual innovation necessary to map nonideal realities has not come from the dominant group. In its ignoring of oppression, ideal theory also ignores the consequences of oppression. If societies are not oppressive, or if in modeling them we can abstract away from oppression and assume moral cognizers of roughly equal skill, then the paradigmatic moral agent can be featureless. No theory is required about the particular group-based obstacles that may block the vision of a particular group. By contrast, nonideal theory recognizes that people will typically be cognitively affected by their social location, so that on both the macro and the more local level, the descriptive concepts arrived at may be misleading. Think of the original challenge Marxist models of capitalism posed to liberalism's social ontology: the claim that to focus on relations of aparently equal exchange, free and fair, among equal individuals was illusory, since at the level of the relations of production, the real ontology of worker and capitalist manifested a deep structure of constraint that limited proletarian freedom. Think of the innovation of using patriarchy to force people to recognize, and condemn as political and oppressive, rather than natural, apolitical, and unproblematic, male domination of women. Think of the recent resurrection of the concept of white supremacy to map the reality of a white domination that has continued in more subtle forms past the ending of de jure segregation. These are all global, high-level concepts, undeniable abstractions. But they map accurately (at least arguably) crucial realities that differentiate the statuses of the human beings within the systems they describe; so while they abstract, they do not idealize. Or consider conceptual innovation at the more local level: the challenge to the traditional way the public/private distinction was drawn, the concept of sexual harassment. In the first case, a seemingly neutral and innocuous conceptual divide turned out, once it was viewed from the perspective of gender subordination, as contributing to the reproduction of the gender system by its relegation of "women's issues" to a seemingly apolitical and naturalized space. In the case of sexual harassment, a familiar reality—a staple of cartoons in men's magazines for years (bosses chasing secretaries around the desk and so on)—was reconceptualized as negative (not something funny, but something morally wrong) and a contributor to making the workplace hostile for women. These realizations, these recognitions, did not spontaneously crystallize out of nowhere; they required conceptual labor, a different map of social reality, a valorization of the distinctive experience of women. As a result of having these concepts as visual aids, we can now see better: our perceptions are no longer ~ignorant~ blinded to realities to which we were previously obtuse. In some sense, an ideal observer should have been able to see them—yet they did not, as shown by the nonappearance of these realities in male-dominated philosophical literature.
Thus the standard is minimizing oppression.
Prefer 

1. Debate should deal with the real-world consequences of oppression.

Curry 14, Tommy, The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century, Victory Briefs, 2014,
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
used to currently justify the living wages in under our contemporary moral parameters.

2. The state is inevitable- policymaking is the only way to create change.

Coverstone 5 Alan Coverstone (masters in communication from Wake Forest, longtime debate coach) "Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact" Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference November 17^th 2005
 An important concern emerges when Mitchell describes reflexive fiat as a contest strategy capable
AND
that is a fundamental cause of voter and participatory abstention in America today.

Inherency

Previously, to disregard qualified immunity, courts first determined if officers violated clearly established constitutional law and then determined if it was reasonable for the officer to act the way they did. Pearson v Callahan in 2009 allowed lower courts to decide the order in which they answered those questions, which has led to lower courts skipping the first question—stats prove.

Walker 15 ~Christopher J. Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, "The New Qualified Immunity," Southern California Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1-65, Oct. 19, 2015~ JW
On the other hand, if one is concerned not only with courts reaching constitutional
AND
for the post-Pearson constitutional stagnation theory discussed in Part I.D

Plantext

Thus the plan text—Resolved: Using White v. Pauly, a case in that is currently in the 10^th circuit court of appeals, the Supreme Court of the United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers by forcing lower courts to give reason for exercising Pearson constitutional discretion, effectively overturning the precedent set in Pearson v. Callahan.

Walker 2 ~Christopher J. Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, "The New Qualified Immunity," Southern California Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1-65, Oct. 19, 2015~ JW
Whereas the core constitutional stagnation fear expressed about Pearson discretion is probably exaggerated, the
AND
why they are skipping the first question of constitutionality if they choose to. 

Advantage 1: Decision-Making

A requirement would lead to better judicial rulings-multiple warrants

Walker 3 ~Christopher J. Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, "The New Qualified Immunity," Southern California Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1-65, Oct. 19, 2015~ PW
The reasons for reason giving discussed above should have a great deal of purchase in
AND
, which in turn increases the transparency and rigoursness by which policing occurs. 

Advantage 2: Judicial Legitimacy

Judicial Legitimacy is low now- the court is in danger.

Posner 15, Eric, The Supreme Court's Loss of Prestige, 2015, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2015/10/the_supreme_court_is_losing_public_approval_and_prestige.html
The Supreme Court begins its term this year with a smorgasbord of ideologically tasty morsels
AND
Court, but that number used to be in the 70 percent range.

====Providing reasons is the keystone of court legitimacy====
Walker 4 ~Christopher J. Walker, Assistant Professor of Law, Michael E. Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University, Aaron L. Nielson, Associate Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, "The New Qualified Immunity," Southern California Law Review, Vol. 89, pp. 1-65, Oct. 19, 2015~ PW
Not only does reason giving facilitate judicial review and public scrutiny, but it also
AND
be "the touchstone of legitimacy in the liberal, administrative state."269

Judicial Legitimacy is key to the Court's power

Gibson et al 14, James Gibson, Department of Political Science Professor of African and African American Studies Director, Program on Citizenship and Democratic Values Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy and Michael Nelson, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science Graduate Student Associate, Center for Empirical Research in the Law, 2014, http://mjnelson.wustl.edu/papers/AnnualReview.pdf
The Supreme Court has little meaningful inherent or constitutional jurisdiction; instead, it gets
AND
is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the Nation (865-866).

Court power is key to check back the legislator from hugely oppressive laws- Brown v. Board proves.

Somin 16, Ilya, The Supreme Court Is a Check on Big Government, Protection for Minorities, 2016, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/07/06/is-the-supreme-court-too-powerful/the-supreme-court-is-a-check-on-big-government-protection-for-minorities
The Supreme Court gets many things wrong. Yet America would be a far worse
AND
War II. Weakening the court would increase the incidence of such outrages.

Underview

1. The role of the ballot is to evaluate the simulated consequences of the aff world through a policymaking paradigm. You can weigh the SQUO or a competitive policymaking paradigm against the aff. Prefer:

a) The aff deploys the state as a heuristic to learn scenario planning- even if politics is bad, scenario analysis of politics is pedagogically valuable- it enhances creativity, deconstructs biases and teaches advocacy skills

Barma et al 16 – (May 2016, ~Advance Publication Online on 11/6/15~, Naazneen Barma, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School, Brent Durbin, PhD in Political Science from UC-Berkeley, Professor of Government at Smith College, Eric Lorber, JD from UPenn and PhD in Political Science from Duke, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Rachel Whitlark, PhD in Political Science from GWU, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow with the Project on Managing the Atom and International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, "'Imagine a World in Which': Using Scenarios in Political Science," International Studies Perspectives 17 (2), pp. 1-19, http://www.naazneenbarma.com/uploads/2/9/6/9/29695681/using_scenarios_in_political_science_isp_2015.pdf)
What Are Scenarios and Why Use Them in Political Science? Scenario analysis is perceived
AND
analysts from anticipating and understanding the pivotal junctures that arise in international affairs.

b) Fairness. Anything moots 6 minutes of 1ac offense – restarts the 1ar. They get a 13-7 minute advantage which means we have worse discussion, even if the subject of discussion is slightly better.

Unfairness denies effective dialogue on kritikal issues which turns your impacts.

Galloway 7 Ryan Galloway, Samford Comm prof, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Vol. 28, 2007
Debate as a dialogue sets an argumentative table, where all parties receive a relatively
AND
whims of time and power (Farrell, 1985, p. 114).

2. Understanding the intricacies of politics and the state is a prerequisite to addressing state violence – link turns the K.  Bryant 12

Bryant 12, Levi, professor of Philosophy at Collin College and Chair of the Critical Philosophy program at the New Centre for Research and Practice, "War Machines and Military Logistics: Some Cards on the Table, https://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/war-machines-and-military-logistics-some-cards-on-the-table/).  
We need answers to these questions to intervene effectively. We can call them questions
AND
, and communications networks, and so we can engage in effective terraformation.

3. Activist focus on meta-issues breeds utopianism, which leads to the failure of the movement, Occupy Wall Street and The Farm empirically confirms. Only the combination of thought and action can create change.

Murray 14, PhD Candidate in the Program in Modern Thought and Literature at Stanford University, Prefiguration or Actualization? Radical Democracy and Counter-Institution in the Occupy Movement, http://berkeleyjournal.org/2014/11/prefiguration-or-actualization-radical-democracy-and-counter-institution-in-the-occupy-movement/
Many commentators have lauded the movement as an example of prefigurative politics, which they
AND
Farm illustrates some of the potential and the challenges of such a strategy.

4. Withdrawal from the state triggers authoritarian impacts

Boggs 2K ~Carl Boggs, Professor of Social Sciences at National University in Los Angeles, Adjunct Professor at Antioch University in Los Angeles, "The End of Politics," 2000~ JW
But it is a very deceptive and misleading minimalism.  While Oakeshott debunks political mechanisms
AND
run counter to the facile antirationalism of Oakeshott's Burkean muddling-through theories.  

5. Working within the state is not a form of complacency within violence, but rather provides a means of understanding the state and breaking it down. Zanotti 14

Dr. Laura Zanotti is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech.  Her research and teaching include critical political theory as well as international organizations, UN peacekeeping, democratization and the role of NGOs in post-conflict governance."Governmentality, Ontology, Methodology: Re-thinking Political Agency in the Global World" – Alternatives: Global, Local, Political – vol 38(4):p. 288-304,. A little unclear if this is late 2013 or early 2014 – The Stated "Version of Record" is Feb 20, 2014, but was originally published online on December 30th, 2013. Obtained via Sage Database.  
By questioning substantialist representations of power and subjects, inquiries on the possibilities of political
AND
position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and pessimistic activism.''84

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: Octas | Opponent: Phoenix Country Day PW | Judge: Gandra, De la O, Fakorede

1AC – SV

All brackets for offensive language 

Part 1: Framework

The Role of the Judge is to be a critical educator focusing on the liberation of the oppressed

Giroux 06 ~Henry Giroux, American scholar and cultural critic, "America on the Edge: Henry Giro ux on Politics, Culture, and Education," Springer, March 31, 2006~ JW
Educators at all levels need to challenge the assumption that politics is dead, or
AND
that severely limit the creative, ethical, and liberatory potential of education.

The Role of the Ballot is to endorse the best methodology to liberate oppressed groups

Debate should deal with questions of real-world consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression

^{Curry 14 ~Tommy J. Curry, Professor of Philosophy @ Texas AandM, "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century," 2014~
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations.} 

Structural violence outweighs. We must listen to the voices of the oppressed.

Winter and Leighton 99 (Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter: Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and ustice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice) (Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century. Pg 4-5, 1999)

Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual/cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. 

====The nuclearization of society enforces an epistemologically bankrupt mode of thinking in place of traditional ways of indigenous people. ====
WISE 93 ~World Information Service on Energy, founded in 1978, "Special: Environmental Racism and Nuclear Development," Nuclear Monitor Issue: ~#387-388, The WISE-Amsterdam Collective, March 1993~ JW
Racism, by itself, is a symptom of the deep sickness at the heart
AND
of vision that come from those who see from a different vantage point."

Part 2: Criticism

Subpoint A) Environmental racism

Every aspect of nuclear production overlaps and impedes upon Native Americans

Matsunaga 14 ~Kyoko Matsunaga, Associate Professor, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, "Leslie Marmon Silko and Nuclear Dissent in the American Southwest," The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 25, 2014~ JW
The politics and rhetoric of the Cold War—of which the Vietnam War was
AND
by the "preexisting settler discourse about desert lands as barren wastelands."6

And to add insult to injury, Native Americans don't receive proper compensation for damages

Kyne and Bolin 7/12 ~Dean Kyne, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Bob Bolin, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, "Emerging Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 12, 2016~ JW
The "uranium frenzy" began in the West in the 1940s as the U
AND
for downwind and mining victims to receive benefits for their illnesses ~75~.

Subpoint B) Cultural Genocide

The health and ecological effects on indigenous populations is tantamount to cultural genocide

Ryser et al 3/27 1 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Medical, genetic and social researchers have attempted to understand the complex public health effects
AND
, parts of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Yakama.

Subpoint C) Nuclear colonial discourse

Discourse about native lands as wastelands permits nuclear colonialism

Endres 09 1 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
Wasteland, like most words, is polysemous. In common parlance, wasteland is
AND
land being turned into a wasteland from toxic pollution (LaDuke 1999).9

Wasteland discourse justifies terrible nuclear policies. It directly spills over into actual policies and harms

Endres 2 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
The negative perception of the desert as wasteland has persisted to this day. The
AND
of wasteland as one of the justifications for HLW storage at those locations.

The 1AC is a direct challenge to this colonial discourse. We recognize that these lands have spiritual and cultural value to indigenous populations. Our affirmation of the resolution is our method to rectify this historic abuse and challenge traditional discourse that justifies cultural destruction.

Plan text: Native American tribal governments in conjunction with the USFG will ban the production of nuclear power near Native American lands.

Part 3: Solvency

1. Conjunction with the federal government is key. There are nuclear activities near indigenous lands that negatively affect tribes but fall outside their jurisdiction

Tsosie 15 2 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
Second, U.S. public lands policy governs federal lands adjacent to the
AND
both.115 The Havasupai Tribe is still heavily invested in this issue.

2. Any amount of radiation is dangerous. Means a ban of all nuclear power is the only way to solve.

Ryser et al 2 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Radioactive substances carry uniquely dangerous characteristics compared to other toxins made by human industry.
AND
of potential increased cancer risk — particularly from disposed spent radioactive fuel rods.

3. Exercising Native American sovereign power is uniquely key to addressing the historical legacy of nuclear colonialism

Tsosie 3 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
The exercise of self-determination is necessary to redress the legacy of the 19th
AND
this with a practice of "genocide" against the Navajo people.16

4. The aff is part of a larger resistance to nuclear colonialism.

Endres 3 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies,6:1,39 — 60, 2009~
~Native~ American Indian resistance is an important part of the story of nuclear
AND
also intersects with sovereignty, nuclearism and colonialism, to which I now turn

Part 4: Underview

1. Aff gets RVI's on theory

a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
c) It's logical: you should lose for needlessly calling me a cheater 

2. If they win offense under a T interp, you should re-evaluate the 1AC as a whole res aff:

a) allows us to return to substance and prevents the round from devolving to theory
b) solves all the abuse on their shell 

3. Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12 bracketed for grammar
~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
. Instead we prefer to shout and denounce. Good luck with that.

4. Reject low probability impacts.

Kessler and Daase 08 ~Oliver Kessler and Christopher Daase, Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Department of Political Science, University of Munich, "From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Risk and the Paradox of Security Politics," Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 33, No. 2, The Social Construction and Control of Danger in Counterterrorism (Apr.-June 2008), pp. 211-232~
The problem of the second method is that it is very difficult to "calculate
AND
assessment is, however, that even the most absurd scenarios can gain plausibility

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 1 | Opponent: Colleyville Heritage CW | Judge: Chris Theis

The state is inevitable- policymaking is the only way to create change.

Coverstone 5 Alan Coverstone (masters in communication from Wake Forest, longtime debate coach) "Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact" Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference November 17^th 2005 An important concern emerges when Mitchell describes reflexive fiat as a contest strategy capable of "eschewing the power to directly control external actors" (1998b, p. 20). Describing debates about what our government should do as attempts to control outside actors is debilitating and disempowering. Control of the US government is exactly what an active, participatory citizenry is supposed to be all about. After all, if democracy means anything, it means that citizens not only have the right, they also bear the obligation to discuss and debate what the government should be doing. Absent that discussion and debate, much of the motivation for personal political activism is also lost. Those who have co-opted Mitchell's argument for individual advocacy often quickly respond that nothing we do in a debate round can actually change government policy, and unfortunately, an entire generation of debaters has now swallowed this assertion as an article of faith. The best most will muster is, "Of course not, but you don't either!" The assertion that nothing we do in debate has any impact on government policy is one that carries the potential to undermine Mitchell's entire project. If there is nothing we can do in a debate round to change government policy, then we are left with precious little in the way of pro-social options for addressing problems we face. At best, we can pursue some Pilot-like hand washing that can purify us as individuals through quixotic activism but offer little to society as a whole. It is very important to note that Mitchell (1998b) tries carefully to limit and bound his notion of reflexive fiat by maintaining that because it "views fiat as a concrete course of action, it is bounded by the limits of pragmatism" (p. 20). Pursued properly, the debates that Mitchell would like to see are those in which the relative efficacy of concrete political strategies for pro-social change is debated. In a few noteworthy examples, this approach has been employed successfully, and I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed judging and coaching those debates. The students in my program have learned to stretch their understanding of their role in the political process because of the experience. Therefore, those who say I am opposed to Mitchell's goals here should take care at such a blanket assertion. However, contest debate teaches students to combine personal experience with the language of political power. Powerful personal narratives unconnected to political power are regularly co-opted by those who do learn the language of power. One need look no further than the annual state of the Union Address where personal story after personal story is used to support the political agenda of those in power. The so-called role-playing that public policy contest debates encourage promotes active learning of the vocabulary and levers of power in America. Imagining the ability to use our own arguments to influence government action is one of the great virtues of academic debate. Gerald Graff (2003) analyzed the decline of argumentation in academic discourse and found a source of student antipathy to public argument in an interesting place. I'm up against…their aversion to the role of public spokesperson that formal writing presupposes. It's as if such students can't imagine any rewards for being a public actor or even imagining themselves in such a role. This lack of interest in the public sphere may in turn reflect a loss of confidence in the possibility that the arguments we make in public will have an effect on the world. Today's students' lack of faith in the power of persuasion reflects the waning of the ideal of civic participation that led educators for centuries to place rhetorical and argumentative training at the center of the school and college curriculum. (Graff, 2003, p. 57) The power to imagine public advocacy that actually makes a difference is one of the great virtues of the traditional notion of fiat that critics deride as mere simulation. Simulation of success in the public realm is far more empowering to students than completely abandoning all notions of personal power in the face of governmental hegemony by teaching students that "nothing they can do in a contest debate can ever make any difference in public policy." Contest debating is well suited to rewarding public activism if it stops accepting as an article of faith that personal agency is somehow undermined by the so-called role playing in debate. Debate is role-playing whether we imagine government action or imagine individual action. Imagining myself starting a socialist revolution in America is no less of a fantasy than imagining myself making a difference on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, both fantasies influenced my personal and political development virtually ensuring a life of active, pro-social, political participation. Neither fantasy reduced the likelihood that I would spend my life trying to make the difference I imagined. One fantasy actually does make a greater difference: the one that speaks the language of political power. The other fantasy disables action by making one a laughingstock to those who wield the language of power. Fantasy motivates and role-playing trains through visualization. Until we can imagine it, we cannot really do it. Role-playing without question teaches students to be comfortable with the language of power, and that language paves the way for genuine and effective political activism. Debates over the relative efficacy of political strategies for pro-social change must confront governmental power at some point. There is a fallacy in arguing that movements represent a better political strategy than voting and person-to-person advocacy. Sure, a full-scale movement would be better than the limited voice I have as a participating citizen going from door to door in a campaign, but so would full-scale government action. Unfortunately, the gap between my individual decision to pursue movement politics and the emergence of a full-scale movement is at least as great as the gap between my vote and democratic change. They both represent utopian fiat. Invocation of Mitchell to support utopian movement fiat is simply not supported by his work, and too often, such invocation discourages the concrete actions he argues for in favor of the personal rejectionism that under girds the political cynicism that is a fundamental cause of voter and participatory abstention in America today.
Working within the state is not a form of complacency within violence, but rather
AND
position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and pessimistic activism.''84  

Policy making necessitates tradeoffs—that means util.

