Tournament: NDT | Round: 2 | Opponent: Kansas City Kansas CC Gonzaba-Casas | Judge: Neighbors, Hennigan, McCleary

1NC Framework

FRAMEWORK

The roll of the ballot is to answer the resolutional question "whether topical action is better than the status quo or competitive option"

"Resolved" before a colon reflects a legislative forum

Army Officer School 2005
("~23 12, Punctuation – The Colon and Semicolon", 5-12, http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm-http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm)

The colon introduces the following: a. A list, but only after "
AND
resolved:" Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor.

"USFG should" means the debate is solely about a policy established by governmental means

Ericson, California Polytechnic dean emeritus, 2003
(Jon, The Debater’s Guide, Third Edition, pg 4)

The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains
AND
compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose. 

War powers authority is enumerated in prior statutes—-doesn’t include CIC power because it’s not a congressionally authorized source of Presidential power

Curtis Bradley 10, Richard A. Horvitz Professor of Law and Professor of Public Policy Studies, Duke Law School, Curtis, "CLEAR STATEMENT RULES AND EXECUTIVE WAR POWERS" http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=273026context=faculty_scholarship
The scope of the President’s independent war powers is notoriously unclear, and courts are
AND
for the courts than about prohibiting the executive from exercising statutorily conferred authority. 

Having to taking a stance in favor of the resolution is key to deliberative reasoning and pragmatic opportunity cost assessment

Gutmann and Thompson, former Princeton professor and Harvard political philosophy professor, 1996
(Amy and Dennis, Democracy and disagreement, pg 1-3)

OF THE CHALLENGES that American democracy faces today, none is more formidable than the
AND
means for deciding what means are morally required to pursue our common ends.

Deliberation is the best model-continual testing bolsters advocacy and inclusion-this means we create better methods of engagement to resolve the AFF but they don’t resolve this offense-only switching sides on a limited point of stasis maximizes this potential

Talisse, Vanderbilt philosophy professor, 2005
(Robert, "Deliberativist responses to activist challenges", Philosophy 26 Social Criticism, 31.4, project muse)

Nonetheless, the deliberativist conception of reasonableness differs from the activist’s in at least one
AND
of justice. Insofar as the activist denies this, he is unreasonable.

Effective deliberative discourse is the lynchpin to solving existential social and political problems

Lundberg, UNC Chapel Hill communications professor, 2010
(Christian, Tradition of Debate in North Carolina" in Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century, pg 311-3)

The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and
AND
concrete work to realize an expanded commitment to debate at colleges and universities. 

Maintaining even division of ground and contestability is key to maintain debate’s unique potential for educational dialogue-alternative interpretations-guarantee uneducational monologues.

Hanghoj, Aarhus education assistant professor, 2008
(Thorkild, "Playful Knowledge An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming", http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/phd_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf-http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/phd_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf)

Debate games are often based on pre-designed scenarios that include descriptions of issues
AND
dialogue as an end in itself" (Wegerif, 2006: 61). 

Generalities are not enough; Debating specific policies on both sides is critical to make us better advocates against government violence—criticizing war without being willing to discuss actual policy details is a bankrupt strategy for social resistance.

—we can use these categories to critique them; simulation does not undercut our potential for critique
—have to roll-play the enemy to know their language and learn their strategies
Mellor 13 (Ewan E. Mellor – European University Institute, Why policy relevance is a moral necessity: Just war theory, impact, and UAVs, Paper Prepared for BISA Conference 2013, accessed: http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Drones_Targeted_Killing_Ethics_of_War)
This section of the paper considers more generally the need for just war theorists to
AND
the public engagement and political activism that are necessary for democratic politics.52

Debating the intricacies of the topic is key reverse excessive presidential authority-impact is constant and unlimited military actions

Kelly Michael Young 13, Associate Professor of Communication and Director of Forensics at Wayne State University, "Why Should We Debate About Restriction of Presidential War Powers", 9/4, public.cedadebate.org/node/13
Beyond its obviously timeliness, we believed debating about presidential war powers was important because of the stakes involved in the controversy. Since the Korean War, scholars and pundits have grown increasingly alarmed by the growing scope and techniques of presidential war making. In 1973, in the wake of Vietnam, Congress passed the joint War Powers Resolution (WPR) to increase Congress’s role in foreign policy and war making by requiring executive consultation with Congress prior to the use of military force, reporting within 48 hours after the start of hostiles, and requiring the close of military operations after 60 days unless Congress has authorized the use of force. Although the WPR was a significant legislative feat, 30 years since its passage, presidents have frequently ignores the WPR requirements and the changing nature of conflict does not fit neatly into these regulations. After the terrorist attacks on 9-11, many experts worry that executive war powers have expanded far beyond healthy limits.  Consequently, there is a fear that continued expansion of these powers will undermine the constitutional system of checks and balances that maintain the democratic foundation of this country and risk constant and unlimited military actions, particularly in what Stephen Griffin refers to as a "long war" period like the War on Terror (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674058286). In comparison, pro-presidential powers advocates contend that new restrictions undermine flexibility and timely decision-making necessary to effectively counter contemporary national security risks. Thus, a debate about presidential wars powers is important to investigate a number of issues that have serious consequences on the status of democratic checks and national security of the United States.¶ Lastly, debating presidential war powers is important because we the people have an important role in affecting the use of presidential war powers. As many legal scholars contend, regardless of the status of legal structures to check the presidency, an important political restrain on presidential war powers is the presence of a well-informed and educated public. As Justice Potter Stewart explains, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power…may lie in an enlightened citizenry – in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can protect the values of a democratic government" (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZC3.html). As a result, this is not simply an academic debate about institutions and powers that that do not affect us. As the numerous recent foreign policy scandals make clear, anyone who uses a cell-phone or the internet is potential affected by unchecked presidential war powers. Even if we agree that these powers are justified, it is important that today’s college students understand and appreciate the scope and consequences of presidential war powers, as these students’ opinions will stand as an important potential check on the presidency. 

Switching sides is key

Kurr-Ph.D. student Communication, Penn State-9/5/13
Bridging Competitive Debate and Public Deliberation on Presidential War Powers
http://public.cedadebate.org/node/14
The second major function concerns the specific nature of deliberation over war powers. Given
AND
where deliberation was being stifled. As a result, debaters reinvigorate debate.

1NC Case

We should NOT ever forget about the 1ACs discussion of the self We should hear stories of victimization and acknowledge the multiplicities of privilege that exist within our identities—-but you should not use your ballot to affirm them unless they are tied to a political proposition in terms of the resolution, shifting language from "I am" to the language of "I want" is crucial to prevent a psychology of constant conflict

Minow 96 (Martha Prof of Law and Dean @ Harvard University, "SPEECH: Not Only for Myself: Identity, Politics, and Law," Oregon Law Review 75 Or. L. Rev. 647 Lexis)
To identify fluidity, change, border-crossing, and unstable categories is not
AND
it difficult for others to remember and acknowledge past wrongdoings and harms. 90

The 1AC is founded on negation rather than prefigurativity —-the politics of the possible has occluded the politics of the actual to the point where there is no beyond the monological affirmation of their ontological "difference" in a possible "world to come."

