Tournament: UMKC | Round: 4 | Opponent: Concordia | Judge:
The Government of the United States of America should immediately and completely dismantle itself. 

Judical oversight allows the Government to act unilaterally any way it wants this guarentees structural violence

Wolfgram 2k John E. Wolfgram He graduated from Southwestern University School of Law at Los Angeles and philosophy department at the University of Wisconsin he is a JD and a former Marine “Sui Juris-Constitutional Democracy, The Unkonw Ideal” Advance Internet Edition; Cite As:  31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV.  ( Summer 2000 )

The more that I became convinced that the war was wrong, the more haunting the questions first raised in Vietnam became, compelling me to deeper and deeper levels of inquiry: Through junior college, through two philosophy departments at the University of Wisconsin at both Milwaukee and Madison; through law school at Southwestern University at Los Angeles, …...........................................

.................................................................. (that the Framers intended the government to determine the limits of its own powers).
The state leads to extinction
Purchase, teaches in the department of traditional and modern philosophy at the University of Sydney, 1990
Graham, Anarchist society and its practical realization.

The future of our planet and our continued evolution are under grave threat. Important social revolutionary choices must be made. The nation-state has not been particularly successful in solving the enormous social and environmental problems we as a species collectively face. Governments have not solved the problem of violence and war. Indeed until quite recently the Russian and American. governments were threatening to blow one another up with nuclear missiles and probably destroy the entire …............................................
…....................................................................ough people are convinced of the desirability of organizing society on a non-governmental basis, then anarchism, as an organized social force becomes a realizable social-evolutionary choice every bit as practical as the centralized government and nation state. 

Anarchy would instantly cause a mindset shift- people would realize that they are free and would not want government anymore

Holly Jean, Anarchist, Activist, Thinker. May 1968: How The people brought an industrialized nation to a halt, why you haven’t heard about it, and why you should…. May 2005. 

Perhaps this common language can also emerge in public space. We can’t underestimate the value of public space; and I see the lack of geographic meeting space as a subtle, huge problem. In 1789, the Revolution emerged from talk in wineshops, in …......................
….............................. The End

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lakeland LL | Judge: Andre Allsup
CP

The Secretary of Defense will issue Directive-Type memorandum indicating that Authorization to Use Military Force against terrorism will no longer be allowed by  individuals within the department of defense.

Solvency -. DOD can issue Memorandums that turn into directives that function as policy documents for the United States Military

Washington Headquarters Services 2013. "What Are the DoD Issuances?" What Are the DoD Issuances? N.p., 5 Aug. 2013. Web. 05 Aug. 2013. http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/general.html

A DOD DIRECTIVE-TYPE MEMORANDUM is a memorandum issued by the Secretary of Defense

 A copy of the signed memorandum shall be forwarded to the Director, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Washington Headquarters Services (WHS).

Fear of punishment is a powerful motivator – the directive will not disobeyed by members of the military – Solves the case

Powers, Rod. "Military Orders." About.com US Military. N.p., no date. Web. 05 Aug. 2013. http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences.

. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 6 | Opponent: Washburn PW | Judge:
Soft power is completely wrecked and irrelevant – Hard power is high and key to US international credibility

Robert Kaplan May 23, 2013 The World Still Needs American Muscle Robert D. Kaplan is Chief Geopolitical Analyst at Stratfor, a geopolitical analysis firm, and author of the bestselling book The Revenge of Geography. Reprinted with permission. http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/05/23/the_world_still_needs_american_hard_power_105179-2.html
Hard power has not been in vogue since the Iraq 

 places that actually matter. 

Unrestrained drone usage key to maintaining hegemony
Reynolds 2013 (Michael A. Reynolds, Associate Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, “Return of the Maxim Gun? Technology and empire in an age of austerity”, Global Discourse, 26 Jun 2013, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23269995.2013.807603#tabModule)
The United States

 might well be one of them.
Hegemony deters conflict and nuclear crises
Brooks, Dartmouth government professor, et al., 13
Brooks, Stephen G., Ikenberry, G. John, Wohlforth, William C., STEPHEN G. BROOKS is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. G. JOHN IKENBERRY is Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University and Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University in Seoul. WILLIAM C. WOHLFORTH is Daniel Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, Foreign Affairs, “Lean Forward”, Jan/Feb2013, Vol. 92, Issue 1, Academic Search Complete, accessed 7-2-13, AFB
 
KEEPING THE PEACE
Of course, even if it is 

, accidents, and unforeseen crises goes up.