Governments can only justify legitimate policies to the public through a utilitarian framework. Thus, prefer util since its the most educational for this round as it best simulates policymaking.

Woller 97 ~Gary Woller (BYU Professor). "An Overview by Gary Woller." A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics. June 1997. pp. 10.~
Moreover, virtually all public policies entail some redistribution of economic or political resources,
AND

Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well being.
Prefer:

1. No act/omission for governments—constraint based theories collapse to util.

• • Sunstein and Vermule 05 (Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermuele, "Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs," Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 85 (March 2005), p. 17.)
    In our view, any effort to distinguish between acts and omissions goes wrong by
    AND
    All means based and side constraint theories collapse because two violations require aggregation.

2. Revisionary intuitionism is true and concludes util:

Yudkowsky 08, Eliezer, research fellow of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, The 'Intuitions' Behind 'Utilitarianism, 2008, http://lesswrong.com/lw/n9/the_intuitions_behind_utilitarianism/ I haven't said much about metaethics – the nature of morality – because that has a forward dependency on a discussion of the Mind Projection Fallacy that I haven't gotten to yet. I used to be very confused about metaethics. After my confusion finally cleared up, I did a postmortem on my previous thoughts. I found that my object-level moral reasoning had been valuable and my meta-level moral reasoning had been worse than useless. And this appears to be a general syndrome – people do much better when discussing whether torture is good or bad than when they discuss the meaning of "good" and "bad". Thus, I deem it prudent to keep moral discussions on the object level wherever I possibly can. Occasionally people object to any discussion of morality on the grounds that morality doesn't exist, and in lieu of jumping over the forward dependency to explain that "exist" is not the right term to use here, I generally say, "But what do you do anyway?" and take the discussion back down to the object level. Paul Gowder, though, has pointed out that both the idea of choosing a googolplex dust specks in a googolplex eyes over 50 years of torture for one person, and the idea of "utilitarianism", depend on "intuition". He says I've argued that the two are not compatible, but charges me with failing to argue for the utilitarian intuitions that I appeal to. Now "intuition" is not how I would describe the computations that underlie human morality and distinguish us, as moralists, from an ideal philosopher of perfect emptiness and/or a rock. But I am okay with using the word "intuition" as a term of art, bearing in mind that "intuition" in this sense is not to be contrasted to reason, but is, rather, the cognitive building block out of which both long verbal arguments and fast perceptual arguments are constructed. I see the project of morality as ~is~ a project of renormalizing intuition. We have intuitions about things that seem desirable or undesirable, intuitions about actions that are right or wrong, intuitions about how to resolve conflicting intuitions, intuitions about how to systematize specific intuitions into general principles. Delete all the intuitions, and you aren't left with an ideal philosopher of perfect emptiness, you're left with a rock. Keep all your specificintuitions and refuse to build upon the reflective ones, and you aren't left with an ideal philosopher of perfect spontaneity and genuineness, you're left with a grunting caveperson running in circles, due to cyclical preferences and similar inconsistencies. "Intuition", as a term of art, is not a curse word when it comes to morality – there is nothing else to argue from. Even modus ponens is an "intuition" in this sense – it'sjust that modus ponens still seems like a good idea after being formalized, reflected on, extrapolated out to see if it has sensible consequences, etcetera. So that is "intuition". However, Gowder did not say what he meant by "utilitarianism". Does utilitarianism say… That right actions are strictly determined by good consequences? That praiseworthy actions depend on justifiable expectations of good consequences? That probabilities of consequences should normatively be discounted by their probability, so that a 50 probability of something bad should weigh exactly half as much in our tradeoffs? That virtuous actions always correspond to maximizing expected utility under some utility function? That two harmful events are worse than one? That two independent occurrences of a harm (not to the same person, not interacting with each other) are exactly twice as bad as one? That for any two harms A and B, with A much worse than B, there exists some tiny probability such that gambling on this probability of A is preferable to a certainty of B? If you say that I advocate something, or that my argument depends on something, and that it is wrong, do please specify what this thingy is… anyway, I accept 3, 5, 6, and 7, but not 4; I am not sure about the phrasing of 1; and 2 is true, I guess, but phrased in a rather solipsistic and selfish fashion: you should not worry about being praiseworthy. Now, what are the "intuitions" upon which my "utilitarianism" depends? This is a deepish sort of topic, but I'll take a quick stab at it. First of all, it's not just that someone presented me with a list of statements like those above, and I decided which ones sounded "intuitive". Among other things, if you try to violat~ing~e "utilitarianism", you run~s~ into paradoxes, contradictions, circular preferences, and other things that aren'tmsymptoms of moral wrongness so much as moral incoherence. After you think about moral problems for a while, and also find new truths about the world, and even discover disturbing facts about how you yourself work, you often end up with different moral opinions than when you started out. This does not quite define moral progress, but it is how we experience moral progress. As part of my experienced moral progress, I've drawn a conceptual separation between questions of type Where should we go? and questions of type How should we get there? (Could that be what Gowder means by saying I'm "utilitarian"?) The question of where a road goes – where it leads – you can answer by traveling the road and finding out. If you have a false belief about where the road leads, this falsity can be destroyed by the truth in a very direct and straightforward manner. When it comes to wanting to go to a particular place, this want is not entirely immune from the destructive powers of truth. You could go there and find that you regret it afterward (which does not define moral error, but is how we experience moral error). But, even so, wanting to be in a particular place seems worth distinguishing from wanting to take a particular road to a particular place. Our intuitions about where to go are arguable enough, but our intuitions about how to get there are frankly messed up. After the two hundred and eighty-seventh research study show~s~ing that people will chop their own feet off if you frame the problem the wrong way, you start to distrust first impressions. When you've read enough research on scope insensitivity ~shows~ – people will pay only 28 more to protect all 57 wilderness areas in Ontario than one area, people will pay the same amount to save 50,000 lives as 5,000 lives… that sort of thing… Well, the worst case of scope insensitivity I've ever heard of was described here by Slovic: Other recent research shows similar results. Two Israeli psychologists asked people to contribute to a costly life-saving treatment. They could offer that contribution to a group of eight sick children, or to an individual child selected from the group. The target amount needed to save the child (or children) was the same in both cases. Contributions to individual group members far outweighed the contributions to the entire group. There's other research along similar lines, but I'm just presenting one example, 'cause, y'know, eight examples would probably have less impact. If you know the general experimental paradigm, then the reason for the above behavior is pretty obvious – focusing your attention on a single child creates more emotional arousal than trying to distribute attention around eight children simultaneously. So people are willing to pay more to help one child than to help eight. Now, you could look at this intuition, and think it wasrevealing some kind of incredibly deep moral truth which shows that one child's good fortune is somehow devalued by the other children's good fortune. But what about the billions of other children in the world? Why isn't it a bad idea to help this one child, when that causes the value of all the other children to go down? How can it be significantly better to have 1,329,342,410 happy children than 1,329,342,409, but then somewhat worse to have seven more at 1,329,342,417? Or you could look at that and say: "Th~us~e intuition is wrong: the brain can't successfully multiply by eight and get a larger quantity than it started with. But it ought to, normatively speaking." And once you realize that the brain can't multiply by eight, then the other cases of scope neglect stop seeming to reveal some fundamental truth about 50,000 lives being worth just the same effort as 5,000 lives, or whatever. You don't get the impression you're looking at the revelation of a deep moral truth about nonagglomerative utilities. It's just that the brain doesn't goddamn multiply. Quantities get thrown out the window. If you have $100 to spend, and you spend $20 each on each of 5 efforts to save 5,000 lives, you will do worse than if you spend $100 on a single effort to save 50,000 lives. Likewise if such choices are made by 10 different people, rather than the same person. As soon as you start believing that it is better to save 50,000 lives than 25,000 lives, that simple preference of final destinations has implications for the choice of paths, when you consider five different events that save 5,000 lives. (It is a general principle that Bayesians see no difference between the long-run answer and the short-run answer; you never get two different answers from computing the same question two different ways. But the long run is a helpful intuition pump, so I am talking about it anyway.) The aggregative valuation strategy of "shut up and multiply" arises from the simple preference to have more of something – to save as many lives as possible – when you have to describe general principles for choosing more than once, acting more than once, planning at more than one time. Aggregation also arises from claiming that the local choice to save one life doesn't depend on how many lives already exist, far away on the other side of the planet, or far away on the other side of the universe. Three lives are one and one and one. No matter how many billions are doing better, or doing worse. 3 = 1 + 1 + 1, no matter what other quantities you add to both sides of the equation. And if you add another life you get 4 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1. That's aggregation. When you've read enough heuristics and biases research, and enough coherence and uniqueness proofs for Bayesian probabilities and expected utility, and you've seen the "Dutch book" and "money pump" effects that penalize trying to handle uncertain outcomes any other way, then you don't see the preference reversals in the Allais Paradox as revealing some incredibly deep moral truth about the intrinsic value of certainty. It just goes to show~s~ that the brain doesn't goddamn multiply. The primitive, perceptual intuitions that make a choice "feel good" don't handle probabilistic pathways through time very skillfully, especially when the probabilities have been expressed symbolically rather than experienced as a frequency. So you reflect, devise more trustworthy logics, and think it through in words. When you see people insisting that no amount of money whatsoever is worth a single human life, and then driving an extra mile to save $10; or when you see people insisting that no amount of money is worth a decrement of health, and then choosing the cheapest health insurance available; then you don't think that their protestations reveal some deep truth about incommensurable utilities. Part of it, clearly, is that primitive intuitions don't successfully diminish the emotional impact of symbols standing for small quantities – anything you talk about seems like "an amount worth considering". And part of it has to do with preferring unconditional social rules to conditional social rules. Conditional rules seem weaker, seem more subject to manipulation. If there's any loophole that lets the government legally commit torture, then the government will drive a truck through that loophole. So it seems like there should be an unconditional social injunction against preferring money to life, and no "but" following it. Not even "but a thousand dollars isn't worth a 0.0000000001 probability of saving a life". Though the latter choice, of course, is revealed every time we sneeze without calling a doctor. The rhetoric of sacredness gets bonus points for seeming to express an unlimited commitment, an unconditional refusal that signals trustworthiness and refusal to compromise. So you conclude that moral rhetoric espouses qualitative distinctions, because espousing a quantitative tradeoff would sound like you were plotting to defect. On such occasions, people vigorously want to throw quantities out the window, and they get upset if you try to bring quantities back in, because quantities sound like conditions that would weaken the rule. But you don't conclude that there are actually two tiers of utility with lexical ordering. You don't conclude that there is actually an infinitely sharp moral gradient, some atom that moves a Planck distance (in our continuous physical universe) and sends a utility from 0 to infinity. You don't conclude that utilities must be expressed using hyper-real numbers. Because the lower tier would simply vanish in any equation. It would never be worth the tiniest effort to recalculate for it. All decisions would be determined by the upper tier, and all thought spent thinking about the upper tier only, if the upper tier genuinely had lexical priority. As Peter Norvig once pointed out, if Asimov's robots had strict priority for the First Law of Robotics ("A robot shall not harm a human being, nor through inaction allow a human being to come to harm") then no robot's behavior would ever show any sign of the other two Laws; there would always be some tiny First Law factor that would be sufficient to determine the decision. Whatever value is worth thinking about at all, must be worth trading off against all other values worth thinking about, because thought itself is a limited resource that must be traded off. When you reveal a value, you reveal a utility. I don't say that morality should always be simple. I've already said that the meaning of music is more than happiness alone, more than just a pleasure center lighting up. I would rather see music composed by people than by nonsentient machine learning algorithms, so that someone should have the joy of composition; I care about the journey, as well as the destination. And I am ready to hear if you tell me that the value of music is deeper, and involves more complications, than I realize – that the valuation of this one event is more complex than I know. But that's for one event. When it comes to multiplying by quantities and probabilities, complication is to be avoided – at least if you care more about the destination than the journey. When you've reflected on enough intuitions, and corrected enough absurdities, you start to see a common denominator, a meta-principle at work, which one might phrase as "Shut up and multiply." Where music is concerned, I care about the journey. When lives are at stake, I shut up and multiply. It is more important that lives be saved, than that we conform to any particular ritual in saving them. And the optimal path to that destination is governed by laws that are simple, because they are math. And that's why I'm a utilitarian – at least when I am doing something that is overwhelmingly more important than my own feelings about it – which is most of the time, because there are not many utilitarians, and many things left undone.

3. Empiricism- only the real world can serve as the basis for ethical reasoning.

Schwartz:  The empirical support for the fundamental principle of empiricism is diffuse but salient. Our common empirical experience and experimental psychology offer evidence that humans do not have any capacity to garner knowledge except by empirical sources. The fact is that we believe that there is no source of knowledge, information, or evidence apart from observation, empirical scientific investigations, and our sensory experience of the world, and we believe this on the basis of our empirical a posteriori experiences and our general empirical view of how things work. For example, we believe on empirical evidence that humans are continuous with the rest of nature and that we rely like other animals on our senses to tell us how things are. If humans are more successful than other animals, it is not because we possess special non-experiential ways of knowing, but because we are better at cooperating, collating, and inferring. In particular we do not have any capacity for substantive a priori knowledge. There is no known mechanism by which such knowledge would be made possible. This is an empirical claim.

This requires util to adjudicate- all judgments are determined based on consequences of pleasure and pain. Nagel:

Thomas Nagel, The View From Nowhere, HUP, 1986: 156-168.
 I shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, no matter whose they are. The point of the exercise is to see how the pressures of objectification operate in a simple case. Physical pleasure and pain do not usually depend on activities or desires which themselves raise questions of justification and value. They are just ~is a~ sensory experiences in relation to which we are fairly passive, but toward which we feel involuntary desire or aversion. Almost everyone takes the avoidance of his own pain and the promotion of his own pleasure as subjective reasons for action in a fairly simple way; they are not back up by any further reasons. On the other hand if someone pursues pain or avoids pleasure, either it as a means to some end or it is backed up by dark reasons like guilt or sexual masochism. What sort of general value, if any, ought to be assigned to pleasure and pain when we consider these facts from an objective standpoint? What kind of judgment can we reasonably make about these things when we view them in abstraction from who we are? We can begin by asking why there is no plausibility in the zero position, that pleasure and pain have no value of any kind that can be objectively recognized. That would mean that I have no reason to take aspirin for a severe headache, however I may in fact be motivated; and that looking at it from outside, you couldn't even say that someone had a reason not to put his hand on a hot stove, just because of the pain. Try looking at it from the outside and see whether you can manage to withhold that judgment. If the idea of objective practical reason makes any sense at all, so that there is some judgment to withhold, it does not seem possible. If the general arguments against the reality of objective reasons are no good, then it is at least possible that I have a reason, and not just an inclination, to refrain from putting my hand on a hot stove. But given the possibility, it seems meaningless to deny that this is so. Oddly enough, however, we can think of a story that would go with such a denial. It might be suggested that the aversion to pain is a useful phobia—having nothing to do with the intrinsic undesirability of pain itself—which helps us avoid or escape the injuries that are signaled by pain. (The same type of purely instrumental value might be ascribed to sensory pleasure: the pleasures of food, drink, and sex might be regarded as having no value in themselves, though our natural attraction to them assists survival and reproduction.) There would then be nothing wrong with pain in itself, and someone who was never motivated deliberately to do anything just because he knew it would reduce or avoid pain would have nothing the matter with him. He would still have involuntary avoidance reactions, otherwise it would be hard to say that he felt pain at all. And he would be motivated to reduce pain for other reasons—because it was an effective way to avoid the danger being signaled, or because interfered with some physical or mental activity that was important to him. He just wouldn't regard the pain as itself something he had any reason to avoid, even though he hated the feeling just as much as the rest of us. (And of course he wouldn't be able to justify the avoidance of pain in the way that we customarily justify avoiding what we hate without reason—that is, on the ground that even an irrational hatred makes its object very unpleasant!) There is nothing self-contradictory in this proposal, but it seems nevertheless insane. Without some positive reason to think there is nothing in itself good or bad about having an experience you intensely like or dislike, we can't seriously regard the common impression to the contrary as a collective illusion. Such things are at least good or bad for us, if anything is. What seems to be going on here is that we cannot from an objective standpoint withhold a certain kind of endorsement of the most direct and immediate subjective value judgments we make concerning the contents of our own consciousness. We regard ourselves as too close to those things to be mistaken in our immediate, nonideological evaluative impressions. No objective view we can attain could possibly overrule our subjective authority in such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here.
Inherency:

Metsamor's decommissioning has been delayed- it's operating until at least 2026.

Daly 13 ~John Daly, the chief analyst for Oilprice.com, "Armenia's Metsamor NPP, Built Near Fault Line, Gets 10 Year Life Extension," Oil Price, September 23, 2013, http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Armenias-Metsamor-NPP-Built-Near-Fault-Line-Gets-10-Year-Life-Extension.html ~
Armenia's Metsamor NPP, Built Near Fault Line, Gets 10 Year Life Extension By
AND
is the new plant not operational — work on it hasn't even begun.

