Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake IP | Judge: Jared Woods

Ext

1NC

1. Interpretation: Affs can only fiat that which is predictibly justifiable under the resolution. Any portions of the plan that are extra to the act of prohibiting must either have a solvency adcocate or be proven by normal means

2. Definition, Prohibit means end NOT restrict:

By Miriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prohibit
to order (someone) not to use or do something

to say that (something) is not allowed

to make (something) impossible to do

3. Violation - the affirmative specifies a phasing out of nuclear power till 2030. Cross-X of the 1ac proved this date is entirely arbitrary.

4. Standards:

A. Ground - being able to arbitrarily specify when the action of the plan will be complete allows the affirmative to sketch out of the Timeframe for the link and uniqueness for all of my DA's. EVEN IF if found a DA that had uniqueness till 2030, the arbitrary nature of the plan text means they could just spec 2031 the next debate. This makes it impossible to be negative and is a voter for education and fairness.

B. Predictability - I can't be expected to predicting arbitrary time specifications. Setting a precedent that affs have to be tied to normal means or a solvency advocate ensure clash and a literature base. Time is literally infinite meaning I can never predict all of the different arbitrary timeframes they can pass the plan in. That's a voter for fairness.

C. Jurisdiction - the judge has NO jurisdiction to rule on parts of the plan that are not prohibitory - drop the team to set a precedent and discourage unfair aff, simply dropping the arg or letting them get away with this makes being extra-T a no risk option for the aff setting a structural DA to being negative

D. Bright line- my interp makes it very clear what types of extraT can be OK and what is not, that solves back any possible extraT good offense they can make while still avoiding the UNIQUE predictably and ground arguments specific to arbitrary time spec

Tournament: Colleyville | Round: 2 | Opponent: idk | Judge: idk
1NC
Part 1 is Framework
I value quality of life
The standard is minimizing structural violence.
1) Structural violence causes oppression against particular groups to be invisible. Revealing it forces us to reevaluate our perceptions.  This means minimizing structural violence precludes all ethical evaluation.  
Winter and Leighton ‘07 (Deborah Du Nann Winter and Dana C. Leighton, professors of psychology, STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE, Peace, Conflict, and Violence: Peace Psychology for the 21st Century, Ohio State University, 2007,
modified for anthro
http://academic.marion.ohio-state.edu/dchristie/Peace20Psychology20Book_files/Section20II20-20Structural20Violence20(Winter202620Leighton).pdf)
Direct violence is horrific, but its brutality usually gets our attention: we notice it, and often respond to it. Structural violence, however, is almost always invisible, embedded in ubiquitous social structures, normalized by stable institutions and regular experience.  Structural violence occurs whenever people are disadvantaged by political, legal, economic, or cultural traditions. Because they are longstanding, structural inequities usually seem ordinary—the way things are and always have been. But structural violence produces suffering and death as often as direct violence does, though the damage is slower, more subtle, more common, and more difficult to repair. The chapters in this section teach us about some important but invisible forms of structural violence, and alert us to the powerful cultural mechanisms that create and maintain them over generations. Johan Galtung originally framed the term “structural violence” to mean any constraint on human potential caused by economic and political structures (1969). Unequal access to resources, to political power, to education, to health care, or to legal standing, are forms of structural violence. When inner-city children have inadequate schools while others do not, when gays and lesbians are fired for their sexual orientation, when laborers toil in inhumane conditions, when people of color endure environmental toxins in their neighborhoods, structural violence exists. Unfortunately, even those who are victims of structural violence often do not see the systematic ways in which their plight is choreographed by unequal and unfair distribution of society’s resources. Such is the insidiousness of structural violence. Structural violence is problematic in and of itself, but it is also dangerous because it frequently leads to direct violence. The chronically oppressed are often, for logical reasons, those who resort to direct violence. Organized armed conflict in various parts of the world is easily traced to structured inequalities. Northern Ireland, for example, has been marked by economic disparities between Northern Irish Catholics—who have higher unemployment rates and less formal education—and Protestants (Cairns and Darby, 1998). In Sri Lanka, youth unemployment and underemployment exacerbates ethnic conflict (Rogers, Spencer, and Uyangoda, 1998). In Rwanda, huge disparities in both income and social status between the Hutu and Tutsis eventually led to ethnic massacres. While structural violence often leads to direct violence, the reverse is also true, as brutality terrorizes bystanders, who then become unwilling or unable to confront social injustice. Increasingly, civilians pay enormous costs of war, not only through death, but through devastation of neighborhoods and ecosystems. Ruling elites rarely suffer from armed conflict as much as civilian populations do, who endure decades of poverty and disease in war-torn societies.  Recognizing the operation of structural violence forces us to ask questions about how and why we tolerate it, questions that often have painful answers. The first chapter in this section, “Social Injustice,” by Susan Opotow, argues that our normal perceptual/cognitive processes lead us to care about those people inside our scope of justice, but rarely care about those people outside. 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 to us. We do not seem to be able to open our minds and our hearts to everyone; moral exclusion is a product of our normal cognitive processes. But Opotow argues convincingly that we can reduce its nefarious effects by becoming aware of our distorted perceptions. Inclusionary thinking can be fostered by relationships, communication, and appreciation of diversity.  
2) Oppression is bad under any ethical theory. Epistemic modesty also means oppression comes first - we don’t have time to go through every moral theory possible in 45 minutes, but as long as most of them agree that oppression is bad, then the probability of that being true is higher.
Part 2 is the Case Proper
Current protections against hate speech are working – on campus harassment is decreasing nationally now.
Sutton 16 Halley Sutton, Report shows crime on campus down across the country, Campus Security Report 13.4 (2016), 9/9/16,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casr.30185/full
A recent report released by the National Center for Education Statistics found an overall decrease in crimes at educational institutions across the country since 2001. The overall number of crimes reported by postsecondary institutions has dropped by 34 percent, from 41,600 per year in 2001 to 27,600 per year in 2013. The report, titled Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2015, covers higher education campuses as well as K–12 schools and includes such topics as victimization, teacher injury, bullying and cyberbullying, use of drugs and alcohol, and criminal incidents at postsecondary institutions. The report found significant decreases in instances of bullying, harassment due to sexual orientation, and violent crime at all levels of education. The number of on-campus crimes reported at postsecondary institutions in 2013 was lower than in 2001 for every category except forcible sex offenses and murder.
Removing restrictions on free speech allows hate speech – hate speech IS free speech
Volokh 15 Eugene Volokh,No, There’s No “hate Speech” Exception to the First Amendment, The Washington Post, 5/7/15, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/07/no-theres-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.05cfdd01dea4 
I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans. To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)
Hate speech leads to a genocidal increase in crimes against marginalized groups.  
Greenblatt 15 Jonathan Greenblatt, When Hateful Speech Leads to Hate Crimes: Taking Bigotry Out of the Immigration Debate, Huffington Post, 8/21/15, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-greenblatt/when-hateful-speech-leads_b_8022966.html
When police arrived at the scene in Boston, they found a Latino man shaking on the ground, his face apparently soaked in urine, with a broken nose. His arms and chest had been beaten. One of the two brothers arrested and charged with the hate crime reportedly told police, “Donald Trump was right — all these illegals need to be deported.” The victim, a homeless man, was apparently sleeping outside of a subway station in Dorchester when the perpetrators attacked. His only offense was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The brothers reportedly attacked him for who he was — simply because he was Latino. In recent weeks anti-immigrant — and by extension anti-Latino — rhetoric has reached a fever pitch. Immigrants have been smeared as “killers” and “rapists.” They have been accused of bringing drugs and crime. A radio talk show host in Iowa has called for enslavement of undocumented immigrants if they do not leave within 60 days. There have been calls to repeal the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to people born in the United States, with allegations that people come here to have so-called “anchor babies.” And the terms “illegal aliens” and “illegals” — which many mainstream news sources wisely rejected years ago because they dehumanize and stigmatize people — have resurged. The words used on the campaign trail, on the floors of Congress, in the news, and in all our living rooms have consequences. They directly impact our ability to sustain a society that ensures dignity and equality for all. Bigoted rhetoric and words laced with prejudice are building blocks for the pyramid of hate. Biased behaviors build on one another, becoming ever more threatening and dangerous towards the top. At the base is bias, which includes stereotyping and insensitive remarks. It sets the foundation for a second, more complex and more damaging layer: individual acts of prejudice, including bullying, slurs and dehumanization. Next is discrimination, which in turn supports bias-motivated violence, including apparent hate crimes like the tragic one in Boston. And in the most extreme cases if left unchecked, the top of the pyramid of hate is genocide. Just like a pyramid, the lower levels support the upper levels. Bias, prejudice and discrimination — particularly touted by those with a loud megaphone and cheering crowd — all contribute to an atmosphere that enables hate crimes and other hate-fueled violence. The most recent hate crime in Boston is just one of too many. In fact, there is a hate crime roughly every 90 minutes in the United States today. That is why last week ADL announced a new initiative, #50StatesAgainstHate, to strengthen hate crimes laws around the country and safeguard communities vulnerable to hate-fueled attacks. We are working with a broad coalition of partners to get the ball rolling.

