Tournament: gbx | Round: 1 | Opponent: good question | Judge: good question
=Borderlands QI 1AC=

Part One is La Frontera:

The borderlands are defined by the rigid barriers that we impose on people of the strict categorization of ethnicity, race, class, gender that serve as the structure for various forms of oppression. Not only are the borderlands defined by the modes of thinking we have in the status quo but also the geographic spaces we have.

Tamdgidi 08

Mohammad H. Tamdgidi, Prof. @ U. Mass-Boston, "I Change Myself, I Change the World": Gloria Anzaldua's Sociological Imagination in Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza", Humanity and Society, 2008, p. JSTOR
 "The thesis of global social change via radical self-knowledge and transformation
AND
transformative nature of Anzaldua's writings in general and in her Borderlands in particular." 

Breaking down the borderlands is key in order for Latinx youth to challenge their own identities and positions in society and lead to real world change.

Salazar-Jerez and Fránquiz
"Ni de aquí, ni de allá: Latin@1 Youth Crossing Linguistic
AND
Denver Journal of Border Educational Research Volume 6 l Number 2 l 2007  DD

"Although decades ago the U.S. Census Bureau began forecasting that Latin@s would become the largest minority group in the United States of America, in 2005 ordinary citizens were surprised to learn this projection had become a reality. For some, the reality that Latin@s comprised 13 of the U.S. population (Pew Hispanic Center, 2005) was a hard fact to swallow. The additional prediction from the U.S. Census Bureau ~predicts~ that by the year 2050, Latin~x~@s will comprise approximately 25 of the U.S. population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004) presents an even more difficult fact for intake. As researchers it is baffling to note that many school districts ignore these demographic changes until families come knocking on school office doors. The realization of Latin~x~@s becoming a significant student population in urban, suburban and rural U.S. schools is a demographic change mandate~es~ing that legislators, policy makers, educators ~to~ and ordinary citizens examine stereotypic information regarding how to best educate a social group who, by all accounts, will continue its very rapid rate of growth (Chapa and De La Rosa, 2004). While in the past, addressing the educational needs of Latin@ youth was conceived within deficit standpoints of who they are as a monolithic bloc and how they threaten both the future of the English language and U.S. resources, research finds that most Latin@ youth are born in the U.S., and prefer to speak and read English (Zentella, 2005). Additionally, these youth are growing up in order to work in the technical, sales, and administrative support sectors (Chapa and De La Rosa, 2004) of 21^st  century America. They live productive lives in families whose buying power is growing at impressive rates. Thus, we argue that the education of adolescents living in the current demographic reality cannot be addressed with deficit orientations accepted in the past. Instead, we argue that in U.S. schools experiencing "the Browning of America" (Aponte and Siles, 1994; Johnson, et.al. 1997) students must be approached with affirming orientations. These approaches must effectively address Latin~x~@ students' educational struggles as they cross a myriad of borders on a daily basis in order to remain engaged in schools."

==Part two: El Problema==

====Meet US citizen and latinx adolescent Juan Mendez who was shot to death by border patrol agent Taylor Poitevent for allegedly being an illegal alien. ====
"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS." International Legal Materials 20.3 (1981): 650-53. Web.
On October 5, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Taylor Poitevent, uniformed and on
AND
about 15 feet away from Poitevent, and both shots hit him.2

This very border patrol agent was later granted qualified immunity. Qualified immunity functions in order for governmental authorities to maintain their position in society and value their lives over other unarmed citizens. The discourse of this court case presents the image of Latinx lives as being lesser than that of a border patrol agent—it was either Poitevants life of Mendez's and somehow we allow the normalization of murder to protect the law even if no real threat or law had been broken.

"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS." International Legal Materials 20.3 (1981): 650-53. Web
Poitevent and the United States each moved for summary judgment. The district court granted
AND
continue summary judgment in order to give them an opportunity to conduct discovery. 

A similar struggle confronts people that aren't US citizens but are killed by border patrol—without having the citizen rights that Americans do, there is little justice for those with violence imposed on them. Sergio Hernandez, a Mexican citizen was playing with friends in Ciduad Juarez when shot to death by Officer Jesus Mesa who was on the US side of the border in El Paso, Texas. The supreme court is to hear this case in 2016 to clarify where the jurisdiction of law extends to and if Mesa will be granted qualified immunity with no clear contradiction to the constitution.

Dean, Jamie. "Be Reasonable: Qualified Immunity, After-Discovered Facts, and the Case of Hernandez v. Mesa." Be Reasonable: Qualified Immunity, After-Discovered Facts, and the Case of Hernandez v. Mesa. Womble Carlyle, Oct.-Nov. 2016. Web. 10 Nov. 2016.
Hernandez arises out of the 2010 shooting of Sergio Hernandez, a fifteen-year
AND
" those limits does not guarantee democracy and full rights for certain bodies.

Politicizing the criminal as the enemy subjects them not to law but unlimited sovereignty, enabling the state to justify sacrifice of the political community and making civil war inevitable

Lajous, 12 – doctor of Law at Yale, professor and researcher at Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económica, a Mexican center of research and higher education specialized in social sciences (Alejandro Madrazo, "Criminals and enemies? The Mexican drug trafficker in official discourse and in narcocorridos," translated by Fernanda Alonso)bghs-BI
II. The criminal and the enemy in the political imaginary8 The temptation to label
AND
only a civil war can be deployed, no longer a normative system. 

When the legitimacy and existence of a population is in question, politics become murderous – the entirety of the world is reduced to bare life in an attempt to rid the public sphere of all risk. The only option becomes the extermination of all life

Duarte, 5 – professor of Philosophy at Universidade Federal do Paraná (André, "Biopolitics and the dissemination of violence: the Arendtian critique of the present," April 2005, http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017andcontext=andre_duarte)//bghs-BI
These historic transformations have not only brought more violence to the core of the political
AND
actions of acknowledging and welcoming, of extending hospitality and solidarity towards others.

Part three: El Papel

The judge should adopt mestiza consciousness in order to challenge the Borderlands.

Dualistic thinking is the root cause of all oppression. Adopt the mestizo consciousness and break down dualistic modes of thinking. The Borderlands are a thought experiment that forces us the imagine people, identities and cultures as they exist in various overlapping borderlands. Engaging and transcending rigid barriers leads to a psychic break that could lead to global change.

The judge has a voice in the debate community and speaks through their ballot on the topic. By adopting the mestiza consciousness, the judge shifts from an objective to a subjective position. The objective position forces the judges to divorce themselves from their subjective feelings, which guide their actions, i.e. intuitions. Subjectivity reintroduces the others voice into debate. Koh and Niemi '15

(Ben Koh, Rebar Niemi, How Do I Reach These Kids?: An Affirmation of Polyvocal Debate, http://nsdupdate.com/2015/09/15/how-do-i-reach-these-kids-an-affirmation-of-polyvocal-debate-by-ben-koh-rebar-niemi/, September 15, 2015)
In debate, the collaborative way voices intertwine builds a world of speech and frames
AND
util is that it will always marginalize the same groups of people more.