Nail 10 (Thomas, is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Denver"Constructivism and the Future Anterior of Radical Politics," http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/thomas-nail-constructivism-and-the-future-anterior-of-radical-politics)
Radical politics today faces a two-fold challenge: to show the problems and
AND
What can post-anarchism, in particular, contribute to these questions?

Identity arguments are only ever implicit explanations of the constitutive effects of the social order, never a manifestation of some metaphysical status.  Experience does not create us; we constitute experience and identity in concert with others.  Knowledge of experience is therefore not the province of the individual; instead, we can only know identity through the shared practices that make communities the locus of knowledge production

Bhambra 10—U Warwick—AND—Victoria Margree—School of Humanities, U Brighton (Identity Politics and the Need for a ’Tomorrow’, http://www.academia.edu/471824/Identity_Politics_and_the_Need_for_a_Tomorrow_)
We suggest that alternative models of identity and community are required from those put forward
AND
" since they are produced by very real actions, practices and projects.

Tournament: NDT | Round: 2 | Opponent: Kansas City Kansas CC Gonzaba-Casas | Judge: Neighbors, Hennigan, McCleary

1NC Framework

FRAMEWORK

The roll of the ballot is to answer the resolutional question "whether topical action is better than the status quo or competitive option"

"Resolved" before a colon reflects a legislative forum

Army Officer School 2005
("~23 12, Punctuation – The Colon and Semicolon", 5-12, http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm-http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm)

The colon introduces the following: a. A list, but only after "
AND
resolved:" Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor.

"USFG should" means the debate is solely about a policy established by governmental means

Ericson, California Polytechnic dean emeritus, 2003
(Jon, The Debater’s Guide, Third Edition, pg 4)

The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains
AND
compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose. 

War powers authority is enumerated in prior statutes—-doesn’t include CIC power because it’s not a congressionally authorized source of Presidential power

Curtis Bradley 10, Richard A. Horvitz Professor of Law and Professor of Public Policy Studies, Duke Law School, Curtis, "CLEAR STATEMENT RULES AND EXECUTIVE WAR POWERS" http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=273026context=faculty_scholarship
The scope of the President’s independent war powers is notoriously unclear, and courts are
AND
for the courts than about prohibiting the executive from exercising statutorily conferred authority. 

Having to taking a stance in favor of the resolution is key to deliberative reasoning and pragmatic opportunity cost assessment

Gutmann and Thompson, former Princeton professor and Harvard political philosophy professor, 1996
(Amy and Dennis, Democracy and disagreement, pg 1-3)

OF THE CHALLENGES that American democracy faces today, none is more formidable than the
AND
means for deciding what means are morally required to pursue our common ends.

Deliberation is the best model-continual testing bolsters advocacy and inclusion-this means we create better methods of engagement to resolve the AFF but they don’t resolve this offense-only switching sides on a limited point of stasis maximizes this potential

Talisse, Vanderbilt philosophy professor, 2005
(Robert, "Deliberativist responses to activist challenges", Philosophy 26 Social Criticism, 31.4, project muse)

Nonetheless, the deliberativist conception of reasonableness differs from the activist’s in at least one
AND
of justice. Insofar as the activist denies this, he is unreasonable.

Effective deliberative discourse is the lynchpin to solving existential social and political problems

Lundberg, UNC Chapel Hill communications professor, 2010
(Christian, Tradition of Debate in North Carolina" in Navigating Opportunity: Policy Debate in the 21st Century, pg 311-3)

The second major problem with the critique that identifies a naivety in articulating debate and
AND
concrete work to realize an expanded commitment to debate at colleges and universities. 

Maintaining even division of ground and contestability is key to maintain debate’s unique potential for educational dialogue-alternative interpretations-guarantee uneducational monologues.

Hanghoj, Aarhus education assistant professor, 2008
(Thorkild, "Playful Knowledge An Explorative Study of Educational Gaming", http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/phd_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf-http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/phd_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf)

Debate games are often based on pre-designed scenarios that include descriptions of issues
AND
dialogue as an end in itself" (Wegerif, 2006: 61). 

Generalities are not enough; Debating specific policies on both sides is critical to make us better advocates against government violence—criticizing war without being willing to discuss actual policy details is a bankrupt strategy for social resistance.

—we can use these categories to critique them; simulation does not undercut our potential for critique
—have to roll-play the enemy to know their language and learn their strategies
Mellor 13 (Ewan E. Mellor – European University Institute, Why policy relevance is a moral necessity: Just war theory, impact, and UAVs, Paper Prepared for BISA Conference 2013, accessed: http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Drones_Targeted_Killing_Ethics_of_War)
This section of the paper considers more generally the need for just war theorists to
AND
the public engagement and political activism that are necessary for democratic politics.52

Debating the intricacies of the topic is key reverse excessive presidential authority-impact is constant and unlimited military actions

Kelly Michael Young 13, Associate Professor of Communication and Director of Forensics at Wayne State University, "Why Should We Debate About Restriction of Presidential War Powers", 9/4, public.cedadebate.org/node/13
Beyond its obviously timeliness, we believed debating about presidential war powers was important because of the stakes involved in the controversy. Since the Korean War, scholars and pundits have grown increasingly alarmed by the growing scope and techniques of presidential war making. In 1973, in the wake of Vietnam, Congress passed the joint War Powers Resolution (WPR) to increase Congress’s role in foreign policy and war making by requiring executive consultation with Congress prior to the use of military force, reporting within 48 hours after the start of hostiles, and requiring the close of military operations after 60 days unless Congress has authorized the use of force. Although the WPR was a significant legislative feat, 30 years since its passage, presidents have frequently ignores the WPR requirements and the changing nature of conflict does not fit neatly into these regulations. After the terrorist attacks on 9-11, many experts worry that executive war powers have expanded far beyond healthy limits.  Consequently, there is a fear that continued expansion of these powers will undermine the constitutional system of checks and balances that maintain the democratic foundation of this country and risk constant and unlimited military actions, particularly in what Stephen Griffin refers to as a "long war" period like the War on Terror (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674058286). In comparison, pro-presidential powers advocates contend that new restrictions undermine flexibility and timely decision-making necessary to effectively counter contemporary national security risks. Thus, a debate about presidential wars powers is important to investigate a number of issues that have serious consequences on the status of democratic checks and national security of the United States.¶ Lastly, debating presidential war powers is important because we the people have an important role in affecting the use of presidential war powers. As many legal scholars contend, regardless of the status of legal structures to check the presidency, an important political restrain on presidential war powers is the presence of a well-informed and educated public. As Justice Potter Stewart explains, "the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power…may lie in an enlightened citizenry – in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can protect the values of a democratic government" (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZC3.html). As a result, this is not simply an academic debate about institutions and powers that that do not affect us. As the numerous recent foreign policy scandals make clear, anyone who uses a cell-phone or the internet is potential affected by unchecked presidential war powers. Even if we agree that these powers are justified, it is important that today’s college students understand and appreciate the scope and consequences of presidential war powers, as these students’ opinions will stand as an important potential check on the presidency. 