Tournament: Greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harvard-Westlake IP | Judge: Jared Woods

Give Back the Land

1NC

They willfully ignore the native body, because they just want to use our land for something different, which is the same coloniality perpetuated now, except they make it look nicer by making the subjugation of the Native accessible for all.

Churchill 96 (Ward Churchill, Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado Boulder, Masters in Communication at Sangamon State, From a Native Son, pp. 520-30, 1996)
I'll debunk some of this nonsense in a moment, but first I want to
AND
first priority for everyone seriously committed to accomplishing positive change in North America.

Their deployment of the government and their assurance that the government stays in power through phaseout masks the colonial violence the U.S. perpetuates – we must position ourselves against them in order to unmask this violence.

Churchill 96 ~Ward, native prodigy, From a Native Son: Selected Essays in Indigenism, 1985-1995, isbn: 0896085538, pg. 14-16~
The Specter of Hannibal Lecter At this juncture, the entire planet is locked,
AND
us, about who it is with whom we now share our room.

Coloniality generates a permanent state of exception that is the root cause of the death ethics of war and underwrites a hellish existence where death, murder, war, rape, and racism are ordinary

Maldonado-Toress 8 Nelson Maldonado-Torres is an associate professor of comparative literature at Rutgers. Against War: Views from the Underside of Modernity, p. 217-21. 2008.
Dussel, Quijano, and Wynter lead us to the understanding that what happened in
AND
such a world, ontology collapses into a Manicheanism, as Fanon suggested." 

The alternative is to give back the land by kicking the settler off our native homes.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.

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
AND
make themselves part of the problem rather than becoming part of the solution.

Envirment DA:Environmental destruction is inevitable in colonialism – colonialism necessitates land destruction in order to maintain the colonial dream – it's used as a tool to eradicate native culture.

Watts 13 (Vanessa Watts is Mohawk and Anishnaabe and is of the Bear Clan. She is currently in the process of completing her PhD in Sociology at Queen's University. Her undergraduate degree is from Trent University in Native Studies and her Master's Degree was in the Indigenous Governance Program at the University of Victoria "Indigenous place-thought and agency amongst humans and non-humans (First Woman and Sky Woman go on a European world tour!)" Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society Vol. 2, No. 1, 2013, pp. 20-34, 2013)
In becoming land or territory, she becomes the designator of how living beings will
AND
, perception, and action are separated from the supposed inertia of nature. 

Sexual Colonization DA: We should honor the survivors of sexual colonialism by prioritizing anti-colonialism. Native rape survivors understand sexual violence as a weapon of war that has been used against Native communities for the last five hundred years.

Deer 5 (Sarah Deer, Staff Attorney @ Tribal Law and Policy Institute, Sovereignty of the Soul:  Exploring the Intersection of Rape Law Reform and Federal Indian Law, MARCH 11, http://www.law.suffolk.edu/highlights/stuorgs/lawreview/docs/Deer.pdf~~#search='sovereignty20of20the20soul, P. 457-459, 2005 )
In order to analyze the legal response to sexual violence in Indian country, it
AND
death that is difficult to describe to those who have not experienced it. 

Mental Health DA: Mental health problems produced through colonialism means the native is always excluded in civil society.

Hilton 11 (Blake T. Hilton, prof @ Univ of Central Oklahoma, Frantz Fanon and Colonialism: A Psychology of Oppression, Journal of Scientific Psychology 45, Sept 2011, http://www.psyencelab.com/images/Frantz_Fanon_and_Colonialism.pdf)
Psychopathology Fanon, in Les Damnés de la Terre, begins the chapter ―
AND
the point at which it loosens its hold on oppressed, indigenous populations.

Tournament: gbx | Round: 5 | Opponent: Parker Whitfill | Judge: Bob Overing

Give Back the Land vs Parker Whitfill

1NC

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.
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.
Blancos con indios y negros,
fue la gran conformación,
tal vez, conformes los suegros,
y el mestizaje prosperó.
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. 
Dilia.calderas, 27 de julio de 2008

Our existence in this place isn't neutral. Welcome to Chicago- a land muddled with a genocidal history- the Potawatomi, Sauk, Shawnee and other tribes were systematically exterminated in order for structures like the Glenbrooks. 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'. 

Their deployment of the government to limit qualified immunity masks the colonial violence the U.S. perpetuates – we must position ourselves against them in order to unmask this violence.

Churchill 96 ~Ward, native prodigy, From a Native Son: Selected Essays in Indigenism, 1985-1995, isbn: 0896085538, pg. 14-16~
The Specter of Hannibal Lecter At this juncture, the entire planet is locked,
AND
us, about who it is with whom we now share our room.

The law is subservient to neocolonialist ideals that justify racialized violence—reform only masks the contradiction that is inherent within the law

Cho and Valdes 11
(Francisco Valdes, Profess or Law, University Miami, and Sumi Cho, Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law, "Critical Race Materialism: Theorizing Justice in the Wake of Global Neoliberalism," - Law Review- VOLUME 43 JULY 2011 NUMBER 5)/Dhruv
The role of law—and the rule of law—are key features of
AND
seeking to harmonize law's material or cultural effects with society's overtly professed values.

Limiting Qualified Immunity is not an act of defiance, rather it is the opposite, it only serves to legitimize the United States constitution, rule of law, and criminal justice system.

Chen 15 (Qualified Immunity Liming Access to Justice and Impeding Development of the Law", Vol. 41 No. 1, Alan K. Chen, the William M. Beaney Memorial Research Chair and professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, where he teaches courses in constitutional law, federal courts, and public interest law, American Bar Association, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/2015—vol—41-/vol—41—no—1—-lurking-in-the-shadows—the-supreme-court-s-qui/qualified-immunity-limiting-access-to-justice-and-impeding-devel.html)
What this means is that in cases involving cutting-edge issues of constitutional law
AND
(2010) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).

We must radically break away from the AFF and engage in non-colonial subjectivities

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 2-3)/ warner
This issue engages Indigenous art, aesthetics and decolonial struggle as a collective processual undertaking
AND
and, thereby, give voice to new emergences, subjectivities and understandings. 