The pedagogical practices should also be used to give Latinx students the ability to express themselves. To silence the Affirmative by T/Theory is the silence of Latinx culture. T/Theory also forces me to look down on Latinx culture as un-educational and unfair in the debate community. Salazar-Jerez and Fránquiz

"Ni de aquí, ni de allá: Latin@1 Youth Crossing Linguistic And Cultural Borders" María E. Fránquiz  University of Texas at San Antonio  María del Carmen Salazar-Jerez University of Denver Journal of Border Educational Research Volume 6 l Number 2 l 2007  DD Page 105-106.
 "The chasm between the socio-economic, socio-cultural and linguistic
AND
youth possess toward school, home, heritage language, and ethnic community." 

2AC

antiblackness

cap

court clog

Tournament: Colleyville | Round: 1 | Opponent: idk | Judge: idk
Part 1 is Framwork
My value for this round is individualism.
Placing the individual above society is necessary to prevent oppression
Rawls 93. John Rawls, Philosopher at Harvard. POLITICAL LIBERALISM, 1993, p. 146
To this objection, we say that the hope of political community must indeed be abandoned, if by such a community we mean a political society united in affirming the same comprehensive doctrine. This possibility is excluded by the fact of reasonable pluralism together with the rejection of the oppressive use of the state power to overcome it.
The criterion is protecting individual rights
Free speech as an individual right is a pre-requisite to any rational moral system- without it self-realization is impossible.
Eberle 94. Eberle, Law @ Roger Williams, 94  (Wake Forest LR, Winter)
The Court's decision in R.A.V. reaffirms the preeminence of free speech in our constitutional value structure. n62 Theoretically, free speech is intrinsically valuable as a chief means by which we develop our faculties and control our destinies. n63 Free speech is also of instrumental value in facilitating other worthy ends such as democratic or personal self-government, n64 public and private decisionmaking, n65 and the advancement of knowledge and truth. n66 Ultimately, the value of free speech rests upon a complex set of justifications, as compared to reliance on any single foundation. n67 The majority of the Court in R.A.V. preferred a nonconsequentialist view, finding that speech is valuable as an end itself, independent of any consequences that it might produce. In this view, free speech is an essential part of a just and free society that treats all people as responsible moral agents. Accordingly, people are entrusted with the responsibility of making judgments about the use or abuse of speech. n68 From this vantage point, the majority saw a certain moral equivalency in all speech. Even hate speech merits protection under the First Amendment, because all speech has intrinsic value. This is so because all speech, even hate speech, is a communication to the world, and therefore implicates the speaker's autonomy or self-realization. Additionally, any information might be valuable to a listener who can then decide its importance or how best to use it. Accordingly, any suspicion or evidence of governmental censorship must be vigilantly investigated.
Observation 1:
Free speech facilitates the development of moral reasoning- restrictions should be prima facie rejected.
Dwyer 01. (Susan, Phil@Maryland, Nordic Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 2, No. 2 ® Philosophia Press 2001)
Direct Nonconsequentialism Let us return to the central topic: free speech. From the perspective just sketched, the value of a marketplace of ideas – that notion so central to the consequentialist justification of free speech – lies not so much in its long-term all-things-considered good consequences (the avoidance of dogmatism, democracy, truth, etc.) Rather, free speech is seen as a necessary condition for the realization of any human goods. Constraints on inquiry and expression are constraints on humanity itself. Echoing this thought, Nagel (1995) writes: That the expression of what one thinks and feels should be overwhelmingly one's own business, subject to restriction only when clearly necessary to prevent serious harm distinct from the expression itself, is a condition of being an independent thinking being. It is a form of moral recognition that you have a mind of your own: even if you never want to say anything to which others would object, the idea that they could stop you if they did object is in itself a violation of your integrity (96). A simple yet powerful fact both explains why speech is valuable in and of itself and justifies its stringent protection: when speech is threatened, we are threatened. Direct nonconsequentialism stands in stark contrast to consequentialist approaches which, as we have seen, make the value of speech contingent on its effects. And unlike indirect nonconsequentialism, it makes our status as language users, not our autonomy, the ground for limiting the state's attempts to interfere with our liberty. To repeat: direct nonconsequentialism asserts that speech is valuable because linguistic capacities are the expression of the essence of creatures (us) to whom we attribute the highest moral status. The way in which the direct nonconsequentialist makes explicit what is special about speech helps to make sense of a commonly experienced wariness regarding restrictions on speech we hate. We worry equally when the state seeks to prohibit the speech of sexists or Flat-Earthers. The consequentialist thinks this reaction is explained by attributing to us the belief that any state restriction of speech is the thin end of a wedge: we are discomforted by the thought of the muzzled sexist or Flat-Earther because we think our speech may be next. This may well be the right account of human psychology in these matters. But it is hardly an explanation of the prima facie wrongness of restrictions on lunatics' and sexists’ speech. Our discomfort is a moral discomfort. In bringing out the idea that speech is the expression of our essence, the direct nonconsequentialist is able to capture the true nature of our reaction to state restrictions on others' speech we do not particularly care for. Direct nonconsequentialism also gives substance to a powerful idea that some influential critics – notably, Catharine Mackinnon (1987) – find hopelessly abstract. This is the thought that “every time you strengthen free speech in one place, you strengthen it everywhere (164).” And seeing how direct nonconsequentialism does so will help illustrate some of the practical implications of this strategy for justifying free speech. Proponents of legislation designed to restrict or prohibit problematic speech and courts that rule on the constitutionality of such legislation, often reason in terms of how free speech interests are to be balanced with other interests. For example, proponents of speech codes argue that racist speech harms minorities’ interests in social and political equality; and in the United States, the constitutionality of restrictions on ‘fighting words’ is defended in light of the state’s interests in maintaining law and order. These arguments imply that the expressive rights of individual racists and troublemakers may sometimes be infringed in order to promote the good of some collective. But as the history of free speech debates reveal, once we admit that collective interests can trump individual rights, it is extremely difficult consistently to maintain the belief that a right to free speech imposes severe limits on what the state may do. The direct nonconsequentialist justification of free speech avoids this particular difficulty. Recall, we are working within the context of constitutional provisions – that is, we are thinking about rationales for stringent protections of speech, where these are understood as mechanisms for keeping the government out of some aspect of our lives. In this sense, such provisions express rights had by individuals against the state. But the direct nonconsequentialist’s account of the basis of these rights suggests that it is a mistake to think of them as radically individualistic. True, each of us has a right to free speech, but we have that right in virtue of our membership in a collective – the species H. sapiens – where every member has the same right for the same reason. Thus, in stressing that a universal feature of the species – language mastery – grounds protections on speech, the direct nonconsequentialist avoids individualizing the right to free speech in a way that makes it perpetually vulnerable to the assertion of some collective good. If we think of a person’s right to free speech as protecting just one aspect of his liberty among others, we run the risk of obscuring what is morally relevant about speech. The hatemonger and the pornographer each have a right to free speech, but this is not to be understood in terms of their being free to act on contingent desires they have. My occurrent desire to eat ice-cream holds no weight in the big scheme of things; even I would concede that it is permissible for the state to thwart my satisfying this desire, if doing so meant promoting some very important collective good. But speech is different. It is worthy of protection not because people want to say certain things, but (to repeat) because speech expresses our very nature. What someone wants to say is neither here nor there. Thus, in decoupling the value of free speech from individual desires, direct nonconsequentialism gives content to the idea that when we strengthen (protect) free speech in one place, we strengthen (protect) it everywhere.

