General Actions:
Wiki: opencaselist13
▼:
Document Index
»
Space: James Madison
▼:
Document Index
»
Page: Miller-Lepp Aff
Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Video | Edit/Delete |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEDA | 2 | FloridaWayne | Brett Bricker |
| ||||
CEDA | Triples | Oklahoma MM | Panel |
| ||||
CSUF | 3 | Fullerton RS | Will Baker |
| ||||
Clarion | 1 | Army LS | Ben Hagwood |
| ||||
Districts | 1 | Pitt BW | Paul Hayes |
| ||||
GSU | 2 | Georgia DG | Whit Whitmore |
| ||||
GSU | 5 | Iowa HK | Brian DeLong |
| ||||
GSU | 2 | All |
| |||||
Georgia | 3 | Georgia State NS | Dan Bagwell |
| ||||
NDT | 1 | Concordia BS | Scullio, Cooper, Bender |
| ||||
NDT | 1 | Concordia BS | Scullio, Cooper, Bender |
| ||||
NDT | 2 | Norwestern MP | Herndon, Hayes, Kearney |
| ||||
NDT | 4 | Northwestern MP |
| |||||
Navy | 1 | Wake LM | Steve Pointer |
| ||||
Navy | Finals | All | All |
| ||||
Navy | Finals | All | All |
| ||||
Navy | Octas | Wake MS | Harper, Sommers, Woodruff |
| ||||
Texas | 3 | Texas CM | Sean Kennedy |
| ||||
USC | 1 | Cornell DK | Ralph Paone |
| ||||
USC | 1 | all | xx |
| ||||
Wake | 2 | NYU GZ | James Herndon |
|
Tournament | Round | Report |
---|
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Entry | Date |
---|---|
1AC CEDA R2Tournament: CEDA | Round: 2 | Opponent: FloridaWayne | Judge: Brett Bricker Contention One is Masculine ProtectionUS drone violence perfects the rhetorical war of the media, military, and the state where political leaders can explain away deaths by categorizing individuals as truly "innocent civilians" or "abusive civilians." This rhetorical war creates the perfect weapon, the drone, that allows us to wage an endless war against bodies we place in the grey-zones of violenceGregory, 11 This rhetorical war prefects the drone as the masculine protector of some gendered, ethnicized body that is always able to be erased by the imperialist state. This view justifies the current standards that says all men are guilty and all women need our protectionVolo, 13 The RGMA ushers in a high-tech patriarchal imperialism, and citizens of the Drones are the new embodiment of masculine protectionism – drones represented as a masculine protector allows the US to distracts away from the bloodied targets of drone strikes and claim that the strikes are helping rescues the feminized middle eastern otherVolo, 13 At the 2010 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama told a not-so- The masculine protection of the drone creates the conditions and possibilities of warfare both at the macro and micro levelYoung, 03 Contention Two is the CivilianDrones create zones of invisibility that privilege the viewpoint of the US drone and exacerbate the issues by combining technology with the American culture of exceptionalism whereby the bomber is always the privileged hunter-killerGregory, 11 Civilian deaths in drone warfare are always constructed as accidents, constituting these bodies as deserving meaning but ultimately denying itWilcox, 09 Getting people back political significance and challenging small violences is the only way to stop bigger violences and prevent the genocidal impulses in our everyday livesScheper-Hughes and Bourgois, 04 Our ability to simply say that some bodies are accidents and the rhetorical war we wage with drones allows us to perfect our role as the arbitrator of the only truth – American power. The mutual apocalyptic drive between the US and its enemies will culminate in the US destroying the world in order to remake it.Lifton ’3 Plan TextThe United States federal government should prohibit the president’s authority to use drones for targeted killing.Contention Three is SolvencyProhibiting the use of drones is necessary to challenging the violence of the war on terror and produces a necessary starting point to challenging violence at homeHeathcote, 10 Utilitarian calculus fails to empower the body or produce an understanding of those who are destroyed in targeted strikes. Only by understanding bodies as socially produced are we able to produce a better understanding about the value of human livesWilcox, 09 There are so many reasons nuclear and great power wars are impossibleRobb, 12 Util is not objective—it is a marked form of knowledge that only subjugates alternative ways of knowing and results in worse violent dehumanizationWall and Monahan, 11 Obama won’t circumvent—-empirics proveMichael A. Cohen 12, is a fellow at the Century Foundation, "The Imperial Presidency: Drone Power and Congressional Oversight," July 24, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12194/the-imperial-presidency-drone-power-and-congressional-oversight Images of hyper-violence numbs us to real deaths that are happening—these images must be rejected alwaysGiroux, 12 Law is constructed the aff is an example of necessary deconstruction because the only way to stop drones in Afghanistan and the literal erasing of bodies from having meaning much less political significance is to prohibit the use of drones.Caputo, 97 The symbolic act of the plan is key – the legislative debate itself is solvency for the affStoltz 7 (Barbara, political scientist / criminologist, July, "Interpreting the U.S. Human Trafficking Debate Through the Lens of Symbolic Politics.", Law and Policy, 2007, Vol. 29 Issue , p311-338, acc 1/4/2014)ERM Political changes and discursive changes should be combined to achieve emancipation.Shaw ’8 | 3/27/14 |
1AC GeorgiaTournament: Georgia | Round: 3 | Opponent: Georgia State NS | Judge: Dan Bagwell Contention One is the CyborgDrone warfare creates people into cyborgs—the drone becomes an extension of the body and it becomes impossible to separate the two. This forces a desensitization to warfare that creates the conditions for violenceWilcox, 09 These cyborg soldiers are the epitomy of masculine domination, creating a protectionist stance over even the bodies of the soldiersWilcox, 09 The hypermasculinization of drone warfare genders the world, painting the US as the strong, masculine protector of the weak, feminine Middle East. This hyper-masculine mindset glosses over the lives of the civilians who are destroyed by strikes daily At the 2010 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama told a not-so- That creates the conditions and possibilities of warfare both at the macro and micro level Contention Two is the CivilianCivilian deaths in drone warfare are always constructed as accidents, constituting these bodies as deserving meaning but ultimately denying itWilcox, 09 This action is not a temporary shortcoming, but an actively produced ignorance—civilian deaths are painted as un-knowable in order to deny these individuals political significanceWilcox, 09 Getting people back political significance and challenging small violences is the only way to stop bigger violences and prevent the genocidal impulses in our everyday lives The plan is necessary to stopping the distancing between soldiers and wars that produce our impacts Plan Text Contention Three is Framing Utilitarian calculus fails to empower the body or produce an understanding of those who are destroyed in targeted strikes. Only by understanding bodies as socially produced are we able to produce a better understanding about the value of human livesWilcox, 09 Calculations of risk assessment rely on the same logic of precision warfare that results in our impacts in the first place. We must reject utilitarian risk assessments and understand that risk is inevitableWilcox, 09 There are so many reasons nuclear and great power wars are impossible Util is not objective—it is a marked form of knowledge that only subjugates alternative ways of knowing and results in worse violent dehumanizationWall and Monahan, 11 Obama won’t circumvent—-empirics prove Quantitative assessments of body counts masks over the true violence of warfare Law can be good when it is recognized as constructed and deconstructed so that changes can be made to most violent most exclusionary versions of laws. Laws can be invented and reinvented to address the ignorance and exclusion inherent in all laws. The symbolic act of the plan is key – the legislative debate itself is solvency for the aff Political changes and discursive changes should be combined to achieve emancipation. Images of hyper-violence numbs us to real deaths that are happening—these images must be rejected always | 2/2/14 |
1AC NDT R1Tournament: NDT | Round: 1 | Opponent: Concordia BS | Judge: Scullio, Cooper, Bender Contention One is Masculine ProtectionUS drone violence perfects the rhetorical war of the media, military, and the state where political leaders can explain away deaths by categorizing individuals as truly "innocent civilians" or "abusive civilians." This rhetorical war creates the drone into the perfect weapon that allows us to wage an endless war against bodies we place in the grey-zones of violenceGregory, 11 This rhetorical war prefects the drone as the masculine protector of some gendered, ethnicized body that is always able to be erased by the imperialist state. This view justifies the current standards that says all men are guilty and all women need our protectionVolo, 13 The RGMA ushers in a high-tech patriarchal imperialism, and citizens of the Drones are the new embodiment of masculine protectionism – drones represented as a masculine protector allows the US to distracts away from the bloodied targets of drone strikes and claim that the strikes are helping rescues the feminized middle eastern otherVolo, 13 The masculine protection of the drone creates the conditions and possibilities of warfare both at the macro and micro levelYoung, 03 Contention Two is the CivilianDrones create zones of invisibility that privilege the viewpoint of the US drone and exacerbate the issues by combining technology with the American culture of exceptionalism whereby the bomber is always the privileged hunter-killerGregory, 11 Civilian deaths in drone warfare are always constructed as accidents, constituting these bodies as deserving meaning but ultimately denying itWilcox, 09 Getting people back political significance and challenging small violences is the only way to stop bigger violences and prevent the genocidal impulses in our everyday livesScheper-Hughes and Bourgois, 04 Our ability to simply say that some bodies are accidents and the rhetorical war we wage with drones allows us to perfect our role as the arbitrator of the only truth – American power. The mutual apocalyptic drive between the US and its enemies will culminate in the US destroying the world in order to remake it.Lifton, 03 Plan TextThe United States federal government should prohibit the president’s war powers authority to use drones for targeted killing.Contention Three is SolvencyProhibiting the use of drones is necessary to challenging the violence of the war on terror and produces the best starting point to challenging violence at homeHeathcote, 10 Law is constructed the aff is an example of necessary deconstruction because the only way to stop drones in Afghanistan and the literal erasing of bodies from having meaning much less political significance is to prohibit the use of dronesCaputo, 97 The state is inevitable—that means we need to act within it to create any changeHolcombe, 04 The symbolic act of the