Plan text: Resolved: Armenia should ban the production of nuclear power, accepting the EU proposal for preventing the 2026 renewal of Metsamor. Daly 2 http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Armenias-Metsamor-NPP-Built-Near-Fault-Line-Gets-10-Year-Life-Extension.html Armenia's Metsamor NPP, Built Near Fault Line, Gets 10 Year Life Extension By John Daly - Sep 23, 2013, 6:52 PM CDT The European Union has repeatedly called for the plant to be closed down, arguing that it poses a threat to the region, classifying Metsamor's reactors as the "oldest and least reliable" category of all the 66 Soviet reactors built in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In 2004 the European Union's envoy called Metsamor "a danger to the entire region," but Armenia later turned down the EU's offer of a 200 million euro loan to finance Metsamor's shutdown,

Advantage 1: Meltdowns
The Metsamor power plant – Armenia's only form of nuclear power – is incredibly dangerous. It uses old tech, is unreliable, and lies on earthquake territory.
Lavelle et al 11 Marianne Lavelle and Josie Garthwaite (National Geographic News) "Is Armenia's Nuclear Plant the World's Most Dangerous?" National Geographic News April 14th 2011 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/04/110412-most-dangerous-nuclear-plant-armenia/
In the shadow of Mount Ararat, the beloved and sorrowful national symbol of Armenia, stands a 31-year-old nuclear plant that is no less an emblem of the country's resolve and its woe. The Metsamor power station is one of a mere handful of remaining nuclear reactors of its kind that were built without primary containment structures. All five of these first-generation water-moderated Soviet units are past or near their original retirement ages, but one salient fact sets Armenia's reactor apart from the four in Russia. Metsamor lies on some of Earth's most earthquake-prone terrain. In the wake of Japan's quake-and-tsunami-triggered Fukushima Daiichi crisis, Armenia's government faces renewed questions from those who say the fateful combination of design and location make Metsamor among the most dangerous nuclear plants in the world. Seven years ago, the European Union's envoy was quoted as calling the facility "a danger to the entire region," but Armenia later turned down the EU's offer of a 200 million euro ($289 million) loan to finance Metsamor's shutdown. The United States government, which has called the plant "aging and dangerous," underwrote a study that urged construction of a new one.
She continues: But the VVER 440s share one characteristic with Chernobyl that has been a continuing concern to many who live nearby: They have no containment structure. Instead, VVER 440s rely on an "accident localization system," designed to handle small ruptures. In the event of a large rupture, the system would vent directly to the atmosphere. "They cannot cope with large primary circuit breaks," the NEI's 1997 Source Book on Soviet nuclear plants concluded. "As with most Soviet-designed plants, electricity production by the VVER-440 Model V230s came at the expense of safety." Antonia Wenisch of the Austrian Institute of Applied Ecology in Vienna, calls Metsamor "among the most dangerous" nuclear plants still in operation. A rupture "would almost certainly immediately and massively fail the confinement," she said in an email. "From that point, there is an open reactor building, a core with no water in it, and accident progression with no mitigation at all."
Armenian Meltdown would cause massive life loss, kill agriculture, and threaten four other countries.
Sahakyan 2 Armine (Human rights activist based in Armenia) "Armenia Continues to Gamble on Aging Nuclear Plant in a Quake-Prone Area" Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/armine-sahakyan/armenia-continues-to-gamb_b_9788186.html
So Armenia continues to make due with the Metsamor plant. The International Atomic Energy Agency has inspected the facility, and declared it safe. But other experts are skeptical. The big worry is that the plant has no containment building — a steel or concrete shell that would prevent radiation from escaping during an accident. If a rupture developed in the reactor's skin, radiation would have to be vented into the air to prevent a build-up of pressure that could trigger a meltdown or explosion. The longer a nuclear plant operates, the thinner its reactor skin becomes, experts say — and thinner skins are subject to rupture. A rupture would mean "an open reactor building, a core with no water in it (to cool the reactor) and accident progression with no mitigation at all," said Antonia Wenisch of the Vienna-based Austrian Institute of Applied Ecology in Vienna. The stakes in Armenia's nuclear gamble are high. An accident at Metsamor would devastate the capital of Yerevan, only 20 miles away and home to a third of Armenia's population. It would also render unusable the Aras River Valley, Armenia's premier agricultural area, where Metasamor is situated. In addition, radiation would envelop Turkey, whose border is only 10 miles from the nuclear facility, and Armenian neighbors Georgia and Iran.
Technological changes and alternate reactors won't solve – can still melt down and causes increased cancer rates.
Idayatova 16 Anakhanum "Armenia's Metsamor nuclear plant can cause major radiation accident" Trend News Agencyhttp://en.trend.az/world/turkey/2536379.html
Armenia's Metsamor nuclear power plant is a major threat not only for the entire Caucasus region, but it also poses a danger for the Armenian population, Malik Ayub Sumbal, journalist, expert on geopolitical and international conflicts, told Trend via e-mail May 20. Sumbal, who is also the founder of The Caspian Times news platform, said that the international community must learn a lesson from an accident at the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and prevent another disaster, which may be caused by Armenia's Metsamor nuclear power plant. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was an energy accident at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, initiated primarily by the tsunami that was triggered by the earthquake on March 11, 2011."The Metsamor nuclear power plant also poses a great threat for Turkey, as it is located just 16 kilometers off its borders," the expert said. "Moreover, the plant can cause cancer and other dangerous diseases among people living on the border with Armenia."Armenia has a nuclear power plant, Metsamor, built in 1970. The power plant was closed after a devastating earthquake in Spitak in 1988. But despite the international protests, the power plant's operation was resumed in 1995. Moreover, a second reactor was launched there. According to the ecologists and scholars all over the region, seismic activity of this area turns operation of the Metsamor nuclear power plant in an extremely dangerous enterprise, even if a new type of reactor is built.

====And, nuclear meltdowns are a high risk threat that can cause massive death rates with time. Ross 11,====
Timothy J. Ross (Ph.D, Stanford University Professor, Dept. Of civil engineering, University of New Mexico) Dec. 14, 2011 "Avoiding Apocalypse: Congress Should Ban Nuclear Power." www.law.buffalo.edu/content/dam/law/restricted-assets/pdf/environmental/papers/ross12.pdf
Despite proponents' claims that it is safe, the history of nuclear energy is marked
AND
longer guarantee the safety of the country's 58 nuclear power reactors.(3)

Advantage 2- Turkey-Armenia Relations.

Armenia/Turkey Relations are strained- there has been a recent outbreak of anti-Armenia sentiment after German recognition of the Armenian genocide- action needs to be taken now. MacDonald 16

~Alex MacDonald, "New footage implicates alleged coup plotters in Dink murder," September 7, 2016 http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/new-footage-implicates-alleged-coup-plotters-murder-turkish-armenian-activist-791069797~~
Activists have warned that Armenians in Turkey continue to face suspicion and discrimination. A
AND
Germany after the parliament voted to recognise the Armenian genocide in early June.

Also means another impact of the aff is Armenia Turkish improve relations would help alleviate conditions of systemic racism in Turkey.

Banning Metsamor is key to maintaining Turkey-Armenia relations. Daily News 14
~ "Turkey wants nuclear plant in Armenia to be shut down," March/21/2014, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-wants-nuclear-plant-in-armenia-to-be-shut-down———.aspx?pageID=238andnid=63928~
The Metsamor nuclear power plant in Armenia is outdated and should be urgently closed down
AND
appeal to the International Atomic Energy Agency concerning the shutdown of the plant. 

Armenia-Turkey relations are key to both improving Turkish relations to other countries and improving economic growth in Armenia. Giragosain 09

Richard Giragosian, Director of the Armenian Centre for National and International Studies (ACNIS) in Yerewan, "Changing Armenia-Turkish Relations1," 2009 http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/georgien/06380.pdf
Changing Armenia-Turkish Relations February 2009 Richard Giragosian is Director of the Armenian Centre
AND
a new level of Russian support for a breakthrough between Armenia and Turkey. 

US-Turkey relations key to create Middle East stability which prevents radical violence. UPI 13

~UPI, "Israel 'seeks to repair ties with Turkey," Feb 27, 2013 http://www.upi.com/Israel-seeks-to-repair-ties-with-Turkey/38621361997592/?spt=su~~
The Americans are keen for strategic reasons to have the two non-Arab military
AND
which viewed the Turkey-Israeli alliance as vitally important for regional stability.

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 3 | Opponent: Texas Academy MX | Judge: Terrence Lonam

The state is inevitable- policymaking is the only way to create change.

Coverstone 5 Alan Coverstone (masters in communication from Wake Forest, longtime debate coach) "Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact" Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference November 17^th 2005 An important concern emerges when Mitchell describes reflexive fiat as a contest strategy capable of "eschewing the power to directly control external actors" (1998b, p. 20). Describing debates about what our government should do as attempts to control outside actors is debilitating and disempowering. Control of the US government is exactly what an active, participatory citizenry is supposed to be all about. After all, if democracy means anything, it means that citizens not only have the right, they also bear the obligation to discuss and debate what the government should be doing. Absent that discussion and debate, much of the motivation for personal political activism is also lost. Those who have co-opted Mitchell's argument for individual advocacy often quickly respond that nothing we do in a debate round can actually change government policy, and unfortunately, an entire generation of debaters has now swallowed this assertion as an article of faith. The best most will muster is, "Of course not, but you don't either!" The assertion that nothing we do in debate has any impact on government policy is one that carries the potential to undermine Mitchell's entire project. If there is nothing we can do in a debate round to change government policy, then we are left with precious little in the way of pro-social options for addressing problems we face. At best, we can pursue some Pilot-like hand washing that can purify us as individuals through quixotic activism but offer little to society as a whole. It is very important to note that Mitchell (1998b) tries carefully to limit and bound his notion of reflexive fiat by maintaining that because it "views fiat as a concrete course of action, it is bounded by the limits of pragmatism" (p. 20). Pursued properly, the debates that Mitchell would like to see are those in which the relative efficacy of concrete political strategies for pro-social change is debated. In a few noteworthy examples, this approach has been employed successfully, and I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed judging and coaching those debates. The students in my program have learned to stretch their understanding of their role in the political process because of the experience. Therefore, those who say I am opposed to Mitchell's goals here should take care at such a blanket assertion. However, contest debate teaches students to combine personal experience with the language of political power. Powerful personal narratives unconnected to political power are regularly co-opted by those who do learn the language of power. One need look no further than the annual state of the Union Address where personal story after personal story is used to support the political agenda of those in power. The so-called role-playing that public policy contest debates encourage promotes active learning of the vocabulary and levers of power in America. Imagining the ability to use our own arguments to influence government action is one of the great virtues of academic debate. Gerald Graff (2003) analyzed the decline of argumentation in academic discourse and found a source of student antipathy to public argument in an interesting place. I'm up against…their aversion to the role of public spokesperson that formal writing presupposes. It's as if such students can't imagine any rewards for being a public actor or even imagining themselves in such a role. This lack of interest in the public sphere may in turn reflect a loss of confidence in the possibility that the arguments we make in public will have an effect on the world. Today's students' lack of faith in the power of persuasion reflects the waning of the ideal of civic participation that led educators for centuries to place rhetorical and argumentative training at the center of the school and college curriculum. (Graff, 2003, p. 57) The power to imagine public advocacy that actually makes a difference is one of the great virtues of the traditional notion of fiat that critics deride as mere simulation. Simulation of success in the public realm is far more empowering to students than completely abandoning all notions of personal power in the face of governmental hegemony by teaching students that "nothing they can do in a contest debate can ever make any difference in public policy." Contest debating is well suited to rewarding public activism if it stops accepting as an article of faith that personal agency is somehow undermined by the so-called role playing in debate. Debate is role-playing whether we imagine government action or imagine individual action. Imagining myself starting a socialist revolution in America is no less of a fantasy than imagining myself making a difference on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, both fantasies influenced my personal and political development virtually ensuring a life of active, pro-social, political participation. Neither fantasy reduced the likelihood that I would spend my life trying to make the difference I imagined. One fantasy actually does make a greater difference: the one that speaks the language of political power. The other fantasy disables action by making one a laughingstock to those who wield the language of power. Fantasy motivates and role-playing trains through visualization. Until we can imagine it, we cannot really do it. Role-playing without question teaches students to be comfortable with the language of power, and that language paves the way for genuine and effective political activism. Debates over the relative efficacy of political strategies for pro-social change must confront governmental power at some point. There is a fallacy in arguing that movements represent a better political strategy than voting and person-to-person advocacy. Sure, a full-scale movement would be better than the limited voice I have as a participating citizen going from door to door in a campaign, but so would full-scale government action. Unfortunately, the gap between my individual decision to pursue movement politics and the emergence of a full-scale movement is at least as great as the gap between my vote and democratic change. They both represent utopian fiat. Invocation of Mitchell to support utopian movement fiat is simply not supported by his work, and too often, such invocation discourages the concrete actions he argues for in favor of the personal rejectionism that under girds the political cynicism that is a fundamental cause of voter and participatory abstention in America today.
Working within the state is not a form of complacency within violence, but rather
AND
position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and pessimistic activism.''84  

Policy making necessitates tradeoffs—that means util.

Governments can only justify legitimate policies to the public through a utilitarian framework. Thus, prefer util since its the most educational for this round as it best simulates policymaking.

Woller 97 ~Gary Woller (BYU Professor). "An Overview by Gary Woller." A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics. June 1997. pp. 10.~
Moreover, virtually all public policies entail some redistribution of economic or political resources,
AND

Thus, the standard is maximizing expected well being.
Prefer:

1. No act/omission for governments—constraint based theories collapse to util.

• • Sunstein and Vermule 05 (Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermuele, "Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs," Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 85 (March 2005), p. 17.)
    In our view, any effort to distinguish between acts and omissions goes wrong by
    AND
    All means based and side constraint theories collapse because two violations require aggregation.