Tournament: D3 Qual | Round: 3 | Opponent: K state SS | Judge:
Current Sanctions Moderating Iran 

The Economist Feb 22nd 2014  | From the print edition Dismantling the wall http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21596973-hassan-rohani-has-changed-mood-iran-he-faces-opposition-dismantling 

NOT even this month’s
and
 there are Americans, too. 

US drones key to stop Iranian proliferation capabilities
Watson Institute for International Studies June 2013. "The United States and the Iranian Nuclear Program: Policy Options." Brown University, 10 June 2013. Web. 3 July 2013. http://www.choices.edu/resources/twtn/documents/choices-twtn-iran-options.pdf.  

The threat from Iran’s
and
 U.S. troop involvement. 

The delay is critical to prevent war

Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Reginald Jones Senior Fellow since 1992, was formerly the Maurice Greenberg Chair and Director of Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (1996–98), the Marcus Wallenberg Professor of International Finance Diplomacy at Georgetown University (1985–92), senior fellow at the Institute (1981–85), deputy director of the International Law Institute at Georgetown University (1979–81); deputy assistant secretary for international trade and investment policy of the US Treasury (1977–79); and director of the international tax staff at the Treasury (1974–76). Iran Revisited: Can Economic Sanctions Delay a Military Showdown?, Peterson Institute for International Economics. October 10, 2012 http://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime/?p=3161

From the beginning,
and
 rapprochement nor a military strike.

Israel will attack if Iran is not moderated and Iran comes close to nuclear capability 

Josef Federman. 16 June 2013. Edmonton Journal

Israel, along with
and
for peaceful purposes only.

Israel-Iran war would mean WWIII.
 
David Gray. Policy Mic. 2012. http://www.policymic.com/articles/14875/war-with-iran-the-very-real-threat-of-wwiii-will-come-not-from-iran-but-from-benjamin-netanyahu-and-israel
 
Israel will attack whether they have our
and
. I am literally talking about WWIII.

Tournament: D3 Qual | Round: 2 | Opponent: Trinity VY | Judge:
An Article written by Nick Logan in Global News on February 14 details a recent report regarding the current attrocities in North Korea.   The article begins with the following words. GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING: This post contains details and images that some readers may find disturbing. Discretion is advised.
Bullshit -  The warning should read.  This post contains details and images that anyone with a soul would find disturbing.  Discretion is ill-advised.  The report states. 

“It should come as a surprise no one in the international community that
and
” the commission reported

A second article from The Washington Times on February 14, 2012 Further expands on the finding within the report.  

Most of the abortions and infanticides
and
 of a similar kind.”

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lakeland LL | Judge: Andre Allsup
PTX

Boehner is on the brink of losing his speakership position in January.  He has to show he can unite his party.  A fractured Republican party in the house causes boehner to lose  to the tea party

Alex Seitz-Wald. 23 July 2013. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/23/john_boehner_is_losing_control/

Trust between John Boehner and his Republican Caucus members has worn so thin that he’s been forced to swat down rumors (again)

. And never mind that Boehner has repeatedly pledged to stick to the “Hastert Rule,” the informal rule that nothing be given a vote unless it already has support from a majority of Republicans.

Fiat ensures the link – Fiat means that Obama pushes and some republicans in the House would have to vote for it to pass – Proves that Boehner was unable to keep his party united...

Split republican vote in the house means Boehner loses his speakership position – Immigration proves

Maria Kumar. Roll Call, source for news on capitol hill since 1955. 26 July 2013. http://www.rollcall.com/news/boehner_can_save_his_party_and_his_legacy_commentary-226676-1.html

However,. 

reform with a road map to citizenship will allow the Republican Party to move past one of the issues that divides the party the most.