Consequentially, Free speech is a gateway to every other impact.
D’Souza 96. (Frances, Prof. Anthropology Oxford, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/hearings/19960425/droi/freedom_en.htm?textMode=on)

In the absence of freedom of expression which includes a free and independent media, it is impossible to protect other rights, including the right to life. Once governments are able to draw a cloak of secrecy over their actions and to remain unaccountable for their actions then massive human rights violations can, and do, take place. For this reason alone the right to freedom of expression, specifically protected in the major international human rights treaties, must be considered to be a primary right. It is significant that one of the first indications of a government's intention to depart from democratic principles is the ever increasing control of information by means of gagging the media, and preventing the freeflow of information from abroad. At one end of the spectrum there are supposedly minor infringements of this fundamental right which occur daily in Western democracies and would include abuse of national security laws to prevent the publication of information which might be embarrassing to a given government: at the other end of the scale are the regimes of terror which employ the most brutal moves to suppress opposition, information and even the freedom to exercise religious beliefs. It has been argued, and will undoubtedly be discussed at this Hearing, that in the absence of free speech and an independent media, it is relatively easy for governments to capture, as it were, the media and to fashion them into instruments of propaganda, for the promotion of ethnic conflict, war and genocide. 2. Enshrining the right to freedom of expression The right to freedom of expression is formally protected in the major international treaties including the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, it is enshrined in many national constitutions throughout the world, although this does not always guarantee its protection. Furthermore, freedom of expression is, amongst other human rights, upheld, even for those countries which are not signatories to the above international treaties through the concept of customary law which essentially requires that all states respect the human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by virtue of the widespread or customary respect which has been built up in the post World War II years. 3. Is free speech absolute? While it is generally accepted that freedom of expression is, and remains the cornerstone of democracy, there are permitted restrictions encoded within the international treaties which in turn allow for a degree of interpretation of how free free speech should be. Thus, unlike the American First Amendment Rights which allow few, if any, checks on free speech or on the independence of the media, the international treaties are concerned that there should be a balance between competing rights: for example, limiting free speech or media freedom where it impinges on the individual's right to privacy; where free speech causes insult or injury to the rights and reputation of another; where speech is construed as incitement to violence or hatred, or where free speech would create a public disturbance. Given that these permitted restrictions are necessarily broad, the limits of free speech are consistently tested in national law courts and, perhaps even more importantly, in the regional courts such as the European Commission and Court of Human Rights. In recent years several landmark cases have helped to define more closely what restrictions may be imposed by government and under what circumstances. In particular, it has been emphasised by the European Court that any restriction must comply with a three-part test which requires that any such restriction should first of all be prescribed by law, and thus not arbitrarily imposed: proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, and demonstrably necessary in a democratic society in order to protect the individual and/or the state. 4. Who censors what? Despite the rather strict rules which apply to restrictions on free speech that governments may wish to impose, many justifications are nevertheless sought by governments to suppress information which is inimical to their policies or their interests. These justifications include arguments in defence of national and/or state security, the public interst, including the need to protect public morals and public order and perfectly understandable attempts to prevent racism, violence, sexism, religious intolerance and damage to the indi-vidual's reputation or privacy. The mechanisms employed by governments to restrict the freeflow of information are almost endless and range from subtle economic pressures and devious methods of undermining political opponents and the independent media to the enactment of restrictive press laws and an insist-ence on licensing journalists and eventually to the illegal detention, torture and disappearances of journalists and others associated with the expression of independent views. 5. Examples of censorship To some the right to free speech may appear to be one of the fringe human rights, especially when compared to such violations as torture and extra-judicial killings. It is also sometimes difficult to dissuade the general public that censorship, generally assumed to be something to do with banning obscene books or magazines, is no bad thing! It requires a recognition of some of the fundamental principles of democracy to understand why censorship is so immensely dangerous. The conditon of democracy is that people are able to make choices about a wide variety of issues which affect their lives, including what they wish to see, read, hear or discuss. While this may seem a somewhat luxurious distinction preoccupying, perhaps, wealthy Western democracies, it is a comparatively short distance between government censorship of an offensive book to the silencing of political dissidents. And the distance between such silencing and the use of violence to suppress a growing political philosophy which a government finds inconvenient is even shorter. Censorship tends to have small beginnings and to grow rapidly. Allowing a government to have the power to deny people information, however trivial, not only sets in place laws and procedures which can and will be used by those in authority against those with less authority, but it also denies people the information which they must have in order to monitor their governments actions and to ensure accountability. There have been dramatic and terrible examples of the role that censorship has played in international politics in the last few years: to name but a few, the extent to which the media in the republics of former Yugoslavia were manipulated by government for purposes of propaganda; the violent role played by the government associated radio in Rwanda which incited citizens to kill each other in the name of ethnic purity and the continuing threat of murder issued by the Islamic Republic of Iran against a citizen of another country for having written a book which displeased them. 6. The link between poverty, war and denial of free speech There are undoubted connections between access to information, or rather the lack of it, and war, as indeed there are between poverty, the right to freedom of expression and development. One can argue that democracy aims to increase participation in political and other decision-making at all levels. In this sense democracy empowers people. The poor are denied access to information on decisions which deeply affect their lives, are thus powerless and have no voice; the poor are not able to have influence over their own lives, let alone other aspect of society. Because of this essential powerlessness, the poor are unable to influence the ruling elite in whose interests it may be to initiate conflict and wars in order to consolidate their own power and position. Of the 126 developing countries listed in the 1993 Human Development Report, war was ongoing in 30 countries and severe civil conflict in a further 33 countries. Of the total 63 countries in conflict, 55 are towards the bottom scale of the human development index which is an indicator of poverty. There seems to be no doubt that there is a clear association between poverty and war. It is reasonably safe to assume that the vast majority of people do not ever welcome war. They are normally coerced, more often than not by propaganda, into fear, extreme nationalist sentiments and war by their governments. If the majority of people had a democratic voice they would undoubtedly object to war. But voices are silenced. Thus, the freedom to express one's views and to challenge government decisions and to insist upon political rather than violent solutions, are necessary aspects of democracy which can, and do, avert war. Government sponsored propaganda in Rwanda, as in former Yugoslavia, succeeded because there weren't the means to challenge it. One has therefore to conclude that it is impossible for a particular government to wage war in the absence of a compliant media willing to indulge in government propaganda. This is because the government needs civilians to fight wars for them and also because the media is needed to re-inforce government policies and intentions at every turn.
Part 2 is the Case Proper
Contention One
First amendment rights on college and university campuses are being violated.
Alexander 16 (11-25-2016, "University of Tennessee Police Violate Independent Media's Rights at Public Protest," Cop Block, http://www.copblock.org/168632/university-of-tennessee-police-violate-independent-media-rights/)