2. Revisionary intuitionism is true and concludes util:

Yudkowsky 08, Eliezer, research fellow of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, The 'Intuitions' Behind 'Utilitarianism, 2008, http://lesswrong.com/lw/n9/the_intuitions_behind_utilitarianism/ I haven't said much about metaethics – the nature of morality – because that has a forward dependency on a discussion of the Mind Projection Fallacy that I haven't gotten to yet. I used to be very confused about metaethics. After my confusion finally cleared up, I did a postmortem on my previous thoughts. I found that my object-level moral reasoning had been valuable and my meta-level moral reasoning had been worse than useless. And this appears to be a general syndrome – people do much better when discussing whether torture is good or bad than when they discuss the meaning of "good" and "bad". Thus, I deem it prudent to keep moral discussions on the object level wherever I possibly can. Occasionally people object to any discussion of morality on the grounds that morality doesn't exist, and in lieu of jumping over the forward dependency to explain that "exist" is not the right term to use here, I generally say, "But what do you do anyway?" and take the discussion back down to the object level. Paul Gowder, though, has pointed out that both the idea of choosing a googolplex dust specks in a googolplex eyes over 50 years of torture for one person, and the idea of "utilitarianism", depend on "intuition". He says I've argued that the two are not compatible, but charges me with failing to argue for the utilitarian intuitions that I appeal to. Now "intuition" is not how I would describe the computations that underlie human morality and distinguish us, as moralists, from an ideal philosopher of perfect emptiness and/or a rock. But I am okay with using the word "intuition" as a term of art, bearing in mind that "intuition" in this sense is not to be contrasted to reason, but is, rather, the cognitive building block out of which both long verbal arguments and fast perceptual arguments are constructed. I see the project of morality as ~is~ a project of renormalizing intuition. We have intuitions about things that seem desirable or undesirable, intuitions about actions that are right or wrong, intuitions about how to resolve conflicting intuitions, intuitions about how to systematize specific intuitions into general principles. Delete all the intuitions, and you aren't left with an ideal philosopher of perfect emptiness, you're left with a rock. Keep all your specificintuitions and refuse to build upon the reflective ones, and you aren't left with an ideal philosopher of perfect spontaneity and genuineness, you're left with a grunting caveperson running in circles, due to cyclical preferences and similar inconsistencies. "Intuition", as a term of art, is not a curse word when it comes to morality – there is nothing else to argue from. Even modus ponens is an "intuition" in this sense – it'sjust that modus ponens still seems like a good idea after being formalized, reflected on, extrapolated out to see if it has sensible consequences, etcetera. So that is "intuition". However, Gowder did not say what he meant by "utilitarianism". Does utilitarianism say… That right actions are strictly determined by good consequences? That praiseworthy actions depend on justifiable expectations of good consequences? That probabilities of consequences should normatively be discounted by their probability, so that a 50 probability of something bad should weigh exactly half as much in our tradeoffs? That virtuous actions always correspond to maximizing expected utility under some utility function? That two harmful events are worse than one? That two independent occurrences of a harm (not to the same person, not interacting with each other) are exactly twice as bad as one? That for any two harms A and B, with A much worse than B, there exists some tiny probability such that gambling on this probability of A is preferable to a certainty of B? If you say that I advocate something, or that my argument depends on something, and that it is wrong, do please specify what this thingy is… anyway, I accept 3, 5, 6, and 7, but not 4; I am not sure about the phrasing of 1; and 2 is true, I guess, but phrased in a rather solipsistic and selfish fashion: you should not worry about being praiseworthy. Now, what are the "intuitions" upon which my "utilitarianism" depends? This is a deepish sort of topic, but I'll take a quick stab at it. First of all, it's not just that someone presented me with a list of statements like those above, and I decided which ones sounded "intuitive". Among other things, if you try to violat~ing~e "utilitarianism", you run~s~ into paradoxes, contradictions, circular preferences, and other things that aren'tmsymptoms of moral wrongness so much as moral incoherence. After you think about moral problems for a while, and also find new truths about the world, and even discover disturbing facts about how you yourself work, you often end up with different moral opinions than when you started out. This does not quite define moral progress, but it is how we experience moral progress. As part of my experienced moral progress, I've drawn a conceptual separation between questions of type Where should we go? and questions of type How should we get there? (Could that be what Gowder means by saying I'm "utilitarian"?) The question of where a road goes – where it leads – you can answer by traveling the road and finding out. If you have a false belief about where the road leads, this falsity can be destroyed by the truth in a very direct and straightforward manner. When it comes to wanting to go to a particular place, this want is not entirely immune from the destructive powers of truth. You could go there and find that you regret it afterward (which does not define moral error, but is how we experience moral error). But, even so, wanting to be in a particular place seems worth distinguishing from wanting to take a particular road to a particular place. Our intuitions about where to go are arguable enough, but our intuitions about how to get there are frankly messed up. After the two hundred and eighty-seventh research study show~s~ing that people will chop their own feet off if you frame the problem the wrong way, you start to distrust first impressions. When you've read enough research on scope insensitivity ~shows~ – people will pay only 28 more to protect all 57 wilderness areas in Ontario than one area, people will pay the same amount to save 50,000 lives as 5,000 lives… that sort of thing… Well, the worst case of scope insensitivity I've ever heard of was described here by Slovic: Other recent research shows similar results. Two Israeli psychologists asked people to contribute to a costly life-saving treatment. They could offer that contribution to a group of eight sick children, or to an individual child selected from the group. The target amount needed to save the child (or children) was the same in both cases. Contributions to individual group members far outweighed the contributions to the entire group. There's other research along similar lines, but I'm just presenting one example, 'cause, y'know, eight examples would probably have less impact. If you know the general experimental paradigm, then the reason for the above behavior is pretty obvious – focusing your attention on a single child creates more emotional arousal than trying to distribute attention around eight children simultaneously. So people are willing to pay more to help one child than to help eight. Now, you could look at this intuition, and think it wasrevealing some kind of incredibly deep moral truth which shows that one child's good fortune is somehow devalued by the other children's good fortune. But what about the billions of other children in the world? Why isn't it a bad idea to help this one child, when that causes the value of all the other children to go down? How can it be significantly better to have 1,329,342,410 happy children than 1,329,342,409, but then somewhat worse to have seven more at 1,329,342,417? Or you could look at that and say: "Th~us~e intuition is wrong: the brain can't successfully multiply by eight and get a larger quantity than it started with. But it ought to, normatively speaking." And once you realize that the brain can't multiply by eight, then the other cases of scope neglect stop seeming to reveal some fundamental truth about 50,000 lives being worth just the same effort as 5,000 lives, or whatever. You don't get the impression you're looking at the revelation of a deep moral truth about nonagglomerative utilities. It's just that the brain doesn't goddamn multiply. Quantities get thrown out the window. If you have $100 to spend, and you spend $20 each on each of 5 efforts to save 5,000 lives, you will do worse than if you spend $100 on a single effort to save 50,000 lives. Likewise if such choices are made by 10 different people, rather than the same person. As soon as you start believing that it is better to save 50,000 lives than 25,000 lives, that simple preference of final destinations has implications for the choice of paths, when you consider five different events that save 5,000 lives. (It is a general principle that Bayesians see no difference between the long-run answer and the short-run answer; you never get two different answers from computing the same question two different ways. But the long run is a helpful intuition pump, so I am talking about it anyway.) The aggregative valuation strategy of "shut up and multiply" arises from the simple preference to have more of something – to save as many lives as possible – when you have to describe general principles for choosing more than once, acting more than once, planning at more than one time. Aggregation also arises from claiming that the local choice to save one life doesn't depend on how many lives already exist, far away on the other side of the planet, or far away on the other side of the universe. Three lives are one and one and one. No matter how many billions are doing better, or doing worse. 3 = 1 + 1 + 1, no matter what other quantities you add to both sides of the equation. And if you add another life you get 4 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1. That's aggregation. When you've read enough heuristics and biases research, and enough coherence and uniqueness proofs for Bayesian probabilities and expected utility, and you've seen the "Dutch book" and "money pump" effects that penalize trying to handle uncertain outcomes any other way, then you don't see the preference reversals in the Allais Paradox as revealing some incredibly deep moral truth about the intrinsic value of certainty. It just goes to show~s~ that the brain doesn't goddamn multiply. The primitive, perceptual intuitions that make a choice "feel good" don't handle probabilistic pathways through time very skillfully, especially when the probabilities have been expressed symbolically rather than experienced as a frequency. So you reflect, devise more trustworthy logics, and think it through in words. When you see people insisting that no amount of money whatsoever is worth a single human life, and then driving an extra mile to save $10; or when you see people insisting that no amount of money is worth a decrement of health, and then choosing the cheapest health insurance available; then you don't think that their protestations reveal some deep truth about incommensurable utilities. Part of it, clearly, is that primitive intuitions don't successfully diminish the emotional impact of symbols standing for small quantities – anything you talk about seems like "an amount worth considering". And part of it has to do with preferring unconditional social rules to conditional social rules. Conditional rules seem weaker, seem more subject to manipulation. If there's any loophole that lets the government legally commit torture, then the government will drive a truck through that loophole. So it seems like there should be an unconditional social injunction against preferring money to life, and no "but" following it. Not even "but a thousand dollars isn't worth a 0.0000000001 probability of saving a life". Though the latter choice, of course, is revealed every time we sneeze without calling a doctor. The rhetoric of sacredness gets bonus points for seeming to express an unlimited commitment, an unconditional refusal that signals trustworthiness and refusal to compromise. So you conclude that moral rhetoric espouses qualitative distinctions, because espousing a quantitative tradeoff would sound like you were plotting to defect. On such occasions, people vigorously want to throw quantities out the window, and they get upset if you try to bring quantities back in, because quantities sound like conditions that would weaken the rule. But you don't conclude that there are actually two tiers of utility with lexical ordering. You don't conclude that there is actually an infinitely sharp moral gradient, some atom that moves a Planck distance (in our continuous physical universe) and sends a utility from 0 to infinity. You don't conclude that utilities must be expressed using hyper-real numbers. Because the lower tier would simply vanish in any equation. It would never be worth the tiniest effort to recalculate for it. All decisions would be determined by the upper tier, and all thought spent thinking about the upper tier only, if the upper tier genuinely had lexical priority. As Peter Norvig once pointed out, if Asimov's robots had strict priority for the First Law of Robotics ("A robot shall not harm a human being, nor through inaction allow a human being to come to harm") then no robot's behavior would ever show any sign of the other two Laws; there would always be some tiny First Law factor that would be sufficient to determine the decision. Whatever value is worth thinking about at all, must be worth trading off against all other values worth thinking about, because thought itself is a limited resource that must be traded off. When you reveal a value, you reveal a utility. I don't say that morality should always be simple. I've already said that the meaning of music is more than happiness alone, more than just a pleasure center lighting up. I would rather see music composed by people than by nonsentient machine learning algorithms, so that someone should have the joy of composition; I care about the journey, as well as the destination. And I am ready to hear if you tell me that the value of music is deeper, and involves more complications, than I realize – that the valuation of this one event is more complex than I know. But that's for one event. When it comes to multiplying by quantities and probabilities, complication is to be avoided – at least if you care more about the destination than the journey. When you've reflected on enough intuitions, and corrected enough absurdities, you start to see a common denominator, a meta-principle at work, which one might phrase as "Shut up and multiply." Where music is concerned, I care about the journey. When lives are at stake, I shut up and multiply. It is more important that lives be saved, than that we conform to any particular ritual in saving them. And the optimal path to that destination is governed by laws that are simple, because they are math. And that's why I'm a utilitarian – at least when I am doing something that is overwhelmingly more important than my own feelings about it – which is most of the time, because there are not many utilitarians, and many things left undone.

3. Empiricism- only the real world can serve as the basis for ethical reasoning.

Schwartz:  The empirical support for the fundamental principle of empiricism is diffuse but salient. Our common empirical experience and experimental psychology offer evidence that humans do not have any capacity to garner knowledge except by empirical sources. The fact is that we believe that there is no source of knowledge, information, or evidence apart from observation, empirical scientific investigations, and our sensory experience of the world, and we believe this on the basis of our empirical a posteriori experiences and our general empirical view of how things work. For example, we believe on empirical evidence that humans are continuous with the rest of nature and that we rely like other animals on our senses to tell us how things are. If humans are more successful than other animals, it is not because we possess special non-experiential ways of knowing, but because we are better at cooperating, collating, and inferring. In particular we do not have any capacity for substantive a priori knowledge. There is no known mechanism by which such knowledge would be made possible. This is an empirical claim.
Inherency:

Metsamor's decommissioning has been delayed- it's operating until at least 2026.

Daly 13 ~John Daly, the chief analyst for Oilprice.com, "Armenia's Metsamor NPP, Built Near Fault Line, Gets 10 Year Life Extension," Oil Price, September 23, 2013, http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Armenias-Metsamor-NPP-Built-Near-Fault-Line-Gets-10-Year-Life-Extension.html ~
Armenia's Metsamor NPP, Built Near Fault Line, Gets 10 Year Life Extension By
AND
is the new plant not operational — work on it hasn't even begun.

Plan text: Resolved: Armenia should ban the production of nuclear power, accepting the EU proposal for preventing the 2026 renewal of Metsamor. Daly 2 http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Armenias-Metsamor-NPP-Built-Near-Fault-Line-Gets-10-Year-Life-Extension.html Armenia's Metsamor NPP, Built Near Fault Line, Gets 10 Year Life Extension By John Daly - Sep 23, 2013, 6:52 PM CDT The European Union has repeatedly called for the plant to be closed down, arguing that it poses a threat to the region, classifying Metsamor's reactors as the "oldest and least reliable" category of all the 66 Soviet reactors built in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In 2004 the European Union's envoy called Metsamor "a danger to the entire region," but Armenia later turned down the EU's offer of a 200 million euro loan to finance Metsamor's shutdown,

Advantage 1: Meltdowns
The Metsamor power plant – Armenia's only form of nuclear power – is incredibly dangerous. It uses old tech, is unreliable, and lies on earthquake territory.
Lavelle et al 11 Marianne Lavelle and Josie Garthwaite (National Geographic News) "Is Armenia's Nuclear Plant the World's Most Dangerous?" National Geographic News April 14th 2011 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2011/04/110412-most-dangerous-nuclear-plant-armenia/
In the shadow of Mount Ararat, the beloved and sorrowful national symbol of Armenia, stands a 31-year-old nuclear plant that is no less an emblem of the country's resolve and its woe. The Metsamor power station is one of a mere handful of remaining nuclear reactors of its kind that were built without primary containment structures. All five of these first-generation water-moderated Soviet units are past or near their original retirement ages, but one salient fact sets Armenia's reactor apart from the four in Russia. Metsamor lies on some of Earth's most earthquake-prone terrain. In the wake of Japan's quake-and-tsunami-triggered Fukushima Daiichi crisis, Armenia's government faces renewed questions from those who say the fateful combination of design and location make Metsamor among the most dangerous nuclear plants in the world. Seven years ago, the European Union's envoy was quoted as calling the facility "a danger to the entire region," but Armenia later turned down the EU's offer of a 200 million euro ($289 million) loan to finance Metsamor's shutdown. The United States government, which has called the plant "aging and dangerous," underwrote a study that urged construction of a new one.
She continues: But the VVER 440s share one characteristic with Chernobyl that has been a continuing concern to many who live nearby: They have no containment structure. Instead, VVER 440s rely on an "accident localization system," designed to handle small ruptures. In the event of a large rupture, the system would vent directly to the atmosphere. "They cannot cope with large primary circuit breaks," the NEI's 1997 Source Book on Soviet nuclear plants concluded. "As with most Soviet-designed plants, electricity production by the VVER-440 Model V230s came at the expense of safety." Antonia Wenisch of the Austrian Institute of Applied Ecology in Vienna, calls Metsamor "among the most dangerous" nuclear plants still in operation. A rupture "would almost certainly immediately and massively fail the confinement," she said in an email. "From that point, there is an open reactor building, a core with no water in it, and accident progression with no mitigation at all."
Armenian Meltdown would cause massive life loss, kill agriculture, and threaten four other countries.
Sahakyan 2 Armine (Human rights activist based in Armenia) "Armenia Continues to Gamble on Aging Nuclear Plant in a Quake-Prone Area" Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/armine-sahakyan/armenia-continues-to-gamb_b_9788186.html
So Armenia continues to make due with the Metsamor plant. The International Atomic Energy Agency has inspected the facility, and declared it safe. But other experts are skeptical. The big worry is that the plant has no containment building — a steel or concrete shell that would prevent radiation from escaping during an accident. If a rupture developed in the reactor's skin, radiation would have to be vented into the air to prevent a build-up of pressure that could trigger a meltdown or explosion. The longer a nuclear plant operates, the thinner its reactor skin becomes, experts say — and thinner skins are subject to rupture. A rupture would mean "an open reactor building, a core with no water in it (to cool the reactor) and accident progression with no mitigation at all," said Antonia Wenisch of the Vienna-based Austrian Institute of Applied Ecology in Vienna. The stakes in Armenia's nuclear gamble are high. An accident at Metsamor would devastate the capital of Yerevan, only 20 miles away and home to a third of Armenia's population. It would also render unusable the Aras River Valley, Armenia's premier agricultural area, where Metasamor is situated. In addition, radiation would envelop Turkey, whose border is only 10 miles from the nuclear facility, and Armenian neighbors Georgia and Iran.
Technological changes and alternate reactors won't solve – can still melt down and causes increased cancer rates.
Idayatova 16 Anakhanum "Armenia's Metsamor nuclear plant can cause major radiation accident" Trend News Agencyhttp://en.trend.az/world/turkey/2536379.html
Armenia's Metsamor nuclear power plant is a major threat not only for the entire Caucasus region, but it also poses a danger for the Armenian population, Malik Ayub Sumbal, journalist, expert on geopolitical and international conflicts, told Trend via e-mail May 20. Sumbal, who is also the founder of The Caspian Times news platform, said that the international community must learn a lesson from an accident at the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and prevent another disaster, which may be caused by Armenia's Metsamor nuclear power plant. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was an energy accident at the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, initiated primarily by the tsunami that was triggered by the earthquake on March 11, 2011."The Metsamor nuclear power plant also poses a great threat for Turkey, as it is located just 16 kilometers off its borders," the expert said. "Moreover, the plant can cause cancer and other dangerous diseases among people living on the border with Armenia."Armenia has a nuclear power plant, Metsamor, built in 1970. The power plant was closed after a devastating earthquake in Spitak in 1988. But despite the international protests, the power plant's operation was resumed in 1995. Moreover, a second reactor was launched there. According to the ecologists and scholars all over the region, seismic activity of this area turns operation of the Metsamor nuclear power plant in an extremely dangerous enterprise, even if a new type of reactor is built.

====And, nuclear meltdowns are a high risk threat that can cause massive death rates with time. Ross 11,====
Timothy J. Ross (Ph.D, Stanford University Professor, Dept. Of civil engineering, University of New Mexico) Dec. 14, 2011 "Avoiding Apocalypse: Congress Should Ban Nuclear Power." www.law.buffalo.edu/content/dam/law/restricted-assets/pdf/environmental/papers/ross12.pdf
Despite proponents' claims that it is safe, the history of nuclear energy is marked
AND
Germany after the parliament voted to recognise the Armenian genocide in early June.

Also means another impact of the aff is Armenia Turkish improve relations would help alleviate conditions of systemic racism in Turkey.

Banning Metsamor is key to maintaining Turkey-Armenia relations. Daily News 14

~ "Turkey wants nuclear plant in Armenia to be shut down," March/21/2014, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-wants-nuclear-plant-in-armenia-to-be-shut-down———.aspx?pageID=238andnid=63928~
The Metsamor nuclear power plant in Armenia is outdated and should be urgently closed down
AND
which viewed the Turkey-Israeli alliance as vitally important for regional stability.

Underview

Re-evaluate the debate under negs interps on both theory and T and use reasonability on T with a brightline of 7 minutes of link and impact turn ground:
A) key to checking neg flex—bidirectional  interps means you can always shift the debate to a preclusive layer. This skews 1AR time because I'm forced to win both theory and case debate and you can go for either in the 2N. Also justifies an RVI if you win T is reject the debater because otherwise it's a no-risk issue for my opponent.
B) key to reciprocity—I speak first so I must commit to a framing of the debate. I can't read T against the neg so it's a strategy that only the neg gets access too—making it game over allows neg to abuse that power.
C) maximizes topical education since reject debater ends the debate on theory and encourages 1ar to collapse to RVI. Rejecting arg ensures we can continue discussing the topic. Biggest impact to education since the topic is the only thing that changes from tournament to tournament. Also key to fairness because the topic is what we are both most ready and most expected to debate.

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 5 | Opponent: Newark Science BA | Judge: Sierra Inglet

1AC – SV

All brackets for offensive language 

Part 1: Framework

The Role of the Judge is to be a critical educator and policymaker focusing on the liberation of the oppressed

Giroux 06 ~Henry Giroux, American scholar and cultural critic, "America on the Edge: Henry Giro ux on Politics, Culture, and Education," Springer, March 31, 2006~ JW
Educators at all levels need to challenge the assumption that politics is dead, or
AND
that severely limit the creative, ethical, and liberatory potential of education.

The Role of the Ballot is to endorse the best methodology and policy to liberate oppressed groups

Debate should deal with questions of real-world consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression

^{Curry 14 ~Tommy J. Curry, Professor of Philosophy @ Texas AandM, "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century," 2014~
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations.} 

The state is inevitable - policymaking is the only way to create change.

Coverstone 5 Alan Coverstone (masters in communication from Wake Forest, longtime debate coach) "Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact" Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference November 17^th 2005 An important concern emerges when Mitchell describes reflexive fiat as a contest strategy capable of "eschewing the power to directly control external actors" (1998b, p. 20). Describing debates about what our government should do as attempts to control outside actors is debilitating and disempowering. Control of the US government is exactly what an active, participatory citizenry is supposed to be all about. After all, if democracy means anything, it means that citizens not only have the right, they also bear the obligation to discuss and debate what the government should be doing. Absent that discussion and debate, much of the motivation for personal political activism is also lost. Those who have co-opted Mitchell's argument for individual advocacy often quickly respond that nothing we do in a debate round can actually change government policy, and unfortunately, an entire generation of debaters has now swallowed this assertion as an article of faith. The best most will muster is, "Of course not, but you don't either!" The assertion that nothing we do in debate has any impact on government policy is one that carries the potential to undermine Mitchell's entire project. If there is nothing we can do in a debate round to change government policy, then we are left with precious little in the way of pro-social options for addressing problems we face. At best, we can pursue some Pilot-like hand washing that can purify us as individuals through quixotic activism but offer little to society as a whole. It is very important to note that Mitchell (1998b) tries carefully to limit and bound his notion of reflexive fiat by maintaining that because it "views fiat as a concrete course of action, it is bounded by the limits of pragmatism" (p. 20). Pursued properly, the debates that Mitchell would like to see are those in which the relative efficacy of concrete political strategies for pro-social change is debated. In a few noteworthy examples, this approach has been employed successfully, and I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed judging and coaching those debates. The students in my program have learned to stretch their understanding of their role in the political process because of the experience. Therefore, those who say I am opposed to Mitchell's goals here should take care at such a blanket assertion. However, contest debate teaches students to combine personal experience with the language of political power. Powerful personal narratives unconnected to political power are regularly co-opted by those who do learn the language of power. One need look no further than the annual state of the Union Address where personal story after personal story is used to support the political agenda of those in power. The so-called role-playing that public policy contest debates encourage promotes active learning of the vocabulary and levers of power in America. Imagining the ability to use our own arguments to influence government action is one of the great virtues of academic debate. Gerald Graff (2003) analyzed the decline of argumentation in academic discourse and found a source of student antipathy to public argument in an interesting place. I'm up against…their aversion to the role of public spokesperson that formal writing presupposes. It's as if such students can't imagine any rewards for being a public actor or even imagining themselves in such a role. This lack of interest in the public sphere may in turn reflect a loss of confidence in the possibility that the arguments we make in public will have an effect on the world. Today's students' lack of faith in the power of persuasion reflects the waning of the ideal of civic participation that led educators for centuries to place rhetorical and argumentative training at the center of the school and college curriculum. (Graff, 2003, p. 57) The power to imagine public advocacy that actually makes a difference is one of the great virtues of the traditional notion of fiat that critics deride as mere simulation. Simulation of success in the public realm is far more empowering to students than completely abandoning all notions of personal power in the face of governmental hegemony by teaching students that "nothing they can do in a contest debate can ever make any difference in public policy." Contest debating is well suited to rewarding public activism if it stops accepting as an article of faith that personal agency is somehow undermined by the so-called role playing in debate. Debate is role-playing whether we imagine government action or imagine individual action. Imagining myself starting a socialist revolution in America is no less of a fantasy than imagining myself making a difference on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, both fantasies influenced my personal and political development virtually ensuring a life of active, pro-social, political participation. Neither fantasy reduced the likelihood that I would spend my life trying to make the difference I imagined. One fantasy actually does make a greater difference: the one that speaks the language of political power. The other fantasy disables action by making one a laughingstock to those who wield the language of power. Fantasy motivates and role-playing trains through visualization. Until we can imagine it, we cannot really do it. Role-playing without question teaches students to be comfortable with the language of power, and that language paves the way for genuine and effective political activism. Debates over the relative efficacy of political strategies for pro-social change must confront governmental power at some point. There is a fallacy in arguing that movements represent a better political strategy than voting and person-to-person advocacy. Sure, a full-scale movement would be better than the limited voice I have as a participating citizen going from door to door in a campaign, but so would full-scale government action. Unfortunately, the gap between my individual decision to pursue movement politics and the emergence of a full-scale movement is at least as great as the gap between my vote and democratic change. They both represent utopian fiat. Invocation of Mitchell to support utopian movement fiat is simply not supported by his work, and too often, such invocation discourages the concrete actions he argues for in favor of the personal rejectionism that under girds the political cynicism that is a fundamental cause of voter and participatory abstention in America today.