Strong Tea Party wrecks budget compromises
Politico 7/19 (Mitch McConnell's fractured Senate GOP caucus , Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/senate-republicans-splintering-94451.html#ixzz2amsQ0772)
These Senate GOP factions aren’t set in stone, and some Republicans float from one group to another depending on the issue.¶ But the GOP tension is playing out on the Senate floor as members of the leadership have consistently voted “no” on tricky issues that could cause them political 

Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the White House on boosting the debt ceiling and keeping the government operating past September. McCain, Corker and other members of the “Supper Club” — a group of Republicans who have been discussing budget issues with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough — met with McConnell on Thursday afternoon, seeking strategies for those looming fiscal showdowns, which will really kick off in September.¶ McCain wants to see Senate Republicans negotiate with Democrats on these critical matters, but there are a number of GOP conservatives — especially in the House — who are prepared to shut down the government or default on the debt unless Obama caves to their spending demands.

Destroys the economy--- consumer confidence, dollar strength, credit rating
Brown 13 (Abram, 1/4, "GOP's Threat to Shutdown the Government is a Dangerous Strategy," www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2013/01/04/the-gop-is-already-threatneing-to-shutdown-the-government-to-win-spending-cuts/)

That Republicans are already warning the country that they will turn off the lights in D.C. is an alarming situation. Depending 

, dramatically worsening our nation’s already difficult economic circumstances.¶ Granted, the economy is in slightly better shape today than it was in August 2011. Not so strong, though, that the consequences of a shutdown would be much different.

Economic collapse causes nuclear conflicts
Burrows and Harris 2009 Mathew J. Burrows counselor in the National Intelligence Council and Jennifer Harris a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” The Washington Quarterly 32:2 https://csis.org/files/publication/twq09aprilburrowsharris.pdf 

Increased Potential for Global Conflict¶ 

With water also becoming scarcer in¶ Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is¶ likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more¶ dog-eat-dog world.¶

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lakeland LL | Judge: Andre Allsup
Terrorism Adv

Targeted killing is the only Alternative to full scale military intervention that would mean more civilian deaths and trigger their impacts

Ulrich 5 Jonathan Ulrich 2005 The author received his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2005, and his A.B., cum laude, from Princeton University in 2002. He works as an associate in the International Arbitration Group of White and Case, LLP, in Washington, D.C. Virginia Journal of International Law Summer, 2005 45 Va. J. Int'l L. 1029 The Gloves Were Never On: Defining the President's Authority to Order Targeted Killing in the War Against Terrorism

 *1053  The principle of discrimination, which demands that parties to a conflict direct their operations against only combatants and military objectives, goes hand-in-hand with military necessity

By directing the use of force at only those individuals who threaten U.S. soldiers and civilians, targeted killing more efficiently destroys the terrorists' ability to wage war and inflict terror, while ensuring that collateral damage is kept to a minimum. This is the very essence of limited war as prescribed by jus in bello.

Ending Targeted killing policys will increase the amount of full on wars in the future

Anderson 9 Kenneth Anderson 2009 Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University, and Research Fellow, May 11, 2009 Targeted Killing in U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy and Law A Working Paper of the Series on Counterterrorism and American Statutory Law, a joint project of the Brookings Institution, the Georgetown University Law Center, and the Hoover Institution