Switching sides is key

Kurr-Ph.D. student Communication, Penn State-9/5/13
Bridging Competitive Debate and Public Deliberation on Presidential War Powers
http://public.cedadebate.org/node/14
The second major function concerns the specific nature of deliberation over war powers. Given
AND
where deliberation was being stifled. As a result, debaters reinvigorate debate.

1NC Case

We should NOT ever forget about the 1ACs discussion of the self We should hear stories of victimization and acknowledge the multiplicities of privilege that exist within our identities—-but you should not use your ballot to affirm them unless they are tied to a political proposition in terms of the resolution, shifting language from "I am" to the language of "I want" is crucial to prevent a psychology of constant conflict

Minow 96 (Martha Prof of Law and Dean @ Harvard University, "SPEECH: Not Only for Myself: Identity, Politics, and Law," Oregon Law Review 75 Or. L. Rev. 647 Lexis)
To identify fluidity, change, border-crossing, and unstable categories is not
AND
it difficult for others to remember and acknowledge past wrongdoings and harms. 90

The 1AC is founded on negation rather than prefigurativity —-the politics of the possible has occluded the politics of the actual to the point where there is no beyond the monological affirmation of their ontological "difference" in a possible "world to come."

Nail 10 (Thomas, is an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Denver"Constructivism and the Future Anterior of Radical Politics," http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/thomas-nail-constructivism-and-the-future-anterior-of-radical-politics)
Radical politics today faces a two-fold challenge: to show the problems and
AND
What can post-anarchism, in particular, contribute to these questions?

Identity arguments are only ever implicit explanations of the constitutive effects of the social order, never a manifestation of some metaphysical status.  Experience does not create us; we constitute experience and identity in concert with others.  Knowledge of experience is therefore not the province of the individual; instead, we can only know identity through the shared practices that make communities the locus of knowledge production

Bhambra 10—U Warwick—AND—Victoria Margree—School of Humanities, U Brighton (Identity Politics and the Need for a ’Tomorrow’, http://www.academia.edu/471824/Identity_Politics_and_the_Need_for_a_Tomorrow_)
We suggest that alternative models of identity and community are required from those put forward
AND
" since they are produced by very real actions, practices and projects.