plan is key – the legislative debate itself is solvency for the affStoltz 7 (Barbara, political scientist / criminologist, July, "Interpreting the U.S. Human Trafficking Debate Through the Lens of Symbolic Politics.", Law and Policy, 2007, Vol. 29 Issue , p311-338, acc 1/4/2014)ERM The feminist curiosity of the 1AC solvesEnloe, 2007 Developing a "curiosity" involves exploring, questioning—refusing to take something for Political changes and discursive changes should be combined to achieve emancipation.Shaw ’8 Performing the speech act of the 1AC allows us to understand the ways in which we can use instances of the law against itself.Judith Butler, knows her fucking shit. 2K. "Antigone’s Claim: Kinship between Life and Death" Obama won’t circumvent—-empirics proveMichael A. Cohen 12, is a fellow at the Century Foundation, "The Imperial Presidency: Drone Power and Congressional Oversight," July 24, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12194/the-imperial-presidency-drone-power-and-congressional-oversight Reformism can be productive even if the law is morally bankrupt – focus on strategic effects of policies while abandoning the fantasy of ethical neutrality allows for effective material changeSmith, Associate Professor of Media and Cultural Studies at UC Riverside, 12 Given the logics of settler colonialism, it may seem to be a hopeless contradiction We should advocate for legal reform disinvested from morality – acts of disobedience meant to shame the system ultimately fail – emphasis on the strategic effects of policies best allows for material changeSmith, Associate Professor of Media and Cultural Studies at UC Riverside, 12 Legal reformists who often focus on shaping the law to reflect their moral values and those who focus on extra-legal revolutionary strategies often share the same goal. Often the presumed ’radical’ strategy adopted by social justice groups is to engage in civil disobedience. While these groups ostensibly break the law, they often do so in rather ceremonial fashion; they essentially want to shame the system. People are supposed to get arrested, and those in power are supposed to be so shamed by the fact that an unjust system required people to break the law. The expectation is that they will then change the laws. Acts of civil disobedience often are not targeted toward changing a policy directly or building alternative systems to the current one. Many Native groups in the southwest US, however, have developed an alternative framework for extra-legal social change. Rather than breaking the law to change the system, they propose to make Native communities ungovernable. For instance, during the passage of SB1070, Native groups with the Taala Hooghan Infoshop, O’odham Solidarity Across Borders, and others occupied the Border Patrol Office.32 However, rather than engaging in the occupation with the expectation of getting arrested, they chained themselves to the building so that the office could not perform its work. This approach has continued with their efforts to stop the US government’s desecration of the San Francisco Peaks through the construction of a ski resort. While they have not eschewed legal strategies for stopping this desecration, they have focused on preventing tourists from visiting the area so that the ski resort will no longer be economically viable. According to their promotional material on TrueSnow.org: 84 For the last decade defenders of the peaks have used every legitimate way they could think of to try to stop the US Forest Service from allowing treated sewage effluent to be sprayed on the Peaks to make snow. More than 20,000 people took part in the Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement process with letters and appeals asking them not to spray treated sewage effluent on the peaks to make snow. Thousands of us went to Flagstaff City Council meetings to voice our opposition to the sale of treated sewer water for the project. Yet still they approved it – before even an environmental impact statement was done. They were the most clueless of all. Currently the Hopi tribe is seeking lawsuit against the city because of this treated sewage effluent sale. A group of tribes and environmental and social justice organizations took a lawsuit all the way to the steps of the Supreme Court. The lawsuits have only called into question the legitimacy of what is loosely termed the ’justice’ system. For it seems there is no justice in this system. It is just us, IN this system. There is also yet another lawsuit in play which I have termed ’Save the Peaks Coalition vs The Snowbowl Movement’ which may have the possibility of stopping this project in the long term. But if we wait for a verdict, all the trees will be cut and the pipeline installed. This has not stopped the politically connected ski area from going ahead with their project right now and they have already clear-cut 100,000 trees (or more) and have already buried a few miles of pipeline along Snowbowl road. If they lose in court they would be expected to repair the damages. How do you get back 400 year old trees? Greed and hatred seems to be Snowbowl’s only motivation ~…~. But isn’t there some way to stop it? Well we could hit them where it hurts21 In the pocketbook. If you live in the Fort Valley area of Flagstaff you must see by now how little Arizona Snowbowl really cares about the ’economic benefits’ it brings our fair town. I know some of us had a good deal of trouble even going to work when the snow was good and Snowbowl was busy. The traffic jam was incredible. Stretching more than 15 miles. They took our livelihood away and hope to make that 85 a daily occurrence by having a ’predictable’ ski season using sewer water to make snow. This jam up gave us an idea21 Why don’t we do the same thing? Arizona Snowbowl does not own the mountain, and it is perfectly legal to drive up to the area for any permitted public lands use. This means hiking, camping, praying, skiing, sitting, loving, mushroom hunting, etc. So what do I do? It is time to stop waiting for a government entity, an environmental group, or any of the people you have come to expect to save the peaks for us. The time has come to show them how much power the people have21 And believe me, you are the most powerful people in all of the world21 You21 Yep you21 You can do it21 All summer the Arizona Snowbowl is open Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for scenic skyrides, food, and alcohol. They do get a pretty good business up there and it would have an impact if the mountain was just ’too busy’ with people doing all the other things our Public Forests are for. There is nothing illegal about it and it would send a clear message to the forest service that we don’t need Snowbowl to ’recreate on the mountain’. Heck, we don’t even need a ski area up there to ski21 In essence, take a vacation. Just do it up on the peaks and don’t use Snowbowl. Our government officials are forgetting what ’all power to the people’ really means. You cannot wait any longer for someone else to save the peaks for you. It will take of all us together to do this. So what are you waiting for? Pack a lunch this Saturday morning and Converge on the Peaks2133 What these activists suggest is to divest our moral investment in the law. This will affect not only what legal reforms we may pursue, but what revolutionary strategies we might engage in. Rather than engaging in civil disobedience to force legislators to change laws to conform to our moral principles, we might be free to engage creatively in strategies that build political and economic power directly. 86 CONCLUSION In the debates prevalent within Native sovereignty and racial justice movements, we are often presented with two seemingly orthogonal positions – long-term revolutionary extra-legal movements or shortterm reformist legalist strategies. Short-term legal strategies are accused of investing activists within a white supremacist and settler colonial system that is incapable of significant change. Meanwhile, revolutionaries are accused of sacrificing the immediate needs of vulnerable populations for the sake of an endlessly deferred revolution. The reality of gender violence in Native communities highlights the untenability of these positions. Native women’s lives are at stake now – they cannot wait for the revolution to achieve some sort of safety. At the same time, the short-term strategies often adopted to address gender violence have often increased violence in Native women’s lives by buttressing the prison industrial complex and its violent logics. While this reformist versus revolutionary dichotomy suggests two radically different positions, in reality they share a common assumption: that the only way to pursue legal reform is to fight for laws that that reinforce the appropriate moral statement (for instance, that the only way to address violence against Native women is through the law and to make this violence a ’crime’). Because the US legal system is inherently immoral and colonial, however, attempts to moralise the law generally fail. It is not surprising that the response to these failures is to simply give up on pursuing legal strategies. However, the works of Derrick Bell, Christopher Leslie, and Sarah Deer, while working in completely different areas of the law, point to a different approach. We can challenge the assumption that the law will reflect our morals and instead seek to use the law for its strategic effects. In doing so, we might advocate for laws that might in fact contradict some of our morals because we recognize that the law cannot mirror our morals anyway. We might then be free to engage in a relationship with the law which would free us to change our strategies as we assess its strategic effects. At the same time, by divesting from the morality of the law, we then will also simultaneously be free to invest in building our own forms of community accountability and justice outside the legal 87 system. Our extra-legal strategies would go beyond ceremonial civil disobedience tactics designed to shame a system that is not capable of shame. Rather, we might focus on actually building the political power to create an alternative system to the heteropatriarchal, white supremacist, settler colonial state.It is intellectual duty to change the lawAlex Thomson, lecturer in English at the University of Glasgow, 2005, Deconstruction and Democracy, p. 99-100 | 3/28/14 |