Coloniality generates a permanent state of exception that is the root cause of the death ethics of war and underwrites a hellish existence where death, murder, war, rape, and racism are ordinary

Maldonado-Toress 8 Nelson Maldonado-Torres is an associate professor of comparative literature at Rutgers. Against War: Views from the Underside of Modernity, p. 217-21. 2008.
Dussel, Quijano, and Wynter lead us to the understanding that what happened in
AND
such a world, ontology collapses into a Manicheanism, as Fanon suggested." 

The ROB is to vote for the debater who best performatively and methodologically breaks down the settler colonialism. The alternative is to give back the land by kicking the settler off our native homes. 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.

Case

A2 state as heuristic

The claim to not use the state yet still indorse a politics of hope within settler colonialist society is the very mystifications that our Churchill 96 evidence addresses. The aff tries to sketch its way out of colonialist society by using the same grammar of the political while STILL ignoring the position of redness in civil society

Specifically, blindly calling forward the USFG and governmental action still binds you to the settler colonialist civil society as you still participate in the  same justifications

Reid-Brinkley, 8 (Dr. Shanara Reid-Brinkley, University of Pittsburgh Department of Communications, "THE HARSH REALITIES OF "ACTING BLACK": HOW AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLICY DEBATERS NEGOTIATE REPRESENTATION THROUGH RACIAL PERFORMANCE AND STYLE" 2008)
So, within public discourse, how race is coded rhetorically in public deliberation is
AND
of the "policymaker" and require their opponents to do the same.

Their heuristic cannot account for and excludes academic and performative challenges to exceptionalism, this authenticates the American imperialist project and leads to genocide.

Spanos 4
(William V. Spanos, Professor at Binghamton University, 2004, in Joe Millers' book Cross-ex, pg. 467)
Dear Joe Miller, Yes, the statement about the American debate circuit you refer
AND
blind arrogance of Bush Administration and his neocon policy makers is leading.13

Tournament: gbx | Round: 7 | Opponent: a lex kid | Judge: Terrence Lonam

1NC

Thesis statement – Indigenity must be theorized as a ghostly 'thing,' which requires a rejection of aff's lens of bodily identity that is measurable through the metaphysics of absence and presence – there is no question of the link, all discourses can only ever possibly name the intransitive shadows of Indianness

Cornellier 13 — Centre for Globalization and Cultural Studies @ U of Manitoba
(Bruno, "The 'Indian thing': on representation and reality in the liberal settler colony," Settler Colonial Studies, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp. 49-64)
Nevertheless, if in this case it is indeed Canada that makes the Indian its
AND
to eschew the ultimate triumph of settler colonialism: its self-supersession.

Settlement is an everyday process, constituted not only by the initial clearing of the land but the ideological reiteration of the geopolitical and spatial self-evidence of the terrain on which political struggle occurs – disorientation is necessary, a political strategy that makes this space alien to us

Rifkin 13 – Associate Professor of English and WGS @ UNC-Greensboro
(Mark, "Settler common sense," Settler Colonial Studies, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp. 322-340)
As opposed to the sense of withdrawal into a space divorced from contemporary political economy
AND
inhabit as given has never ceased to be a site of political struggle.

====Discussions of police brutality and the state that do not take into account the loss of Native lives at the hands of the police takes part in the same settler colonial mindset of invisibilizing native people and the ongoing genocide at the hands of US civil society. This is the same out-of-sight, out-of-mind logic that has justified native relocation and reservations historically.====
Fountain 2015, ~Aaron G. Fountain Jr., 2-25-2016, "OPINION: Native Lives Matter goes beyond police brutality," No Publication, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/2/native-lives-matter-goes-beyond-police-brutality.html~~**
Native Americans are more likely to be killed by police than any other ethnic group
AND
reference Natives to make anachronistic arguments that European settlers were "illegal aliens." 

Indigenity cannot be theorized through the affirmative's lens of racial identity – geopolitics, not biopolitics, is the critical factor that grounds the metapolitical authority of the settler state to determine what counts as a political issue and what is self-evidently natural – settler colonialism transcends racial violence of individual bare lives and fosters a generalized state of bare habitance

Rifkin 9 – Associate Professor of English and WGS @ UNC-Greensboro
(Mark, "Indigenizing Agamben: Rethinking Sovereignty in Light of the 'Peculiar' Status of Native Peoples," Cultural Critique, Number 73, pp. 88-124)
In using Agamben's work to address U.S. Indian policy, though,
AND
, and dependent on, the "peculiar"-ization of Native peoples.

Settler colonialism is integral to the formation of slavery and its afterlife—anti-black racism is an inadequate frame absent understanding the role of colonialism

King 13
~2013, Tiffany Jeannette King, "IN THE CLEARING: BLACK FEMALE BODIES, SPACE AND SETTLER COLONIAL LANDSCAPES", PhD Dissertation~
We must consider that Settler colonialism shapes and constitutes Black life, specifically slavery and
AND
slavery co-constitute one another is an essential component of this dissertation.

The alternative is to give back the land by kicking the settler off our native homes. 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.

the negative's alternative is criticism of the aff through settler colonial theory, a strategy that reveals settlers' investments in the ongoing project of settlement – as settlers, we cannot delude ourselves with the colonial fantasy that we can fully comprehend and thus control our relationships with Indigenous peoples – it is necessary to instead unknow the settler position, unwork settler colonial frames of reference that create the naturalized teleology of settlement

Strakosch and Macoun 13 – researcher @ Indigenous Studies Research Network; Institute for Culture and Society
(Elizabeth and Alissa, 'The ethical demands of settler colonial theory,' Settler Colonial Studies, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp. 426-443)
For many decades, postcolonial theory has shaped global scholarship of colonialism, and this 
AND
SCT reveals the entwinement of settler institutions, knowledges, emotions and selves.

Settler colonial theory provides settlers with a challenging unsettling account of our own structural subject positionality – this demand for disoccupation of the settler's ontological sovereignty creates space for the work of imagining imagining and thus making possible alternative Indigenous futures committed to a radical reorientation of the status quo's violent cohabitation

Fiat is illusory- when you vote for the aff the plan isn't passed, but when you vote for the aff then you endorse the ethics and the underlying mindsets and ideologies of the affirmative. Your "material conditions" shitty shit doesn't matter because if we're discussing a hypothetical
Coverstone (policy stuff is good)- we can have debate over policies on other
AND
be defending policy actions which have always left black people out to dry.

Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 5 | Opponent: Plano Senior AT | Judge: 

Natives

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 Grapevine- a land muddled with a genocidal history- the Kiowa, Comanche, Sioux, Crows, Blackfeet  and other tribes were systematically exterminated in order for the metroplex of Dallas/Ft. Worth to be erected. 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'. 

The 1AC is a typical leftist response to the oppression that remains silent in the face of the on-going colonization of native america. The plan serves as a mask for the state, making it appear benevolent, even as its existence is contingent upon a continuing legacy of colonization that guarantees continued exploitation, turning the case.

Ward Churchill 1996 (Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado, Boulder, BA and MA in
Communications from Sangamon State, From A Native Son pgs 520 – 530) I'll
AND
, sexist, classist, homophobic, militaristic order on non-Indians.

The alternative is a refusal of the affirmative in favor of a reorientation that centers indigenous art and performance to break down settler colonialism in society

Martineau and Ritskes 14
Jarrett Indigenous scholar media maker writer journalist musician and storyteller. Eric PhD candidate in Sociology and Equity Studies in Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. "Fugitive indigeneity: Reclaiming the terrain of decolonial struggle through Indigenous art" Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society Vol. 3, No. 1, 2014, pp. I-XII
Indigenous art is inherently political. As Anishinaabe curator Wanda Nanibush (2014) recently
AND
in the sky" (Simpson, this issue, p. 194).