====The nuclearization of society enforces an epistemologically bankrupt mode of thinking in place of traditional ways of indigenous people. ====
WISE 93 ~World Information Service on Energy, founded in 1978, "Special: Environmental Racism and Nuclear Development," Nuclear Monitor Issue: ~#387-388, The WISE-Amsterdam Collective, March 1993~ JW
Racism, by itself, is a symptom of the deep sickness at the heart
AND
of vision that come from those who see from a different vantage point."

Part 2: Criticism

Subpoint A) Environmental racism

Every aspect of nuclear production overlaps and impedes upon Native Americans

Matsunaga 14 ~Kyoko Matsunaga, Associate Professor, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, "Leslie Marmon Silko and Nuclear Dissent in the American Southwest," The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 25, 2014~ JW
The politics and rhetoric of the Cold War—of which the Vietnam War was
AND
by the "preexisting settler discourse about desert lands as barren wastelands."6

And to add insult to injury, Native Americans don't receive proper compensation for damages

Kyne and Bolin 7/12 ~Dean Kyne, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Bob Bolin, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, "Emerging Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 12, 2016~ JW
The "uranium frenzy" began in the West in the 1940s as the U
AND
for downwind and mining victims to receive benefits for their illnesses ~75~.

Subpoint B) Cultural Genocide

The health and ecological effects on indigenous populations is tantamount to cultural genocide

Ryser et al 3/27 1 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Medical, genetic and social researchers have attempted to understand the complex public health effects
AND
, parts of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Yakama.

Subpoint C) Nuclear colonial discourse

Discourse about native lands as wastelands permits nuclear colonialism

Endres 09 1 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
Wasteland, like most words, is polysemous. In common parlance, wasteland is
AND
land being turned into a wasteland from toxic pollution (LaDuke 1999).9

Wasteland discourse justifies terrible nuclear policies. It directly spills over into actual policies and harms

Endres 2 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
The negative perception of the desert as wasteland has persisted to this day. The
AND
of wasteland as one of the justifications for HLW storage at those locations.

The 1AC is a direct challenge to this colonial discourse. We recognize that these lands have spiritual and cultural value to indigenous populations. Our affirmation of the resolution is our method to rectify this historic abuse and challenge traditional discourse that justifies cultural destruction.

Plan text: Native American tribal governments in conjunction with the USFG will ban the production of nuclear power

Part 3: Solvency

1. Conjunction with the federal government is key. There are nuclear activities near indigenous lands that negatively affect tribes but fall outside their jurisdiction

Tsosie 15 2 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
Second, U.S. public lands policy governs federal lands adjacent to the
AND
both.115 The Havasupai Tribe is still heavily invested in this issue.

2. Any amount of radiation is dangerous. Means a ban of all nuclear power is the only way to solve.

Ryser et al 2 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Radioactive substances carry uniquely dangerous characteristics compared to other toxins made by human industry.
AND
of potential increased cancer risk — particularly from disposed spent radioactive fuel rods.

3. Exercising Native American sovereign power is uniquely key to addressing the historical legacy of nuclear colonialism

Tsosie 3 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
The exercise of self-determination is necessary to redress the legacy of the 19th
AND
this with a practice of "genocide" against the Navajo people.16

4. The aff is part of a larger resistance to nuclear colonialism.

Endres 3 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies,6:1,39 — 60, 2009~
~Native~ American Indian resistance is an important part of the story of nuclear
AND
also intersects with sovereignty, nuclearism and colonialism, to which I now turn

Part 4: Underview

1. Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12 bracketed for grammar
~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
. Instead we prefer to shout and denounce. Good luck with that.

2. Aff gets RVI's on theory

a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
c) It's logical: you should lose for needlessly calling me a cheater 

3. If they win offense under a T interp, you should re-evaluate the 1AC as a whole res aff:

a) allows us to return to substance and prevents the round from devolving to theory
b) solves all the abuse on their shell 

Reject low probability impacts.

Kessler and Daase 08 ~Oliver Kessler and Christopher Daase, Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Department of Political Science, University of Munich, "From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Risk and the Paradox of Security Politics," Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 33, No. 2, The Social Construction and Control of Danger in Counterterrorism (Apr.-June 2008), pp. 211-232~
The problem of the second method is that it is very difficult to "calculate
AND
assessment is, however, that even the most absurd scenarios can gain plausibility

Tournament: Loyola | Round: Doubles | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake JN | Judge: Lallas, Tambe, McHugh

1AC – SV

All brackets for offensive language 

Part 1: Framework

The Role of the Judge is to be a critical educator and policy maker focusing on the liberation of the oppressed

Giroux 06 ~Henry Giroux, American scholar and cultural critic, "America on the Edge: Henry Giro ux on Politics, Culture, and Education," Springer, March 31, 2006~ JW
Educators at all levels need to challenge the assumption that politics is dead, or
AND
that severely limit the creative, ethical, and liberatory potential of education.

The Role of the Ballot is to endorse the best policy to liberate oppressed groups

Debate should deal with questions of real-world consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression

^{Curry 14 ~Tommy J. Curry, Professor of Philosophy @ Texas AandM, "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century," 2014~
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations.} 

Structural violence outweighs. We must listen to the voices of the oppressed.

Winter and Leighton 99 (Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter: Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and ustice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice) (Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century. Pg 4-5, 1999)

Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual/cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. 

====The nuclearization of society enforces an epistemologically bankrupt mode of thinking in place of traditional ways of indigenous people. ====
WISE 93 ~World Information Service on Energy, founded in 1978, "Special: Environmental Racism and Nuclear Development," Nuclear Monitor Issue: ~#387-388, The WISE-Amsterdam Collective, March 1993~ JW
Racism, by itself, is a symptom of the deep sickness at the heart
AND
of vision that come from those who see from a different vantage point."

Part 2: Criticism

Subpoint A) Environmental racism

Every aspect of nuclear production overlaps and impedes upon Native Americans

Matsunaga 14 ~Kyoko Matsunaga, Associate Professor, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, "Leslie Marmon Silko and Nuclear Dissent in the American Southwest," The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 25, 2014~ JW
The politics and rhetoric of the Cold War—of which the Vietnam War was
AND
by the "preexisting settler discourse about desert lands as barren wastelands."6

And to add insult to injury, Native Americans don't receive proper compensation for damages

Kyne and Bolin 7/12 ~Dean Kyne, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Bob Bolin, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, "Emerging Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 12, 2016~ JW
The "uranium frenzy" began in the West in the 1940s as the U
AND
for downwind and mining victims to receive benefits for their illnesses ~75~.

Subpoint B) Cultural Genocide

The health and ecological effects on indigenous populations is tantamount to cultural genocide

Ryser et al 3/27 1 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Medical, genetic and social researchers have attempted to understand the complex public health effects
AND
, parts of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Yakama.

Subpoint C) Nuclear colonial discourse

Discourse about native lands as wastelands permits nuclear colonialism

Endres 09 1 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
Wasteland, like most words, is polysemous. In common parlance, wasteland is
AND
land being turned into a wasteland from toxic pollution (LaDuke 1999).9

Wasteland discourse justifies terrible nuclear policies. It directly spills over into actual policies and harms

Endres 2 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
The negative perception of the desert as wasteland has persisted to this day. The
AND
of wasteland as one of the justifications for HLW storage at those locations.

The 1AC is a direct challenge to this colonial discourse. We recognize that these lands have spiritual and cultural value to indigenous populations. Our affirmation of the resolution is our method to rectify this historic abuse and challenge traditional discourse that justifies cultural destruction.

Plan text: Native American tribal governments in conjunction with the USFG will ban the production of nuclear power near Native American lands.

Part 3: Solvency

1. Conjunction with the federal government is key. There are nuclear activities near indigenous lands that negatively affect tribes but fall outside their jurisdiction

Tsosie 15 2 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
Second, U.S. public lands policy governs federal lands adjacent to the
AND
both.115 The Havasupai Tribe is still heavily invested in this issue.

2. Any amount of radiation is dangerous. Means a ban of all nuclear power is the only way to solve.

Ryser et al 2 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Radioactive substances carry uniquely dangerous characteristics compared to other toxins made by human industry.
AND
of potential increased cancer risk — particularly from disposed spent radioactive fuel rods.

3. Exercising Native American sovereign power is uniquely key to addressing the historical legacy of nuclear colonialism

Tsosie 3 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
The exercise of self-determination is necessary to redress the legacy of the 19th
AND
this with a practice of "genocide" against the Navajo people.16

4. The aff is part of a larger resistance to nuclear colonialism.

Endres 3 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies,6:1,39 — 60, 2009~
~Native~ American Indian resistance is an important part of the story of nuclear
AND
also intersects with sovereignty, nuclearism and colonialism, to which I now turn

Part 4: Underview

1. the negative may not read a plan inclusive counter-plan:

a) time skew: The PIC renders the AC useless since my opponent agrees with the AC in every situation but the advantage s/he advocates. This gives the aff 7 minutes to respond and the neg 7 minutes to develop and 6 minutes to extend.
b) reciprocity:  PIC's skew reciprocity by forcing the aff to defend all instances
AND
PIC out of, and thus no way to prepare for that debate. 

2. If they win offense under a T interp, you should re-evaluate the 1AC as a whole res aff:

a) allows us to return to substance and prevents the round from devolving to theory
b) solves all the abuse on their shell 

3. Renewable growth is HUGE – shift will be to renewables not fossil fuels

Schneider et al 11
Mycle – consultant and project coordinator, Antony Frogatt – consultant, Steve Thomas – prof of energy policy @ Greenwich University, "Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World 25 Years After the Chernobyl Accident" World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-11, http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/2011MSC-WorldNuclearReport-V3.pdf ~Bob~
China in particular has become the global leader for new capacity in both nuclear and
AND
coal- and oil-fired power plants. (See Figure 15.)

Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12 bracketed for grammar
~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
drive people into the embrace of reigning ideology than to undermine reigning ideology.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 2 | Opponent: Quarry Lane SK | Judge: Amanda Drummond

1AC – SV

Part 1: Framework

The Role of the Judge is to be a critical educator and policymaker focusing on the liberation of the oppressed

Giroux 06 ~Henry Giroux, American scholar and cultural critic, "America on the Edge: Henry Giro ux on Politics, Culture, and Education," Springer, March 31, 2006~ JW
Educators at all levels need to challenge the assumption that politics is dead, or
AND
that severely limit the creative, ethical, and liberatory potential of education.

The Role of the Ballot is to endorse the best policy to liberate oppressed groups

Debate should deal with questions of real-world consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression

^{Curry 14 ~Tommy J. Curry, Professor of Philosophy @ Texas AandM, "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century," 2014~
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations.} 

Structural violence outweighs. We must listen to the voices of the oppressed.

Winter and Leighton 99 (Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter: Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and ustice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice) (Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century. Pg 4-5, 1999)

Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual/cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. 

====The nuclearization of society enforces an epistemologically bankrupt mode of thinking in place of traditional ways of indigenous people. ====
WISE 93 ~World Information Service on Energy, founded in 1978, "Special: Environmental Racism and Nuclear Development," Nuclear Monitor Issue: ~#387-388, The WISE-Amsterdam Collective, March 1993~ JW
Racism, by itself, is a symptom of the deep sickness at the heart
AND
of vision that come from those who see from a different vantage point."

Part 2: Criticism

Subpoint A) Environmental racism

Every aspect of nuclear production overlaps and impedes upon Native Americans

Matsunaga 14 ~Kyoko Matsunaga, Associate Professor, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, "Leslie Marmon Silko and Nuclear Dissent in the American Southwest," The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 25, 2014~ JW
The politics and rhetoric of the Cold War—of which the Vietnam War was
AND
by the "preexisting settler discourse about desert lands as barren wastelands."6

And to add insult to injury, Native Americans don't receive proper compensation for damages

Kyne and Bolin 7/12 ~Dean Kyne, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Bob Bolin, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, "Emerging Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 12, 2016~ JW
The "uranium frenzy" began in the West in the 1940s as the U
AND
for downwind and mining victims to receive benefits for their illnesses ~75~.

Subpoint B) Cultural Genocide

The health and ecological effects on indigenous populations is tantamount to cultural genocide

Ryser et al 3/27 1 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Medical, genetic and social researchers have attempted to understand the complex public health effects
AND
, parts of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Yakama.

Subpoint C) Nuclear colonial discourse

Discourse about native lands as wastelands permits nuclear colonialism

Endres 09 1 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
Wasteland, like most words, is polysemous. In common parlance, wasteland is
AND
land being turned into a wasteland from toxic pollution (LaDuke 1999).9

The 1AC is a direct challenge to this colonial discourse. We recognize that these lands have spiritual and cultural value to indigenous populations. Our affirmation of the resolution is our method to rectify this historic abuse and challenge traditional discourse that justifies cultural destruction.

Plan text: Native American tribal governments in conjunction with the USFG will ban the production of nuclear power near Native American lands.

Part 3: Solvency

1. Conjunction with the federal government is key. There are nuclear activities near indigenous lands that negatively affect tribes but fall outside their jurisdiction

Tsosie 15 2 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
Second, U.S. public lands policy governs federal lands adjacent to the
AND
both.115 The Havasupai Tribe is still heavily invested in this issue.

2. Any amount of radiation is dangerous. Means a ban of all nuclear power is the only way to solve.

Ryser et al 2 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Radioactive substances carry uniquely dangerous characteristics compared to other toxins made by human industry.
AND
of potential increased cancer risk — particularly from disposed spent radioactive fuel rods.

3. Exercising Native American sovereign power is uniquely key to addressing the historical legacy of nuclear colonialism

Tsosie 3 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
The exercise of self-determination is necessary to redress the legacy of the 19th
AND
this with a practice of "genocide" against the Navajo people.16

4. The aff is part of a larger resistance to nuclear colonialism.

Endres 3 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies,6:1,39 — 60, 2009~
American Indian resistance is an important part of the story of nuclear colonialism. Despite
AND
also intersects with sovereignty, nuclearism and colonialism, to which I now turn

Part 4: Underview

1. Aff gets RVI's on theory

a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
c) It's logical: you should lose for needlessly calling me a cheater 

2. If they win offense under a T interp, you should re-evaluate the 1AC as a whole res aff:

a) allows us to return to substance and prevents the round from devolving to theory
b) solves all the abuse on their shell 

3. Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12 bracketed for grammar
~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
. Instead we prefer to shout and denounce. Good luck with that.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 3 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart LM | Judge: John Overing

1AC – SV

All brackets for offensive language 

Part 1: Framework

The Role of the Judge is to be a critical educator focusing on the liberation of the oppressed

Giroux 06 ~Henry Giroux, American scholar and cultural critic, "America on the Edge: Henry Giro ux on Politics, Culture, and Education," Springer, March 31, 2006~ JW
Educators at all levels need to challenge the assumption that politics is dead, or
AND
that severely limit the creative, ethical, and liberatory potential of education.

The Role of the Ballot is to endorse the best methodology to liberate oppressed groups

Debate should deal with questions of real-world consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression

^{Curry 14 ~Tommy J. Curry, Professor of Philosophy @ Texas AandM, "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century," 2014~
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations.} 

Structural violence outweighs. We must listen to the voices of the oppressed.

Winter and Leighton 99 (Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter: Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and ustice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice) (Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century. Pg 4-5, 1999)

Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual/cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. 

====The nuclearization of society enforces an epistemologically bankrupt mode of thinking in place of traditional ways of indigenous people. ====
WISE 93 ~World Information Service on Energy, founded in 1978, "Special: Environmental Racism and Nuclear Development," Nuclear Monitor Issue: ~#387-388, The WISE-Amsterdam Collective, March 1993~ JW
Racism, by itself, is a symptom of the deep sickness at the heart
AND
of vision that come from those who see from a different vantage point."

Part 2: Criticism

Subpoint A) Environmental racism

Every aspect of nuclear production overlaps and impedes upon Native Americans

Matsunaga 14 ~Kyoko Matsunaga, Associate Professor, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, "Leslie Marmon Silko and Nuclear Dissent in the American Southwest," The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 25, 2014~ JW
The politics and rhetoric of the Cold War—of which the Vietnam War was
AND
by the "preexisting settler discourse about desert lands as barren wastelands."6

And to add insult to injury, Native Americans don't receive proper compensation for damages

Kyne and Bolin 7/12 ~Dean Kyne, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Bob Bolin, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, "Emerging Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 12, 2016~ JW
The "uranium frenzy" began in the West in the 1940s as the U
AND
for downwind and mining victims to receive benefits for their illnesses ~75~.

Subpoint B) Cultural Genocide

The health and ecological effects on indigenous populations is tantamount to cultural genocide

Ryser et al 3/27 1 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Medical, genetic and social researchers have attempted to understand the complex public health effects
AND
, parts of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Yakama.

Subpoint C) Nuclear colonial discourse

Discourse about native lands as wastelands permits nuclear colonialism

Endres 09 1 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
Wasteland, like most words, is polysemous. In common parlance, wasteland is
AND
land being turned into a wasteland from toxic pollution (LaDuke 1999).9

Wasteland discourse justifies terrible nuclear policies. It directly spills over into actual policies and harms

Endres 2 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
The negative perception of the desert as wasteland has persisted to this day. The
AND
of wasteland as one of the justifications for HLW storage at those locations.

The 1AC is a direct challenge to this colonial discourse. We recognize that these lands have spiritual and cultural value to indigenous populations. Our affirmation of the resolution is our method to rectify this historic abuse and challenge traditional discourse that justifies cultural destruction.