Tournament: Pitt RR | Round: 4 | Opponent: Wake Forest LW | Judge: Bruce
NEOLIBERALISM
The 1AC reduced difference to a question of knowledge/power relations that occur on a discursive terrain; politics are material and that reality is shaped by economic structures of power. Voting affirmative reinscribes a neoliberal pluralist stance rooted in the ideology of free market capitalism.  
Scatamburlo-D’Annibale et al., Windsor Communication and Social Justice graduate program chair, 2003
(Valerie, “The Strategic Centrality of Class in the Politics of “Race” and “Difference”, Critical Methodologies, 3.2, http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/mclaren/mclaren20and20valerie.pdf, ldg)
We stubbornly believe that the insights of Marx and those working within the broad parameters of that tradition still have something to say despite proclamations to the contrary. Indeed, perhaps one of the most taken-for-granted features of contemporary social theory (especially the variety that purports to be “radical”) is the ritualistically dismissive and increasingly generic critique of Marxism in terms of its alleged failure to address forms of oppression other than that of “class.” Marxism is considered to be theoretically bankrupt and intellectually passé, and class analysis is often savagely lampooned as a rusty weapon wielded clumsily by those mind locked in the jejune factories of the 19th and 20th centuries. When Marxist class analysis has not been distorted or equated with some crude version of “economic determinism,” teleology or essentialism, it has been attacked for diverting attention away from the categories of “difference”—including “race” (Gimenez, 2001).1 To overcome the presumed inadequacies of Marxism, an entire discursive apparatus sometimes called “post-Marxism” has arisen to fill the void. Regardless of Marx’s enduring relevance (cf. Greider, 1998) and despite the fact that much of post-Marxism is actually an outlandish “caricature” of Marx and the entire Marxist tradition, it has eaten through the “left like a cancer” and has “established itself as the new common sense” (Johnson, 2002, p. 129). Eager to take a wide detour around political economy, post-Marxists (who often go by other names such as postmodernists, poststructuralists, radical multiculturalists, etc.) tend to assume that the principal political points of departure must necessarily be “cultural.” Many but not all post-Marxists have gravitated toward a politics of difference that is largely premised on uncovering relations of power that reside in a variety of cultural and ideological practices (cf. Jordan andWeedon, 1995). Advocates of difference politics posit their ideas as bold steps forward in advancing the interests of those historically marginalized by dominant social and cultural narratives. Various strands of post-Marxism have undoubtedly advanced our knowledge of the hidden trajectories of power and their fetishizing instrumentalities within the processes of representation, and they remain somewhat useful in discerning the relationships between difference, language, and cultural configurations. At the same time, however, the rhetorical excesses of post-Marxists—enamored with the cultural and seemingly blind to the economic—have been woefully remiss in addressing the constitution of class formations and the stark reality of contemporary conditions under global capitalism. In some instances, capitalism and class relations have been thoroughly “otherized;” in others, class is reduced to “classism” and summoned only as part of the triumvirate of race, class, and gender in which class is portrayed as merely another form of difference. As we hope to show, the radical displacement of class analysis in contemporary theoretical narratives and the concomitant decentering of capitalism, the anointing of difference as a primary explanatory construct, and the “culturalization” of politics have had detrimental effects on “Left” theory and practice. The concept of difference has been one of the most potent weapons in the theoretical arsenal of those seeking to dismantle the contributions of the philosophes of the European Enlightenment as well as the revolutionary corpus of the Marxist tradition.2 For the most part, the issue of difference has been taken up around two basic constellations. First, it has been used to (a) contest liberal humanism’s notion of a unified and static subjectivity; (b) elaborate an understanding of subjectivity as fractured, multiple, and fluid; and (c) examine the discursive constitution of the subject within language itself. The second approach to difference has generally revolved around differences between groups (particularly as they pertain to race, ethnicity, etc.), resulting in discourses of “identity” politics. Of course, in political terms there has been an increasingly fierce divide between how these two approaches to difference operate in relation to “identity” (Fuery and Mansfield, 2000).3 It is clearly beyond the parameters of this article to explore these debates. Although there are significant distinctions between these variant positions, it is important to note that both converge to the extent that they valorize difference and heterogeneity as animating principles and in doing so have largely displaced the concept of class and the analysis of capitalism from the theoretical and political canvas. Our purpose here is not to rehash those well-worn debates or challenge their tenability. Rather, we view this effort, however partial, as a beginning—a point from which to launch a reconceptualization of difference. For the most part, contemporary narratives have stressed the cultural dimensions of difference while marginalizing and, in some cases, ignoring its economic and material dimensions. This posturing has been quite evident in many post-al theories of “race” and in the realm of “ludic” cultural studies that have valorized accounts of difference in almost exclusively “superstructuralist” terms (Sahay, 1998). But this treatment of difference and claims about “the ‘relative autonomy’ of ‘race’ have been enabled by a reduction and distortion of Marxian class analysis” that involves “equating class analysis with some version of economic determinism” (Meyerson, 2000). The key move in this distorting gesture depends on the “view that the economic is the base, the cultural/political/ ideological the superstructure.” It is then “relatively easy to show that the (presumably non-political) economic bases does not cause the political/cultural/ ideological superstructure, that the latter is/are not epiphenomenal but rela-tively autonomous or autonomous causal categories” (Meyerson, 2000, p. 2). In such formulations, the “cultural” is treated as a separate and autonomous sphere, severed from its embeddedness within sociopolitical and economic arrangements. As a result, “culturalist” narratives have produced autonomist and reified conceptualizations of difference that “far from enabling those subjects most marginalized by racial difference” have in effect reduced “difference to a question of knowledge/power relations” that can presumably be “dealt with (negotiated) on a discursive level without a fundamental change in the relations of production” (Sahay, 1998, p. 10). To suggest that culture is generally conditioned/shaped by material forces and social relations linked to production does not reinscribe the simplistic and presumably deterministic base/superstructure metaphor, which has plagued some strands of Marxist theory. Rather, such a formulation draws on Marx’s own writings from both the Grundrisse (Marx, 1858/1973) and Capital (Marx, 1867/1967) in which he contended that there is a consolidating logic in the relations of production that permeates society in the complex variety of its “empirical” reality.4 This emphasizes Marx’s understanding of capitalism and capital as a “social” relation—one that stresses the interpenetration of these categories and one that offers a unified and dialectical analysis of history, ideology, culture, politics, economics, and society (see Marx, 1863/1972, 1867/1976a, 1866/1976b, 1865/1977a, 1844/1977b). Moreover, foregrounding the limitations of “difference” and “representational” politics does not suggest a disavowal of the importance of cultural and/or discursive arena(s) as sites of contestation. We readily acknowledge the significance of theorizations that have sought to valorize precisely those forms of difference that have historically been denigrated. They have helped to uncover the genealogy of terror hidden within the drama of Western democratic life. This has been an important development that has enabled subordinated groups to reconstruct their own histories and give voice to their individual and collective identities (Bannerji, 1995; Scatamburlo-D’Annibale and Langman, 2002). Contemporary theorists have also contributed to our understanding of issues of “otherness” and “race” as hegemonic articulations (Hall, 1980, 1987, 1988), the cultural politics of race and racism and the implications of raciology (Gilroy, 1990, 2000), as well as the epistemological violence perpetrated by Western theories of knowledge (Goldberg, 1990, 1993). Miron and Inda’s (2000) work, drawing on Judith Butler’s theory of performativity, has