Decolonization requires a ceaseless struggle to uncover the subjugated histories of the Indigenous people that are violently erased by the affirmative – vote negative to use historical investigation through art and expression for a future free of domination

Martineau and Ritskes 14 (Jarrett and Eric, Graduate Students from the University of Victoria and the University of Toronto, "Fugitive indigeneity: Reclaiming the terrain of decolonial struggle through Indigenous art", Create Commons, pp. 9)
The struggle demands not only a remixing of time, but also a remediation of
AND
in the sky" (Simpson, this issue, p. 194).

Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 3 | Opponent: St John Paul | Judge:
Russia economy is on the verge of all out collapse but their shift away from oil to nuclear power has stopped the bleeding. Another economic crisis would cause the destruction of Putin's regime.
Lloyd 16 (Lloyd, John. "When Will Russia Break?" The Great Debate RSS. RSS, 14 Apr. 2016. Web. 16 Aug. 2016.)
When will Russia break? A rock bottom oil price, Western sanctions, inflation
AND
to fail, we'd be deeper in perilous territory than we are now.

Nuclear power has become Putin's solution to the oil crisis and thus the adhesive keeping their economy afloat
Armstrong 15 (Armstrong, Ian. "Russia Is Creating a Global Nuclear Power Empire." Global Risk Insights. Global Risk Insights, 29 Oct. 2015. Web. 17 Aug. 2016.)
Russia is moving to create a global nuclear power empire — a bold power play
AND
for nuclear plant maintenance, but also the prestige that an NPP entails.

A Russian economic collapse causes a revolution which put nuclear weapons in play and cause mass violence.
Motyl 16 (Motyl, Alexander, Professor of Political Science at Rutgers . "Lights Out for the Putin Regime." Foreign Affairs. Foreign Affairs, 27 Jan. 2016. Web. 17 Aug. 2016.)
First, the Russian economy is in free fall. That oil and gas prices
AND
may finally abandon the imperial aspirations that enabled Putin to come to power.

Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 3 | Opponent: St John Paul | Judge:
The US navy has moved toward a nuclear navy which is key for deterrence and naval power projection and heg
Spencer 07(Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, and Baker Spring is F.M. Kirby Research Fellow in National Security Policy for the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation)
Congress is debating whether future naval ships should include nuclear propulsion. The House version
AND
consider the unique benefits of providing and maintaining a larger nuclear navy.

US hegemony solves extinction – decline causes it

Brooks, Ikenberry, and Wohlforth 13
(Stephen, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College "Don't Come Home America: The Case Against Retrenchment," International Security, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Winter 2012/13), pp. 7–51)
A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far
AND
that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather than shrinking. 85

Tournament: gbx | Round: 1 | Opponent: good question | Judge: an old greenhill debater

The 1ac's celebration of participatory democracy is grossly inadequate to theorize the singularity of antiblackness. Civil society is founded upon the murder of Black and Red bodies. The affirmative's leftist rhetoric is nothing more than a guise for the same liberal democratic politics that allows anti-blackness to flourish.

Wilderson 2010
Frank, Associate Professor at UC Irvine's Department of Drama and African American Studies, Red, White and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms, 3-12, 23-4
What are we to make of a world that responds to the most lucid enunciation
AND
more concrete analyses of films in parts 2, 3, and 4.

The Black Matrix – or Black woman – is located at a structural position of Rape, this conception does not formulate rape as an incident which happens, or one is more-or-less vulnerable to, but rather as the very condition for being of the Black woman and by extension being a Slave. Any discussion of political violence that does not attune itself to racial rape reifies and rearticulates Anti-blackness through gender.

James 13 ~Joy James, "Afrarealism and the Black Matrix: Maroon Philosophy at Democracy's Border", The Black Scholar, Vol. 43, No. 4, Special Issue: Role of Black Philosophy (Winter 2013), pp. 124-131, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5816/blackscholar.43.4.0124 .~
Introduction: Resilience Black philosophy functions as both a correc- tive and a
AND
of such women illuminated freedom flights and shaped a legacy for black philosophy.

Limiting Qualified Immunity is not an act of defiance, rather it is the opposite, it only serves to legitimize the United States constitution, rule of law, and criminal justice system.

Chen 15 (Qualified Immunity Liming Access to Justice and Impeding Development of the Law", Vol. 41 No. 1, Alan K. Chen, the William M. Beaney Memorial Research Chair and professor of law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, where he teaches courses in constitutional law, federal courts, and public interest law, American Bar Association, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/2015—vol—41-/vol—41—no—1—-lurking-in-the-shadows—the-supreme-court-s-qui/qualified-immunity-limiting-access-to-justice-and-impeding-devel.html)
What this means is that in cases involving cutting-edge issues of constitutional law
AND
(2010) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).

The squo uses qualified immunity for black people because violence done to black people is not "clearly established" nor understood. The aff attempts to define and position black suffering as contingent and understood.

The position of the slave is trapped between the subjective and objective vertigo that produces the violence of political economy. The Affirmative understands violence as a response to the performative resistance of the intra-Human conflicts of labour, gender, sex, and police brutality. This renders the logic of the affirmative unaccountable to ontological violence of black suffering constructed by the violence of anti-blackness.

Wilderson 11 Prof. of African American studies and drama at UC Irvine ~Frank B., III, "The Vengeance of Vertigo: Aphasia and Abjection in the Political Trials of Black Insurgents," InTensions Journal Iss. 5 Fall/Winter 2011 http://www.yorku.ca/intent/issue5/articles/frankbwildersoniii.php
~2~ With only small arms and crude explosives at their disposal, with
AND
with the myriad maps and frameworks which explain the dispossession of Human subalterns.

The aff merely papers over the structural antagonism between the black and the human – courts are unable to understand or incorporate black demands – the affirmative pushes the Slave to the political and attempts to make their violence legible for whites which is a paradigmatic impossibility and obscures anti-blackness

Wilderson 11
(Frank, professor of Drama and African American studies at the University of California, Irvine, "The Vengeance of Vertigo: Aphasia and Abjection in the Political Trials of Black Insurgents", InTensions, Issue 5 (Fall/Winter 2011))
 ~12~ Balagoon's poem is an example of the "necessary thing"
AND
channeled through conceptual frameworks and cognitive maps which crowd them out as subjects.

Anti-blackness is a cognitive matrix that produces a geography of death—-their impact calculus systematically devalues black life.

Dillon 12 Stephen, Ph.D. candidate in American Studies at the University of Minnesota. Dark Matter, 8-28, http://www.darkmatter101.org/site/2012/08/28/book-review-state-of-white-supremacy-darkmatter-journal/
The terrifying brilliance of contemporary white supremacy is that its breathtaking uneven distribution of life
AND
condition of possibility for our present subjectivities and modern politics" (269). 

The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best deconstructs anti-blackness

Our Alternative is to reject the affirmative in order to focus on an unflinching paradigmatic analysis that calls for the END OF AMERICA.

Wilderson 10 
(Frank "Unspeakable Ethics", Red, White, and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms, ix-x, ~GLOB~)
Strange as it may seem, this book project began in South Africa. During
AND
, Andile Mngxitama, Prishani Naidoo, John Shai, and S'bu Zulu.