1AC NDT R1Tournament: NDT | Round: 1 | Opponent: Concordia BS | Judge: Scullio, Cooper, Bender Contention One is Masculine ProtectionUS drone violence perfects the rhetorical war of the media, military, and the state where political leaders can explain away deaths by categorizing individuals as truly "innocent civilians" or "abusive civilians." This rhetorical war creates the drone into the perfect weapon that allows us to wage an endless war against bodies we place in the grey-zones of violenceGregory, 11 This rhetorical war prefects the drone as the masculine protector of some gendered, ethnicized body that is always able to be erased by the imperialist state. This view justifies the current standards that says all men are guilty and all women need our protectionVolo, 13 The RGMA ushers in a high-tech patriarchal imperialism, and citizens of the Drones are the new embodiment of masculine protectionism – drones represented as a masculine protector allows the US to distracts away from the bloodied targets of drone strikes and claim that the strikes are helping rescues the feminized middle eastern otherVolo, 13 The masculine protection of the drone creates the conditions and possibilities of warfare both at the macro and micro levelYoung, 03 Contention Two is the CivilianDrones create zones of invisibility that privilege the viewpoint of the US drone and exacerbate the issues by combining technology with the American culture of exceptionalism whereby the bomber is always the privileged hunter-killerGregory, 11 Civilian deaths in drone warfare are always constructed as accidents, constituting these bodies as deserving meaning but ultimately denying itWilcox, 09 Getting people back political significance and challenging small violences is the only way to stop bigger violences and prevent the genocidal impulses in our everyday livesScheper-Hughes and Bourgois, 04 Our ability to simply say that some bodies are accidents and the rhetorical war we wage with drones allows us to perfect our role as the arbitrator of the only truth – American power. The mutual apocalyptic drive between the US and its enemies will culminate in the US destroying the world in order to remake it.Lifton, 03 Plan TextThe United States federal government should prohibit the president’s war powers authority to use drones for targeted killing.Contention Three is SolvencyProhibiting the use of drones is necessary to challenging the violence of the war on terror and produces the best starting point to challenging violence at homeHeathcote, 10 Law is constructed the aff is an example of necessary deconstruction because the only way to stop drones in Afghanistan and the literal erasing of bodies from having meaning much less political significance is to prohibit the use of dronesCaputo, 97 The state is inevitable—that means we need to act within it to create any changeHolcombe, 04 The symbolic act of the plan is key – the legislative debate itself is solvency for the affStoltz 7 (Barbara, political scientist / criminologist, July, "Interpreting the U.S. Human Trafficking Debate Through the Lens of Symbolic Politics.", Law and Policy, 2007, Vol. 29 Issue , p311-338, acc 1/4/2014)ERM The feminist curiosity of the 1AC solvesEnloe, 2007 Developing a "curiosity" involves exploring, questioning—refusing to take something for Political changes and discursive changes should be combined to achieve emancipation.Shaw ’8 Performing the speech act of the 1AC allows us to understand the ways in which we can use instances of the law against itself.Judith Butler, knows her fucking shit. 2K. "Antigone’s Claim: Kinship between Life and Death" Obama won’t circumvent—-empirics proveMichael A. Cohen 12, is a fellow at the Century Foundation, "The Imperial Presidency: Drone Power and Congressional Oversight," July 24, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12194/the-imperial-presidency-drone-power-and-congressional-oversight Reformism can be productive even if the law is morally bankrupt – focus on strategic effects of policies while abandoning the fantasy of ethical neutrality allows for effective material changeSmith, Associate Professor of Media and Cultural Studies at UC Riverside, 12 Given the logics of settler colonialism, it may seem to be a hopeless contradiction We should advocate for legal reform disinvested from morality – acts of disobedience meant to shame the system ultimately fail – emphasis on the strategic effects of policies best allows for material changeSmith, Associate Professor of Media and Cultural Studies at UC Riverside, 12 Legal reformists who often focus on shaping the law to reflect their moral values and those who focus on extra-legal revolutionary strategies often share the same goal. Often the presumed ’radical’ strategy adopted by social justice groups is to engage in civil disobedience. While these groups ostensibly break the law, they often do so in rather ceremonial fashion; they essentially want to shame the system. People are supposed to get arrested, and those in power are supposed to be so shamed by the fact that an unjust system required people to break the law. The expectation is that they will then change the laws. Acts of civil disobedience often are not targeted toward changing a policy directly or building alternative systems to the current one. Many Native groups in the southwest US, however, have developed an alternative framework for extra-legal social change. Rather than breaking the law to change the system, they propose to make Native communities ungovernable. For instance, during the passage of SB1070, Native groups with the Taala Hooghan Infoshop, O’odham Solidarity Across Borders, and others occupied the Border Patrol Office.32 However, rather than engaging in the occupation with the expectation of getting arrested, they chained themselves to the building so that the office could not perform its work. This approach has continued with their efforts to stop the US government’s desecration of the San Francisco Peaks through the construction of a ski resort. While they have not eschewed legal strategies for stopping this desecration, they have focused on preventing tourists from visiting the area so that the ski resort will no longer be economically viable. According to their promotional material on TrueSnow.org: 84 For the last decade defenders of the peaks have used every legitimate way they could think of to try to stop the US Forest Service from allowing treated sewage effluent to be sprayed on the Peaks to make snow. More than 20,000 people took part in the Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement process with letters and appeals asking them not to spray treated sewage effluent on the peaks to make snow. Thousands of us went to Flagstaff City Council meetings to voice our opposition to the sale of treated sewer water for the project. Yet still they approved it – before even an environmental impact statement was done. They were the most clueless of all. Currently the Hopi tribe is seeking lawsuit against the city because of this treated sewage effluent sale. A group of tribes and environmental and social justice organizations took a lawsuit all the way to the steps of the Supreme Court. The lawsuits have only called into question the legitimacy of what is loosely termed the ’justice’ system. For it seems there is no justice in this system. It is just us, IN this system. There is also yet another lawsuit in play which I have termed ’Save the Peaks Coalition vs The Snowbowl Movement’ which may have the possibility of stopping this project in the long term. But if we wait for a verdict, all the trees will be cut and the pipeline installed. This has not stopped the politically connected ski area from going ahead with their project right now and they have already clear-cut 100,000 trees (or more) and have already buried a few miles of pipeline along Snowbowl road. If they lose in court they would be expected to repair the damages. How do you get back 400 year old trees? Greed and hatred seems to be Snowbowl’s only motivation ~…~. But isn’t there some way to stop it? Well we could hit them where it hurts21 In the pocketbook. If you live in the Fort Valley area of Flagstaff you must see by now how little Arizona Snowbowl really cares about the ’economic benefits’ it brings our fair town. I know some of us had a good deal of trouble even going to work when the snow was good and Snowbowl was busy. The traffic jam was incredible. Stretching more than 15 miles. They took our livelihood away and hope to make that 85 a daily occurrence by having a ’predictable’ ski season using sewer water to make snow. This jam up gave us an idea21 Why don’t we do the same thing? Arizona Snowbowl does not own the mountain, and it is perfectly legal to drive up to the area for any permitted public lands use. This means hiking, camping, praying, skiing, sitting, loving, mushroom hunting, etc. So what do I do? It is time to stop waiting for a government entity, an environmental group, or any of the people you have come to expect to save the peaks for us. The time has come to show them how much power the people have21 And believe me, you are the most powerful people in all of the world21 You21 Yep you21 You can do it21 All summer the Arizona Snowbowl is open Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for scenic skyrides, food, and alcohol. They do get a pretty good business up there and it would have an impact if the mountain was just ’too busy’ with people doing all the other things our Public Forests are for. There is nothing illegal about it and it would send a clear message to the forest service that we don’t need Snowbowl to ’recreate on the mountain’. Heck, we don’t even need a ski area up there to ski21 In essence, take a vacation. Just do it up on the peaks and don’t use Snowbowl. Our government officials are forgetting what ’all power to the people’ really means. You cannot wait any longer for someone else to save the peaks for you. It will take of all us together to do this. So what are you waiting for? Pack a lunch this Saturday morning and Converge on the Peaks2133 What these activists suggest is to divest our moral investment in the law. This will affect not only what legal reforms we may pursue, but what revolutionary strategies we might engage in. Rather than engaging in civil disobedience to force legislators to change laws to conform to our moral principles, we might be free to engage creatively in strategies that build political and economic power directly. 86 CONCLUSION In the debates prevalent within Native sovereignty and racial justice movements, we are often presented with two seemingly orthogonal positions – long-term revolutionary extra-legal movements or shortterm reformist legalist strategies. Short-term legal strategies are accused of investing activists within a white supremacist and settler colonial system that is incapable of significant change. Meanwhile, revolutionaries are accused of sacrificing the immediate needs of vulnerable populations for the sake of an endlessly deferred revolution. The reality of gender violence in Native communities highlights the untenability of these positions. Native women’s lives are at stake now – they cannot wait for the revolution to achieve some sort of safety. At the same time, the short-term strategies often adopted to address gender violence have often increased violence in Native women’s lives by buttressing the prison industrial complex and its violent logics. While this reformist versus revolutionary dichotomy suggests two radically different positions, in reality they share a common assumption: that the only way to pursue legal reform is to fight for laws that that reinforce the appropriate moral statement (for instance, that the only way to address violence against Native women is through the law and to make this violence a ’crime’). Because the US legal system is inherently immoral and colonial, however, attempts to moralise the law generally fail. It is not surprising that the response to these failures is to simply give up on pursuing legal strategies. However, the works of Derrick Bell, Christopher Leslie, and Sarah Deer, while working in completely different areas of the law, point to a different approach. We can challenge the assumption that the law will reflect our morals and instead seek to use the law for its strategic effects. In doing so, we might advocate for laws that might in fact contradict some of our morals because we recognize that the law cannot mirror our morals anyway. We might then be free to engage in a relationship with the law which would free us to change our strategies as we assess its strategic effects. At the same time, by divesting from the morality of the law, we then will also simultaneously be free to invest in building our own forms of community accountability and justice outside the legal 87 system. Our extra-legal strategies would go beyond ceremonial civil disobedience tactics designed to shame a system that is not capable of shame. Rather, we might focus on actually building the political power to create an alternative system to the heteropatriarchal, white supremacist, settler colonial state.It is intellectual duty to change the lawAlex Thomson, lecturer in English at the University of Glasgow, 2005, Deconstruction and Democracy, p. 99-100 | 3/28/14 |