been insightful in showing how race works to constitute the racial subject through a reiterative discursive practice that achieves its effect through the act of naming and the practice of shaming. Hence, we would not discount the salience of such concerns, but nor should progressives be straightjacketed by struggles that fail to move beyond the discursive/ cultural/textual realms. Such approaches have sometimes tended to redefine politics as a signifying activity generally confined to the realm of “representation” while displacing a politics grounded in the mobilization of forces against the material sources of political and economic marginalization. In this regard, textual/discursive politics have their limitations for they fail to guarantee the “material power necessary for social flourishing and living freely” (Goldberg, 1994, p. 13).5 In their rush to avoid the “capital” sin of “economism,” far too many post-al theorists (who often ignore their own class privilege) have fallen prey to an ahistorical form of culturalism that holds, among other things, that cultural antagonism external to class analysis and struggle provide the cutting edge of emancipatory politics. In many respects, this posturing has yielded an intellectual pseudopolitics that has served to empower “the theorist while explicitly disempowering” real citizens (Turner, 1994, p. 410). Although space limitations prevent us from elaborating this point further, we contend that such positions are deeply problematic in terms of their penchant for de-emphasizing the totalizing (yes totalizing!) power and function of capital and for their attempts to employ culture as a construct that would diminish the centrality of class.6 In a proper historical materialist account, “culture” is not the “other” of class but rather constitutes part of a more comprehensive theorization of class relations in different contexts (cf. Scatamburlo-D’Annibale and Langman, 2002). Because post-al theories of difference often circumvent the material dimensions of difference and tend to segregate questions of difference from analyses of class formation and capitalist social relations, we contend that it is necessary to (re)conceptualize difference by drawing on Marx’s materialist and historical formulations. Difference needs to be understood as the product of social contradictions and in relation to political and economic organization. Because systems of difference almost always involve relations of domination and oppression, we must concern ourselves with the economies of relations of difference that exist in specific contexts. Drawing on the Marxist concept of mediation enables us to unsettle the categorical (and sometimes overly rigid) approaches to both class and difference for it was Marx himself who warned against creating false dichotomies at the heart of our politics—that it was absurd to choose between consciousness and the world, subjectivity and social organization, personal or collective will, and historical or structural determination. In a similar vein, it is equally absurd to see “difference as a historical form of consciousness unconnected to class formation, development of capital and class politics” (Bannerji, 1995, p. 30). Bannerji has pointed to the need to historicize difference in relation to the history and social organization of capital and class (inclusive of imperialist and colonialist legacies) and to acknowledge the changing configurations of difference and “otherness.” Apprehending the meaning and function of difference in this manner necessarily highlights the importance of exploring (a) the institutional and structural aspects of difference; (b) the meanings and connotations that are attached to categories of difference; (c) how differences are produced out of, and lived within, specific his-torical, social, and political formations; and (d) the production of difference in relation to the complexities, contradictions, and exploitative relations of capitalism. Moreover, it presents a challenge to “identitarian” understandings of difference based almost exclusively on questions of cultural and/or racial hegemony. In such approaches, the answer to oppression often amounts to creating greater cultural space for the formerly excluded to have their voices heard (represented). Much of what is called the “politics of difference” is little more than a demand for an end to monocultural quarantine and for inclusion into the metropolitan salons of bourgeois representation—a posture that reinscribes a neoliberal pluralist stance rooted in the ideology of free market capitalism. In short, the political sphere is modeled on the marketplace, and freedom amounts to the liberty of all vendors to display their different “cultural” goods. A paradigmatic expression of this position is encapsulated in the following passage that champions a form of difference politics whose presumed aim is to make social groups appear. Minority and immigrant ethnic groups have laid claim to the street as a legitimate forum for the promotion and exhibition of traditional dress, food, and culture. . . . This is a politics of visibility and invisibility. Because it must deal with a tradition of representation that insists on subsuming varied social practices to a standard norm, its struggle is as much on the page, screen . . . as it is at the barricade and in the parliament, traditional forums of political intervention before the postmodern. (Fuery and Mansfield, 2000, p. 150) This position fosters a “fetishized” understanding of difference in terms of primordial and seemingly autonomous cultural identities and treats such “differences” as inherent, as ontologically secure cultural traits of the individuals of particular cultural communities. Rather than exploring the construction of difference within specific contexts mediated by the conjunctural embeddedness of power differentials, we are instead presented with an overflowing cornucopia of cultural particularities that serve as markers of ethnicity, race, group boundaries, and so forth. In this instance, the discourse of difference operates ideologically—cultural recognition derived from the rhetoric of tolerance averts our gaze from relations of production and presents a strategy for attending to difference as solely an ethnic, racial, or cultural issue. What advocates of such an approach fail to acknowledge is that the forces of diversity and difference are allowed to flourish provided that they remain within the prevailing forms of capitalist social arrangements. The neopluralism of difference politics cannot adequately pose a substantive challenge to the productive system of capitalism that is able to accommodate a vast pluralism of ideas and cultural practices. In fact, the post-al themes of identity, difference, diversity, and the like mesh quite nicely with contemporary corporate interests precisely because they revere lifestyle—the quest for, and the cultivation of, the self—and often encourage the fetishization of identities in the marketplace as they compete for “visibility” (Boggs, 2000; Field, 1997). Moreover, the uncritical, celebratory tone of various forms of difference politics can also lead to some disturbing conclusions. For example, if we take to their logical conclusion the statements that “postmodern political activism fiercely contests the reduction of the other to the same,” that post-al narratives believe that “difference needs to be recognized and respected at all levels” (Fuery andMansfield, 2000, p. 148), and that the recognition of different subject positions is paramount (Mouffe, 1988, pp. 35-36), their political folly becomes clear. Eagleton (1996) sardonically commented on the implications: Almost all postmodern theorists would seem to imagine that difference, variability and heterogeneity are “absolute” goods, and it is a position I have long held myself. It has always struck me as unduly impoverishing of British social life that we can muster a mere two or three fascist parties. . . . The opinion that plurality is a good in itself is emptily formalistic and alarmingly unhistorical. (pp. 126-127) The liberal pluralism manifest in discourses of difference politics often means a plurality without conflict, contestation, or contradiction. The inherent limitations of this position are also evident if we turn our attention to issues of class. Expanding on Eagleton’s observations and adopting the logic that seems to inform the unqualified celebration of difference, one would be compelled to champion class differences as well. Presumably, the differences between the 475 billionaires whose combined wealth now equals the combined yearly incomes of more than 50 of the world’s population are to be celebrated—a posturing that would undoubtedly lend itself to a triumphant endorsement of capitalism and inequitable and exploitative conditions. San Juan (1995) noted that the cardinal flaw in current instantiations of culturalism lies in its decapitation of discourses of intelligibility from the politics of antagonistic relations. He framed the question quite pointedly: “In a society stratified by uneven property relations, by asymmetrical allocation of resources and of power, can there be equality of cultures and genuine toleration of differences?” (pp. 232- 233).