The result is a strategic and moral incentive for targeted killing and for increasing the quality of technology to make targeted killings both more precision-targeted and more standoff. Precision targeting and standoff delivery are each independently desirable and, in combination, considerably increase this incentive. None of this alters the equally impeccable strategic logic underlying the use of law enforcement mechanisms in some circumstances. Nor does it alter the logic behind other forms of intelligence activities, such as surveillance or financial interdiction, or even the use of open, full-on war.34 We can by no means rule out the toppling of a regime in pursuit of counterterrorism during the next ten or twelve years. But these are not disjunctive policies. Targeted killing is likely to increase as a policy preference as full- scale wars decrease in number and intensity and become less desirable as a means of effectuating counterterrorist objectives. Bush’s Iraq adventure has surely reduced the American appetite for invading the tribal regions of Pakistan, for example, and something has to fill the gap. That need is partly what has augmented the Predator’s appeal, especially to the Obama Administration. No doubt there will be political pushback— claims that the effect of the Predator campaigns in Pakistan are backfiring by mobilizing Pakistani anger at civilian casualties, for example. But given the political unreliability and military ineffectiveness of the Pakistani army and its preference for artillery barrages over focused counterinsurgency, these arguments are not likely to persuade. The United States has long accepted a legal, political, and policy space for the use of force that does not take place in the course of judicially supervised law enforcement operations but also takes place outside of the context of large-scale, open armed conflict meeting the treaty definitions, or rising to a sufficient level of violence, so as to be governed by IHL. This was a space of activity accepted and considered vital to self- defense and national security throughout the long decades of the Cold War. Only in certain narrow times and places, after all, was the conflict with the Soviet Union and its allies a “hot” war, characterized by open and large-scale armed conflict, the sort of clashing of armies formally governed by IHL.35 Political violence during the Cold War was often covert, often denied, but it was authorized and endorsed by American domestic law, dating back at least to the statutes founding the CIA in 1947. That was so even though the activity in question frequently violated the law and sovereignty of states in which it took place and unsurprisingly was sometimes, too, a source of grave diplomatic and other friction. Following the revelation of abuses by the CIA in the 1970s, U.S. domestic law was tightened, “assassination” prohibited by President Ford’s 1976 Executive Order, and Congressional oversight mechanisms strengthened. But, as discussed below, far from eliminating this category of violence by limiting such uses of force solely to “armed conflict” in the meaning governed by IHL, U.S. domestic law quietly and intentionally preserved the category while strengthening the oversight. This category of force is now an obvious means by which to confront non-state transnational terrorists outside the territorial United States. The United States is no longer in the Cold War. But the legal and political regimes that it (and other states, both friend and foe) elaborated through state practice, allowing uses of covert and discrete force as a matter of self-defense, are, if anything, more relevant in confronting transnational terrorism today. Yet as matters now stand, great pressures will come to bear against the very existence of this legal and political category—great precisely because they are idealistic and morally well-intended. Should these pressures prevail, they will bind the hands of the President and Congress so as to prevent them from taking what is paradoxically the most discrete and most precisely-targeted lethal measures available against terrorists. The result would be to throw the United States into the much more difficult policy dilemma of using larger-scale military activity against terrorists or taking no very meaningful action at all.3

Claims of an existential risk from terrorism are irrational

Fettweis, Professor of Political Science, ‘10
Chris, Professor of Political Science @ Tulane,Threat and Anxiety in US Foreign Policy, Survival, 52:2

Conventional war, much less outright assault, is not the leading security challenge in the minds of most Americans today. Instead, irregular or non- state actors, especially terrorists, top the list of threats to the West since 11 September 2001. The primary guiding principle of US foreign policymaking, for better or worse, is the continuing struggle against terrorism. President Bush repeatedly used the term ‘Islamofascists’ to describe the enemy that he re-oriented the US defence establishment to fight, transforming al-Qaeda from a ragtag band of lunatics into a threat to the republic itself. It is not uncommon for even sober analysts to claim that Islamic terrorists present an ‘existential threat’ to the United States, especially if they were ever to employ nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Perhaps it is Parkinson’s Law that inspires some analysts to compare Islamic fundamentalists with the great enemies of the past, such as the Nazis or the Communists, since no rational analysis of their destructive potential would allow such a conclu- sion. Threat is a function of capabilities and intent; even if al-Qaeda has the intent to threaten the existence of the United States, it does not possess the capability to do so.