1AC TexasTournament: Texas | Round: 3 | Opponent: Texas CM | Judge: Sean Kennedy Contention One is DistancingIn drone warfare, the drone becomes an extension of the body and it becomes impossible to separate the two. This forces a desensitization to warfare that creates the conditions for violenceWilcox, 09 These soldiers are the epitomy of masculine domination, creating a protectionist stance over even the bodies of the soldiersWilcox, 09 The hypermasculinization of drone warfare genders the world, painting the US as the strong, masculine protector of the weak, feminine Middle East. This hyper-masculine mindset glosses over the lives of the civilians who are destroyed by strikes daily At the 2010 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama told a not-so- That creates the conditions and possibilities of warfare both at the macro and micro level Contention Two is the CivilianCivilian deaths in drone warfare are always constructed as accidents, constituting these bodies as deserving meaning but ultimately denying itWilcox, 09 This action is not a temporary shortcoming, but an actively produced ignorance—civilian deaths are painted as un-knowable in order to deny these individuals political significanceWilcox, 09 Getting people back political significance and challenging small violences is the only way to stop bigger violences and prevent the genocidal impulses in our everyday lives Targeted killing is the same as torture – removing a sacrifice desentizes nations to the true impact of the strikesWilcox 2009 The plan is necessary to stopping the distancing between soldiers and wars that produce our impacts Plan Text Contention Three is Framing Utilitarian calculus fails to empower the body or produce an understanding of those who are destroyed in targeted strikes. Only by understanding bodies as socially produced are we able to produce a better understanding about the value of human livesWilcox, 09 There’s no such thing as objective knowledge production—claims of such are just marked knowledge that destroy the binary between targets and civiliansWall and Monahan, 11 Law can be good when it is recognized as constructed and deconstructed so that changes can be made to most violent most exclusionary versions of laws. Laws can be invented and reinvented to address the ignorance and exclusion inherent in all laws. The symbolic act of the plan is key – the legislative debate itself is solvency for the aff Political changes and discursive changes should be combined to achieve emancipation. Accidental civilian deaths are only a result of discourse used to remove risk allow warfareWilcox 2009 Drones are awful – increases violence, unjust murders, huge casualties numbers, essentializes sex and defines people as "killable"Volo 2013 Multiple objections are raised against drone warfare, and much of the literature and debate Furthermore, whereas the post-9/11 large-scale invasions of Afghanistan | 2/9/14 |
1AC USCTournament: USC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cornell DK | Judge: Ralph Paone Contention One is the CyborgDrone warfare creates people into cyborgs—the drone becomes an extension of the body and it becomes impossible to separate the two. This forces a desensitization to warfare that creates the conditions for violenceWilcox, 09 These cyborg soldiers are the epitomy of masculine domination, creating a protectionist stance over even the bodies of the soldiersWilcox, 09 The hypermasculinization of drone warfare genders the world, painting the US as the strong, masculine protector of the weak, feminine Middle East. This hyper-masculine mindset glosses over the lives of the civilians who are destroyed by strikes daily At the 2010 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama told a not-so- That creates the conditions and possibilities of warfare both at the macro and micro level Contention Two is the CivilianCivilian deaths in drone warfare are always constructed as accidents, constituting these bodies as deserving meaning but ultimately denying itWilcox, 09 This action is not a temporary shortcoming, but an actively produced ignorance—civilian deaths are painted as un-knowable in order to deny these individuals political significanceWilcox, 09 Getting people back political significance and challenging small violences is the only way to stop bigger violences and prevent the genocidal impulses in our everyday lives The plan is necessary to stopping the distancing between soldiers and wars that produce our impacts Plan Text Contention Three is Framing Utilitarian calculus fails to empower the body or produce an understanding of those who are destroyed in targeted strikes. Only by understanding bodies as socially produced are we able to produce a better understanding about the value of human livesWilcox, 09 Calculations of risk assessment rely on the same logic of precision warfare that results in our impacts in the first place. We must reject utilitarian risk assessments and understand that risk is inevitableWilcox, 09 There are so many reasons nuclear and great power wars are impossible Util is not objective—it is a marked form of knowledge that only subjugates alternative ways of knowing and results in worse violent dehumanizationWall and Monahan, 11 Quantitative assessments of body counts masks over the true violence of warfare | 1/3/14 |
2AC v Wake MSTournament: Navy | Round: Octas | Opponent: Wake MS | Judge: Harper, Sommers, Woodruff CyborgFraming drones around the idea of precision justifies the civilian violence we criticizeStanford Law School, 12 ====Drones are only increasing "terrorism"==== Meanwhile, CIA drone strikes, while effective at taking out terrorist leaders, have Autonomous weapons make detachment completeDzizea 13 CivilianCritiquing commonly accepted metaphors in international relations is critical to solving- these metaphors shape our understanding of the situationMutimer 94. David, Centre for International and Strategic Studies @ York University. "Reimagining Security: The Metaphors of Proliferation" YCISS Occasional Paper Number 25. /sal The problem can be stated in general terms: rational choice theory assumes: a Drones are the worstBoyle ’13 ~Michael J. Boyle, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at La Salle University in Philadelphia. He was previously a Lecturer in International Relations and Research Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews. He is also an alumnus of the Political Science Department at La Salle, research interests are on terrorism and political violence, with particular reference to the strategic use of violence in insurgencies and civil wars, "The costs and consequences of drone warfare," International Affairs 89: 1 (2013) 1–29, http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International20Affairs/2013/89_1/89_1Boyle.pdf-http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/International Affairs/2013/89_1/89_1Boyle.pdf, 2013~ In the context of war power of the purse solves – no money means no dronesFisher ’7 The U.S. Constitution attempted to avoid the British history of civil war A2 OLC CPOLC enables president to do what he wantsPosner 11 In the early years of the Bush administration, the Office of Legal Counsel, Pres powers relies on masculine protection that destroys democracy and equalityYoung 2003 (Iris Marion, Ph.D. in philosophy from the Pennsylvania State University, Before coming to the University of Chicago she taught political theory for nine years in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh, Young’s books include Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, 1990; Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy and Policy, Princeton University Press, 1997; Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford University Press, 2000 ; and forthcoming, On Female Body Experience, Oxford University Press, 2004.The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Re?ections on the Current Security State Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2003, vol. 29, no. 1, http://www.signs.rutgers.edu/content/Young,20Logic20of20Masculinist20Protection.pdf)ERM The logic of masculinist protection positions leaders, along with some other of?cials such as A2 CIRFails- Immigration reform is the next obamacareBauer, National Review, 1-20-14 Legalization without citizenship would split the base and offer few political dividends with the center The Obama administration’s cavalier use of executive authority gives many on the right good reason Plan won’t cause GOP backlash, because they are too worried about future elections and public perceptionBauer, National Review, 1-20-14 The political effects of an immigration bill in 2014 go far beyond the House. XO solvesKumar, 1/18 Immigration reform’s focus on Latino immigrants denies identity to black immigrants that recreates racist violence Despite the passage Thursday of a massive budget bill-http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/16/senate-easily-passes-1-1-trillion-spending-bill/ to fund the government, Congress-http://topics.time.com/congress/ No CIR till 2015 Journalists cannot predict political events Economic apocalypticism justifies centralized government solutions which is a fatal conceit—results in error replication by foreclosing the ability of markets to solve the impacts they invokeRobinson 8—(Colin Robinson, Institute of Economic Affairs "Climate Change Policy: Challenging the Activists," http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book440pdf?.pdf-http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-book440pdf?.pdf shree) There is, however, more to the apocalyptic forecast than that because it always 2AC Prez Powers DAOther actors thump the DARozell 12 DA is non-unique Pres powers relies on masculine protection that destroys democracy and equality The logic of masculinist protection positions leaders, along with some other of?cials such as Executive flexibility is bad—leads to arbitrary decisions and mismanagement The new functionalists’ instinctive attraction to flexibility in decisionmaking rules or structures—and its | 1/26/14 |