Not basing race in political economy creates a culture politics focused on representation, subversion and individual relations which normalizes neoliberal hegemony-this culminates in a leveling of the play field of how one relates to neoliberal violence instead of a new positive vision of society
Reed, Pennsylvania political science professor specializing in race and American politics, 2013
(Adolph, “Django Unchained, or, The Help: How “Cultural Politics” Is Worse Than No Politics at All, and Why”, http://nonsite.org/feature/django-unchained-or-the-help-how-cultural-politics-is-worse-than-no-politics-at-all-and-why)
In both films the bogus happy endings are possible only because they characterize their respective regimes of racial hierarchy in the superficial terms of interpersonal transactions. In The Help segregationism’s evil was small-minded bigotry and lack of sensitivity; it was more like bad manners than oppression. In Tarantino’s vision, slavery’s definitive injustice was its gratuitous and sadistic brutalization and sexualized degradation. Malevolent, ludicrously arrogant whites owned slaves most conspicuously to degrade and torture them. Apart from serving a formal dinner in a plantation house—and Tarantino, the Chance the Gardener of American filmmakers (and Best Original Screenplay? Really?) seems to draw his images of plantation life from Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind, as well as old Warner Brothers cartoons—and the Mandingo fighters and comfort girls, Tarantino’s slaves do no actual work at all; they’re present only to be brutalized. In fact, the cavalier sadism with which owners and traders treat them belies the fact that slaves were, first and foremost, capital investments. It’s not for nothing that New Orleans has a monument to the estimated 20,000-30,000 antebellum Irish immigrants who died constructing the New Basin Canal; slave labor was too valuable for such lethal work. The Help trivializes Jim Crow by reducing it to its most superficial features and irrational extremes. The master-servant nexus was, and is, a labor relation. And the problem of labor relations particular to the segregationist regime wasn’t employers’ bigoted lack of respect or failure to hear the voices of the domestic servants, or even benighted refusal to recognize their equal humanity. It was that the labor relation was structured within and sustained by a political and institutional order that severely impinged on, when it didn’t altogether deny, black citizens’ avenues for pursuit of grievances and standing before the law. The crucial lynchpin of that order was neither myopia nor malevolence; it was suppression of black citizens’ capacities for direct participation in civic and political life, with racial disfranchisement and the constant threat of terror intrinsic to substantive denial of equal protection and due process before the law as its principal mechanisms. And the point of the regime wasn’t racial hatred or enforced disregard; its roots lay in the much more prosaic concern of dominant elites to maintain their political and economic hegemony by suppressing potential opposition and in the linked ideal of maintaining access to a labor force with no options but to accept employment on whatever terms employers offered. (Those who liked The Help or found it moving should watch The Long Walk Home, a 1990 film set in Montgomery, Alabama, around the bus boycott. I suspect that’s the film you thought you were watching when you saw The Help.) Django Unchained trivializes slavery by reducing it to its most barbaric and lurid excesses. Slavery also was fundamentally a labor relation. It was a form of forced labor regulated—systematized, enforced and sustained—through a political and institutional order that specified it as a civil relationship granting owners absolute control over the life, liberty, and fortunes of others defined as eligible for enslavement, including most of all control of the conditions of their labor and appropriation of its product. Historian Kenneth M. Stampp quotes a slaveholder’s succinct explanation: “‘For what purpose does the master hold the servant?’ asked an ante-bellum Southerner. ‘Is it not that by his labor, he, the master, may accumulate wealth?’”1 That absolute control permitted horrible, unthinkable brutality, to be sure, but perpetrating such brutality was neither the point of slavery nor its essential injustice. The master-slave relationship could, and did, exist without brutality, and certainly without sadism and sexual degradation. In Tarantino’s depiction, however, it is not clear that slavery shorn of its extremes of brutality would be objectionable. It does not diminish the historical injustice and horror of slavery to note that it was not the product of sui generis, transcendent Evil but a terminus on a continuum of bound labor that was more norm than exception in the Anglo-American world until well into the eighteenth century, if not later. As legal historian Robert Steinfeld points out, it is not so much slavery, but the emergence of the notion of free labor—as the absolute control of a worker over her person—that is the historical anomaly that needs to be explained.2 Django Unchained sanitizes the essential injustice of slavery by not problematizing it and by focusing instead on the extremes of brutality and degradation it permitted, to the extent of making some of them up, just as does The Help regarding Jim Crow. The Help could not imagine a more honest and complex view of segregationist Mississippi partly because it uses the period ultimately as a prop for human interest cliché, and Django Unchained’s absurdly ahistorical view of plantation slavery is only backdrop for the merger of spaghetti western and blaxploitation hero movie. Neither film is really about the period in which it is set. Film critic Manohla Dargis, reflecting a decade ago on what she saw as a growing Hollywood penchant for period films, observed that such films are typically “stripped of politics and historical fact…and instead will find meaning in appealing to seemingly timeless ideals and stirring scenes of love, valor and compassion” and that “the Hollywood professionals who embrace accuracy most enthusiastically nowadays are costume designers.”3 That observation applies to both these films, although in Django concern with historically accurate representation of material culture applies only to the costumes and props of the 1970s film genres Tarantino wants to recall. To make sense of how Django Unchained has received so much warmer a reception among black and leftoid commentators than did The Help, it is useful to recall Margaret Thatcher’s 1981 dictum that “economics are the method: the object is to change the soul.”4 Simply put, she and her element have won. Few observers—among opponents and boosters alike—have noted how deeply and thoroughly both films are embedded in the practical ontology of neoliberalism, the complex of unarticulated assumptions and unexamined first premises that provide its common sense, its lifeworld. Objection to The Help has been largely of the shooting fish in a barrel variety: complaints about the film’s paternalistic treatment of the maids, which generally have boiled down to an objection that the master-servant relation is thematized at all, as well as the standard, predictable litany of anti-racist charges about whites speaking for blacks, the film’s inattentiveness to the fact that at that time in Mississippi black people were busily engaged in liberating themselves, etc. An illustration of this tendency that conveniently refers to several other variants of it is Akiba Solomon, “Why I’m Just Saying No to ‘The Help’ and Its Historical Whitewash” in Color Lines,August 10, 2011, available Grasse-Roman Neg Defenses of Django Unchained pivot on claims about the social significance of the narrative of a black hero. One node of this argument emphasizes the need to validate a history of autonomous black agency and “resistance” as a politico-existential desideratum. It accommodates a view that stresses the importance of recognition of rebellious or militant individuals and revolts in black American history. Another centers on a notion that exposure to fictional black heroes can inculcate the sense of personal efficacy necessary to overcome the psychological effects of inequality and to facilitate upward mobility and may undermine some whites’ negative stereotypes about black people. In either register assignment of social or political importance to depictions of black heroes rests on presumptions about the nexus of mass cultural representation, social commentary, and racial justice that are more significant politically than the controversy about the film itself. In both versions, this argument casts political and economic problems in psychological terms. Injustice appears as a matter of disrespect and denial of due recognition, and the remedies proposed—which are all about images projected and the distribution of jobs associated with their projection—look a lot like self-esteem engineering. Moreover, nothing could indicate more strikingly the extent of neoliberal ideological hegemony than the idea that the mass culture industry and its representational practices constitute a meaningful terrain for struggle to advance egalitarian interests. It is possible to entertain that view seriously only by ignoring the fact that the production and consumption of mass culture is thoroughly embedded in capitalist material and ideological imperatives. That, incidentally, is why I prefer the usage “mass culture” to describe this industry and its products and processes, although I recognize that it may seem archaic to some readers. The mass culture v. popular culture debate dates at least from the 1950s and has continued with occasional crescendos ever since.5 For two decades or more, instructively in line with the retreat of possibilities for concerted left political action outside the academy, the popular culture side of that debate has been dominant, along with its view that the products of this precinct of mass consumption capitalism are somehow capable of transcending or subverting their material identity as commodities, if not avoiding that identity altogether. Despite the dogged commitment of several generations of American Studies and cultural studies graduate students who want to valorize watching television and immersion in hip-hop or other specialty market niches centered on youth recreation and the most ephemeral fads as both intellectually avant-garde and politically “resistive,” it should be time to admit that that earnest disposition is intellectually shallow and an ersatz politics. The idea of “popular” culture posits a spurious autonomy and organicism that actually affirm mass industrial processes by effacing them, especially in the putatively rebel, fringe, or underground market niches that depend on the fiction of the authentic to announce the birth of new product cycles. The power of the hero is a cathartic trope that connects mainly with the sensibility of adolescent boys—of whatever nominal age. Tarantino has allowed as much, responding to black critics’ complaints about the violence and copious use of “nigger” by proclaiming “Even for the film’s biggest detractors, I think their children will grow up and love this movie. I