Terrorism doesn’t pose an existential risk

Fettweis, Professor of Political Science, ‘10
Chris, Professor of Political Science @ Tulane,Threat and Anxiety in US Foreign Policy, Survival, 52:2

Even terrorists equipped with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons would be incapable of causing damage so cataclysmic that it would prove fatal to modern states. Though the prospect of terrorists obtaining and using such weapons is one of the most consistently terrifying scenarios of the new era, it is also highly unlikely and not nearly as dangerous as sometimes portrayed. As the well-funded, well-staffed Aum Shinrikyo cult found out in the 1990s, workable forms of weapons of mass destruction are hard to purchase, harder still to synthesise without state help, and challenging to use effectively. The Japanese group managed to kill a dozen people on the Tokyo subway system at rush hour. While tragic, the attack was hardly the stuff of apocalyptic nightmares. Super-weapons are simply not easy for even the most sophisticated non-state actors to use.31 If terror- ists were able to overcome the substantial obstacles and use the most destructive weapons in a densely populated area, the outcome would of course be terrible for those unfortunate enough to be nearby. But we should not operate under the illusion that doomsday would arrive. Modern industrialised countries can cope with disasters, both natural and man-made. As unpleasant as such events would be, they do not represent existential threats.

Terror won’t cause extinction

Feffer ‘7
John Feffer, co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies and a Writing Fellow at Provisions Library in Washington, DC and a PanTech fellow in Korean Studies at Stanford University. He is a former associate editor of World Policy Journa;. “Just Counter-Terrorism”. July 5, 2007. http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4360.

Measured in terms of acuity, terrorism pales in comparison to nuclear weapons and climate change. A nuclear exchange and several degrees of global warming threaten the existence of the entire planet rather than select targets on the surface. Terrorists have no interest in destroying the world, nor do they possess the means to end the human race. Their goals and capacities are considerably more circumscribed, and that applies even to al-Qaeda.  In terms of scope, the number of victims of terrorism remains relatively low compared to the casualty rates connected to disease, malnutrition, or conventional military conflict. The number of terrorist attacks has certainly increased since the invasion of Iraq. In 2001, the peak in terrorist fatalities to that time, international terrorist attacks killed 3,572 persons and injured 1,083. By 2006, those numbers had risen to 11,170 deaths and 38,191 injuries, approximately half occurring in Iraq alone.6 In contrast even to these higher numbers, however, more than 2,000 children die each day in sub-Saharan Africa as a result of malaria, a preventable disease.7 Several hundred thousand people died as a result of the 2004 earthquake and tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Nearly four million people have died as a result of the Congo conflict.  Finally, there is the question of duration. Al-Qaeda is a relatively recent phenomenon. Its concerns were originally quite specific—to compel the United States to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia. It was on the verge of extinction after the collapse of its patron, the Taliban, in Afghanistan in 2001. If approached with the appropriate legal mechanisms—and with the discriminate force associated with law enforcement undertaken with due respect for human rights8 —al-Qaeda will once again retreat into obscurity. Regional wars, by contrast, have been with us for millennia. Global inequalities have persisted since the age of colonialism. Though of more recent vintage, nuclear weapons will be very difficult to get rid of, and the half-life of uranium 235 is 700 million years. These are indeed durable challenges. In another decade, after appropriate counter-terrorism measures, the current "greatest threat to world peace" will likely be demoted in importance. Terrorism, after all, was at the top of Ronald Reagan's agenda when he took office in 1981. But as the number of attacks began to decline, particularly in the 1990s, so did the U.S. evaluation of the threat.9  It can be plausibly argued that the symbolic nature of terrorist attacks far exceeds the number of casualties. The argument here is not to ignore terrorism but simply put it into perspective. To elevate terrorism to the status of a "major threat" is to give more power to the terrorists than they deserve.

AT: Drones lead to terrorist recruitment

Etzionia 13 Etzioni Amitai (professor of International Relations at George Washington University) Military Review March April 13 http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20130430_art004.pdf 

Critics argue that drone strikes alienate the  population and thus help Al-Qaeda’s recruitment,  generating more terrorists than are killed.

  Egypt saw a slight rise from 78 percent to 79 percent  over the same period.59 Notably, the percentage of
respondents reporting an “unfavorable” view of the  United States in these countries is as high, or higher,  than in drone-targeted Pakistan

Drones are the best way of reaching Al Qaeda

Plaw 12 (Avery, associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, November 14, “Drones Save Lives, American and Other” http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/09/25/do-drone-attacks-do-more-harm-than-good/drone-strikes-save-lives-american-and-other)

Second, I doubt that ending drone strikes would substantially reduce anti-Americanism in the Islamic world or put a dent in radical recruitment.¶ Third, the U.S can do a lot to moderate some harms caused by its use of drones. By being clearer about what it’s doing and offering detailed legal justification, the.