CEDA Trips 1ACTournament: CEDA | Round: Triples | Opponent: Oklahoma MM | Judge: Panel Contention One is Masculine ProtectionUS drone violence perfects the rhetorical war of the media, military, and the state where political leaders can explain away deaths by categorizing individuals as truly "innocent civilians" or "abusive civilians." This rhetorical war creates the drone into the perfect weapon that allows us to wage an endless war against bodies we place in the grey-zones of violenceGregory, 11 This rhetorical war prefects the drone as the masculine protector of some gendered, ethnicized body that is always able to be erased by the imperialist state. This view justifies the current standards that says all men are guilty and all women need our protectionVolo, 13 The RGMA ushers in a high-tech patriarchal imperialism, and citizens of the Drones are the new embodiment of masculine protectionism – drones represented as a masculine protector allows the US to distracts away from the bloodied targets of drone strikes and claim that the strikes are helping rescues the feminized middle eastern otherVolo, 13 The masculine protection of the drone creates the conditions and possibilities of warfare both at the macro and micro level Contention Two is the CivilianDrones create zones of invisibility that privilege the viewpoint of the US drone and exacerbate the issues by combining technology with the American culture of exceptionalism whereby the bomber is always the privileged hunter-killerGregory, 11 Civilian deaths in drone warfare are always constructed as accidents, constituting these bodies as deserving meaning but ultimately denying itWilcox, 09 Getting people back political significance and challenging small violences is the only way to stop bigger violences and prevent the genocidal impulses in our everyday lives Our ability to simply say that some bodies are accidents and the rhetorical war we wage with drones allows us to perfect our role as the arbitrator of the only truth – American power. The mutual apocalyptic drive between the US and its enemies will culminate in the US destroying the world in order to remake it.Lifton, 03 Contention Three is SolvencyProhibiting the use of drones is necessary to challenging the violence of the war on terror and produces the best starting point to challenging violence at homeHeathcote, 10 The state is inevitable—that means we need to act within it to create any changeHolcombe, 04 The feminist curiosity of the 1AC solvesEnloe, 2007 Developing a "curiosity" involves exploring, questioning—refusing to take something for Political changes and discursive changes should be combined to achieve emancipation. Performing the speech act of the 1AC allows us to understand the ways in which we can use instances of the law against itself.Judith Butler, knows her fucking shit. 2K. "Antigone’s Claim: Kinship between Life and Death" Reformism can be productive even if the law is morally bankrupt – focus on strategic effects of policies while abandoning the fantasy of ethical neutrality allows for effective material changeSmith, Associate Professor of Media and Cultural Studies at UC Riverside, 12 Given the logics of settler colonialism, it may seem to be a hopeless contradiction We should advocate for legal reform disinvested from morality – acts of disobedience meant to shame the system ultimately fail – emphasis on the strategic effects of policies best allows for material changeSmith, Associate Professor of Media and Cultural Studies at UC Riverside, 12 Legal reformists who often focus on shaping the law to reflect their moral values and those who focus on extra-legal revolutionary strategies often share the same goal. Often the presumed ’radical’ strategy adopted by social justice groups is to engage in civil disobedience. While these groups ostensibly break the law, they often do so in rather ceremonial fashion; they essentially want to shame the system. People are supposed to get arrested, and those in power are supposed to be so shamed by the fact that an unjust system required people to break the law. The expectation is that they will then change the laws. Acts of civil disobedience often are not targeted toward changing a policy directly or building alternative systems to the current one. Many Native groups in the southwest US, however, have developed an alternative framework for extra-legal social change. Rather than breaking the law to change the system, they propose to make Native communities ungovernable. For instance, during the passage of SB1070, Native groups with the Taala Hooghan Infoshop, O’odham Solidarity Across Borders, and others occupied the Border Patrol Office.32 However, rather than engaging in the occupation with the expectation of getting arrested, they chained themselves to the building so that the office could not perform its work. This approach has continued with their efforts to stop the US government’s desecration of the San Francisco Peaks through the construction of a ski resort. While they have not eschewed legal strategies for stopping this desecration, they have focused on preventing tourists from visiting the area so that the ski resort will no longer be economically viable. According to their promotional material on TrueSnow.org: 84 For the last decade defenders of the peaks have used every legitimate way they could think of to try to stop the US Forest Service from allowing treated sewage effluent to be sprayed on the Peaks to make snow. More than 20,000 people took part in the Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement process with letters and appeals asking them not to spray treated sewage effluent on the peaks to make snow. Thousands of us went to Flagstaff City Council meetings to voice our opposition to the sale of treated sewer water for the project. Yet still they approved it – before even an environmental impact statement was done. They were the most clueless of all. Currently the Hopi tribe is seeking lawsuit against the city because of this treated sewage effluent sale. A group of tribes and environmental and social justice organizations took a lawsuit all the way to the steps of the Supreme Court. The lawsuits have only called into question the legitimacy of what is loosely termed the ’justice’ system. For it seems there is no justice in this system. It is just us, IN this system. There is also yet another lawsuit in play which I have termed ’Save the Peaks Coalition vs The Snowbowl Movement’ which may have the possibility of stopping this project in the long term. But if we wait for a verdict, all the trees will be cut and the pipeline installed. This has not stopped the politically connected ski area from going ahead with their project right now and they have already clear-cut 100,000 trees (or more) and have already buried a few miles of pipeline along Snowbowl road. If they lose in court they would be expected to repair the damages. How do you get back 400 year old trees? Greed and hatred seems to be Snowbowl’s only motivation ~…~. But isn’t there some way to stop it? Well we could hit them where it hurts21 In the pocketbook. If you live in the Fort Valley area of Flagstaff you must see by now how little Arizona Snowbowl really cares about the ’economic benefits’ it brings our fair town. I know some of us had a good deal of trouble even going to work when the snow was good and Snowbowl was busy. The traffic jam was incredible. Stretching more than 15 miles. They took our livelihood away and hope to make that 85 a daily occurrence by having a ’predictable’ ski season using sewer water to make snow. This jam up gave us an idea21 Why don’t we do the same thing? Arizona Snowbowl does not own the mountain, and it is perfectly legal to drive up to the area for any permitted public lands use. This means hiking, camping, praying, skiing, sitting, loving, mushroom hunting, etc. So what do I do? It is time to stop waiting for a government entity, an environmental group, or any of the people you have come to expect to save the peaks for us. The time has come to show them how much power the people have21 And believe me, you are the most powerful people in all of the world21 You21 Yep you21 You can do it21 All summer the Arizona Snowbowl is open Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for scenic skyrides, food, and alcohol. They do get a pretty good business up there and it would have an impact if the mountain was just ’too busy’ with people doing all the other things our Public Forests are for. There is nothing illegal about it and it would send a clear message to the forest service that we don’t need Snowbowl to ’recreate on the mountain’. Heck, we don’t even need a ski area up there to ski21 In essence, take a vacation. Just do it up on the peaks and don’t use Snowbowl. Our government officials are forgetting what ’all power to the people’ really means. You cannot wait any longer for someone else to save the peaks for you. It will take of all us together to do this. So what are you waiting for? Pack a lunch this Saturday morning and Converge on the Peaks2133 What these activists suggest is to divest our moral investment in the law. This will affect not only what legal reforms we may pursue, but what revolutionary strategies we might engage in. Rather than engaging in civil disobedience to force legislators to change laws to conform to our moral principles, we might be free to engage creatively in strategies that build political and economic power directly. 86 CONCLUSION In the debates prevalent within Native sovereignty and racial justice movements, we are often presented with two seemingly orthogonal positions – long-term revolutionary extra-legal movements or shortterm reformist legalist strategies. Short-term legal strategies are accused of investing activists within a white supremacist and settler colonial system that is incapable of significant change. Meanwhile, revolutionaries are accused of sacrificing the immediate needs of vulnerable populations for the sake of an endlessly deferred revolution. The reality of gender violence in Native communities highlights the untenability of these positions. Native women’s lives are at stake now – they cannot wait for the revolution to achieve some sort of safety. At the same time, the short-term strategies often adopted to address gender violence have often increased violence in Native women’s lives by buttressing the prison industrial complex and its violent logics. While this reformist versus revolutionary dichotomy suggests two radically different positions, in reality they share a common assumption: that the only way to pursue legal reform is to fight for laws that that reinforce the appropriate moral statement (for instance, that the only way to address violence against Native women is through the law and to make this violence a ’crime’). Because the US legal system is inherently immoral and colonial, however, attempts to moralise the law generally fail. It is not surprising that the response to these failures is to simply give up on pursuing legal strategies. However, the works of Derrick Bell, Christopher Leslie, and Sarah Deer, while working in completely different areas of the law, point to a different approach. We can challenge the assumption that the law will reflect our morals and instead seek to use the law for its strategic effects. In doing so, we might advocate for laws that might in fact contradict some of our morals because we recognize that the law cannot mirror our morals anyway. We might then be free to engage in a relationship with the law which would free us to change our strategies as we assess its strategic effects. At the same time, by divesting from the morality of the law, we then will also simultaneously be free to invest in building our own forms of community accountability and justice outside the legal 87 system. Our extra-legal strategies would go beyond ceremonial civil disobedience tactics designed to shame a system that is not capable of shame. Rather, we might focus on actually building the political power to create an alternative system to the heteropatriarchal, white supremacist, settler colonial state.It is intellectual duty to change the law | 3/28/14 |