Free speech zones are illegal on public campuses. University of Tennessee Police Officers and official policies, practices, or customs resulted in a deprivation of my rights. Because the protest was not an official “event of national significance,” I cannot be forced, as a citizen or media, into a separate area, under duress. “The First Amendment represents “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). Our institutions of higher learning play a central role in a system of freedom of expression because “the college…surround-ing (sic) environs is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas.’” Healy, 408 U.S. at180. In this regard, “the first danger to liberty lies in granting the State the power” to limit freedom of expression in contravention of the “background and tradition of thought and experiment that is at the center of our intellectual and philosophic tradition.” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 835 (1995). The First Amendment provides in pertinent part that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,” and is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.” On November 10th This past Friday a group(s) held a protest regarding the election of Donald Trump. The Knox News Sentinal wrote: “The protest, loosely comprised of the campus’ Diversity Matters student coalition, started near the amphitheater outside the humanities building at 12:30 p.m. The group marched along around the building and up pedestrian walkway.” Trying to get the law or officers’ orders on record…I spoke to Officer A. O’neal. She stated “They just call us and tell us what we need to do.” She was speaking of campus policies and customs. I let her know that you don’t need to go through any procedure to be on public property. Soon after speaking with Officer O’neal, I headed to the protest that was taking place in the walkway on campus. Before I was able to get there, I was approached by Officer McCarter. His first words were, “Let’s go down here for a minute. You do not have permission to be here.” He pointed to and told me directed reporters to go to a “free speech zone.” I asked why I could not go on my way to the protest. I had planned on recording the events. I do not actively participate in protests as a protestor. I do not believe I have ever been a protestor. I have been to many protests to report on them. I was not asked by the officer if I was protesting or going to be protesting. I had no signs. I only record the events. He said that I was not affiliated with the university. We verbally disagreed on whether or not I could be there. Even though I knew I was on a public property, I asked if I was on public property for verification. The officer stated, “This is private property. It belongs to the State of Tennessee.” Again, I said, “Then it’s public property.” His response, “No Sir.” He said that I had to be student, staff, faculty or be here to conduct business. Again, university policy. I asked what happens next. He said I needed to go to the free speech zone, which was not near the protest. I asked what would happen if I did not do that. He said that I could be taken to jail for criminal trespass. My press credentials were visible on my neck the entire day, and I was the only one at the event or at my location with both a photo ID and press credentials on my neck. My media credentials include my photo, date of expiration, address, signature and my affiliations and large bold letters PRESS. He looked at my press credentials and sent me to an and was eight ft. long “free speech zone.” The officer then mentioned I needed to go stay with my friend. The “friend,” I had seen only once before in my life when I was covering the election. I said he was not with me. I was only covering him because that is where the news was at the time. This was clarified, and I was still told to go to the free speech zone by officer McCarter. I was respectful, but I was forced to go to the free speech zone as I verbally protested to the officer. My rights were violated and under threat of arrest, again, I had no choice but to follow the officer’s commands in order to get more clarification and offer respect to the officer.
Revolutionary thinkers will be most vulnerable to suppression under regimes that reserves the right to criminalize any unsatisfactory speech. It’s easy to think that restrictions will only be applied to those who legitimately pose some threat- like groups spewing hate speech- but this ignores the nature of politics and the current social climate.
Bernstein 03 (David E. Bernstein, Defending the First Amendment from Antidiscrimination Laws, 82 N.C. L. Rev. 223, 240-41 (2003). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=489063  David E. Bernstein is the George Mason University Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law)
Ironically, protecting freedom of expression from government regulation ultimately will benefit left-wing scholars who support censorship, such as radical feminists and critical race theorists, as much as anyone. These scholars advocate speech regulations while living primarily in the very left-wing academic world, where their views are only marginally out of the mainstream. Yet, if the First Amendment is weakened sufficiently by antidiscrimination law that the government gains the power to suppress speech more broadly, feminists and critical race theorists, as holders of views wildly at variance to those of the public at large, are likely to be among the first victims. FN125 That leftists writing in a society that has long been and continues to be hostile to their ideology FN126 would want to weaken the principle that government may not suppress expression because of hostility to its viewpoint seems counterintuitive, to say the least. Indeed, many critical race scholars and feminists argue that America is innately and irredeemably racist and sexist. FN127 One need not accept this vision to realize that the Critical Race and Radical Feminist Party, if such a thing existed, would not exactly sweep the American electorate anytime soon. FN128 Because many critical race theorists and feminists claim to believe that America is so hostile to their values, they should find constitutional protections against the majority are especially meaningful. Indeed, if left-wing professors wish to preserve their own academic freedom, they will need to learn to be more tolerant of those whose speech they currently seek to suppress. For the last several decades, pressure to censor free speech on university campuses has come primarily from the left. The current war against terrorism, and the frequent dissent within the academy to that war, has shifted the dynamic, putting many radical professors on the defensive. The First Amendment, and the values of academic freedom that it has fostered, will protect the vast majority of dissenters, but only because the radical's war against the First Amendment has as yet been largely unsuccessful. Of course, left-wing censors imagine a world in which the government silences only their ideological enemies, and they advocate censorship as an integral part of a much broader scheme for reconstructing society along egalitarian lines. Yet, it should be a cardinal principle of political advocacy that one should not support granting the government regulatory powers that one would not want applied to oneself. This principle would not only reduce hypocrisy, but also remind political activists that politics is unpredictable, driven by power rather than morality. Power given to government is often unexpectedly ultimately used against those who advocated that the power be exercised against others. As William Graham Sumner remarked many years ago: The advocate of government interference takes it for granted that he and his asociates will have the administration of their legislative device in their own hands. . . . They never appear to remember that the device, when once set up, will itself be the prize of a struggle; that it will serve one set of purposes as well as another, so that after all the only serious question is: who will get it?" FN129 This is a lesson that academic advocates of censorship would do well to learn.
This is especially true for students of color. Black students are unsure of their first amendment protections.
Newkirk 16. Vann R. Newkirk Ii, 4-7-2016, "Why Fears About Free Speech on College Campus Are Misguided," Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/first-amendment-college-campus-millennials/477171/
Black students are seem to be less sure about First Amendment protections than their white counterparts, though. Across each of the five freedoms—religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition—black students were less likely to rate them as secure; two-thirds of all black students said they believe freedom of assembly is under threat. While certain writers have caricatured racial “social-justice warriors” as anti-freedom zealots who simply wish to curtail speech they don’t agree with, this data point provides a reality check. How does that caricature fit with this survey’s suggestion that black students are more afraid than anyone of losing their freedoms? Recent events such as the University of Missouri protests especially bring this into focus. After professor Melissa Click stonewalled a reporter at a protester camp, that incident became an opportunity to chide student protesters. But the black students involved seemed to be deeply concerned about their own rights to assemble and speak out freely, a fear that was well-informed by America’s history of crushing racial dissent. The apparent gulf between student viewpoints and commentary could have a deeper cause: Some American students may have novel conceptualizations of the appropriate boundaries of free speech. According to this survey, the vast majority of college students, even women and black students, believe campuses should not restrict political views as a matter of policy, even if those views are offensive to some. Students tend to but draw the line at slurs and ethnically stereotypical costumes, however, with 69 and 63 percent, respectively, believing campuses should have the ability to restrict those kinds of expressions. A previous study has indicated that other adults are far less enthusiastic about creating policy to minimize slurs, which showcases just how much students and older adults differ in their views of free speech.