Tournament: Berks | Round: 3 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart DD | Judge: Olivia Panchal
The 1ac’s celebration of participatory democracy is grossly inadequate to theorize the singularity of antiblackness. Civil society is founded upon the murder of Black and Red bodies. The affirmative’s leftist rhetoric is nothing more than a guise for the same liberal democratic politics that allows anti-blackness to flourish.
Wilderson 2010
Frank, Associate Professor at UC Irvine’s Department of Drama and African American Studies, Red, White and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms, 3-12, 23-4

What are we to make of a world that responds to the most lucid enunciation of ethics with violence? What are the foundational questions of the ethico-political? Why are these questions so scandalous that they are rarely posed politically, intellectually, and cinematically— unless they are posed obliquely and unconsciously, as if by accident? Give Turtle Island back to the “Savage.” Give life itself back to the Slave. Two simple sen-tences, fourteen simple words, and the structure of U.S. (and perhaps global) antagonisms would be dismantled. An “ethical modernity” would no longer sound like an oxymoron. From there we could busy ourselves with important conflicts that have been promoted to the level of antagonisms, such as class struggle, gender conflict, and immigrants’ rights. One cannot but wonder why questions that go to the heart of the ethico-political, questions of political ontology, are so unspeakable in intellectual meditations, political broadsides, and even socially and politically engaged feature films. Clearly they can be spoken, even a child could speak those lines, so they would pose no problem for a scholar, an activist, or a filmmaker. And yet, what is also clear—if the filmographies of socially and politically engaged directors, the archive of progressive scholars, and the plethora of left-wing broadsides are anything to go by— is that what can so easily be spoken is now (500 years and 50 million Settlers/Masters on) so ubiquitously unspoken that these two simple sentences, these fourteen words not only render their speaker “crazy” but become themselves impossible to imagine. Soon it will be forty years since radical politics, left-leaning scholarship, and socially engaged feature films began to speak the unspeakable. 2 In the 1960s and early 1970s the questions asked by radical politics and scholarship were not should the United States be overthrown? or even should it be overthrown? but when and how— and, for some, what would come in its wake. Those steadfast in their conviction that there remained a discernable quantum of ethics in the United States writ large (and here I am speaking of everyone from Martin Luther King Jr. prior to his 1968 shift, to the Tom Hayden wing of Students for Democratic Society, to the Julian Bond and Marion Barry faction of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, to Bobby Kennedy Democrats) were accountable, in their rhetorical machinations, to the paradigmatic zeitgeist of the Black Panthers, the American Indian Movement, and the Weather Underground. Radicals and progressives could deride, reject, or chastise armed struggle mercilessly and cavalierly with respect to tactics and the possibility of “success,” but they could not dismiss revolution-as-ethic because they could not make a convincing case— by way of a paradigmatic analysis—that the United States was an ethical formation and still hope to maintain credibility as radicals and progressives. Even Bobby Kennedy (as a U.S. attorney general) mused that the law and its enforcers had no ethical standing in the presence of Blacks. 3 One could (and many did) acknowledge America’s strength and power. This seldom rose to the level of an ethical assessment, however, remaining instead an assessment of the “balance of forces.” The political discourse of Blacks, and to a lesser extent Indians, circulated too widely to wed the United States and ethics credibly. The raw force of COINTELPRO put an end to this trajectory toward a possible hegemony of ethical accountability. Consequently, the power of Blackness and Redness to pose the question— and the power to pose the question is the greatest power of all—retreated as did White radicals and progressives who “retired” from the struggle. The question lies buried in the graves of young Black Panthers, AIM warriors, and Black Liberation Army soldiers, or in prison cells where so many of them have been rotting (some in solitary confinement) for ten, twenty, or thirty years, and at the gates of the academy where the “crazies” shout at passersby. Gone are not only the young and vibrant voices that effected a seismic shift on the political landscape, but also the intellectual protocols of inquiry, and with them a spate of feature films that became authorized, if not by an unabashed revolutionary polemic, then certainly by a revolutionary zeitgeist. Is it still possible for a dream of unfettered ethics, a dream of the Settlement and the Slave estate’s 4 destruction, to manifest itself at the ethical core of cinematic discourse when this dream is no longer a constituent element of political discourse in the streets or of intellectual discourse in the academy? The answer is “no” in the sense that, as history has shown, what cannot be articulated as political discourse in the streets is doubly foreclosed on in screenplays and in scholarly prose, but “yes” in the sense that in even the most taciturn historical moments, such as ours, the grammar of Black and Red suffering breaks in on this foreclosure, albeit like the somatic compliance of hysterical symptoms— it registers in both cinema and scholarship as a symptom of awareness of the structural antagonisms. The election of President Barack Obama does not mitigate the claim that this is a taciturn historical moment. Neoliberalism with a Black face is neither the index of a revolutionary advance nor the end of anti-Blackness as a constituent element of U.S. antagonisms. If anything, the election of Obama enables a plethora of shaming discourses in response to revolutionary politics and “legitimates” widespread disavowal of any notion that the United States itself, and not merely its policies and practices, is unethical. Between 1967 and 1980, we could think cinematically and intellectually of Blackness and Redness as having the coherence of full-blown discourses. From 1980 to the present, however, Blackness and Redness manifest only in the rebar of cinematic and intellectual (political) discourse, that is, as unspoken grammars. This grammar can be discerned in the cinematic strategies (lighting, camera angles, image composition, and acoustic design), even when the script labors for the spectator to imagine social turmoil through the rubric of conflict (i.e., a rubric of problems that can be posed and conceptually solved) as opposed to the rubric of antagonism (an irreconcilable struggle between entities, or positions, the resolution of which is not dialectical but entails the obliteration of one of the positions). In other words, even when films narrate a story in which Blacks or Indians are beleaguered with problems that the script insists are conceptually coherent (usually having to do with poverty or the absence of “family values”), the nonnarrative, or cinematic, strategies of the film often disrupt this coherence by posing the irreconcilable questions of Red and Black political ontology— or nonontology. The grammar of antagonism breaks in on the mendacity of conflict. Semiotics and linguistics teach us that when we speak, our grammar goes unspoken. Our grammar is assumed. It is the structure through which the labor of speech is possible. 5 Likewise, the grammar of political ethics— the grammar of assumptions regarding the ontology of suffering— which underwrites film theory and political discourse (in this book, discourse elaborated in direct relation to radical action), and which underwrites cinematic speech (in this book, Red, White, and Black films from the mid-1960s to the present) is also unspoken. This notwithstanding, film theory, political discourse, and cinema assume an ontological grammar, a structure of suffering. And this structure of suffering crowds out others, regardless of the sentiment of the film or the spirit of unity mobilized by the political discourse in question. To put a finer point on it, structures of ontological suffering stand in antagonistic, rather then conflictual, relation to one another (despite the fact that antagonists themselves may not be aware of the ontological position from which they speak). Though this is perhaps the most controversial and out-of-step claim of this book, it is, nonetheless, the foundation of the close reading of feature films and political theory that follows. The difficulty of writing a book which seeks to uncover Red, Black, and White socially engaged feature films as aesthetic accompaniments to grammars of suffering, predicated on the subject positions of the “Savage” and the Slave, is that today’s intellectual protocols are not informed by Fanon’s insistence that “ontology— once it is finally admitted as leaving existence by the wayside— does not permit us to understand the being of the black man.” 6 In sharp contrast to the late 1960s and early 1970s, we now live in a political, academic, and cinematic milieu which stresses “diversity,” “unity,” “civic participation,” “hybridity,” “access,” and “contribution.” The radical fringe of political discourse amounts to little more than a passionate dream of civic reform and social stability. The distance between the protester and