Decapitation works—it takes out key pieces of terrorist operations, keeps leaders on the run, and creates infighting that causes organizations to collapse.

Wilner 10, (Alex S. Wilner, Center for Security Studies, ETH Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Targeted Killings in Afghanistan: Measuring Coercion and Deterrence in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol. 33 No. 4, 09 Mar 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10576100903582543)

For smaller terrorist groups and cells, where leadership, knowledge, and power are centralized, eliminations can have the dramatic effect of completely destroying a specific threat

46 Infighting should not be taken lightly. A number of organizations have met their end after purges were carried out among and between members.47 A recent example of an internal feud instigated, in part, by a targeted killing, comes from the Afghan–Pakistan theater. In 2007, a gulf emerged between various Islamist factions active in Pakistan’s tribal zone of South Waziristan; foreign fighters associated with Al Qaeda’s Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan fought local Pakistani Taliban. Reports suggest that up to several hundred local and foreign militants were killed.48 Syed Saleem Shahzad of Asia Times recounts that ideological differences between local and foreign fighters was primarily to blame. “Many of the foreign volunteers,” he writes, “are Takfirists, who regard ‘bad Muslims’ as the real enemy.” The result was that trained fighters of Arab, Chechen, and Uzbek origin persuaded Pakistani militants to carry out attacks against “apostate” Pakistan rather than Coalition forces in Afghanistan. Indigenous Pakistani Islamists did not always accept takfiri practices, however. Shahzad suggests that many local organizations “reacted uncomfortably to the growth of this near-heresy within al Qaeda,” which in relentlessly targeting Muslims, “brought chaos to the populations it claimed to defend.”49 This elicited an unfavorable reaction from a number of Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, whose primary objective was to target NATO personnel and Westerners. While on the surface the spat seems to have had little to do with a specific case of targeted killing, closer examination of the case does reveal that it had everything to do with the absence of strong leadership.
Targeted killing deters—key leaders are worn down and still are still motivated by a desire to live.
Wilner 10, (Alex S. Wilner, Center for Security Studies, ETH Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Targeted Killings in Afghanistan: Measuring Coercion and Deterrence in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Vol. 33 No. 4, 09 Mar 2010, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10576100903582543)

The literature on targeted killings suggests that they effect the motivation of individuals involved in perpetrating acts of violence and organizing terrorism.

 They know that by choosing to take the lead, they add their names to a target list, where life is Hobbsian: nasty, brutish, and short.”65 Over time, widespread anguish can influence not only active members of the group, but more generally, how well the group itself can attract and retain new members and followers. Targeted killings may be enough to deter some individuals from joining a movement altogether.¶ Successful targeted eliminations further remind terrorists of the long arm of the state’s coercive abilities and of the very real power asymmetries that exist. They also reiterate that death and capture is often sudden and unanticipated. Both can help lower a group’s morale. Living as a fugitive can also lead to a severance of ties with friends and loved ones. Indeed, in an age of sophisticated SIGINT, contact with family can prove lethal, as Dadullah’s experience shows. E-mail correspondence and phone conversations can be intercepted, informing security officials as to the location of wanted individuals. Finally, life on the run, while appealing for some, can get tiring. Fatigue can set in and with that, a change in motivation and behavior.
Decapitation strategy effective with drones, it destroys operational capability and training, and also take out lower level insurgents
Young 2012 (Alex, associate staff @ Harvard International Review, “A Defense of Drones”, February 25 2013, http://hir.harvard.edu/a-defense-of-drones)

Critics also claim that eliminating only the senior leaders of terrorist organizations does not make significant progress in eradicating the group as a whole. This argument falls short on two fronts¶ Moreover, drone strikes have disrupted al Qaeda’s system for training new recruits

.” Drones decimate terrorist organizations at all levels; the idea that these strikes only kill senior officials is a myth.