CSUF 1AC R3Tournament: CSUF | Round: 3 | Opponent: Fullerton RS | Judge: Will Baker Contention One is the CyborgDrone warfare creates people into cyborgs—the drone becomes an extension of the body and it becomes impossible to separate the two. This forces a desensitization to warfare that creates the conditions for violenceWilcox, 09 These cyborg soldiers are the epitomy of masculine domination, creating a protectionist stance over even the bodies of the soldiersWilcox, 09 The hypermasculinization of drone warfare genders the world, painting the US as the strong, masculine protector of the weak, feminine Middle East. This hyper-masculine mindset glosses over the lives of the civilians who are destroyed by strikes daily At the 2010 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama told a not-so- That creates the conditions and possibilities of warfare both at the macro and micro level Contention Two is the CivilianCivilian deaths in drone warfare are always constructed as accidents, constituting these bodies as deserving meaning but ultimately denying itWilcox, 09 This action is not a temporary shortcoming, but an actively produced ignorance—civilian deaths are painted as un-knowable in order to deny these individuals political significanceWilcox, 09 Getting people back political significance and challenging small violences is the only way to stop bigger violences and prevent the genocidal impulses in our everyday lives Targeted killing is the same as torture – removing a sacrifice desentizes nations to the true impact of the strikesWilcox 2009 The plan is necessary to stopping the distancing between soldiers and wars that produce our impacts Plan Text Contention Three is Framing Utilitarian calculus fails to empower the body or produce an understanding of those who are destroyed in targeted strikes. Only by understanding bodies as socially produced are we able to produce a better understanding about the value of human livesWilcox, 09 There’s no such thing as objective knowledge production—claims of such are just marked knowledge that destroy the binary between targets and civiliansWall and Monahan, 11 Law can be good when it is recognized as constructed and deconstructed so that changes can be made to most violent most exclusionary versions of laws. Laws can be invented and reinvented to address the ignorance and exclusion inherent in all laws. Political changes and discursive changes should be combined to achieve emancipation. Accidental civilian deaths are only a result of discourse used to remove risk allow warfareWilcox 2009 Drones are awful – increases violence, unjust murders, huge casualties numbers, essentializes sex and defines people as "killable"Volo 2013 Multiple objections are raised against drone warfare, and much of the literature and debate | 1/8/14 |
Clarion R1Tournament: Clarion | Round: 1 | Opponent: Army LS | Judge: Ben Hagwood Advantage One: TerrorismCIA supervision of drone strikes make it at an all-time highThe Canberra Times 6/19 Drones destroy confidence in the Pakistani government—causes people to run to terrorist organizations Lack of transparency causes attacksCNN, 12 It’s incredibly likely—9/11 changed the game—causes extinction Drones create a different more radical form of terrorism – their defense doesn’t applyGerges, 13 In case after case over the past few years, attackers and would-be Specifically, drone strikes in Yemen cause blowback that destabilize the governmentHudson et al, 13 Yemeni instability causes oil shocksAnam, 11 That decimates the economyLi, 12 That causes nuclear war Advantage Two: ModelingCurrent drone usage guarantees rapid drone prolif that escalates—the plan is the only way to prevent miscalc—we’re on the brink nowRoberts, 13 There are numerous ways nuclear miscalc will ensueBoyle, 13 Drones create adventurism – triggers warSinger, 09 China is starting to use drones now—that causes a Senkaku conflict Senkaku conflict escalates The plan creates the necessary framework to stop drone prolif PlanThe United States Congress should change authority of targeted killing with drone strikes from Title 50 of the United States Code to Title 10 of the United States Code. SolvencyThe plan adds an extra layer of accountability Shifting to Title 10 clarifies legal perceptions and legitimizes US drone policyWaxman, 13 So, moving operations to the Pentagon may modestly improve transparency and compliance with the Law is key to modeling and credibilityMaxwell, 12 The weakness of this theory is that it is not codified in U.S Transparency solves modelingBergen and Rowland, 10/25 However, the fact is that the U.S. government needs to do ====Getting the CIA out is a pre-req to any effective drone policy==== No disads—Obama just decimated war powers Switching solvesReuters, 13 Obama’s speech changed nothing – strikes may be down but causality is high and transparency doesn’t existBergen and Rowland, 10/25 (CNN) — On May 23, President Barack Obama gave a major | 11/10/13 |
Districts R1Tournament: Districts | Round: 1 | Opponent: Pitt BW | Judge: Paul Hayes Contention One is Masculine ProtectionUS drone violence perfects the rhetorical war of the media, military, and the state where political leaders can explain away deaths by categorizing individuals as truly "innocent civilians" or "abusive civilians." This rhetorical war creates the perfect weapon, the drone, that allows us to wage an endless war against bodies we place in the grey-zones of violenceGregory, 11 This rhetorical war prefects the drone as the masculine protector of some gendered, ethnicized body that is always able to be erased by the imperialist state. This view justifies the current standards that says all men are guilty and all women need our protectionVolo, 13 The RGMA ushers in a high-tech patriarchal imperialism, and citizens of the Drones are the new embodiment of masculine protectionism – drones represented as a masculine protector allows the US to distracts away from the bloodied targets of drone strikes and claim that the strikes are helping rescues the feminized middle eastern otherVolo, 13 At the 2010 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama told a not-so- The masculine protection of the drone creates the conditions and possibilities of warfare both at the macro and micro level Contention Two is the CivilianDrones create zones of invisibility that privilege the viewpoint of the US drone and exacerbate the issues by combining technology with the American culture of exceptionalism whereby the bomber is always the privileged hunter-killerGregory, 11 Civilian deaths in drone warfare are always constructed as accidents, constituting these bodies as deserving meaning but ultimately denying itWilcox, 09 Our ability to simply say that some bodies are accidents and the rhetorical war we wage with drones allows us to perfect our role as the arbitrator of the only truth – American power. The mutual apocalyptic drive between the US and its enemies will culminate in the US destroying the world in order to remake it.Lifton ’3 Plan TextThe United States federal government should prohibit the president’s authority to use drones for targeted killing. Contention Three is SolvencyProhibiting the use of drones is necessary to challenging the violence of the war on terror and produces a necessary starting point to challenging violence at homeHeathcote, 10 Utilitarian calculus fails to empower the body or produce an understanding of those who are destroyed in targeted strikes. Only by understanding bodies as socially produced are we able to produce a better understanding about the value of human livesWilcox, 09 There are so many reasons nuclear and great power wars are impossible Obama won’t circumvent—-empirics prove Working within the law is the only way to create justice because there is no institutional approach that allows for just changes without laws to back them up. Drones prove this because Obama’s request to have his power limited was never realized it was just politicking only changing laws stops dronesCaputo 07 I am identifying deconstruction as a kind of passion or prayer for the impossible, Political changes and discursive changes should be combined to achieve emancipation. Images of hyper-violence numbs us to real deaths that are happening—these images must be rejected always One consequence is that "the sheer numbers and monotony of images may have a ’wearing off’ impact ~and~ to stave off the ’viewing fatigue,’ they must be increasingly gory, shocking and otherwise ’inventive’ to arouse any sentiments at all or indeed draw attention. The level of ’familiar’ violence, below which the cruelty of cruel acts escapes attention, is constantly rising."(23)-http://truth-out.org/index.php Hyper-violence and spectacular representations of cruelty disrupt and block our ability to respond politically and ethically to the violence as it is actually happening on the ground. In this instance, unfamiliar violence such as extreme images of torture and death become banally familiar, while familiar violence that occurs daily is barely recognized relegated to the realm of the unnoticed and unnoticeable. How else to explain the public indifference to the violence waged by the state against nonviolent youthful protesters, who are rebelling against a society in which they have been excluded from any claim on hope, prosperity and democracy. As an increasing volume of violence is pumped into the culture, yesterday’s spine-chilling and nerve-wrenching violence loses its shock value. As the need for more intense images of violence accumulates, the moral indifference and desensitization to violence grows while matters of cruelty and suffering are offered up as fodder for sports, entertainment, news media, and other outlets for seeking pleasure. | 2/22/14 |
GSU R2Tournament: GSU | Round: 2 | Opponent: Georgia DG | Judge: Whit Whitmore CIA supervision of drone strikes make it at an all-time high Drones destroy confidence in the Pakistani government—causes people to run to terrorist organizations Lack of transparency causes attacks It’s incredibly likely—9/11 changed the game—causes extinction It’s comparatively the biggest threat Even if the attack fails, it’d guarantee WW3 and turns the case—societies would destroy civil liberties in the name of security Advantage Two: Modeling Current drone usage guarantees rapid drone prolif that escalates—the plan is the only way to prevent miscalc—we’re on the brink now Drones create adventurism – triggers war China is starting to use drones now—that causes a Senkaku conflict Senkaku conflict escalates The plan creates the necessary framework to stop drone prolif Plan Solvency Plan makes strikes more accountable and prevents abuses Shift to DOD solves The plan adds an extra layer of accountability Title 10 creates new limitations which make drones more legitimate Getting the CIA out is a pre-req to any effective drone policy No disads—Obama just decimated war powersNather and Palmer, 9/1 Switching solves US Key | 9/21/13 |