Plan text: Native American tribal governments in conjunction with the USFG will ban the production of nuclear power near Native American lands.

Part 3: Solvency

1. Conjunction with the federal government is key. There are nuclear activities near indigenous lands that negatively affect tribes but fall outside their jurisdiction

Tsosie 15 1 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
Second, U.S. public lands policy governs federal lands adjacent to the
AND
both.115 The Havasupai Tribe is still heavily invested in this issue.

2. Any amount of radiation is dangerous. Means a ban of all nuclear power is the only way to solve.

Ryser et al 2 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Radioactive substances carry uniquely dangerous characteristics compared to other toxins made by human industry.
AND
of potential increased cancer risk — particularly from disposed spent radioactive fuel rods.

3. Exercising Native American sovereign power is uniquely key to addressing the historical legacy of nuclear colonialism

Tsosie 2~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
The exercise of self-determination is necessary to redress the legacy of the 19th
AND
this with a practice of "genocide" against the Navajo people.16

4. The aff is part of a larger resistance to nuclear colonialism.

Endres 3 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies,6:1,39 — 60, 2009~
~Native~ American Indian resistance is an important part of the story of nuclear
AND
also intersects with sovereignty, nuclearism and colonialism, to which I now turn

Part 4: Underview

1. Aff gets RVI's on theory

a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
c) It's logical: you should lose for needlessly calling me a cheater 

2. If they win offense under a T interp, you should re-evaluate the 1AC as a whole res aff:

a) allows us to return to substance and prevents the round from devolving to theory
b) solves all the abuse on their shell 

3. Reject low probability impacts. Existential risk calculus based on a series of unlikely events fails.

Kessler and Daase 08 ~Oliver Kessler and Christopher Daase, Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Department of Political Science, University of Munich, "From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Risk and the Paradox of Security Politics," Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 33, No. 2, The Social Construction and Control of Danger in Counterterrorism (Apr.-June 2008), pp. 211-232~
The problem of the second method is that it is very difficult to "calculate
AND
prevail than in situations where security problems can be assessed with relative certainty. 

4. Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12 bracketed for grammar
~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
drive people into the embrace of reigning ideology than to undermine reigning ideology.

Tournament: Loyola | Round: 5 | Opponent: Marlborough GK | Judge: Tim McHugh

1AC – SV

All brackets for offensive language 

Part 1: Framework

The Role of the Judge is to be a critical educator focusing on the liberation of the oppressed

Giroux 06 ~Henry Giroux, American scholar and cultural critic, "America on the Edge: Henry Giro ux on Politics, Culture, and Education," Springer, March 31, 2006~ JW
Educators at all levels need to challenge the assumption that politics is dead, or
AND
that severely limit the creative, ethical, and liberatory potential of education.

The Role of the Ballot is to endorse the best methodology to liberate oppressed groups

Debate should deal with questions of real-world consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression

^{Curry 14 ~Tommy J. Curry, Professor of Philosophy @ Texas AandM, "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century," 2014~
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations.} 

Structural violence outweighs. We must listen to the voices of the oppressed.

Winter and Leighton 99 (Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter: Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and ustice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice) (Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century. Pg 4-5, 1999)

Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual/cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. 

====The nuclearization of society enforces an epistemologically bankrupt mode of thinking in place of traditional ways of indigenous people. ====
WISE 93 ~World Information Service on Energy, founded in 1978, "Special: Environmental Racism and Nuclear Development," Nuclear Monitor Issue: ~#387-388, The WISE-Amsterdam Collective, March 1993~ JW
Racism, by itself, is a symptom of the deep sickness at the heart
AND
of vision that come from those who see from a different vantage point."

Part 2: Criticism

Subpoint A) Environmental racism

Every aspect of nuclear production overlaps and impedes upon Native Americans

Matsunaga 14 ~Kyoko Matsunaga, Associate Professor, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, "Leslie Marmon Silko and Nuclear Dissent in the American Southwest," The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 25, 2014~ JW
The politics and rhetoric of the Cold War—of which the Vietnam War was
AND
by the "preexisting settler discourse about desert lands as barren wastelands."6

And to add insult to injury, Native Americans don't receive proper compensation for damages

Kyne and Bolin 7/12 ~Dean Kyne, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Bob Bolin, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, "Emerging Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 12, 2016~ JW
The "uranium frenzy" began in the West in the 1940s as the U
AND
for downwind and mining victims to receive benefits for their illnesses ~75~.

Subpoint B) Cultural Genocide

The health and ecological effects on indigenous populations is tantamount to cultural genocide

Ryser et al 3/27 1 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Medical, genetic and social researchers have attempted to understand the complex public health effects
AND
, parts of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Yakama.

Subpoint C) Nuclear colonial discourse

Discourse about native lands as wastelands permits nuclear colonialism

Endres 09 1 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
Wasteland, like most words, is polysemous. In common parlance, wasteland is
AND
land being turned into a wasteland from toxic pollution (LaDuke 1999).9

Wasteland discourse justifies terrible nuclear policies. It directly spills over into actual policies and harms

Endres 2 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
The negative perception of the desert as wasteland has persisted to this day. The
AND
of wasteland as one of the justifications for HLW storage at those locations.

The 1AC is a direct challenge to this colonial discourse. We recognize that these lands have spiritual and cultural value to indigenous populations. Our affirmation of the resolution is our method to rectify this historic abuse and challenge traditional discourse that justifies cultural destruction.

Plan text: Native American tribal governments in conjunction with the USFG will ban the production of nuclear power near Native American lands.

Part 3: Solvency

1. Conjunction with the federal government is key. There are nuclear activities near indigenous lands that negatively affect tribes but fall outside their jurisdiction

Tsosie 15 2 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
Second, U.S. public lands policy governs federal lands adjacent to the
AND
both.115 The Havasupai Tribe is still heavily invested in this issue.

2. Any amount of radiation is dangerous. Means a ban of all nuclear power is the only way to solve.

Ryser et al 2 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Radioactive substances carry uniquely dangerous characteristics compared to other toxins made by human industry.
AND
of potential increased cancer risk — particularly from disposed spent radioactive fuel rods.

3. Exercising Native American sovereign power is uniquely key to addressing the historical legacy of nuclear colonialism

Tsosie 3 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
The exercise of self-determination is necessary to redress the legacy of the 19th
AND
this with a practice of "genocide" against the Navajo people.16

4. The aff is part of a larger resistance to nuclear colonialism.

Endres 3 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies,6:1,39 — 60, 2009~
~Native~ American Indian resistance is an important part of the story of nuclear
AND
also intersects with sovereignty, nuclearism and colonialism, to which I now turn

Part 4: Underview

1. Aff gets RVI's on theory

a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
c) It's logical: you should lose for needlessly calling me a cheater 

2. If they win offense under a T interp, you should re-evaluate the 1AC as a whole res aff:

a) allows us to return to substance and prevents the round from devolving to theory
b) solves all the abuse on their shell 

3. Reject low probability impacts.

Kessler and Daase 08 ~Oliver Kessler and Christopher Daase, Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Department of Political Science, University of Munich, "From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Risk and the Paradox of Security Politics," Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 33, No. 2, The Social Construction and Control of Danger in Counterterrorism (Apr.-June 2008), pp. 211-232~
The problem of the second method is that it is very difficult to "calculate
AND
prevail than in situations where security problems can be assessed with relative certainty. 

4. Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12 bracketed for grammar
~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
academic with a PhD in critical theory and post-structural theory can understand

Tournament: Voices | Round: Doubles | Opponent: San Marino KWu | Judge: OKrent, Chapman, Martel

1AC

Part 1: Framework:

I value morality. Standard is maximizing expected well-being

Psychological evidence proves that we don't identify with our future selves – continuous personal identity doesn't exist

Opar 14 ~Alisa Opar, articles editor at Audubon magazine, "Why We Procrastinate," Nautilus, January 16, 2014, http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/why-we-procrastinate~~
The British philosopher Derek Parfit espoused a severely reductionist view of personal identity in his
AND
to practice being good to others. One of them might be you. 

This leads to util

a. If people are just a series of certain disconnected physical and mental states, the only relevant impact is maximizing experiences within those states of affairs

b. Other theories presume identity is relevant. If identity is irrelevant, then util must be true

Part 2: Advantages

Plan Text: The Arab Republic of Egypt, Republic of Turkey, Islamic Republic of Iran, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall ban the production of nuclear power.

Russia's Middle East deals indicate that nuclear power is here to stay, reversing the Fukushima trend against them

Armstrong 15 ~Ian Armstrong, Supervisor and Researcher at Wikistrat, the world's first crowdsourced geopolitical consultancy, "Russia is creating a global nuclear power empire," Global risk Insights, October 29, 2015, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/~~ JW
For one, the ability of Russia to not only maintain pre-Fukushima nuclear
AND
for nuclear plant maintenance, but also the prestige that an NPP entails.

Advantage 1: Relations

Inherency: past conflicts in the Middle East haven't escalated. Each successive conflict will worsen the situation

Cordesman 01/4 ~Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy @ Center for Strategic and International Studies, "The ~New-Old~ Crises and Instability in the Middle East and North Africa in 2016," Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 4, 2016~ JW
Much of the news reporting and analysis of the Middle East seems to lurch from
AND
day, that will dominate the region in 2016 and in the future. 

And Sunni-Shiite splits will worsen as each superpower backs a different sect. High tension now between the various sects

Nasr 1/22 ~Vali Nasr, "The War for Islam," ForeignPolicy, January 22, 2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/22/the-war-for-islam-sunni-shiite-iraq-syria/~~ JW
Both sides in this conflict are now stuck in a zero-sum sectarian battle
AND
or at least, improve its position before settling for a new equilibrium.

Russian nuclear deals create heavy long-term influence that displaces the U.S.

Armstrong 15 ~Ian Armstrong, Supervisor and Researcher at Wikistrat, the world's first crowdsourced geopolitical consultancy, "Russia is creating a global nuclear power empire," Global risk Insights, October 29, 2015, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/~~ JW
Though these economic implications are worth considering, they are far overshadowed by the geopolitical
AND
competition from other capable nuclear powers may emerge in the medium-term.

Russia directly competing with China on nuclear energy exports in the Middle East and deepening sectarian divide in the Middle East

Tanchum 15 ~Micha'el Tanchum, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Global Energy Center and the Eurasian Energy Futures Initiative at the Atlantic Council , "Russia Races to Outflank China in Middle East Nuclear Technology Market," The Diplomat, July 31, 2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/russia-races-to-outflank-china-in-middle-east-nuclear-technology-market/~~ JW
As China enters the market for nuclear power plant construction in post-sanctions Iran
AND
principal reasons Russia is hurrying to secure new markets across the Middle East. 

U.S. influence in the Middle East is key to stability between countries and religious sects

Pollack et al 14 ~Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and Ray Takeyh, Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies, "Near Eastern Promises Why Washington Should Focus on the Middle East," Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014, http://www.cfr.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/near-eastern-promises/p32891~~ JW
U.S. disengagement has not produced a more stable or secure Middle East
AND
to the militarized overinvolvement that characterized the administration of George W. Bush.

Nuclear war extremely likely in the Middle East. Growing instability means escalation

Russell 9 ~James A. Russell, "Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East," IFRI Security Studies Center, Spring 2009~  
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1)
AND
the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.

Advantage 2: Prolif

Nuclear power deals with Russia guarantees proliferation, multiple internal warrants

Guzansky et al 15 ~Yoel Guzansky, research fellow at Institute for National Security Studies, Zvi Magen, Oded Eran, "Russian Nuclear Diplomacy in the Middle East," INSS Insight No. 782, December 29, 2015, http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538andarticleid=11195~~ JW
Russia is therefore increasing its cooperation in this area not only with Egypt, but
AND
that they accept conditions and restrictions, will accept such demands from Russia.

Middle East prolif causes nuclear war.

====Edelman 11====
Eric –Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and Former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67162/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevich-jr-and-evan-braden-montgomer/the-dangers-of-a-nuclear-iran
There is, however, at least one state that could receive significant outside support
AND
Middle East could lead to a new Great Game, with unpredictable consequences.

Adv 3: Accidents

The most robust scientific evidence on this topic estimates that catastrophic nuclear meltdowns will occur every 10-20 years.

Lawrence 11, M.G., D. Kunkel, J. Lelieveld, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Global risk of radioactive fallout after nuclear reactor accidents, 2011, http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/C13483/2011/acpd-11-C13483-2011-supplement.pdf
To evaluate the global risks, we can use empirical evidence to estimate the factors
AND
, depending on whether we count Fukushima as a triple or a single event

Russian built reactors in the Middle East have critical safety flaws: they're more likely than most other reactors to melt down

Kane 15 ~Chen Kane, Miles A. Pomper, "Russia Becomes the Middle East's Preferred but Flawed Nuclear Partner," World Politics Review, April 23, 2015, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/15598/russia-becomes-the-middle-east-s-preferred-but-flawed-nuclear-partner~~ JW
Nuclear technology on the cheap, however, has its own unique risks and disadvantages
AND
case of accident, earthquake risk evaluation and environmental effects on marine ecosystems.

Accidents wreck marine life, cause cancer and threaten human existence – Fukushima proves

Snyder 16 Michael Snyder, "28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima" 3-10-16 http://www.globalresearch.ca/28-signs-that-the-west-coast-is-being-absolutely-fried-with-nuclear-radiation-from-fukushima/5355280 ~Bob~

1. Polar bears, seals and walruses along the Alaska coastline are suffering from
   AND
   all of humanity will be threatened, for thousands of years."
     

Part 3: Underview

1. The state is inevitable- policymaking is the only way to create change.

Coverstone 5 Alan Coverstone (masters in communication from Wake Forest, longtime debate coach) "Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact" Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference November 17^th 2005
 An important concern emerges when Mitchell describes reflexive fiat as a contest strategy capable
AND
that is a fundamental cause of voter and participatory abstention in America today.

2. Activist focus on meta-issues breeds utopianism, which leads to the failure of the movement, Occupy Wall Street and The Farm empirically confirms. Only the combination of thought and action can create change.

Murray 14, PhD Candidate in the Program in Modern Thought and Literature at Stanford University, Prefiguration or Actualization? Radical Democracy and Counter-Institution in the Occupy Movement, http://berkeleyjournal.org/2014/11/prefiguration-or-actualization-radical-democracy-and-counter-institution-in-the-occupy-movement/
Many commentators have lauded the movement as an example of prefigurative politics, which they
AND
Farm illustrates some of the potential and the challenges of such a strategy.

3. Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12  ~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
We almost never make concrete proposals for how things ought to be restructured,

Tournament: Voices | Round: Quarters | Opponent: La Canada AZ | Judge: Overing, Chapman, Qi

1AC – SV

All brackets for offensive language 

Part 1: Framework

The Role of the Judge is to be a critical educator focusing on the liberation of the oppressed

Giroux 06 ~Henry Giroux, American scholar and cultural critic, "America on the Edge: Henry Giro ux on Politics, Culture, and Education," Springer, March 31, 2006~ JW
Educators at all levels need to challenge the assumption that politics is dead, or
AND
that severely limit the creative, ethical, and liberatory potential of education.

The Role of the Ballot is to endorse the best methodology to liberate oppressed groups

Debate should deal with questions of real-world consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression

^{Curry 14 ~Tommy J. Curry, Professor of Philosophy @ Texas AandM, "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century," 2014~
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations.} 

Structural violence outweighs. We must listen to the voices of the oppressed.

Winter and Leighton 99 (Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter: Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and ustice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice) (Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century. Pg 4-5, 1999)

Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual/cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. 

====The nuclearization of society enforces an epistemologically bankrupt mode of thinking in place of traditional ways of indigenous people. ====
WISE 93 ~World Information Service on Energy, founded in 1978, "Special: Environmental Racism and Nuclear Development," Nuclear Monitor Issue: ~#387-388, The WISE-Amsterdam Collective, March 1993~ JW
Racism, by itself, is a symptom of the deep sickness at the heart
AND
of vision that come from those who see from a different vantage point."

Part 2: Criticism

Subpoint A) Environmental racism

Every aspect of nuclear production overlaps and impedes upon Native Americans

Matsunaga 14 ~Kyoko Matsunaga, Associate Professor, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, "Leslie Marmon Silko and Nuclear Dissent in the American Southwest," The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 25, 2014~ JW
The politics and rhetoric of the Cold War—of which the Vietnam War was
AND
by the "preexisting settler discourse about desert lands as barren wastelands."6

And to add insult to injury, Native Americans don't receive proper compensation for damages

Kyne and Bolin 7/12 ~Dean Kyne, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Bob Bolin, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, "Emerging Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 12, 2016~ JW
The "uranium frenzy" began in the West in the 1940s as the U
AND
for downwind and mining victims to receive benefits for their illnesses ~75~.

Subpoint B) Cultural Genocide

The health and ecological effects on indigenous populations is tantamount to cultural genocide

Ryser et al 3/27 1 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Medical, genetic and social researchers have attempted to understand the complex public health effects
AND
, parts of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Yakama.

Subpoint C) Nuclear colonial discourse

Discourse about native lands as wastelands permits nuclear colonialism

Endres 09 1 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
Wasteland, like most words, is polysemous. In common parlance, wasteland is
AND
land being turned into a wasteland from toxic pollution (LaDuke 1999).9

Wasteland discourse justifies terrible nuclear policies. It directly spills over into actual policies and harms

Endres 2 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
The negative perception of the desert as wasteland has persisted to this day. The
AND
of wasteland as one of the justifications for HLW storage at those locations.

The 1AC is a direct challenge to this colonial discourse. We recognize that these lands have spiritual and cultural value to indigenous populations. Our affirmation of the resolution is our method to rectify this historic abuse and challenge traditional discourse that justifies cultural destruction.

Plan text: Native American tribal governments in conjunction with the USFG will ban the production of nuclear power.

Part 3: Solvency

1. Conjunction with the federal government is key. There are nuclear activities near indigenous lands that negatively affect tribes but fall outside their jurisdiction

Tsosie 15 2 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
Second, U.S. public lands policy governs federal lands adjacent to the
AND
both.115 The Havasupai Tribe is still heavily invested in this issue.

2. Any amount of radiation is dangerous. Means a ban of all nuclear power is the only way to solve.

Ryser et al 2 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Radioactive substances carry uniquely dangerous characteristics compared to other toxins made by human industry.
AND
of potential increased cancer risk — particularly from disposed spent radioactive fuel rods.