the police has narrowed considerably. The effect of this on the academy is that intellectual protocols tend to privilege two of the three domains of subjectivity, namely preconscious interests (as evidenced in the work of social science around “political unity,” “social attitudes,” “civic participation,” and “diversity,”) and unconscious identification (as evidenced in the humanities’ postmodern regimes of “diversity,” “hybridity,” and “relative rather than “master” narratives”). Since the 1980s, intellectual protocols aligned with structural positionality (except in the work of die-hard Marxists) have been kicked to the curb. That is to say, it is hardly fashionable anymore to think the vagaries of power through the generic positions within a structure of power relations—such as man/woman, worker/boss. Instead, the academy’s ensembles of questions are fixated on specific and “unique” experiences of the myriad identities that make up those structural positions. This would be fine if the work led us back to a critique of the paradigm; but most of it does not. Again, the upshot of this is that the intellectual protocols now in play, and the composite effect of cinematic and political discourse since the 1980s, tend to hide rather than make explicit the grammar of suffering which underwrites the United States and its foundational antagonisms. This state of affairs exacerbates— or, more precisely, mystifies and veils— the ontological death of the Slave and the “Savage” because (as in the 1950s) the cinematic, political, and intellectual discourse of the current milieu resists being sanctioned and authorized by the irreconcilable demands of Indigenism and Blackness— academic enquiry is thus no more effective in pursuing a revolutionary critique than the legislative antics of the loyal opposition. This is how left-leaning scholars help civil society recuperate and maintain stability. But this stability is a state of emergency for Indians and Blacks. The aim of this book is to embark on a paradigmatic analysis of how dispossession is imagined at the intersection of (a) the most unflinching meditations (metacommentaries) on political economy and libidinal economy, (e.g., Marxism, as in the work of Antonio Negri, and psychoanalysis, as in the work of Kaja Silverman), (b) the discourse of political common sense, and (c) the narrative and formal strategies of socially or politically engaged films. In other words, a paradigmatic analysis asks, What are the constituent elements of, and the assumptive logic regarding, dispossession which underwrite theoretical claims about political and libidinal economy; and how are those elements and assumptions manifest in both political common sense and in political cinema? Charles S. Maier argues that a metacommentary on political economy can be thought of as an “interrogation of economic doctrines to disclose their sociological and political premises. . . . in sum, it regards economic ideas and behavior not as frameworks for analysis, but as beliefs and actions that must themselves be explained.” 7 Jared Sexton describes libidinal economy as “the economy, or distribution and arrangement, of desire and identification (their condensation and displacement), and the complex relationship between sexuality and the unconscious.” Needless to say, libidinal economy functions variously across scales and is as “objective” as political economy. It is linked not only to forms of attraction, affection, and alliance, but also to aggression, destruction, and the violence of lethal consumption. Sexton emphasizes that it is “the whole structure of psychic and emotional life,” something more than, but inclusive of or traversed by, what Antonio Gramsci and other Marxists call a “structure of feeling”; it is “a dispensation of energies, concerns, points of attention, anxieties, pleasures, appetites, revulsions, and phobias capable of both great mobility and tenacious fixation.” 8 This book interrogates the assumptive logic of metacommentaries on political and libidinal economy, and their articulations in film, through a subject whose structure of dispossession (the constituent elements of his or her loss and suffering) they cannot theorize: the Black, a subject who is always already positioned as Slave. The implications of my interrogation reach far beyond film studies, for these metacommentaries not only have the status of paradigmatic analyses, but their reasoning and assumptions permeate the private and quotidian of political common sense and buttress organizing and activism on the left. In leftist metacommentaries on ontology (and in the political common sense and the radical cinema in fee, however unintentionally, to such metacommentaries), subjects’ paradigmatic location, the structure of their relationality, is organized around their capacities: powers subjects have or lack, the constituent elements of subjects’ structural position with which they are imbued or lack prior to the subjects’ performance. Just as prior to a game of chess, the board and the pieces on it live in a network of antagonisms. The spatial and temporal capacities of the queen (where she is located and where she can move, as well as how she can move) articulate an irreconcilable asymmetry of power between her and a rook or a pawn for example. Vest the rook with the powers of the queen (before the game begins, of course) and it is not the outcome of the game that is in jeopardy so much as the integrity of the paradigm itself— it is no longer chess but something else. And it goes without saying that no piece may leave the board if it is to stand in any relation whatsoever to its contemporaries (asymmetry aside); this would be tantamount to leaving the world, to death. Power relations are extant in the sinews of capacity. For Marxists, the revolutionary objective is not to play the game but to destroy it, to end exploitation and alienation. They see the capacity to accumulate surplus value embodied in one piece, the capitalist, and the embodiment of dispossession as being manifest in the worker. But the worker’s essential incapacity (powers which cannot accrue to the worker, suffering as exploitation and alienation) is the essence of capacity, life itself, when looked at through the eyes of the Slave. Socially or politically engaged films pride themselves on their proclivity to embrace what the Left views as the essence of dispossession: the plight of the exploited and alienated worker. Throughout this book, I argue that as radical and iconoclastic as so many socially or politically engaged films are (and they are indeed a breath of fresh air compared to standard Hollywood fare), in their putative embrace of working-class incapacity there is also, from the standpoint of the Slave, a devastating embrace of Human capacity— that which the Slave lacks. In other words, the narrative strategies of films that articulate the suffering of the worker are shot through with obstinate refusals to surrender their cinematic embrace to the structure of the Slave’s domination, something infinitely more severe than exploitation and alienation. I have little interest in assailing political conservatives. Nor is my argument wedded to the disciplinary needs of political science, or even sociology, where injury must be established, first, as White supremacist event, from which one then embarks on a demonstration of intent, or racism; and, if one is lucky, or foolish, enough, a solution is proposed. If the position of the Black is, as I argue, a paradigmatic impossibility in the Western Hemisphere, indeed, in the world, in other words, if a Black is the very antithesis of a Human subject, as imagined by Marxism and psychoanalysis, then his or her paradigmatic exile is not simply a function of repressive practices on the part of institutions (as political science and sociology would have it). This banishment from the Human fold is to be found most profoundly in the emancipatory meditations of Black people’s staunchest “allies,” and in some of the most “radical” films. Here— not in restrictive policy, unjust legislation, police brutality, or conservative scholarship—is where the Settler/Master’s sinews are most resilient. The polemic animating this research stems from (1) my reading of Native and Black American metacommentaries on Indian and Black subject positions written over the past twenty-three years and (2) a sense of how much that work appears out of joint with intellectual protocols and political ethics which underwrite political praxis and socially engaged popular cinema in this epoch of multiculturalism and globalization. The sense of abandonment I experience when I read the metacommentaries on Red positionality (by theorists such as Leslie Silko, Ward Churchill, Taiaiake Alfred, Vine Deloria Jr., and Haunani-Kay Trask) and the metacommentaries on Black positionality (by theorists such as David Marriott, Saidiya Hartman, Ronald Judy, Hortense Spillers, Orlando Patterson, and Achille Mbembe) against the deluge of multicultural positivity is overwhelming. One suddenly realizes that, though the semantic field on which subjectivity is imagined has expanded phenomenally through the protocols of multiculturalism and globalization theory, Blackness and an unflinching articulation of Redness are more unimaginable and illegible within this expanded semantic field than they were during the height of the FBI’s repressive Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO). On the semantic field on which the new protocols are possible, Indigenism can indeed become partially legible through a programmatics of structural adjustment (as fits our globalized era). In other words, for the Indians’ subject position to be legible, their positive registers of lost or threatened cultural identity must be foregrounded, when in point of fact the antagonistic register of dispossession that Indians “possess” is a position in relation to a socius structured by genocide. As Churchill points out, everyone from Armenians to Jews have been subjected to genocide, but the Indigenous position is one for which genocide is a constitutive element, not merely an historical event, without which Indians would not, paradoxically, “exist.” 