GSU R5Tournament: GSU | Round: 5 | Opponent: Iowa HK | Judge: Brian DeLong Advantage One: TerrorismCIA supervision of drone strikes make it at an all-time highThe Canberra Times 6/19 Drones destroy confidence in the Pakistani government—causes people to run to terrorist organizations Lack of transparency causes attacksCNN, 12 It’s incredibly likely—9/11 changed the game—causes extinction Specifically, drone strikes in Yemen cause blowback that destabilize the governmentHudson et al, 13 Yemeni instability causes oil shocksAnam, 11 That decimates the economyLi, 12 That causes nuclear war Advantage Two: ModelingCurrent drone usage guarantees rapid drone prolif that escalates—the plan is the only way to prevent miscalc—we’re on the brink nowRoberts, 13 There are numerous ways nuclear miscalc will ensueBoyle, 13 Drones create adventurism – triggers warSinger, 09 China is starting to use drones now—that causes a Senkaku conflict Senkaku conflict escalates The plan creates the necessary framework to stop drone prolif PlanThe United States federal government should change supervision of the drone program from Title 50 of the United States Code to Title 10 of the United States Code. SolvencyPlan makes strikes more accountable and prevents abuses Shift to DOD solves The plan adds an extra layer of accountability Title 10 creates new limitations which make drones more legitimate ====Getting the CIA out is a pre-req to any effective drone policy==== No disads—Obama just decimated war powers Switching solvesReuters, 13 US KeyZenko, 13 | 9/22/13 |
NDT R4Tournament: NDT | Round: 2 | Opponent: Norwestern MP | Judge: Herndon, Hayes, Kearney Plan TextThe United States federal government should prohibit the president’s war powers authority to use drones for targeted killing.Contention One is ViolenceThere is a disproportionate focus on the politics of drone strikes but NEVER on the impacts of them. We ignore the violence of drones in almost every other place so we can only focus on the strategic impact of drones in Pakistan. This is a convenient tool of the government that masks the bodies that are terrorized by drones. Even when there are stories discussing Pakistani drones, they always focuse on random micro questions— NEVER the bodies who are targeted. This is a rhetorical tool the White House uses to erase those who are destroyed by strikesGregory, 14 Last year Apple rejected Josh Begley’s Drones+ app three times. The app promised The debate over the effectiveness of US targeted killings operates within this technological frame that erases structural violences. This allows drones to become only be a matter of security strategy and bureaucracyShaw ’13 (Ian G. R. Shaw, Professor of Human Geography at the University of Glasgow, "Predator Empire: The Geopolitics of US Drone Warfare", Geopolitics, DOI:10.1080/14650045.2012, 2013) A focus on the systemic violence of drones allows us to pause the dialogue of technological security and understand the real impacts of drone strikes.Jan is an example of this ignored systemic violence. He lives in the forgotten drone capital of the world watching his family burn to death in strikes the US calls "accidents" but he knows are just further examples of the US technological disposition matrix that allows bodies to be erased away into blips on a radar.Zucchino 12/13 Individuals are not the only victims of drone strikes. Entire regions have their chances of stability destroyed by them. This creates regions of violence and power vacuums that result in more violence against the people of these areas.Ahmed, 13 WHEN people in Washington talk about shrinking the drone program, as President Obama promised Contention Two is FramingProhibiting the use of drones is necessary to challenging the violence of the war on terror and produces a necessary starting point to challenging violence at homeHeathcote, 10 The rhetorical war is always focused on the precise ways that we avoids a WMD terrorist attack but never discusses the long-term systemic impacts of our drone policy. This ignores the real impact of technology and justifies using violent methods—you should prioritize a focus on the everyday slow violencesNixon ’11 Over the past two decades, this high-speed planetary modification has been accompanied The precision rhetoric of drones and the overreliance on util justifies executive TK power and destroys restraints on the conduct of war – balancing legal checks and balances with security is necessaryWilson 05 – Gladstein Distinguished Chair of Human Rights and Director of the Human Rights Institute at the University of Connecticut Michael Ignatieff’s ’lesser evil’ ethics and overreliance on a consequentialist ethics place him much There are so many reasons nuclear and great power wars are impossibleRobb, 12 Targeted killing is the logic of the precautionary principle— at low enough probabilities, there’s a risk to every action and inaction of something going nuclear—this logic is what creates bodies as worthless—rejecting this logic is keyFriedman 08 Worst case scenarios substitutes imagination for logic—this means people only talk about the huge violence drones cause but never the small violences. Be skeptical of their disads because they are based on lazy logic.Schneier 10 (CNN) — At a security conference recently, the moderator asked the panel Quantitative assessments of body counts masks over the true violence of warfareGregory, 10 Images of hyper-violence numbs us to real deaths that are happening—these images must be rejected alwaysGiroux, 12 | 3/29/14 |
Navy R1Tournament: Navy | Round: 1 | Opponent: Wake LM | Judge: Steve Pointer Contention One is the CyborgDrone warfare creates people into cyborgs—the drone becomes an extension of the body and it becomes impossible to separate the two. This forces a desensitization to warfare that creates the conditions for violenceWilcox, 09 These cyborg soldiers are the epitomy of masculine domination, creating a protectionist stance over even the bodies of the soldiersWilcox, 09 The hypermasculinization of drone warfare genders the world, painting the US as the strong, masculine protector of the weak, feminine Middle East. This hyper-masculine mindset glosses over the lives of the civilians who are destroyed by strikes daily At the 2010 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama told a not-so- That creates the conditions and possibilities of warfare both at the macro and micro level Contention Two is the CivilianCivilian deaths in drone warfare are always constructed as accidents, constituting these bodies as deserving meaning but ultimately denying itWilcox, 09 This action is not a temporary shortcoming, but an actively produced ignorance—civilian deaths are painted as un-knowable in order to deny these individuals political significanceWilcox, 09 Getting people back political significance and challenging small violences is the only way to stop bigger violences and prevent the genocidal impulses in our everyday lives Targeted killing is the same as torture – removing a sacrifice desentizes nations to the true impact of the strikesWilcox 2009 The plan is necessary to stopping the distancing between soldiers and wars that produce our impacts Plan Text Contention Three is Framing Utilitarian calculus fails to empower the body or produce an understanding of those who are destroyed in targeted strikes. Only by understanding bodies as socially produced are we able to produce a better understanding about the value of human livesWilcox, 09 There’s no such thing as objective knowledge production—claims of such are just marked knowledge that destroy the binary between targets and civiliansWall and Monahan, 11 Law can be good when it is recognized as constructed and deconstructed so that changes can be made to most violent most exclusionary versions of laws. Laws can be invented and reinvented to address the ignorance and exclusion inherent in all laws. Political changes and discursive changes should be combined to achieve emancipation. Accidental civilian deaths are only a result of discourse used to remove risk allow warfareWilcox 2009 Law offers ways for women to redefine gender and subjectivityMerry, 03 Drones are awful – increases violence, unjust murders, huge casualties numbers, essentializes sex and defines people as "killable"Volo 2013 Multiple objections are raised against drone warfare, and much of the literature and debate | 1/19/14 |
Reformism GoodTournament: Navy | Round: Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All Political changes and discursive changes should be combined to achieve emancipation. Law offers ways for women to redefine gender and subjectivity Reformism can be productive even if the law is morally bankrupt – focus on strategic effects of policies while abandoning the fantasy of ethical neutrality allows for effective material change Given the logics of settler colonialism, it may seem to be a hopeless contradiction The plan is a justified use of sovereign power to prevent violence created by sovereign overreach. Here once again we are forced to question Agamben’s teleological mode of thought. Is We should advocate for legal reform disinvested from morality – acts of disobedience meant to shame the system ultimately fail – emphasis on the strategic effects of policies best allows for material change Legal reformists who often focus on shaping the law to reflect their moral values and those who focus on extra-legal revolutionary strategies often share the same goal. Often the presumed ’radical’ strategy adopted by social justice groups is to engage in civil disobedience. While these groups ostensibly break the law, they often do so in rather ceremonial fashion; they essentially want to shame the system. People are supposed to get arrested, and those in power are supposed to be so shamed by the fact that an unjust system required people to break the law. The expectation is that they will then change the laws. Acts of civil disobedience often are not targeted toward changing a policy directly or building alternative systems to the current one. Many Native groups in the southwest US, however, have developed an alternative framework for extra-legal social change. Rather than breaking the law to change the system, they propose to make Native communities ungovernable. For instance, during the passage of SB1070, Native groups with the Taala Hooghan Infoshop, O’odham Solidarity Across Borders, and others occupied the Border Patrol Office.32 However, rather than engaging in the occupation with the expectation of getting arrested, they chained themselves to the building so that the office could not perform its work. This approach has continued with their efforts to stop the US government’s desecration of the San Francisco Peaks through the construction of a ski