think it could become a rite of passage for young black males.”6 This response stems no doubt from Tarantino’s arrogance and opportunism, and some critics have denounced it as no better than racially presumptuous. But he is hardly alone in defending the film with an assertion that it gives black youth heroes, is generically inspirational or both. Similarly, in a January 9, 2012 interview on the Daily Show, George Lucas adduced this line to promote his even more execrable race-oriented live-action cartoon, Red Tails, which, incidentally, trivializes segregation in the military by reducing it to a matter of bad or outmoded attitudes. The ironic effect is significant understatement of both the obstacles the Tuskegee airmen faced and their actual accomplishments by rendering them as backdrop for a blackface, slapped-together remake of Top Gun. (Norman Jewison’s 1984 film, A Soldier’s Story, adapted from Charles Fuller’s A Soldier’s Play, is a much more sensitive and thought-provoking rumination on the complexities of race and racism in the Jim Crow U.S. Army—an army mobilized, as my father, a veteran of the Normandy invasion, never tired of remarking sardonically, to fight the racist Nazis.) Lucas characterized his film as “patriotic, even jingoistic” and was explicit that he wanted to create a film that would feature “real heroes” and would be “inspirational for teenage boys.” Much as Django Unchained’s defenders compare it on those terms favorably to Lincoln, Lucas hyped Red Tails as being a genuine hero story unlike “Glory, where you have a lot of white officers running those guys into cannon fodder.” Of course, the film industry is sharply tilted toward the youth market, as Lucas and Tarantino are acutely aware. But Lucas, unlike Tarantino, was not being defensive in asserting his desire to inspire the young; he offered it more as a boast. As he has said often, he’d wanted for years to make a film about the Tuskegee airmen, and he reports that he always intended telling their story as a feel-good, crossover inspirational tale. Telling it that way also fits in principle (though in this instance not in practice, as Red Tails bombed at the box office) with the commercial imperatives of increasingly degraded mass entertainment. Dargis observed that the ahistoricism of the recent period films is influenced by market imperatives in a global film industry. The more a film is tied to historically specific contexts, the more difficult it is to sell elsewhere. That logic selects for special effects-driven products as well as standardized, decontextualized and simplistic—“universal”—story lines, preferably set in fantasy worlds of the filmmakers’ design. As Dargis notes, these films find their meaning in shopworn clichés puffed up as timeless verities, including uplifting and inspirational messages for youth. But something else underlies the stress on inspiration in the black-interest films, which shows up in critical discussion of them as well. All these films—The Help, Red Tails, Django Unchained, even Lincoln and Glory—make a claim to public attention based partly on their social significance beyond entertainment or art, and they do so because they engage with significant moments in the history of the nexus of race and politics in the United States. There would not be so much discussion and debate and no Golden Globe, NAACP Image, or Academy Award nominations for The Help, Red Tails, or Django Unchained if those films weren’t defined partly by thematizing that nexus of race and politics in some way. The pretensions to social significance that fit these films into their particular market niche don’t conflict with the mass-market film industry’s imperative of infantilization because those pretensions are only part of the show; they are little more than empty bromides, product differentiation in the patter of “seemingly timeless ideals” which the mass entertainment industry constantly recycles. (Andrew O’Hehir observes as much about Django Unchained, which he describes as “a three-hour trailer for a movie that never happens.”7) That comes through in the defense of these films, in the face of evidence of their failings, that, after all, they are “just entertainment.” Their substantive content is ideological; it is their contribution to the naturalization of neoliberalism’s ontology as they propagandize its universalization across spatial, temporal, and social contexts. Purportedly in the interest of popular education cum entertainment, Django Unchained and The Help, and Red Tails for that matter, read the sensibilities of the present into the past by divesting the latter of its specific historicity. They reinforce the sense of the past as generic old-timey times distinguishable from the present by superficial inadequacies—outmoded fashion, technology, commodities and ideas—since overcome. In The Help Hilly’s obsession with her pet project marks segregation’s petty apartheid as irrational in part because of the expense rigorously enforcing it would require; the breadwinning husbands express their frustration with it as financially impractical. Hilly is a mean-spirited, narrow-minded person whose rigid and tone-deaf commitment to segregationist consistency not only reflects her limitations of character but also is economically unsound, a fact that further defines her, and the cartoon version of Jim Crow she represents, as irrational. The deeper message of these films, insofar as they deny the integrity of the past, is that there is no thinkable alternative to the ideological order under which we live. This message is reproduced throughout the mass entertainment industry; it shapes the normative reality even of the fantasy worlds that masquerade as escapism. Even among those who laud the supposedly cathartic effects of Django’s insurgent violence as reflecting a greater truth of abolition than passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, few commentators notice that he and Broomhilda attained their freedom through a market transaction.8 This reflects an ideological hegemony in which students all too commonly wonder why planters would deny slaves or sharecroppers education because education would have made them more productive as workers. And, tellingly, in a glowing rumination in the Daily Kos, Ryan Brooke inadvertently thrusts mass culture’s destruction of historicity into bold relief by declaiming on “the segregated society presented” in Django Unchained and babbling on—with the absurdly ill-informed and pontifical self-righteousness that the blogosphere enables—about our need to take “responsibility for preserving racial divides” if we are “to put segregation in the past and fully fulfill Dr. King’s dream.”9 It’s all an indistinguishable mush of bad stuff about racial injustice in the old-timey days. Decoupled from its moorings in a historically specific political economy, slavery becomes at bottom a problem of race relations, and, as historian Michael R. West argues forcefully, “race relations” emerged as and has remained a discourse that substitutes etiquette for equality.10 This is the context in which we should take account of what “inspiring the young” means as a justification for those films. In part, the claim to inspire is a simple platitude, more filler than substance. It is, as I’ve already noted, both an excuse for films that are cartoons made for an infantilized, generic market and an assertion of a claim to a particular niche within that market. More insidiously, though, the ease with which “inspiration of youth” rolls out in this context resonates with three related and disturbing themes: 1) underclass ideology’s narratives—now all Americans’ common sense—that link poverty and inequality most crucially to (racialized) cultural inadequacy and psychological damage; 2) the belief that racial inequality stems from prejudice, bad ideas and ignorance, and 3) the cognate of both: the neoliberal rendering of social justice as equality of opportunity, with an aspiration of creating “competitive individual minority agents who might stand a better fighting chance in the neoliberal rat race rather than a positive alternative vision of a society that eliminates the need to fight constantly against disruptive market whims in the first place.”11 This politics seeps through in the chatter about Django Unchained in particular. Erin Aubry Kaplan, in the Los Angeles Times article in which Tarantino asserts his appeal to youth, remarks that the “most disturbing detail about slavery is the emotional violence and degradation directed at blacks that effectively keeps them at the bottom of the social order, a place they still occupy today.” Writing on the Institute of the Black World blog, one Dr. Kwa David Whitaker, a 1960s-style cultural nationalist, declaims on Django’s testament to the sources of degradation and “unending servitude that has rendered black Americans almost incapable of making sound evaluations of our current situations or the kind of steps we must take to improve our condition.”12 In its blindness to political economy, this notion of black cultural or psychological damage as either a legacy of slavery or of more indirect recent origin—e.g., urban migration, crack epidemic, matriarchy, babies making babies—comports well with the reduction of slavery and Jim Crow to interpersonal dynamics and bad attitudes. It substitutes a “politics of recognition” and a patter of racial uplift for politics and underwrites a conflation of political action and therapy. With respect to the nexus of race and inequality, this discourse supports victim-blaming programs of personal rehabilitation and self-esteem engineering—inspiration—as easily as it does multiculturalist respect for difference, which, by the way, also feeds back to self-esteem engineering and inspiration as nodes within a larger political economy of race relations. Either way, this is a discourse that displaces a politics challenging social structures that reproduce inequality with concern for the feelings and characteristics of individuals and of categories of population statistics reified as singular groups that are equivalent to individuals. This discourse has made it possible (again, but more sanctimoniously this time) to characterize destruction of low-income housing as an uplift strategy for poor people; curtailment of access to public education as “choice”; being cut adrift from essential social wage protections as “empowerment”; and individual material success as socially important role modeling. Neoliberalism’s triumph is affirmed with unselfconscious clarity in the ostensibly leftist defenses of Django Unchained that center on the theme of slaves’ having liberated themselves. Trotskyists, would-be anarchists, and psychobabbling identitarians have their respective sectarian garnishes: Trotskyists see everywhere the bugbear of “bureaucratism” and mystify “self-activity;” anarchists similarly fetishize direct action and voluntarism and oppose large-scale public institutions on principle, and identitarians romanticize essentialist notions of organic, folkish authenticity under constant threat from institutions. However, all are indistinguishable from the nominally libertarian right in their disdain for government and institutionally based political action, which their common reflex is to disparage as inauthentic or corrupt. 