3. Exercising Native American sovereign power is uniquely key to addressing the historical legacy of nuclear colonialism

Tsosie 3 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
The exercise of self-determination is necessary to redress the legacy of the 19th
AND
this with a practice of "genocide" against the Navajo people.16

4. The aff is part of a larger resistance to nuclear colonialism.

Endres 3 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies,6:1,39 — 60, 2009~
~Native~ American Indian resistance is an important part of the story of nuclear
AND
also intersects with sovereignty, nuclearism and colonialism, to which I now turn

Part 4: Underview

1. Reject low probability impacts.

Kessler and Daase 08 ~Oliver Kessler and Christopher Daase, Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Department of Political Science, University of Munich, "From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Risk and the Paradox of Security Politics," Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 33, No. 2, The Social Construction and Control of Danger in Counterterrorism (Apr.-June 2008), pp. 211-232~
The problem of the second method is that it is very difficult to "calculate
AND
fairness since equal access to win conditions controls equal acess to the ballot. 

3. Social injustice is the root of mass-scale violence – it primes society for external violence.

• • Scheper-Hughes 04 (Scheper-Hughes 4 (Prof of Anthropology @ Cal-Berkely; Prof of Anthropology @ UPenn) (Nancy and Philippe, Introduction: Making Sense of Violence, in Violence in War and Peace, pg. 19-22)
    This large and at first sight "messy" Part VII is central to this
    AND
    forms of violence inherent in particular social, economic, and political formations. 

4. Activist focus on meta-issues breeds utopianism, which leads to the failure of the movement, Occupy Wall Street and The Farm empirically confirms. Only the combination of thought and action can create change.

Murray 14, PhD Candidate in the Program in Modern Thought and Literature at Stanford University, Prefiguration or Actualization? Radical Democracy and Counter-Institution in the Occupy Movement, http://berkeleyjournal.org/2014/11/prefiguration-or-actualization-radical-democracy-and-counter-institution-in-the-occupy-movement/
Many commentators have lauded the movement as an example of prefigurative politics, which they
AND
and social institutions. Occupy Wall Street (OWS) suffered this fate,

Tournament: Voices | Round: 3 | Opponent: Brentwood ELi | Judge: Anna-Marie Hwang

1AC

Part 1: Framework:

I affirm and value morality

Reductionism means that there is no personal identity which concludes util

Schultz 86 ~Bart Schultz, Senior Lecturer in Humanities (Philosophy) and Director of the Humanities Division's Civic Knowledge Project at the University of Chicago, "Persons, Selves, and Utilitarianism," Ethics, Vol. 96, No. 4 (Jul., 1986), pp. 721-745~ JW
The theory of personal identity that might be used to support util- itarianism is
AND
that there is less to it than we had been inclined to think. 

This leads to util

a. If people are just a series of certain disconnected physical and mental states, the only relevant impact is maximizing experiences within those states of affairs

b. Other theories presume identity is relevant. If identity is irrelevant, then util must be true

Additional reasons as to why reductionism is true:

A. Psychological evidence proves that we don't identify with our future selves – continuous personal identity doesn't exist

Opar 14 ~Alisa Opar, articles editor at Audubon magazine, "Why We Procrastinate," Nautilus, January 16, 2014, http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/why-we-procrastinate~~
The British philosopher Derek Parfit espoused a severely reductionist view of personal identity in his
AND
to practice being good to others. One of them might be you. 

B. Split brain experiments prove we don't have unified consciousness or identity

Parfit 84 bracketed for gendered language ~Derek Parfit, British philosopher, "Reasons and Persons, 1984~
Some recent medical cases provide striking evidence in favour of the Reductionist View. Human
AND
, and can receive two different answers written by this person's two hands.

Thus the standard is maximizing expected well-being. Additional reasons to prefer

1. The state is inevitable- policymaking is the only way to create change.

Coverstone 5 Alan Coverstone (masters in communication from Wake Forest, longtime debate coach) "Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact" Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference November 17^th 2005
 An important concern emerges when Mitchell describes reflexive fiat as a contest strategy capable
AND
that is a fundamental cause of voter and participatory abstention in America today.

2. Ethical uncertainty means we prioritize existential risks.

Bostrom 13 ~Nick Bostrom, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy @ University of Oxford, "Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority," Global Policy Vol. 4 Issue 1, February 2013~ JW
These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential
AND
of value. To do this, we must prevent any existential catastrophe. 

Part 2: Advantages

Plan Text: The Arab Republic of Egypt, Republic of Turkey, Islamic Republic of Iran, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will ban the production of nuclear power.

Russia's Middle East deals indicate that nuclear power is here to stay, reversing the Fukushima trend against them

Armstrong 15 ~Ian Armstrong, Supervisor and Researcher at Wikistrat, the world's first crowdsourced geopolitical consultancy, "Russia is creating a global nuclear power empire," Global risk Insights, October 29, 2015, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/~~ JW
For one, the ability of Russia to not only maintain pre-Fukushima nuclear
AND
for nuclear plant maintenance, but also the prestige that an NPP entails.

Advantage 1: Relations

Inherency: past conflicts in the Middle East haven't escalated. Each successive conflict will worsen the situation

Cordesman 01/4 ~Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy @ Center for Strategic and International Studies, "The ~New-Old~ Crises and Instability in the Middle East and North Africa in 2016," Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 4, 2016~ JW
Much of the news reporting and analysis of the Middle East seems to lurch from
AND
day, that will dominate the region in 2016 and in the future. 

And Sunni-Shiite splits will worsen as each superpower backs a different sect. High tension now between the various sects

Nasr 1/22 ~Vali Nasr, "The War for Islam," ForeignPolicy, January 22, 2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/22/the-war-for-islam-sunni-shiite-iraq-syria/~~ JW
Both sides in this conflict are now stuck in a zero-sum sectarian battle
AND
or at least, improve its position before settling for a new equilibrium.

Russian nuclear deals create heavy long-term influence that displaces the U.S. Do not underestimate the impact they will have on international relations.

Armstrong 15 ~Ian Armstrong, Supervisor and Researcher at Wikistrat, the world's first crowdsourced geopolitical consultancy, "Russia is creating a global nuclear power empire," Global risk Insights, October 29, 2015, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/~~ JW
Though these economic implications are worth considering, they are far overshadowed by the geopolitical
AND
competition from other capable nuclear powers may emerge in the medium-term.

Russia directly competing with China on nuclear energy exports in the Middle East and deepening sectarian divide in the Middle East

Tanchum 15 ~Micha'el Tanchum, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Global Energy Center and the Eurasian Energy Futures Initiative at the Atlantic Council , "Russia Races to Outflank China in Middle East Nuclear Technology Market," The Diplomat, July 31, 2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/russia-races-to-outflank-china-in-middle-east-nuclear-technology-market/~~ JW
As China enters the market for nuclear power plant construction in post-sanctions Iran
AND
principal reasons Russia is hurrying to secure new markets across the Middle East. 

U.S. influence in the Middle East is key to stability between countries and religious sects

Pollack et al 14 ~Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and Ray Takeyh, Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies, "Near Eastern Promises Why Washington Should Focus on the Middle East," Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014, http://www.cfr.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/near-eastern-promises/p32891~~ JW
U.S. disengagement has not produced a more stable or secure Middle East
AND
to the militarized overinvolvement that characterized the administration of George W. Bush.

Nuclear war extremely likely in the Middle East. Growing instability means escalation

Russell 9 ~James A. Russell, "Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East," IFRI Security Studies Center, Spring 2009~  
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1)
AND
the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.

Advantage 2: Prolif

Nuclear power deals with Russia guarantees proliferation, multiple internal warrants

Guzansky et al 15 ~Yoel Guzansky, research fellow at Institute for National Security Studies, Zvi Magen, Oded Eran, "Russian Nuclear Diplomacy in the Middle East," INSS Insight No. 782, December 29, 2015, http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538andarticleid=11195~~ JW
Russia is therefore increasing its cooperation in this area not only with Egypt, but
AND
that they accept conditions and restrictions, will accept such demands from Russia.

Middle East prolif causes nuclear war.

====Edelman 11====
Eric –Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and Former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67162/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevich-jr-and-evan-braden-montgomer/the-dangers-of-a-nuclear-iran
There is, however, at least one state that could receive significant outside support
AND
could lead to a new Great Game, with unpredictable consequences.
  

Part 3: Underview

1. Aff gets RVI's on theory

a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
c) It's logical: you should lose for needlessly calling me a cheater 

2. Prefer reasonable aff interps and drop the argument on T. There are can never be a perfect interp – modifications can always be made. The judge should use reasonability with a bright line of the presence of link and impact turn ground for the negative. Since he has equal access to offense, there's no abuse because structural access to the ballot is the same.

3. Activist focus on meta-issues breeds utopianism, which leads to the failure of the movement, Occupy Wall Street and The Farm empirically confirms. Only the combination of thought and action can create change.

Murray 14, PhD Candidate in the Program in Modern Thought and Literature at Stanford University, Prefiguration or Actualization? Radical Democracy and Counter-Institution in the Occupy Movement, http://berkeleyjournal.org/2014/11/prefiguration-or-actualization-radical-democracy-and-counter-institution-in-the-occupy-movement/
Many commentators have lauded the movement as an example of prefigurative politics, which they
AND
Farm illustrates some of the potential and the challenges of such a strategy.

4.  Use epistemic modesty to account for the chance that you are wrong on the framework debate. That's probability of the moral framework being true multiplied by the value of an action under that framework

Christensen 13 ~David Christensen, Professor of Philosophy @ Brown University, "Epistemic Modesty Defended". The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, edited by David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey, Oxford University Press, 2013~
One might, of course, give up entirely on epistemic modesty. But I
AND
having accurate beliefs, and, thus, in correcting her epistemic errors,

Tournament: Voices | Round: 5 | Opponent: Peninsula JL | Judge: Abbey Chapman

1AC

Part 1: Framework:

I affirm and value morality

the standard is maximizing expected well-being.

1. No act-omission distinction: states always face a choice when enacting public policy

Sunstein 5~Cass Sunstein, Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence, The University of Chicago Law School, Department of Political Science and the College, "Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs," P. 17, Chicago Working Paper Series, 3-22-2015~
In our view, both the argument from causation and the argument from intention go
AND
a set of policy instruments that do not adequately or fully discourage it.

2. Ethical uncertainty means we prioritize existential risks.

Bostrom 13 ~Nick Bostrom, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy @ University of Oxford, "Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority," Global Policy Vol. 4 Issue 1, February 2013~ JW
These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential
AND
of value. To do this, we must prevent any existential catastrophe. 

Part 2: Advantages

Plan Text: The Arab Republic of Egypt, Republic of Turkey, Islamic Republic of Iran, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shall ban the production of nuclear power.

Russia's Middle East deals indicate that nuclear power is here to stay, reversing the Fukushima trend against them

Armstrong 15 ~Ian Armstrong, Supervisor and Researcher at Wikistrat, the world's first crowdsourced geopolitical consultancy, "Russia is creating a global nuclear power empire," Global risk Insights, October 29, 2015, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/~~ JW
For one, the ability of Russia to not only maintain pre-Fukushima nuclear
AND
for nuclear plant maintenance, but also the prestige that an NPP entails.

Advantage 1: Relations

Inherency: past conflicts in the Middle East haven't escalated. Each successive conflict will worsen the situation

Cordesman 01/4 ~Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy @ Center for Strategic and International Studies, "The ~New-Old~ Crises and Instability in the Middle East and North Africa in 2016," Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 4, 2016~ JW
Much of the news reporting and analysis of the Middle East seems to lurch from
AND
day, that will dominate the region in 2016 and in the future. 

And Sunni-Shiite splits will worsen as each superpower backs a different sect. High tension now between the various sects

Nasr 1/22 ~Vali Nasr, "The War for Islam," ForeignPolicy, January 22, 2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/22/the-war-for-islam-sunni-shiite-iraq-syria/~~ JW
Both sides in this conflict are now stuck in a zero-sum sectarian battle
AND
or at least, improve its position before settling for a new equilibrium.

Russian nuclear deals create heavy long-term influence that displaces the U.S. Do not underestimate the impact they will have on international relations.

Armstrong 15 ~Ian Armstrong, Supervisor and Researcher at Wikistrat, the world's first crowdsourced geopolitical consultancy, "Russia is creating a global nuclear power empire," Global risk Insights, October 29, 2015, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/~~ JW
Though these economic implications are worth considering, they are far overshadowed by the geopolitical
AND
competition from other capable nuclear powers may emerge in the medium-term.

Russia directly competing with China on nuclear energy exports in the Middle East and deepening sectarian divide in the Middle East

Tanchum 15 ~Micha'el Tanchum, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Global Energy Center and the Eurasian Energy Futures Initiative at the Atlantic Council , "Russia Races to Outflank China in Middle East Nuclear Technology Market," The Diplomat, July 31, 2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/russia-races-to-outflank-china-in-middle-east-nuclear-technology-market/~~ JW
As China enters the market for nuclear power plant construction in post-sanctions Iran
AND
principal reasons Russia is hurrying to secure new markets across the Middle East. 

U.S. influence in the Middle East is key to stability between countries and religious sects

Pollack et al 14 ~Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and Ray Takeyh, Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies, "Near Eastern Promises Why Washington Should Focus on the Middle East," Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014, http://www.cfr.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/near-eastern-promises/p32891~~ JW
U.S. disengagement has not produced a more stable or secure Middle East
AND
to the militarized overinvolvement that characterized the administration of George W. Bush.

Nuclear war extremely likely in the Middle East. Growing instability means escalation

Russell 9 ~James A. Russell, "Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East," IFRI Security Studies Center, Spring 2009~  
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1)
AND
the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.

Advantage 2: Prolif

Nuclear power deals with Russia guarantees proliferation, multiple internal warrants

Guzansky et al 15 ~Yoel Guzansky, research fellow at Institute for National Security Studies, Zvi Magen, Oded Eran, "Russian Nuclear Diplomacy in the Middle East," INSS Insight No. 782, December 29, 2015, http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538andarticleid=11195~~ JW
Russia is therefore increasing its cooperation in this area not only with Egypt, but
AND
that they accept conditions and restrictions, will accept such demands from Russia.

Middle East prolif causes nuclear war.

====Edelman 11====
Eric –Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and Former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67162/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevich-jr-and-evan-braden-montgomer/the-dangers-of-a-nuclear-iran
There is, however, at least one state that could receive significant outside support
AND
Middle East could lead to a new Great Game, with unpredictable consequences.

Part 3: Underview

1. Aff gets RVI's on theory

a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
c) It's logical: you should lose for needlessly calling me a cheater 

AND
PICs are unreciprocal—we don't spec the resolution neg shouldn't get to spec 

4. Prefer reasonable aff interps and drop the argument on T. There are can never be a perfect interp – modifications can always be made. The judge should use reasonability with a bright line of the presence of link and impact turn ground for the negative. Since he has equal access to offense, there's no abuse because structural access to the ballot is the same.

5. Activist focus on meta-issues breeds utopianism, which leads to the failure of the movement, Occupy Wall Street and The Farm empirically confirms. Only the combination of thought and action can create change.

Murray 14, PhD Candidate in the Program in Modern Thought and Literature at Stanford University, Prefiguration or Actualization? Radical Democracy and Counter-Institution in the Occupy Movement, http://berkeleyjournal.org/2014/11/prefiguration-or-actualization-radical-democracy-and-counter-institution-in-the-occupy-movement/
Many commentators have lauded the movement as an example of prefigurative politics, which they
AND
Farm illustrates some of the potential and the challenges of such a strategy.

6. Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12  ~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
. Instead we prefer to shout and denounce. Good luck with that.

Tournament: Voices RR | Round: 1 | Opponent: Presentation AS | Judge: Tinuola Dada, Vaishnavi Sinnarkar

1AC

Part 1: Framework:

I affirm and value morality

Reductionism means that there is no personal identity which concludes util

Schultz 86 ~Bart Schultz, Senior Lecturer in Humanities (Philosophy) and Director of the Humanities Division's Civic Knowledge Project at the University of Chicago, "Persons, Selves, and Utilitarianism," Ethics, Vol. 96, No. 4 (Jul., 1986), pp. 721-745~ JW
The theory of personal identity that might be used to support util- itarianism is
AND
that there is less to it than we had been inclined to think. 

This leads to util

a. If people are just a series of certain disconnected physical and mental states, the only relevant impact is maximizing experiences within those states of affairs

b. Other theories presume identity is relevant. If identity is irrelevant, then util must be true

Additional reasons as to why reductionism is true:

A. Psychological evidence proves that we don't identify with our future selves – continuous personal identity doesn't exist

Opar 14 ~Alisa Opar, articles editor at Audubon magazine, "Why We Procrastinate," Nautilus, January 16, 2014, http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/why-we-procrastinate~~
The British philosopher Derek Parfit espoused a severely reductionist view of personal identity in his
AND
to practice being good to others. One of them might be you. 

B. Split brain experiments prove we don't have unified consciousness or identity

Parfit 84 bracketed for gendered language ~Derek Parfit, British philosopher, "Reasons and Persons, 1984~
Some recent medical cases provide striking evidence in favour of the Reductionist View. Human
AND
, and can receive two different answers written by this person's two hands.

Thus the standard is maximizing expected well-being. Additional reasons to prefer

1. The state is inevitable- policymaking is the only way to create change.

Coverstone 5 Alan Coverstone (masters in communication from Wake Forest, longtime debate coach) "Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact" Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference November 17^th 2005
 An important concern emerges when Mitchell describes reflexive fiat as a contest strategy capable
AND
that is a fundamental cause of voter and participatory abstention in America today.

2. Ethical uncertainty means we prioritize existential risks.

Bostrom 13 ~Nick Bostrom, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy @ University of Oxford, "Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority," Global Policy Vol. 4 Issue 1, February 2013~ JW
These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential
AND
of value. To do this, we must prevent any existential catastrophe. 

Part 2: Advantages

Plan Text: The national governments of Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will ban the production of nuclear power.

Russia's Middle East deals indicate that nuclear power is here to stay, reversing the Fukushima trend against them

Armstrong 15 ~Ian Armstrong, Supervisor and Researcher at Wikistrat, the world's first crowdsourced geopolitical consultancy, "Russia is creating a global nuclear power empire," Global risk Insights, October 29, 2015, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/~~ JW
For one, the ability of Russia to not only maintain pre-Fukushima nuclear
AND
for nuclear plant maintenance, but also the prestige that an NPP entails.

Advantage 1: Relations

Inherency: past conflicts in the Middle East haven't escalated. Each successive conflict will worsen the situation

Cordesman 01/4 ~Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy @ Center for Strategic and International Studies, "The ~New-Old~ Crises and Instability in the Middle East and North Africa in 2016," Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 4, 2016~ JW
Much of the news reporting and analysis of the Middle East seems to lurch from
AND
day, that will dominate the region in 2016 and in the future. 

And Sunni-Shiite splits will worsen as superpowers back different sects. High tension now between the various sects

Nasr 1/22 ~Vali Nasr, "The War for Islam," ForeignPolicy, January 22, 2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/22/the-war-for-islam-sunni-shiite-iraq-syria/~~ JW
Both sides in this conflict are now stuck in a zero-sum sectarian battle
AND
or at least, improve its position before settling for a new equilibrium.