Contention Two
Removing restrictions prevents prohibiting speech which is an essential freedom—restrictions in the status quo prevent people from acting on their agency no matter how miniscule the restrictions is.
Lambert 16 (Saber, writer @ being libertarian, “The Degradation of Free Speech and Personal Liberty,” April 9, 2016, https://beinglibertarian.com/the-degradation-of-free-speech-and-personal-liberty//
Many individuals in society claim that they live in a free nation full of individual liberties. North American constitutions such as the ones implemented in the United States and Canada allow for freedom of speech. However, it is evident that the government has implemented and enforced policies to the contrary. There are a plethora of entertainment programs that have strict censorship policies that go against freedom of speech as it disallows, for example, television producers and musicians to use words or phrases that may be offensive directly or indirectly to a person or group. Regardless, if it is possibly offensive to one or many, the U.S. and Canadian constitutions allow for individuals to say very controversial things. However, restricting one’s freedom of speech in the form of censorship greatly impacts the exchange of ideas that are said to contribute to the (possibly) improvement of society. It is not up to the government to decide what individuals choose to say, read, or hear, and it should not be up to the government to decide what is acceptable within society. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States controls all forms of television broadcasting and claims “it is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours.” It is quite clear that censorship by institutional power is a way to control a society in the sense that it determines what individuals in society can legally say, hear, or read. It is against the majoritarian virtues and values that are constitutionally instilled within a society, and is often paralleled to a form of dictatorship – no matter how miniscule.
Lack of free speech re-create the majority/minority divide that means the minority loses out on having their voice heard.
Cartwright 3 (Will, “Mill on Freedom of Discussion,” Richmond Journal of Philosophy 5 (Autumn 2003), http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp5_cartwright.pdf//
Though freedom of discussion was widely accepted even in Mill’s own day, he thinks that the arguments for it are not widely appreciated, something that is no doubt still true, and he holds, as he makes clear in chapter II, that one should not have beliefs without knowing the reasons for them. Moreover these arguments for free discussion have a wider relevance to issues of liberty, for Mill holds that these arguments, suitably adapted, are also arguments for freedom of action.2 There is a third reason for Mill’s emphasis on the arguments for free discussion and for freedom generally. He thinks that freedom is increasingly threatened, not so much by the law as by an oppressive public opinion, in England at least.3 Curbing this threat requires a widespread appreciation of why freedom of discussion and other freedoms are important. And the character of Mill’s arguments for free discussion is instructive in this context. They do not particularly emphasise the predicament of those who have been forcibly silenced. Thus we do not hear about the peculiar frustrations of being prohibited from expressing one’s view of the world and exploring it with others. Nor do we hear about the individual’s right to free speech. As a utilitarian Mill rejects the idea of natural rights, and emphasises that society as a whole, not just the silenced individual, loses by the repression of free discussion. But this means that the social majority, which is the source of the oppressive public opinion that Mill fears, also loses by repression. And it is the case, as we will see, that Mill’s detailed arguments emphasise that silencing people is in one way or another counterproductive, not just for society generally, but for the silencers in particular. One cannot help feeling that an important part of Mill’s aim is to persuade those occasionally inclined to curb free discussion, who will surely sometimes include Mill’s own civilised readers, and therefore us, that such curbs are self-defeating. So Mill has his reasons for devoting so much of his discussion to the case for a freedom that we all ostensibly believe in already. The reason why, in contrast, he has so little to say about the limits to this freedom, dealing with them in the first paragraph of chapter III, is perhaps in part because his position on this is apparently very simple. However it is fair to add that Mill elaborates this issue, with reference to freedom more generally, later in On Liberty.4 Mill’s Case for Liberty of Discussion Mill sets out his arguments for freedom of speech in chapter II of On Liberty. They are linked by a common concern with truth. The general idea is that truth is a casualty of the suppression of free discussion. In effect there are three arguments that are attached to three possible scenarios. In the first you are to imagine that a majority who share a certain view seek to silence the minority who disagree. You are further to suppose that the majority view is false, as it happens, and the minority view is true. Mill argues that in these circumstances it is disastrous to silence the minority, disastrous for the majority, that is, because there is now no means of releasing it from its belief in a falsehood. If however the minority remains free to express its doubts about the majority view, then there is a chance that the majority will be brought to see the falsity of its view. This is a powerful argument. The second scenario is the same as the first except that this time the majority view is true and the minority view false. Here a concern for truth might seem to support silencing the minority since its view is false. Suppressing falsehoods presumably supports truth. However Mill ingeniously denies this. He argues that if the majority silences its opponents, it will never have to defend its belief and over time will forget the arguments for it. But to have a belief without knowing the reasons for it is no way to hold a belief according to Mill. The belief may be true, but it is held as a prejudice. As well as losing its grasp of the arguments for its belief, Mill adds that the majority will in due course even lose a sense of the real meaning and substance of its belief. What earlier may have been a vital belief will be reduced in time to a series of phrases retained by rote. The belief will be held as a dead dogma rather than as a living truth. Finally, beliefs held like this are extremely vulnerable to serious opposition when it is eventually encountered. They are more likely to collapse because their supporters do not know how to defend them or even what they really mean. Mill thinks history repeatedly demonstrates this process at work and offers Christianity as an illustrative example. By Christianity Mill means the ethical core of the religion rather than its full apparatus of metaphysical beliefs, and he seems to think this ethical core is true. But by suppressing opposition to it over the centuries Christians have ironically weakened rather than strengthened Christian belief, and Mill thinks this explains the decline of Christianity in the modern world. Truth is, after all, a casualty of the suppression of falsehood. Mill’s third scenario involves both parties of opinion, majority and minority, having a portion of the truth but not the whole of it. He regards this as the most common of the three scenarios, and his argument here is very simple. To enlarge its grasp of the truth the majority must allow the minority to express its partially truthful view. These three scenarios exhaust for Mill the possible permutations on the distribution of truth, and he holds that in each case the search for truth is best served by allowing free discussion. Assessment of Mill’s Case The first and third of Mill’s arguments are the most persuasive. If the majority view is wholly or partially false, then allowing critical discussion surely enhances the chances of truth replacing error. But if the majority view is already true, as in the second argument, allowing critical discussion does involve risk. In the rough and tumble of public debate people may be seduced away from truth to false ideas. What Mill does in this argument is to draw attention to the risks to truth involved in the opposite strategy of silencing criticism. But the balance of risks here makes this argument less persuasive than the other two.