9 Regarding the Black position, some might ask why, after claims successfully made on the state by the Civil Rights Movement, do I insist on positing an operational analytic for cinema, film studies, and political theory that appears to be a dichotomous and essentialist pairing of Masters and Slaves? In other words, why should we think of today’s Blacks in the United States as Slaves and everyone else (with the exception of Indians) as Masters? One could answer these questions by demonstrating how nothing remotely approaching claims successfully made on the state has come to pass. In other words, the election of a Black president aside, police brutality, mass incarceration, segregated and substandard schools and housing, astronomical rates of HIV infection, and the threat of being turned away en masse at the polls still constitute the lived experience of Black life. But such empirically based rejoinders would lead us in the wrong direction; we would find ourselves on “solid” ground, which would only mystify, rather than clarify, the question. We would be forced to appeal to “facts,” the “historical record,” and empirical markers of stasis and change, all of which could be turned on their head with more of the same. Underlying such a downward spiral into sociology, political science, history, and public policy debates would be the very rubric that I am calling into question: the grammar of suffering known as exploitation and alienation, the assumptive logic whereby subjective dispossession is arrived at in the calculations between those who sell labor power and those who acquire it. The Black qua the worker. Orlando Patterson has already dispelled this faulty ontological grammar in Slavery and Social Death, where he demonstrates how and why work, or forced labor, is not a constituent element of slavery. Once the “solid” plank of “work” is removed from slavery, then the conceptually coherent notion of “claims against the state”—the proposition that the state and civil society are elastic enough to even contemplate the possibility of an emancipatory project for the Black position— disintegrates into thin air. The imaginary of the state and civil society is parasitic on the Middle Passage. Put another way, No slave, no world. And, in addition, as Patterson argues, no slave is in the world. If, as an ontological position, that is, as a grammar of suffering, the Slave is not a laborer but an anti-Human, a position against which Humanity establishes, maintains, and renews its coherence, its corporeal integrity; if the Slave is, to borrow from Patterson, generally dishonored, perpetually open to gratuitous violence, and void of kinship structure, that is, having no relations that need be recognized, a being outside of relationality, then our analysis cannot be approached through the rubric of gains or reversals in struggles with the state and civil society, not unless and until the interlocutor first explains how the Slave is of the world. The onus is not on one who posits the Master/Slave dichotomy but on the one who argues there is a distinction between Slaveness and Blackness. How, when, and where did such a split occur? The woman at the gates of Columbia University awaits an answer. In “The Black Boy Looks at the White Boy,” James Baldwin wrote about “the terrible gap between Norman Mailer’s life and my own.” It is a painful essay in which Baldwin explains how he experienced, through beginning and ending his “friendship” with Mailer, those moments when Blackness inspires White emancipatory dreams and how it feels to suddenly realize the impossibility of the inverse: “The really ghastly thing about trying to convey to a white man the reality of the Negro experience has nothing whatever to do with the fact of color, but has to do with this man’s relationship to his own life. He will face in your life only what he is willing to face in his.” His long Paris nights with Mailer bore fruit only to the extent that Mailer was able to say, “Me, too.” Beyond that was the void which Baldwin carried with him into and, subsequently, out of the “friendship.” Baldwin’s condemnation of discourses that utilize exploitation and alienation’s grammar of suffering is unflinching: “I am afraid that most of the white people I have ever known impressed me as being in the grip of a weird nostalgia, dreaming of a vanished state of security and order, against which dream, unfailingly and unconsciously, they tested and very often lost their lives.” 10 He is writing about the encounters between Blacks and Whites in Paris and New York in the 1950s, but he may as well be writing about the eighteenth-century encounters between Slaves and the rhetoric of new republics like revolutionary France and America. 11 Early in the essay, Baldwin puts his finger on the nature of the impasse which allows the Black to catalyze White-to-White thought, without risking a White-to-Black encounter: “There is a difference,” he writes, “between Norman and myself in that I think he still imagines that he has something to save, whereas I have never had anything to lose.” 12 It is not a lack of goodwill or the practice of rhetorical discrimination, nor is it essentially the imperatives of the profit motive that prevent the hyperbolic circulation of Blackness from cracking and destabilizing civil society’s ontological structure of empathy—even as it cracks and destabilizes “previously accepted categories of thought about politics.” 13 The key to this structural prohibition barring Blackness from the conceptual framework of Human empathy can be located in the symbolic value of that “something to save” which Baldwin saw in Mailer. It was not until 1967– 68, with such books as Tell Me How Long the Train’s Been Gone— after he had exhausted himself with The Fire Next Time— that Baldwin permitted himself to give up hope and face squarely that the Master/Slave relation itself was the essence of that “something to save.” CONTINUESThroughout this book I use White, Human, Master, Settler, and sometimes non-Black interchangeably to connote a paradigmatic entity that exists ontologically as a position of life in relation to the Black or Slave position, one of death. The Red, Indigenous, or “Savage” position exists liminally as half-death and half-life between the Slave (Black) and the Human (White, or non-Black). I capitalize the words Red, White, Black, Slave, Savage, and Human in order to assert their importance as ontological positions and to stress the value of theorizing power politically rather than culturally. I want to move from a politics of culture to a culture of politics (as I argue in chapter ). Capitalizing these words is consistent with my argument that the array of identities that they contain is important but inessential to an analysis of the paradigm of power in which they are positioned. Readers wedded to cultural diversity and historical specificity may find such shorthand wanting. But those who may be put off by my pressing historical and cultural particularities— culled from history, sociology, and cultural studies, yet neither historical, sociological, nor, oddly enough, cultural— should bear in mind that there are precedents for such methods, two of which make cultural studies and much of social science possible: the methods of Karl Marx and Jacques Lacan. Marx pressed the microcosm of the English manufacturer into the service of a project that sought to explain economic relationality on a global scale. Lacan’s exemplary cartography was even smaller: a tiny room with not much more than a sofa and a chair, the room of the psychoanalytic encounter. As Jonathan Lee reminds us, at stake in Lacan’s account of the psychoanalytic encounter is the realization of subjectivity itself, “the very being of the subject.” 37 I argue that “Savage,” Human, and Slave should be theorized in the way we theorize worker and capitalist as positions first and as identities second, or as we theorize capitalism as a paradigm rather than as an experience— that is, before they take on national origin or gendered specificity. Throughout the course of this book I argue that “Savage,” Human, and Slave are more essential to our understanding of the truth of institutionality than the positions from political or libidinal economy. For in this trio we find the key to our world’s creation as well as to its undoing. This argument, as it relates to political economy, continues in chapter 1, “The Ruse of Analogy.” In chapter 2, “The Narcissistic Slave,” I shift focus from political economy to libidinal economy before undertaking more concrete analyses of films in parts 2, 3, and 4.
Black protest and free speech doesn’t negate social debate but represents a voiceless scream while endlessly mute because black demands can not exist within civil society. The 1AC gives the illusion of a voice for black demands without providing any way to resolve black death. Black people can vote and stand trial but they are still sent to prison and shot in the streets.
Sexton ‘11 (Jared, “The Social Life of Social Death: On Afro-Pessimism and Black Optimism” http://www.yorku.ca/intent/issue5/articles/pdfs/jaredsextonarticle.pdf) M Leap