Long term studies show that terrorist groups are very susceptible to decapitation, and killing is effective

Price 2012 (Bryan C. former assistant professor in the Department of Social Sciences at the U.S. Military Academy and Director of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, “Targeting TopTerrorists: How Leadership Decapitation Contributes to Counterterrorism”, International Security, Volume 4, Issue 36, Spring 2012, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Price.pdf, p. 43-44)

This article has advanced an argument that runs counter to the near scholarly¶ consensus that leadership decapitation has been ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst in the fight against terrorist groups.

 I found that religious terrorist¶ groups were less resilient and easier to destroy than nationalist groups following leadership decapitation. Although religious groups appear to be 80 percent¶ less likely to end than nationalist groups based on ideology alone, they were¶ almost  five times as likely to end than nationalist groups after experiencing¶ leadership decapitation. I believe this is because of the important role leaders¶ of religious terrorist groups play in framing and interpreting organizational¶ goals and strategies.
Targeted killing works—5 warrants.
Morehouse 11, (Matthew A. Morehouse, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, Department of Political Science—Thesis, Hellfire and Grey Drones: An Empirical Examination of the Effectiveness of Targeted Killings, May 1, 2011, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/poliscitheses/8/)

Taking the qualitative data in its totality, it appears that the United States’ targeted killing program is effective at hindering the effectiveness of terrorist groups. Firstly, the threat of targeted killings has caused the terrorist groups in Pakistan to disperse their members across several provinces. Secondly, the threat of targeted killings has caused terrorist leaders to take refuge in the larger cities of Pakistan, where they believe themselves safe from the risk of US drone attacks. 

Finally Fifth, targeted killings have caused terrorist groups to change their organizational structures and tactics in order to better withstand the occurrence of targeted killings.

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lakeland LL | Judge: Andre Allsup
The aff is doesn't solve and perpetuates capitalism 

Klein 7 Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, fellow at The Nation Institute and author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. In 2004 her reporting from Iraq for Harper’s Magazine won the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism.  Klein is a former Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics and holds an honorary Doctor of Civil Laws from the University of King’s College. Disaster Capitalism second edition

One 

of Iraq.

Our alternative is to reject capitalism and build a new uncapitalist world-vote neg to join our fight- this is the only way to prevent extinction
Herod 4 James Herod author of several books on capitalism and social activist since 1968 Getting Free 2004 http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm

It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. This strategy, at its most 

to abolish wage-slavery, to eradicate a social order organized solely around the accumulation of capital for its own sake, and to establish in its place a society of free people who democratically and cooperatively self-determine the shape of their social world.

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Lakeland LL | Judge: Andre Allsup
Syria
Chemical weapons won’t kill many, even under the most ideal conditions – history proves no impact

John Mueller, professor of political science at the University of Rochester, and Karl Mueller, assistant professor of Comparative Military Studies at the School of Advanced Airpower Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base, May/June 1999, Foreign Affairs, “Sanctions of Mass Destruction,” p. Lexis

Chemical weapons, meanwhile, are virtually incapable of killing masses of people in open areas except when used in vast quantities, and so their inclusion in the WMD category is highly dubious unless the concept is so diluted that bullets or machetes could be included as well

Defense analyst Thomas McNaugher considers this conclusion “overly glib” but concedes that “it is closer to the truth than the contention that chemical weapons are nearly magical devices that invariably cause large casualties and inspire panic.”
 

Regional nuclear proliferation prevents CBW warfare

Payne 98 Dr. Keith B. Payne, President, National Institute for Public Policy Faculty, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service National Security Studies Program, April 1998 “Why We Must Sustain Nuclear Deterrence,” http://www.nipp.org/Adobe/Op20Ed203_20_98.pdf

A single illustration of the lethality of biological weapons will clarify why the U.S. capability to deter regional challengers is of paramount importance: a single undeterred attacker employing as little 

The continuing proliferation of CBW can only increase our need for nuclear deterrence. The United States has given up chemical and biological weapons, and has thus given up the option of deterring chemical and biological threats with like capabilities. In some tough cases conventional forces alone are likely to be inadequate to deter CBW threats. Consequently, as CBW proliferates our nuclear capabilities become more, not less important for regional deterrence.