resort. While they have not eschewed legal strategies for stopping this desecration, they have focused on preventing tourists from visiting the area so that the ski resort will no longer be economically viable. According to their promotional material on TrueSnow.org: 84 For the last decade defenders of the peaks have used every legitimate way they could think of to try to stop the US Forest Service from allowing treated sewage effluent to be sprayed on the Peaks to make snow. More than 20,000 people took part in the Forest Service Environmental Impact Statement process with letters and appeals asking them not to spray treated sewage effluent on the peaks to make snow. Thousands of us went to Flagstaff City Council meetings to voice our opposition to the sale of treated sewer water for the project. Yet still they approved it – before even an environmental impact statement was done. They were the most clueless of all. Currently the Hopi tribe is seeking lawsuit against the city because of this treated sewage effluent sale. A group of tribes and environmental and social justice organizations took a lawsuit all the way to the steps of the Supreme Court. The lawsuits have only called into question the legitimacy of what is loosely termed the ’justice’ system. For it seems there is no justice in this system. It is just us, IN this system. There is also yet another lawsuit in play which I have termed ’Save the Peaks Coalition vs The Snowbowl Movement’ which may have the possibility of stopping this project in the long term. But if we wait for a verdict, all the trees will be cut and the pipeline installed. This has not stopped the politically connected ski area from going ahead with their project right now and they have already clear-cut 100,000 trees (or more) and have already buried a few miles of pipeline along Snowbowl road. If they lose in court they would be expected to repair the damages. How do you get back 400 year old trees? Greed and hatred seems to be Snowbowl’s only motivation ~…~. But isn’t there some way to stop it? Well we could hit them where it hurts21 In the pocketbook. If you live in the Fort Valley area of Flagstaff you must see by now how little Arizona Snowbowl really cares about the ’economic benefits’ it brings our fair town. I know some of us had a good deal of trouble even going to work when the snow was good and Snowbowl was busy. The traffic jam was incredible. Stretching more than 15 miles. They took our livelihood away and hope to make that 85 a daily occurrence by having a ’predictable’ ski season using sewer water to make snow. This jam up gave us an idea21 Why don’t we do the same thing? Arizona Snowbowl does not own the mountain, and it is perfectly legal to drive up to the area for any permitted public lands use. This means hiking, camping, praying, skiing, sitting, loving, mushroom hunting, etc. So what do I do? It is time to stop waiting for a government entity, an environmental group, or any of the people you have come to expect to save the peaks for us. The time has come to show them how much power the people have21 And believe me, you are the most powerful people in all of the world21 You21 Yep you21 You can do it21 All summer the Arizona Snowbowl is open Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for scenic skyrides, food, and alcohol. They do get a pretty good business up there and it would have an impact if the mountain was just ’too busy’ with people doing all the other things our Public Forests are for. There is nothing illegal about it and it would send a clear message to the forest service that we don’t need Snowbowl to ’recreate on the mountain’. Heck, we don’t even need a ski area up there to ski21 In essence, take a vacation. Just do it up on the peaks and don’t use Snowbowl. Our government officials are forgetting what ’all power to the people’ really means. You cannot wait any longer for someone else to save the peaks for you. It will take of all us together to do this. So what are you waiting for? Pack a lunch this Saturday morning and Converge on the Peaks2133 What these activists suggest is to divest our moral investment in the law. This will affect not only what legal reforms we may pursue, but what revolutionary strategies we might engage in. Rather than engaging in civil disobedience to force legislators to change laws to conform to our moral principles, we might be free to engage creatively in strategies that build political and economic power directly. 86 CONCLUSION In the debates prevalent within Native sovereignty and racial justice movements, we are often presented with two seemingly orthogonal positions – long-term revolutionary extra-legal movements or shortterm reformist legalist strategies. Short-term legal strategies are accused of investing activists within a white supremacist and settler colonial system that is incapable of significant change. Meanwhile, revolutionaries are accused of sacrificing the immediate needs of vulnerable populations for the sake of an endlessly deferred revolution. The reality of gender violence in Native communities highlights the untenability of these positions. Native women’s lives are at stake now – they cannot wait for the revolution to achieve some sort of safety. At the same time, the short-term strategies often adopted to address gender violence have often increased violence in Native women’s lives by buttressing the prison industrial complex and its violent logics. While this reformist versus revolutionary dichotomy suggests two radically different positions, in reality they share a common assumption: that the only way to pursue legal reform is to fight for laws that that reinforce the appropriate moral statement (for instance, that the only way to address violence against Native women is through the law and to make this violence a ’crime’). Because the US legal system is inherently immoral and colonial, however, attempts to moralise the law generally fail. It is not surprising that the response to these failures is to simply give up on pursuing legal strategies. However, the works of Derrick Bell, Christopher Leslie, and Sarah Deer, while working in completely different areas of the law, point to a different approach. We can challenge the assumption that the law will reflect our morals and instead seek to use the law for its strategic effects. In doing so, we might advocate for laws that might in fact contradict some of our morals because we recognize that the law cannot mirror our morals anyway. We might then be free to engage in a relationship with the law which would free us to change our strategies as we assess its strategic effects. At the same time, by divesting from the morality of the law, we then will also simultaneously be free to invest in building our own forms of community accountability and justice outside the legal 87 system. Our extra-legal strategies would go beyond ceremonial civil disobedience tactics designed to shame a system that is not capable of shame. Rather, we might focus on actually building the political power to create an alternative system to the heteropatriarchal, white supremacist, settler colonial state. | 1/26/14 |
Wake R2Tournament: Wake | Round: 2 | Opponent: NYU GZ | Judge: James Herndon Advantage One: TerrorismCIA supervision of drone strikes make it at an all-time highThe Canberra Times 6/19 Drones create a different more radical form of terrorism – their defense doesn’t applyGerges, 13 In case after case over the past few years, attackers and would-be Lack of transparency causes attacksCNN, 12 It’s incredibly likely—9/11 changed the game—causes extinction Advantage Two: ProliferationCurrent drone usage destroys squo deterrent relationships and cause nuclear warBoyle, 13 Unchecked drone usage by the US causes adventurism and global warfare- Congressional signal is keyFriedman ’12 The official rationale for using force across the world is that Al Qaeda is global We’re on the brink now—other countries will model our usage of drones—only the plan can solveRoberts, 13 Senkaku conflict escalates The plan creates the necessary framework to stop drone prolif Advantage Three: DestablizationDrone strikes are destabilizing PakistanKaltenthaler et al 2013 Nuclear warPitt, 09 Drone strikes in Yemen cause blowback that destabilize the governmentHudson et al, 13 Yemen instability tanks Saudi Arabian oil productionAbosaq 2012 That collapses the global economyThe Guardian, 11 PlanThe United States Congress should change authority of targeted killing with drone strikes from Title 50 of the United States Code to Title 10 of the United States Code. SolvencyThe plan adds an extra layer of accountability Shifting to Title 10 clarifies legal perceptions and legitimizes US drone policyWaxman, 13 So, moving operations to the Pentagon may modestly improve transparency and compliance with the Law is key to modeling and credibilityMaxwell, 12 The weakness of this theory is that it is not codified in U.S Transparency solves modelingBergen and Rowland, 10/25 However, the fact is that the U.S. government needs to do Obama’s speech changed nothing – no transparency nowBergen and Rowland, 10/25 (CNN) — On May 23, President Barack Obama gave a major ====Getting the CIA out is a pre-req to any effective drone policy==== No disads—Obama just decimated war powers Switching solvesReuters, 13 | 11/16/13 |
Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
---|---|---|---|
11/10/13 | njl1994@gmailcom | ||
9/21/13 | njl1994@gmailcom | ||
9/22/13 | njl1994@gmailcom | ||
9/28/13 | njl1994@gmailcom | ||
1/13/14 | millerdebate@gmailcom |
Air Force
Amherst
Appalachian State
Arizona State
Army
Augustana
Bard
Baylor
Binghamton
Boston College
Capital
CSU Long Beach
CSU Northridge
CSU Sacramento
CUNY
Cal Berkeley
Cal Lutheran
Cal Poly SLO
Case Western
Central Florida
Central Oklahoma
Chico
Clarion
Columbia
Concordia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Denver
Drexel-Swarthmore
ENMU
East Los Angeles College
Eastern Washington
Emory
Emporia
Fayetteville State
Florida
Florida Int'l
Florida State
Fordham
Fresno State
Fullerton
Gainesville State
George Mason
George Washington
Georgetown
Georgia
Georgia State
Georgia Tech
Gonzaga
Harvard
Houston
Idaho State
Illinois
Illinois State
Indiana
Iowa
Irvine/SFSU
James Madison
John Carroll
Johns Hopkins
Johnson County CC
KCKCC
Kansas
Kansas State
Kentucky
LA City College
Lakeland
Lewis-Clark State College
Liberty
Lindenwood
Los Rios
Louisville
Loyola
Macalester
Marist
Mary Washington
Mercer
Methodist
Miami FL
Miami OH
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Mission
Missouri State
NYU
Navy
New School
North Texas
Northern Iowa
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Ohio Wesleyan
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pepperdine
Piedmont
Pittsburgh
Portland State
Princeton
Puget Sound
Redlands
Richmond
Rochester
Rutgers
Samford
San Diego State
San Francisco State
Santa Clara
South Florida St Pete
Southern Methodist
Southwestern
Stanford
Texas State
Texas-Austin
Texas-Dallas
Texas-San Antonio
Texas-Tyler
Towson
Trinity
U Chicago
UCLA
UDC-CC
UMKC
UNLV
USC
Utah
Vanderbilt
Vermont
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest
Wash U (St. Louis)
Washburn
Washington
Wayne State
Weber
West Georgia
West Virginia
Western Connecticut
Whitman
Wichita State
Wisconsin Oshkosh
Wyoming