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 1 | Opponent: Klein Oak AG | Judge: 

Natives aff

1AC

Part 1: Case

====The resolution demands that we discuss nuclear power through the lens of the liberal Humanist discourse of the settler colonial state that will always undermine the interests and the demands of the natives for land. We constantly see the use of rhetoric in discussions of nuclear power framed around protecting the settler and to keep them from feeling guilty. This discussion would merely manifest re-center the colonizer and the colonized systems of exploitation that reproduces because of the grand structure of settler colonialism. ====

Meet Charley Colorado, a man part of the Navajo who lived in his ancestral sheepherding grounds where the United States had uranium mine shafts in 1957. Today he faces extreme consequences as a result of the US's failure to notify indigenous people with the dangers and consequences of radioactive waste that they were being exposed to.

Brandon Loomis, the Republic, azcentral.com
Now, Colorado, 87, spends much of his time wedged between a medical
AND
Linda. "They didn't tell the people. None of them knew."

====The pacific islands and southwestern regions of the United States are plagued by nuclear colonialism- the resolution's focus on countries relationship to nuclear power paves over those whose land an lives have been irreparably changed by nuclear energy. We much attune our discourse to those areas that are constantly asked to be forgotten====
Hsu, Hsuan. "Nuclear Colonialism." Environment and Society Portal. Virtual Exhibitions, n.d. Web. Sept.-Oct. 2016.
The impact of US nuclear testing had been ~is~particularly heavy on two
AND
to the international network of indigenous rights and sovereignty.—Kuletz 2002, 132

Nuclear testing, uranium mining, and waste dumping has all occured at the expense of Indigenous lives and their land. While the countries gain access to the benefits of entering the nuclear community, all the advantages to nuclear energy that the negative discusses come at the bodily and cultural destruction of native bodies, there is blood on their hands.

Endres 09 (Endres, Danielle. "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 (2009): 39-60. JSTOR. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.)
Since the Manhattan Project, we have seen the Janus-faced development of nuclear
AND
through contaminated soil and water, which could harm animal and plant life.

====Thus, we demand that the production of nuclear power ought to be prohibited. The 1AC is a form of indigenous activism and resistance that is key to breakdown the discursive structures that maintain global settler colonialism.  Nuclear colonialism is not only witnessed in the acts of nuclear waste and dumping but also the rhetoric in which we discuss nuclear power will always exclude the native. ====
Endres 09 (Endres, Danielle. "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 (2009): 39-60.JSTOR. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.)
American Indian resistance is an important part of the story of ~to~ nuclear
AND
that would power the atomic bomb and help America stare down the Soviets.

Settler colonialism is the impetus and structure that produces indigenous, racial violence, and neoliberalism. White settler alienation from land and maintenance of excess on land that sets the impetus for neoliberal domination- any alternative that endorses unclear power or the state will always reproduce indigenous violence

Tuck and Yang 12
(Decolonization is Not a Metaphor, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, Eve Tuck State University of New York at New Paltz K. Wayne Yang University of California, San Diego)TR
Incommensurability is an acknowledgement that decolonization will require a change in the order of the
AND
. Today, 85 of people incarcerated at Angola, die there. 

Reliance on state based solutions for native persons only involves the reification of settler colonial oppression

Barker 12
(Adam J. Barker, Department of Geography, University of Leicester, "(RE­)ORDERING THE NEW WORLD: SETTLER COLONIALISM, SPACE, AND IDENTITY", Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Leicester, Page 225-234, December 2012)
Historical geographer Cole Harris chose to reprint his essay 'The Good Life Around Idaho
AND
to differentiate between genocidal acts based on arbitrary distinctions, splitting colonial hairs.

Part 2 is the ROB

The ROB is to vote for the debater that best deconstructs settler colonialism. I advocate the judge to adopt an alternative framework through red pedagogy. Decolonization is a movement that is a constant process to challenge entrenched thoughts and modes of thinking.

Grande 4 
(Sandy, "Red Pedagogy," pg. 165-167)
As we raise yet another generation in a nation at war, it is even
AND
( 1999) model for self-determined and self-directed communities.

Only decolonization can solve other forms of oppression within settler culture.