Biological weapons cause mutated and uncontrolled pathogens, culminating in extinction

John Steinbruner, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, chair of the committee on international security and arms control of the National Academy of Sciences, Foreign Policy, December 22, 1997

That deceptively simple observation has immense implications

The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its outer limit.
The methodology of their proliferation impacts are rooted in orientalist thought that sees the prolifers as irrational—this methodological assumption prevents accurate predictions and is an indpendent reason to reject them

Gusterson ‘99  (Hugh Massachusetts Institute of Technology “Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination” Cultural Anthropology 14(1):111-143. Copyright © 1999, American Anthropological Association.)

Thus in Western discourse nuclear weapons are represented so that "theirs" are a problem whereas "ours" are not. 

Third World countries' nuclear deprivation and other systematic patterns of deprivation in the underdeveloped world in order to inhibit a massive north-south confrontation; and (4) it legitimates the nuclear monopoly of the recognized nuclear powers. 

Not Likely
No war -- Russia won’t risk it. 

Perkovich 03 – Vice President for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment (George Perkovich, “Bush's Nuclear Revolution: A Regime Change in Nonproliferation,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/20030304faessay10227_perkovich.html?pagewanted=3) 

As for Russia, a full-scale war between it and the United States now seems inconceivable. Given the desires for larger cuts in nuclear forces that Russia 

the size and forward-leaning posture of America's present arsenal.

Economics Prevent
Economic interdependence prevents conflict. 

Simes 07 – (Dimitri K. Simes, President of the Nixon Center and Publisher of The National Interest, "Losing War." Foreign Affairs." NOv/DEc. 2007. Lexis)

The good news is that although Russia is disillusioned with the United States and Europe, it is so far not eager to enter into an alliance against the West. The Russian people do not want to risk their new prosperity--and Russia's elites are loath to give up their Swiss bank accounts, London mansions, and Mediterranean vacations
…………
Nuclear Primacy Prevents
Nuclear primacy prevents escalation. 

Artyukov and Trukhachev 06 – Members of the Center for Research on Globalization (Oleg and Vadim, “US capable of wiping out Russia’s nuclear capacity in a single strike,” GlobalResearch, 3/23/06, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaandaid=2154, MMarcus)

For the first time in the last 50 years the USA is on the verge of attaining ultimate domination with regard to nuclear weapons. 

“It will probably soon be possible for the USA to destroy the strategic nuclear potential of Russia and China with a single strike,” says the article. 

No Extinction
It won’t cause extinction. With Russia

Robinson 86 – Founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (Arthur, with Gary North, economic historian and publisher, Fighting Chance: Ten Feet to Survival, p. 11-20, MMarcus)

An all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States would be the worst catastrophe in history, a tragedy so huge it is difficult to comprehend. Even so, it would be far from the end of human life on earth. The dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated, for varied reasons

Only where such tiny particles are promptly brought to earth by rain- outs or snow-outs in scattered "hot spots," and later dried and blown about by the winds, would these invisible particles constitute a long-term and relatively minor post-attack danger. The air in properly designed fallout shelters, even those without air filters, is free of radioactive particles and safe to breathe except in a few' rare environments as will be explained later. Fortunately for all living things, the danger from fallout radiation lessens with time. The radioactive decay, as this lessening is called, is rapid at first, then gets slower and slower. The dose rate (the amount of radiation received per hour) decreases accordingly. Figure 1.2 illustrates the rapidity of the decay of radiation from fallout during the first two days after the nuclear explosion that produced it. R stands for roentgen, a measurement unit often used to measure exposure to gamma rays and X rays. Fallout meters called dosimeters measure the dose received by recording the number of R. Fallout meters called survey meters, or dose-rate meters, measure the dose rate by recording the number of R being received per hour at the time of measurement. Notice that it takes about seven times as long for the dose rate to decay from 1000 roentgens per hour (1000 R/hr) to 10 R/hr (48 hours) as to decay from 1000 R/hr to 100 R/hr (7 hours). (Only in high-fallout areas would the dose rate 1 hour after the explosion be as high as 1000 roentgens per hour.)