24 To speak of black social life and black social death, black social life against black social death, black social life as black social death, black social life in black social death—all of this is to find oneself in the midst of an argument that is also a profound agreement, an agreement that takes shape in (between) meconnaissance and (dis)belief. Black optimism is not the negation of the negation that is afro-pessimism, just as black social life does not negate black social death by inhabiting it and vitalizing it. A living death is as much a death as it is a living. Nothing in afro-pessimism suggests that there is no black (social) life, only that black life is not social life in the universe formed by the codes of state and civil society, of citizen and subject, of nation and culture, of people and place, of history and heritage, of all the things that colonial society has in common with the colonized, of all that capital has in common with labor—the modern world system. Black life is not lived in the world that the world lives in, but it is lived underground, in outer space. This is agreed. That is to say, what Moten asserts against afro-pessimism is a point already affirmed by afro-pessimism, is, in fact, one of the most polemical dimensions of afro-pessimism as a project: namely, that black life is not social, or rather that black life is lived in social death. Double emphasis, on lived and on death. That’s the whole point of the enterprise at some level. It is all about the implications of this agreed-upon point where arguments (should) begin, but they cannot (yet) proceed. 

The conversation for free speech on college campuses is structured around white fragility and white supremacy. Free speech is just a flinch away from the horrors of anti-blackness that seeks to give a voice to white supremacy.
Carpenter 16
“Free speech, Black lives and white fragility” Bennett Carpenter, Grad student studying free speech, Duke Chronicle, January 19th 2016,  http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/01/free-speech-black-lives-and-white-fragility)
As I write my first column, I am thinking a lot about speech. I am thinking about how an urgent and overdue conversation about racism—on our campus and across our country—has been derailed by a diversionary and duplicitous obsession with the First Amendment. I am thinking about how quickly the conversation has shifted from white supremacy to white fragility—and how this shift is itself an expression of white supremacy. White fragility refers to a range of defensive behaviors through which white people (or more accurately, people who believe they are white) deflect conversations about race and racism in order to protect themselves from race-based stress. Because white people tend to live in environments where whiteness is both dominant and invisible, they grow accustomed to racial comfort, as a result of which even a small amount of racial stress becomes intolerable. This helps explain why talking about white supremacy can feel more painful to white people than white supremacy itself, why the ostensible "stifling" of debate can feel more pressing than the literal strangulation of Eric Garner and how "free speech" seems more important than Black lives. Needless to say, it requires an astounding degree of narcissism, ignorance and— yes—fragility to scan headlines detailing the daily, state-sanctioned slaughter of people of color and somehow conclude that speech is the real problem. White fragility weighs the minimal discomfort of being confronted with painful realities about race and racism against the literal death of Black and brown bodies and decides that the latter matter less than white discomfort. Which is how we end up here, talking about speech on campus and reading a dozen iterations of the same editorial in which students describe—with utterly unintentional irony—how being called out by anti-racist activists makes them feel upset and hurts their feelings. This leaves those of us committed to abolishing white supremacy in a double bind. To engage with this debate is to fall for a diversionary tactic in which we again center the conversation on white feelings. To refuse to engage grants the latter a monopoly on the airways, drowning out more vital issues in an ocean of white noise. Still, in the interests of the open, honest debate the free speechers ostensibly advocate, let me try to address the constitutional and philosophical principles at play here. The first point to make is that, despite the hand-wringing, I have yet to see a single example of student activists violating the First Amendment. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how they could do so, given that the latter proscribes government abridgment of speech while student activists are private citizens. Many seem to confuse "free speech" with some banal notion of civility, forgetting that the very freedoms they invoke to defend racist drivel permit anti-racists to respond—whether by calling someone out or calling for their resignation. This would seem to set up a nice equivalence between racists and anti-racists—both exercising free-speech freedoms, which must be equally and indiscriminately defended. What this ignores, however, is the centuries-long history of racialized oppression to which hate speech contributes. Hate speech is thus both violent and an incitement to further violence. The courts already prohibit walking into a crowded theater and shouting "fire." How is this any different from walking into a white supremacist society and shouting racial slurs? It has become almost a truism that there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Historically speaking, this is inaccurate. As M. Alison Kibler details in her "Censoring Racial Ridicule," the U.S. has a long history of regulating forms of speech that expose racialized groups to "contempt, derision or obloquy." Indeed, as recently as 1952, the Supreme Court upheld an Illinois law applying the standards of libel (another free-speech exception) to hate speech. It is only in recent years that the courts have, as the National Center for Human Rights Education puts it, "privileged white racists to express themselves at the expense of the safety of African-Americans and other people of color." Key to this new interpretation is a firm separation between speech and action, a legal variant on the old childhood adage: "sticks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you." The problem—as anyone who has been the victim of hate speech can tell you—is that this simply isn't true. Words hurt as much as actions; indeed, words are actions. Within the context of white supremacy, any distinction between a defaced poster, a racist pamphlet and legal or extralegal murder can be only of degree. At the same time—and here I'll throw a bone to the civil libertarians—I'm unconvinced that hate speech legislation can resolve this. Not because hate speech isn't violent, but because the state is. As others have noted, we often view the state like some strange sort of Jekyll and Hyde—as if the very government quite literally built on white supremacy could somehow save us from its effects. I've sometimes noticed the same double vision among campus activists, who both call out Duke (quite rightly) for institutional racism yet also call on the administration to fix it. So where does that leave us? With the painful yet empowering realization that no one will save us but ourselves. Rather than relying on the state to censure hate speech, anti-racists can assume that task—calling out and shouting down every expression of white supremacy as we work to build a genuinely free society. In the meantime, we can construct safe spaces for ourselves where hatred is barred at the door. In other words, the exact work that campus activists are already doing. Cowardly racists and homophobes who deface posters or vandalize dormitories are not heroic defenders of free speech. The true heroes are those who have spoken out against injustice, time and again, in the face of both material and psychological retaliation. Everything else is just white noise
The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater that best deconstructs anti-blackness
Our Alternative is to reject the affirmative in order to focus on an unflinching paradigmatic analysis that calls for the END OF AMERICA.
Wilderson 10
(Frank “Unspeakable Ethics”, Red, White, and Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms, ix-x, GLOB)
Strange as it may seem, this book project began in South Africa. During the last years of apartheid I worked for revolutionary change in both an underground and above-ground capacity, for the Charterist Movement in general and the ANC in particular. During this period, I began to see how essential an unflinching paradigmatic analysis is to a movement dedicated to the complete overthrow of an existing order. The neoliberal compromises that the radical elements of the Chartist movement made with the moderate elements were due, in large part, to our inability or unwillingness to hold the moderates' feet to the fire of a political agenda predicated on an unflinching paradigmatic analysis. Instead, we allowed our energies and points of attention to be displaced onto pragmatic considerations. Simply put, we abdicated the power to pose the question - and the power to pose the question is the greatest power of all. Elsewhere, I have written about this unfortunate turn of events (Incognegro: A Memoir of Exile of Apartheid), so I'll not rehearse the details here. Suffice it to say, this book germinated in the many political academic discussions and debates that I was fortunate enough to be a part of at a historic moment and in a place where the word revolution was spoken in earnest, free of qualifiers and irony. For their past and ongoing ideas and interventions, I extend solidarity and appreciation to comrades Amanda Alexander, Franco Barchiesi, Teresa Barnes, Patrick Bond, Ashwin Desai, Nigel Gibson, Steven Greenberg, Allan Horowitz, Bushy Kelebonye (deceased), Tefu Kelebonye, Ulrike Kistner, Kamogelo Lekubu, Andile Mngxitama, Prishani Naidoo, John Shai, and S'bu Zulu.