Churchill, 3 (Ward Churchill, I am Indigenist: Notes on the Ideology of the Fourth World, Acts of Rebellion: The Ward Churchill Reader, p. _)
Not only is it perfectly reasonable to assert that a restoration of native control over unceded lands within the U. S. would do nothing to perpetuate such problems as sexism and classism, but the reconstitution of indigenous societies this would entail stands to free the affected portions of North America from such maladies altogether. Moreover, it can be said that the process should have a tangible impact in terms of diminishing such things elsewhere. The principle is this: sexism, racism, and all the rest arose here as concomitants to the emergence and consolidation of the eurocentric state form of sociopolitical and economic organization. Everything the state does, everything it can do, is entirely contingent upon its maintaining its internal cohesion, a cohesion signified above all by its pretended territorial integrity, its ongoing domination of Indian Country. Given this, it seems obvious that the literal dismemberment of the state inherent to Indian land recovery correspondingly reduces the ability of the state to sustain the imposition of objectionable relations within itself. It follows that realization of indigenous land rights serves to undermine or destroy the ability of the status quo to continue imposing a racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, militaristic order upon nonindians.  A brief aside: anyone with doubts as to whether it's possible to bring about the dismemberment from within of a superpower state in this day and age ought to sit down and have a long talk with a guy named Mikhail Gorbachev. It would be better yet if you could chew the fat with Leonid Brezhnev, a man who we can be sure would have replied in all sincerity—only three decades ago—that this was the most outlandish idea he'd ever heard. Well, look on a map today, and see if you can find the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It ain't there, my friends. Instead, you're seeing, and you're seeing it more and more, the reemergence of the very nations Léon Trotsky and his colleagues consigned to the "dustbin of history" clear back at the beginning of the century. These megastates are not immutable. They can be taken apart. They can be destroyed. But first we have to decide that we can do it, and that we will do it.   So, all things considered, when indigenist movements like AIM advance slogans like "U. S. Out of North America, " nonindian radicals shouldn't react defensively. They should cheer. They should see what they might do to help. When they respond defensively to sentiments like those expressed by AIM, what they are ultimately defending is the very government, the very order they claim to oppose so resolutely. And if they manifest this contradiction often enough, consistently enough, pathologically enough, then we have no alternative but to take them at their word, that they really are at some deep level or other aligned—all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding—with the mentality which endorses our permanent dispossession and disenfranchisement, our continuing oppression, our ultimate genocidal obliteration as self-defining and self-determining peoples.  In other words, they make themselves part of the problem rather than becoming part of the solution.
 

Only having a willingness to exterminate the settler can ensure the destruction of U.S. colonialism.

Meister, 11 (Robert Meister, prof of Social and Political Thought @ UC Santa Cruz, After Evil:  A Politics of Human Rights, p. google books, note:  ev is gender-modified)
The Roots of Genocide The secular logic of genocide arises from the moral psychology
AND
return-to-sender of the genocidal message of the colonialism itself.

Evaluating abstract philosophies before issues of oppression is nonsensical – it's just a way to avoid confronting oppression

Matsuda '89 ~Mari, Associate Professor of Law @ the University of Hawaii, "When the First Quail Calls: Multiple Consciousness as Jurisprudential Method", 11 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 7 1989~
The multiple consciousness I urge lawyers to attain is not a random ability to see
AND
for these writers as they enter into mainstream debates about law and theory.

Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: St Johns AW | Judge: Marilyn Myrick

Natives aff

Part 1: Case

====The resolution demands that we discuss nuclear power through the lens of the liberal Humanist discourse of the settler colonial state that will always undermine the interests and the demands of the natives for land. We constantly see the use of rhetoric in discussions of nuclear power framed around protecting the settler and to keep them from feeling guilty. This discussion would merely manifest re-center the colonizer and the colonized systems of exploitation that reproduces because of the grand structure of settler colonialism. ====

Meet Charley Colorado, a man part of the Navajo who lived in his ancestral sheepherding grounds where the United States had uranium mine shafts in 1957. Today he faces extreme consequences as a result of the US's failure to notify indigenous people with the dangers and consequences of radioactive waste that they were being exposed to.

Brandon Loomis, the Republic, azcentral.com
Now, Colorado, 87, spends much of his time wedged between a medical
AND
Linda. "They didn't tell the people. None of them knew."

====The pacific islands and southwestern regions of the United States are plagued by nuclear colonialism- the resolution's focus on countries relationship to nuclear power paves over those whose land an lives have been irreparably changed by nuclear energy. We much attune our discourse to those areas that are constantly asked to be forgotten====
Hsu, Hsuan. "Nuclear Colonialism." Environment and Society Portal. Virtual Exhibitions, n.d. Web. Sept.-Oct. 2016.
The impact of US nuclear testing had been ~is~particularly heavy on two
AND
to the international network of indigenous rights and sovereignty.—Kuletz 2002, 132

Nuclear testing, uranium mining, and waste dumping has all occured at the expense of Indigenous lives and their land. While the countries gain access to the benefits of entering the nuclear community, all the advantages to nuclear energy that the negative discusses come at the bodily and cultural destruction of native bodies, there is blood on their hands.

Endres 09 (Endres, Danielle. "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 (2009): 39-60. JSTOR. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.)
Since the Manhattan Project, we have seen the Janus-faced development of nuclear
AND
through contaminated soil and water, which could harm animal and plant life.

====Thus, we demand that the production of nuclear power ought to be prohibited. The 1AC is a form of indigenous activism and resistance that is key to breakdown the discursive structures that maintain global settler colonialism.  Nuclear colonialism is not only witnessed in the acts of nuclear waste and dumping but also the rhetoric in which we discuss nuclear power will always exclude the native. ====
Endres 09 (Endres, Danielle. "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 (2009): 39-60.JSTOR. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.)
American Indian resistance is an important part of the story of ~to~ nuclear
AND
that would power the atomic bomb and help America stare down the Soviets.

Settler colonialism is the impetus and structure that produces indigenous, racial violence, and neoliberalism. White settler alienation from land and maintenance of excess on land that sets the impetus for neoliberal domination- any alternative that endorses unclear power or the state will always reproduce indigenous violence

Tuck and Yang 12
(Decolonization is Not a Metaphor, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, Eve Tuck State University of New York at New Paltz K. Wayne Yang University of California, San Diego)TR
Incommensurability is an acknowledgement that decolonization will require a change in the order of the
AND
. Today, 85 of people incarcerated at Angola, die there. 

Part 2 is Theory

Procedural arguments like T and theory are just another tool to maintain settler colonialism and whiteness in debate and this is a reverse voting issue – their reading of procedurals replicates the disciplinary power of the state over native populations. Think about it, the negative will constantly change the goal posts of what is considered "acceptable" to benefit their privileged stance in debate, this is no different than the history of broken treaties and trading in glass beads that have been staples of whiteness. Their interpretation of debate is an attempt to erase Indigeneity to create another space of exception which is key to maintain the sovereignty of settlerism

Barker 12
(Adam J. Barker, Department of Geography, University of Leicester, "(RE­)ORDERING THE NEW WORLD: SETTLER COLONIALISM, SPACE, AND IDENTITY", Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Leicester, Page 225-234, December 2012)
Historical geographer Cole Harris chose to reprint his essay 'The Good Life Around Idaho
AND
to differentiate between genocidal acts based on arbitrary distinctions, splitting colonial hairs.

Part 3 is the ROB

The ROB is to vote for the debater that best deconstructs settler colonialism. I advocate the judge to adopt an alternative framework through red pedagogy. Decolonization is a movement that is a constant process to challenge entrenched thoughts and modes of thinking.

Grande 4 
(Sandy, "Red Pedagogy," pg. 165-167)
As we raise yet another generation in a nation at war, it is even
AND
) model for self-determined and self-directed communities.
 