Russian nuclear deals create heavy long-term influence that displaces the U.S. Do not underestimate the impact they will have on international relations.

Armstrong 15 ~Ian Armstrong, Supervisor and Researcher at Wikistrat, the world's first crowdsourced geopolitical consultancy, "Russia is creating a global nuclear power empire," Global risk Insights, October 29, 2015, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/~~ JW
Though these economic implications are worth considering, they are far overshadowed by the geopolitical
AND
competition from other capable nuclear powers may emerge in the medium-term.

Russia directly competing with China on nuclear energy exports in the Middle East and deepening sectarian divide in the Middle East

Tanchum 15 ~Micha'el Tanchum, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Global Energy Center and the Eurasian Energy Futures Initiative at the Atlantic Council , "Russia Races to Outflank China in Middle East Nuclear Technology Market," The Diplomat, July 31, 2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/russia-races-to-outflank-china-in-middle-east-nuclear-technology-market/~~ JW
As China enters the market for nuclear power plant construction in post-sanctions Iran
AND
principal reasons Russia is hurrying to secure new markets across the Middle East. 

U.S. influence in the Middle East is key to stability between countries and religious sects

Pollack et al 14 ~Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and Ray Takeyh, Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies, "Near Eastern Promises Why Washington Should Focus on the Middle East," Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014, http://www.cfr.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/near-eastern-promises/p32891~~ JW
U.S. disengagement has not produced a more stable or secure Middle East
AND
to the militarized overinvolvement that characterized the administration of George W. Bush.

Nuclear war extremely likely in the Middle East. Growing instability means escalation

Russell 9 ~James A. Russell, "Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East," IFRI Security Studies Center, Spring 2009~  
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1)
AND
the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.

Advantage 2: Prolif

Nuclear power deals with Russia guarantees proliferation, multiple internal warrants

Guzansky et al 15 ~Yoel Guzansky, research fellow at Institute for National Security Studies, Zvi Magen, Oded Eran, "Russian Nuclear Diplomacy in the Middle East," INSS Insight No. 782, December 29, 2015, http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538andarticleid=11195~~ JW
Russia is therefore increasing its cooperation in this area not only with Egypt, but
AND
that they accept conditions and restrictions, will accept such demands from Russia.

Middle East prolif causes nuclear war.

====Edelman 11====
Eric –Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and Former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67162/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevich-jr-and-evan-braden-montgomer/the-dangers-of-a-nuclear-iran
There is, however, at least one state that could receive significant outside support
AND
could lead to a new Great Game, with unpredictable consequences.
  

Part 3: Underview

1. Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12  ~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
. Instead we prefer to shout and denounce. Good luck with that.

2. Use epistemic modesty to evaluate the debate. That's probability of the moral framework being true multiplied by the value of an action under that framework

Overing 15 ~Bob Overing, coach for Loyola in Los Angeles and debater for the USC Trojan Debate Squad, "Recovering the Role of the Ballot: Evaluative Modesty in Academic Debate," Paper presented at the 2015 Alta Argumentation Conference, July 31, 2015~
What I have been calling "modesty" with regard to ROBs is an application
AND
, 2012). Modesty maintains the advantages of both by forcing teams to engage

Tournament: Voices RR | Round: 4 | Opponent: La Canada AZ | Judge: Michael Harris, Srikar Pyda

1AC – SV

All brackets for offensive language 

Part 1: Framework

The Role of the Judge is to be a critical educator focusing on the liberation of the oppressed

Giroux 06 ~Henry Giroux, American scholar and cultural critic, "America on the Edge: Henry Giro ux on Politics, Culture, and Education," Springer, March 31, 2006~ JW
Educators at all levels need to challenge the assumption that politics is dead, or
AND
that severely limit the creative, ethical, and liberatory potential of education.

The Role of the Ballot is to endorse the best methodology to liberate oppressed groups

Debate should deal with questions of real-world consequences—ideal theories ignore the concrete nature of the world and legitimize oppression

^{Curry 14 ~Tommy J. Curry, Professor of Philosophy @ Texas AandM, "The Cost of a Thing: A Kingian Reformulation of a Living Wage Argument in the 21st Century," 2014~
Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real
AND
economic structures which necessitate tangible policies and reorienting changes in our value orientations.} 

Structural violence outweighs. We must listen to the voices of the oppressed.

Winter and Leighton 99 (Deborah DuNann Winter and Dana C. Leighton. Winter: Psychologist that specializes in Social Psych, Counseling Psych, Historical and Contemporary Issues, Peace Psychology. Leighton: PhD graduate student in the Psychology Department at the University of Arkansas. Knowledgable in the fields of social psychology, peace psychology, and ustice and intergroup responses to transgressions of justice) (Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology in the 21st century. Pg 4-5, 1999)

Finally, to recognize the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions which often have painful answers for the privileged elite who unconsciously support it. A final question of this section is how and why we allow ourselves to be so oblivious to structural violence. Susan Opotow offers an intriguing set of answers, in her article Social Injustice. She argues that our normal perceptual/cognitive processes divide people into in-groups and out-groups. Those outside our group lie outside our scope of justice. Injustice that would be instantaneously confronted if it occurred to someone we love or know is barely noticed if it occurs to strangers or those who are invisible or irrelevant. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone, so we draw conceptual lines between those who are in and out of our moral circle. Those who fall outside are morally excluded, and become either invisible, or demeaned in some way so that we do not have to acknowledge the injustice they suffer. Moral exclusion is a human failing, but Opotow argues convincingly that it is an outcome of everyday social cognition. To reduce its nefarious effects, we must be vigilant in noticing and listening to oppressed, invisible, outsiders. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity. Like Opotow, all the authors in this section point out that structural violence is not inevitable if we become aware of its operation, and build systematic ways to mitigate its effects. Learning about structural violence may be discouraging, overwhelming, or maddening, but these papers encourage us to step beyond guilt and anger, and begin to think about how to reduce structural violence. All the authors in this section note that the same structures (such as global communication and normal social cognition) which feed structural violence, can also be used to empower citizens to reduce it. 

====The nuclearization of society enforces an epistemologically bankrupt mode of thinking in place of traditional ways of indigenous people. ====
WISE 93 ~World Information Service on Energy, founded in 1978, "Special: Environmental Racism and Nuclear Development," Nuclear Monitor Issue: ~#387-388, The WISE-Amsterdam Collective, March 1993~ JW
Racism, by itself, is a symptom of the deep sickness at the heart
AND
of vision that come from those who see from a different vantage point."

Part 2: Criticism

Subpoint A) Environmental racism

Every aspect of nuclear production overlaps and impedes upon Native Americans

Matsunaga 14 ~Kyoko Matsunaga, Associate Professor, Kobe City University of Foreign Studies, "Leslie Marmon Silko and Nuclear Dissent in the American Southwest," The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 25, 2014~ JW
The politics and rhetoric of the Cold War—of which the Vietnam War was
AND
by the "preexisting settler discourse about desert lands as barren wastelands."6

And to add insult to injury, Native Americans don't receive proper compensation for damages

Kyne and Bolin 7/12 ~Dean Kyne, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Bob Bolin, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, "Emerging Environmental Justice Issues in Nuclear Power and Radioactive Contamination," International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 12, 2016~ JW
The "uranium frenzy" began in the West in the 1940s as the U
AND
for downwind and mining victims to receive benefits for their illnesses ~75~.

Subpoint B) Cultural Genocide

The health and ecological effects on indigenous populations is tantamount to cultural genocide

Ryser et al 3/27 1 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Medical, genetic and social researchers have attempted to understand the complex public health effects
AND
, parts of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Yakama.

Subpoint C) Nuclear colonial discourse

Discourse about native lands as wastelands permits nuclear colonialism

Endres 09 1 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
Wasteland, like most words, is polysemous. In common parlance, wasteland is
AND
land being turned into a wasteland from toxic pollution (LaDuke 1999).9

Wasteland discourse justifies terrible nuclear policies. It directly spills over into actual policies and harms

Endres 2 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear power's environmental injustices," Local Environment Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2009, 917–937~ JW
The negative perception of the desert as wasteland has persisted to this day. The
AND
of wasteland as one of the justifications for HLW storage at those locations.

The 1AC is a direct challenge to this colonial discourse. We recognize that these lands have spiritual and cultural value to indigenous populations. Our affirmation of the resolution is our method to rectify this historic abuse and challenge traditional discourse that justifies cultural destruction.

Plan text: Native American tribal governments in conjunction with the USFG will ban the production of nuclear power

Part 3: Solvency

1. Conjunction with the federal government is key. There are nuclear activities near indigenous lands that negatively affect tribes but fall outside their jurisdiction

Tsosie 15 1 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
Second, U.S. public lands policy governs federal lands adjacent to the
AND
both.115 The Havasupai Tribe is still heavily invested in this issue.

2. Any amount of radiation is dangerous. Means a ban of all nuclear power is the only way to solve.

Ryser et al 2 ~Rudolph C. Ryser, Chairperson of the Center for World Indigenous Studies (CWIS), a research, education and public policy institution and he is a Fulbright Research Scholar, "The Indigenous World Under a Nuclear Cloud," Truth-Out, March 27, 2016, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud~~ JW
Radioactive substances carry uniquely dangerous characteristics compared to other toxins made by human industry.
AND
of potential increased cancer risk — particularly from disposed spent radioactive fuel rods.

3. Exercising Native American sovereign power is uniquely key to addressing the historical legacy of nuclear colonialism

Tsosie 2 ~Rebecca Tsosie, Regent's Professor of Law, Arizona State University, "Indigenous Peoples and the Ethics of Remediation: Redressing the Legacy of Radioactive Contamination for Native Peoples and Native Lands," Santa Clara Journal of International Law Vol 13 Issue 1, April 2, 2015~ JW
The exercise of self-determination is necessary to redress the legacy of the 19th
AND
this with a practice of "genocide" against the Navajo people.16

4. The aff is part of a larger resistance to nuclear colonialism.

Endres 3 ~Danielle Endres, Associate Professor of communications @ University of Utah, "The Rhetoric of Nuclear Colonialism: Rhetorical Exclusion of American Indian Arguments in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Siting Decision," Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies,6:1,39 — 60, 2009~
~Native~ American Indian resistance is an important part of the story of nuclear
AND
also intersects with sovereignty, nuclearism and colonialism, to which I now turn

Part 4: Underview

1. Aff gets RVI's on theory

a) It's key to reciprocity since neg will kick theory if I answer it
b) Checks frivolous theory by punishing bad theory
c) It's logical: you should lose for needlessly calling me a cheater

2. Reject low probability impacts.

Kessler and Daase 08 ~Oliver Kessler and Christopher Daase, Faculty of Sociology, University of Bielefeld, Department of Political Science, University of Munich, "From Insecurity to Uncertainty: Risk and the Paradox of Security Politics," Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 33, No. 2, The Social Construction and Control of Danger in Counterterrorism (Apr.-June 2008), pp. 211-232~
The problem of the second method is that it is very difficult to "calculate
AND
prevail than in situations where security problems can be assessed with relative certainty. 

3. Social injustice is the root of mass-scale violence – it primes society for external violence.

• • Scheper-Hughes 04 (Scheper-Hughes 4 (Prof of Anthropology @ Cal-Berkely; Prof of Anthropology @ UPenn) (Nancy and Philippe, Introduction: Making Sense of Violence, in Violence in War and Peace, pg. 19-22)
    This large and at first sight "messy" Part VII is central to this
    AND
    including the house gun and gated communities; and reversed feelings of victimization).

4. Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12 bracketed for grammar
~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
capitalist because they do more to drive people into the embrace of reigning ideology

Tournament: Voices RR | Round: 5 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake IP | Judge: Shailja Somani, Steven Herman

1AC

Part 1: Framework:

I affirm and value morality

Reductionism means that there is no personal identity which concludes util

Schultz 86 ~Bart Schultz, Senior Lecturer in Humanities (Philosophy) and Director of the Humanities Division's Civic Knowledge Project at the University of Chicago, "Persons, Selves, and Utilitarianism," Ethics, Vol. 96, No. 4 (Jul., 1986), pp. 721-745~ JW
The theory of personal identity that might be used to support util- itarianism is
AND
that there is less to it than we had been inclined to think. 

This leads to util

a. If people are just a series of certain disconnected physical and mental states, the only relevant impact is maximizing experiences within those states of affairs

b. Other theories presume identity is relevant. If identity is irrelevant, then util must be true

Additional reasons as to why reductionism is true:

A. Psychological evidence proves that we don't identify with our future selves – continuous personal identity doesn't exist

Opar 14 ~Alisa Opar, articles editor at Audubon magazine, "Why We Procrastinate," Nautilus, January 16, 2014, http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/why-we-procrastinate~~
The British philosopher Derek Parfit espoused a severely reductionist view of personal identity in his
AND
to practice being good to others. One of them might be you. 

B. Split brain experiments prove we don't have unified consciousness or identity

Parfit 84 bracketed for gendered language ~Derek Parfit, British philosopher, "Reasons and Persons, 1984~
Some recent medical cases provide striking evidence in favour of the Reductionist View. Human
AND
, and can receive two different answers written by this person's two hands.

Thus the standard is maximizing expected well-being. Additional reasons to prefer

1. The state is inevitable- policymaking is the only way to create change.

Coverstone 5 Alan Coverstone (masters in communication from Wake Forest, longtime debate coach) "Acting on Activism: Realizing the Vision of Debate with Pro-social Impact" Paper presented at the National Communication Association Annual Conference November 17^th 2005
 An important concern emerges when Mitchell describes reflexive fiat as a contest strategy capable
AND
that is a fundamental cause of voter and participatory abstention in America today.

2. Ethical uncertainty means we prioritize existential risks.

Bostrom 13 ~Nick Bostrom, Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy @ University of Oxford, "Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority," Global Policy Vol. 4 Issue 1, February 2013~ JW
These reflections on moral uncertainty suggest an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential
AND
of value. To do this, we must prevent any existential catastrophe. 

Part 2: Advantages

Plan Text: The national governments of Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will ban the production of nuclear power.

Russia's Middle East deals indicate that nuclear power is here to stay, reversing the Fukushima trend against them

Armstrong 15 ~Ian Armstrong, Supervisor and Researcher at Wikistrat, the world's first crowdsourced geopolitical consultancy, "Russia is creating a global nuclear power empire," Global risk Insights, October 29, 2015, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/~~ JW
For one, the ability of Russia to not only maintain pre-Fukushima nuclear
AND
for nuclear plant maintenance, but also the prestige that an NPP entails.

Advantage 1: Relations

Inherency: past conflicts in the Middle East haven't escalated. Each successive conflict will worsen the situation

Cordesman 01/4 ~Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy @ Center for Strategic and International Studies, "The ~New-Old~ Crises and Instability in the Middle East and North Africa in 2016," Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 4, 2016~ JW
Much of the news reporting and analysis of the Middle East seems to lurch from
AND
day, that will dominate the region in 2016 and in the future. 

And Sunni-Shiite splits will worsen as each superpower backs a different sect. High tension now between the various sects

Nasr 1/22 ~Vali Nasr, "The War for Islam," ForeignPolicy, January 22, 2016, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/22/the-war-for-islam-sunni-shiite-iraq-syria/~~ JW
Both sides in this conflict are now stuck in a zero-sum sectarian battle
AND
or at least, improve its position before settling for a new equilibrium.

Russian nuclear deals create heavy long-term influence that displaces the U.S. Do not underestimate the impact they will have on international relations.

Armstrong 15 ~Ian Armstrong, Supervisor and Researcher at Wikistrat, the world's first crowdsourced geopolitical consultancy, "Russia is creating a global nuclear power empire," Global risk Insights, October 29, 2015, http://globalriskinsights.com/2015/10/russia-is-creating-a-global-nuclear-power-empire/~~ JW
Though these economic implications are worth considering, they are far overshadowed by the geopolitical
AND
competition from other capable nuclear powers may emerge in the medium-term.

Russia directly competing with China on nuclear energy exports in the Middle East and deepening sectarian divide in the Middle East

Tanchum 15 ~Micha'el Tanchum, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Global Energy Center and the Eurasian Energy Futures Initiative at the Atlantic Council , "Russia Races to Outflank China in Middle East Nuclear Technology Market," The Diplomat, July 31, 2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/russia-races-to-outflank-china-in-middle-east-nuclear-technology-market/~~ JW
As China enters the market for nuclear power plant construction in post-sanctions Iran
AND
principal reasons Russia is hurrying to secure new markets across the Middle East. 

U.S. influence in the Middle East is key to stability between countries and religious sects

Pollack et al 14 ~Kenneth M. Pollack, Director of Research, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, and Ray Takeyh, Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle East Studies, "Near Eastern Promises Why Washington Should Focus on the Middle East," Foreign Affairs, May/June 2014, http://www.cfr.org/middle-east-and-north-africa/near-eastern-promises/p32891~~ JW
U.S. disengagement has not produced a more stable or secure Middle East
AND
to the militarized overinvolvement that characterized the administration of George W. Bush.

Nuclear war extremely likely in the Middle East. Growing instability means escalation

Russell 9 ~James A. Russell, "Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East," IFRI Security Studies Center, Spring 2009~  
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1)
AND
the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.

Advantage 2: Prolif

Nuclear power deals with Russia guarantees proliferation, multiple internal warrants

Guzansky et al 15 ~Yoel Guzansky, research fellow at Institute for National Security Studies, Zvi Magen, Oded Eran, "Russian Nuclear Diplomacy in the Middle East," INSS Insight No. 782, December 29, 2015, http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538andarticleid=11195~~ JW
Russia is therefore increasing its cooperation in this area not only with Egypt, but
AND
that they accept conditions and restrictions, will accept such demands from Russia.

Middle East prolif causes nuclear war.

====Edelman 11====
Eric –Distinguished Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and Former U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67162/eric-s-edelman-andrew-f-krepinevich-jr-and-evan-braden-montgomer/the-dangers-of-a-nuclear-iran
There is, however, at least one state that could receive significant outside support
AND
Middle East could lead to a new Great Game, with unpredictable consequences.  

Part 3: Underview

Use epistemic modesty to evaluate the debate.

Overing 15 ~Bob Overing, coach for Loyola in Los Angeles and debater for the USC Trojan Debate Squad, "Recovering the Role of the Ballot: Evaluative Modesty in Academic Debate," Paper presented at the 2015 Alta Argumentation Conference, July 31, 2015~
What I have been calling "modesty" with regard to ROBs is an application
AND
to these instances of impact framing may make modesty much more intuitively appealing.

Abstract critique is useless unless it offers a concrete policy alternative that can solve for the harms

Bryant 12  ~Levi Bryant, prof of philosophy at Collins college, "Critique of the Academic Left," http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/~~
The problem as I see it is that this is the worst sort of abstraction
AND
things contain dirty secrets, ugly motives, and are doomed to fail.