Tournament: CROWE WARKEN DEBATES AT NAVY | Round: 2 | Opponent: JMU HP | Judge: David Steinberg
The accumulation of capital and the form of the modern international economy takes the form of Empire. Empire is a form of sovereignty consolidated by hegemonic governments, international corporations, and organizations representing the people.
Ansaldi 2001, (Saverio, “The Multitude in Empire: Biopolitical Alternatives” in Rethinking Marxism vol. 13 no. 3-4 page 137)

Therein lies the response of imperial and biopolitical capital. The control over biopower exerted
AND
the multitude through the founding alliance of a deterritorialized sovereignty and real subsumption.

And the affirmative’s restriction of war powers works to maintain the current order of Empire. The question is not of the authority to  in the name of security, but rather biopolitical deployment of war as a concept and tool.
Hardt and Negri 2004 (Michael and Antonio, Multitude pages 21-22)

The concept of security only gestures partially and obliquely to the extensive transformative power involved
AND
foundational sense. It is rather a means to displace and suffocate it.  

And in the current system of international politics, violence is inevitable – it is just a question of whether violence perpetuates or challenges the current order.
Hardt and Negri 2004 (Michael and Antonio, Multitude pages 31-32)

There were almost two thousand sustained armed conflicts on the face of the earth at
AND
it may help explain why they are not the object of imperial intervention. 

The impact is quality of life. Those whose production-value is managed and exploited – face a life of brutal violence, starvation, and poverty.
O’Neill 2002 (John, “Empire versus Empire: A Post-Communist Manifesto” in Theory Culture Society vol. 19 Page 199-200)

The prospect of Empire is underwritten by the US dollar, trusting in the one
AND
and cripples  beyond anything imaginable within its own centres of narcissism and greed. 

The Alternative is to reject the affirmative’s attempts at biopolitical control and endorse an exodus from Empire.

This means neither a reactionary resistance to exploitative production, nor a restructuring of capitalism, but simply an abandonment of the system.

Bowring 2004 (Finn, “From the Mass Worker to the Multitude: A Theoretical Contextualization of Hardt and Negri’s Empire” in Capital and Class no. 83 Summer 2004 pgs. 101-132)

If Empire can be superseded neither by the reappropriation of productive forces, nor by
AND
response they do seem to favour is conveyed by the notion of 'exodus'.
Whereas in the disciplinary era sabotage was the fundamental notion of resistance, in the
AND
power. (Hardt and Negri, 2001: 212, original emphasis)
Exodus is seen as an efficacious political practice because the power of capital, from
AND
than those to be found within the present -day process of production'.
In Virno's analysis, the battle is between an 'excess' of communicative cooperation, which
AND
involve even the worker's personality and subjectivity within the production of value.'
The Hegelian passage from absolute loss to complete redemption is thus rejected. The multitude
AND
(Virno, 19963: 9 199; I996c: 244-5).

The alternative solves because it is an affirmation of the capability of intellectual labor to provide a means of social relations outside of the exploitative structures of Empire.

Ansaldi 2001, (Saverio, “The Multitude in Empire: Biopolitical Alternatives” in Rethinking Marxism vol. 13 no. 3-4 page 137)

The imperial political model thus does not only imply a redefinition of sovereignty and its
AND
inscribed in the lines of flight that constitute the nature of its dynamic.