Evaluating abstract philosophies before issues of oppression is nonsensical – it's just a way to avoid confronting oppression

Matsuda '89 ~Mari, Associate Professor of Law @ the University of Hawaii, "When the First Quail Calls: Multiple Consciousness as Jurisprudential Method", 11 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 7 1989~
The multiple consciousness I urge lawyers to attain is not a random ability to see
AND
for these writers as they enter into mainstream debates about law and theory.

Tournament: St Marks | Round: 3 | Opponent: idk | Judge: Jonathan Horowitz

Poems Aff

l poblamiento de América, 
se realizó por el Bering,
de otra forma, ¿cómo hicieren?,
no podría entender yo.
Primitivos hacia el Norte,
primitivos hacia el Centro,
primitivos hacia el Sur;
aún no tenían glamour,
las leyes tenían su corte,
y viajaban tour en tour. 
Tres períodos conformaron,
nueva civilización,
Meso Indio, Neo Indio
y el Indo Hispano en que, hermano,
cultura se implementó,
con signos de tradición.
Luego llegó la conquista,
y en el Norte los ingleses,
imponen puntos de vista,
a indígenas iroqueses,
y a otros tantos de su lista.
En el Centro y hacia el Sur,
Colón, enviado de España,
llega con sus artimañas,
disimulando glamour,
y con todas las patrañas,
al indígena, en talud,
destrozan tal cual pirañas.
En tres siglos que duró,
dicha colonización,
esclavitud se conformó,
bajo el yugo y sumisión.
Africanos secuestrados,
para trabajos forzados,
pues indígenas agotados,
no respondían en breve,
con tanto látigo hereje.
Mayas, Aztecas e Incas,
Arawacos y Caribes,
junto a los Timotocuicas,
sus patrias no circunscriben,
pero en las guerras que aplican,
les doman hasta el declive.
Luego la mezcla de razas,
del ser humano, en razón,
por no traer de sus casas,
mujeres, el Español.
Blancos con indios y negros,
fue la gran conformación,
tal vez, conformes los suegros,
y el mestizaje prosperó.
La unión conformó los Pardos;
negros con indios, los zambos;
negros con zambos, los prietos;
otros, y que salto atrás,
¿no podían inventar más?.
Blanco con indio, mestizo;
blanco con negro, mulato;
blanco y mulato, cuaternón;
!Oh, cuántos nombres, carrizo.
Luego, con el cuaternón,
se conformó el quinteron
y ahí termina la cuestión. 
Surge después la nobleza,
lo político y social,
de una manera bestial;
y entre tantos abatares,
los blancos peninsulares
y también blancos de orilla;
blancos criollos ¡qué maravilla!
y al indio, al negro y al pardo,
les funden cual mantequilla;
naturales que sin embargo,
despiertan de pesadilla.
América se vuelve tortilla,
pues descendiente español,
con el negro y el indígena,
entran en revolución,
y con firme decisión,
vencen al conquistador,
liberados, cual maravilla;
sólo que otro la agarró,
convirtiéndola en guerrilla,
con su desprecio y acción.
Los aportes culturales,
transmitidos por los grupos,
comenzaron por conucos,
las hallacas, los maizales,
la mazamorra, el cazabe,
y los grupos musicales;
hoy son ellos primordiales,
conformando nuevos trucos,
que con democracias reales,
vencen imperios malucos;
no habrá más rivalidades.
Dilia.calderas, 27 de julio de 2008

Our existence in this place isn't neutral. Welcome to Dallas- a land muddled with a genocidal history- the Kiowa, Comanche, Sioux, Crows, Blackfeet  and other tribes were systematically exterminated in order for structures like St. Marks. Our fugitive epistemology of poetry reads this city spatially and temporally as a place informed by colonialism; this is how we unsettle the settler

Martineau and Ritskes 14 (Jarrett Martineau , University of Victoria, and Eric Ritskes,  University of Toronto, "Fugitive indigeneity: Reclaiming the terrain of decolonial struggle through Indigenous art", 2014, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society Vol. 3,  No. 1 pg 5-9)/ warner
Decolonial art does not abdicate or abandon the present; it re-inscribes indigeneity
AND
colonialism's best attempts to confine and contain Indigenous creators to the 'traditional'. 

There are forms of colonialism in which we are not usually aware of, such as the Nuclear! Nuclear production, at every stage, happens at the risk of the lives and culture of indigenous populations. Whether it be through of exploitation of natural resources, testing or dumping, these forms of nuclear colonialism and environmental racism are well and alive today. Thus, prohibiting the production of nuclear power would eliminate the continued destruction of native populations through nuclear production.

Endres 09 (Endres, Danielle. "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 (2009): 39-60. JSTOR. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.)
Since the Manhattan Project, we have seen the Janus-faced development of nuclear
AND
through contaminated soil and water, which could harm animal and plant life.

Settler colonialism is the impetus and structure that produces indigenous, racial violence, and neoliberalism. White settler alienation from land and maintenance of excess on land that sets the impetus for neoliberal domination- any alternative that endorses unclear power or the state will always reproduce indigenous violence

Tuck and Yang 12
(Decolonization is Not a Metaphor, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012, Eve Tuck State University of New York at New Paltz K. Wayne Yang University of California, San Diego)TR
Incommensurability is an acknowledgement that decolonization will require a change in the order of the
AND
. Today, 85 of people incarcerated at Angola, die there. 

====The 1AC is a form of indigenous activism and resistance that is key to breakdown the discursive structures that maintain global settler colonialism.  Nuclear colonialism is not only witnessed in the acts of nuclear waste and dumping but also the rhetoric in which we discuss nuclear power will always exclude the native. ====
Endres 09 (Endres, Danielle. "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 (2009): 39-60.JSTOR. Web. 19 Aug. 2016.)
American Indian resistance is an important part of the story of ~to~ nuclear
AND
that would power the atomic bomb and help America stare down the Soviets.

The ROB is to vote for the debater that best deconstructs settler colonialism. I advocate the judge to adopt an alternative framework through red pedagogy. Decolonization is a movement that is a constant process to challenge entrenched thoughts and modes of thinking.

Grande 4 
(Sandy, "Red Pedagogy," pg. 165-167)
As we raise yet another generation in a nation at war, it is even
AND
( 1999) model for self-determined and self-directed communities.

Only having a willingness to exterminate the settler can ensure the destruction of U.S. colonialism.

Meister, 11 (Robert Meister, prof of Social and Political Thought @ UC Santa Cruz, After Evil:  A Politics of Human Rights, p. google books, note:  ev is gender-modified)
The Roots of Genocide The secular logic of genocide arises from the moral psychology
AND
return-to-sender of the genocidal message of the colonialism itself.

We have been called the Indians

We have been called Native Americans

We have been called Hostile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4xwN3yPZA0. A Tribe Called Red - We Are The Halluci Nation Ft. John Trudell and Northern Voice (Official video) 

And we should be.