Radical opposition stabilizes neoliberalism
Bluhdorn, Bath politics reader, 2007
(Ingolfur, “Self-description, Self-deception, Simulation: A Systems-theoretical Perspective on Contemporary Discourses of Radical Change”, Social Movement Studies, May, ebsco, ldg)

In late-modern society, this external point of reference of the increasingly all-embracing economic system is rapidly disappearing. Ever accelerated processes of societal modernization can no longer convincingly be portrayed as pursuing any idealist project of modernity. Programmes of innovation no longer serve the incremental realization of any modernist values and ideals, but are a categorical imperative of the economic system (Blu¨hdorn, 2004a, 2006b). As democratic politics turns into political marketing and is guided by the metaphysics of economic competitiveness and growth, and as late-modern individuals construct their identity primarily through consumer choices, a crisis of self referentiality descends upon late-modern society. It affects all three of the central pillars of modernity: the economy, which loses its status as serving the individual; democratic politics, which loses its status as the centre of power and the agent of the more humane future society; and the individual, which loses its status as the ultimate value and foundation of modern society (Blu¨hdorn, 2004a, b, 2006a). Indeed, the attempt to disguise its self-referentiality has become a main preoccupation of late-modern society. The regeneration of difference, the stabilization of the dualisms of modernity, has become a major concern that Baudrillard aptly describes as ‘the characteristic hysteria of our time’ (2001, p. 183). Not coincidentally, the economy has never been more anxious to emphasize that it is serving the community and investing in people. And not coincidentally politicians and their parties have never been more concerned to convince the increasingly sceptical electorate that they do listen to the people, that they still have visions, projects and agency, and that it is worth voting for them. More than anything, the stabilization of the dualisms of modernity implies the stabilization of the Self that was once conceptualized as an autonomous entity (subject) vis-a`-vis the system, but that has in each of its activities and dimensions incrementally been permeated by the market. The stabilization or regeneration of the Self is a project that is equally vital for the economy which cannot function as an end in itself, for democratic politics that needs to provide evidence that it is working towards the implementation of ideals that are rooted in the Self, and for the contemporary individual that has learnt to consider itself as the ultimate purpose (the subject) of societal development rather than a (human) resource waiting to be exploited. In late-modern society, however, this stabilization of the vanishing Self can be achieved only through the stabilization and further development of the established patterns of consumption. As the market has colonized every niche of the individual’s life world, and as every human decision and activity is becoming a matter of product choices, alternative forms of identity construction and self-experience are neither easily available nor particularly attractive. Yet the established patterns of self-construction, which thus have to be defended and further developed at any price, have fundamental problems attached to them: ?rstly, the attempt to constitute, on the basis of product choices and acts of consumption, a Self and identity that are distinct from and autonomous vis-a`-vis the market is a contradiction in terms. Secondly, late-modern society’s established patterns of consumption are known to be socially exclusive and environmentally destructive. Despite all hopes for ecological modernization and revolutionary improvements in resource ef?ciency (e.g. Weizsa¨cker et al., 1998; Hawkenet al., 1999; Lomborg, 2001), physical environmental limits imply that the lifestyles and established patterns of consumption cherished by advanced modern societies cannot even be extended to all residents of the richest countries, let alone to the populations of the developing world. For the sake of the (re)construction of an ever elusive Self, in their struggle against self-referentiality and in pursuit of the regeneration of difference, late-modern societies are thus locked into the imperative of maintaining and further developing the principle of exclusion (Blu¨hdorn, 2002, 2003). At any price they have to, and indeed do, defend a lifestyle that requires ever increasing social inequality, environmental degradation, predatory resource wars, and the tight policing of potential internal and external enemies.14 For this effort, military and surveillance technology provide ever more sophisticated and ef?cient means. Nevertheless, the principle of exclusion is ultimately still unsustainable, not only because of spiralling ‘security’ expenses but also because it directly contradicts the modernist notion of the free and autonomous individual that late-modern society desperately aims to sustain. For this reason, late-modern society is confronted with the task of having to sustain both the late-modern principle of exclusion as well as its opposite, i.e. the modernist principle of inclusion. Very importantly, the con?ict between the principles of exclusion and inclusion is not simply one between different individuals, political actors or sections of society. Instead, it is a politically irresolvable con?ict that resides right within the late-modern individual, the late-modern economy and late-modern politics. And if, as Touraine notes, late-modern society no longer believes in nor even desires political transcendence, the particular challenge is that the two principles can also no longer be attributed to different dimensions of time, i.e. the former to the present, and the latter to some future society. Instead, late-modern society needs to represent and reproduce itself and its opposite at the same time. If considered within this framework of this analysis, the function of Luhmann’s system of protest communication, or in the terms of this article, the signi?cance of late-modern societies’ discourses of radical change becomes immediately evident. At a stage when the possibility and desirability of transcending the principle of exclusion has been pulled into radical doubt but when, at the same time, the principle of inclusion is vitally important, these discourses simulate the validity of the latter as a social ideal. In other words, latemodern society reconciles the tension between the cherished but exclusive status quo – for which there is no alternative – and the non-existent inclusive alternative – on whose existence it depends – by means of simulation. The analysis of Luhmann’s work has demonstrated how the societal self-descriptions produced by the system of protest communication, or late-modern society’s discourses of radical change, ful?l this function exactly. They are an indispensable function system not so much because they help to resolve late-modern society’s problems of mal-coordination, but because by performing the possibility of the alternative they help to cope with the fundamental problem of self-referentiality. In this sense, late-modern society’s discourses of sustainability, democratic renewal, social inclusion or global justice, to name but a few, suggest that advanced modern society is working towards an environmentally and socially inclusive alternative – genuinely modern – society, but they do not deny the fact that the big utopia and project of late-modern society is the reproduction and further enhancement of the status quo, i.e. the sustainability of the principle of exclusion. Protest movements as networks of physical actors and actions complement the purely communicative discourses of radical change in that they bring their narrative and societal selfdescription to life. Whilst the declarations of institutionalized mainstream politics cannot escape the generalized suspicion that they are purely rhetorical, social movements provide an arena for the physical expression and experience of the authenticity and reality of the alternative, or at least of the reality of its possibility and the authenticity of the commitment to its realization. For late-modern individuals who seek to find their elusive identity in ever new acts of consumption, protest movements offer an opportunity to experience themselves as autonomous, as subjects, as actors, as distinct from and opposed to the all-embracing market. Social movements and the more or less institutionalized discourses of radical change thus transmute from germ cells of the alternative society into reserves of alterity, or theme-parks for simulated alterity (Blu¨hdorn, 2005a). This interpretation reflects Luhmann’s suggestion that contemporary discourses of radical change are not so much about the actual implementation of radical social change as about the ‘symbolism of the alternative’. And it nowappears that the societal self-descriptions they generate fulfil a vital function not in so far as they increase the reflexivity of late-modern society but in so far as they are arenas for the experience of simulated subjectivity, duality and modernity. They provide an opportunity to reconcile the cherished but exclusive status quo with the equally cherished but unsustainable belief in the inclusive alternative. Protest movements and discourses of radical change are the implantation of the alternative into the system itself, or the simulated reproduction of alterity fromthe system’s own resources. As the real alternatives to the system are utterly unattractive, disappearing fast, and indeed resisted and annihilated at any price, this internal simulation of alterity is becoming late-modern society’s only remaining way of coping with the threat of self-referentiality.
Neoliberalism prioritizes short term profit over the well-being of environment and human life-makes extinction inevitable
Nhanenge, South Africa development studies masters, 2007
(Jytte, “Ecofeminsm: Towards Integrating The Concerns Of Women, Poor People And Nature Into Development”, February, http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/570/dissertation.pdf?sequence=1, DOA: 7-4-12)
Generation of wealth was an important part of the Scientific Revolution and its modern society. The scientific discipline of economics therefore became a significant means for wealth creation. However, since it is founded on similar dualised premises as science, also economics became a system of domination and exploitation of women, Others and nature. The following discussion is intended to show that. The way in which economics, with its priority on masculine forces, becomes dominant relates to web-like, inter-connected and complex processes, which are not always clearly perceived. The below discussions try to show how the dualised priority of the individual over society, reason over emotion, self-interest over community-interest, competition over cooperation, and more pairs, generate domination that leads to the four crises of violence and war, poverty, human oppression and environmental degradation. The aim in sum is to show how the current perspective of economics is destroying society (women and Others) and nature. The following discussion is consequently a critique of economics. It is meant to highlight some elements that make economics a dominant ideology, rather than a system of knowledge. It adopts a feministic view and it is therefore seen from the side of women, poor people and nature. The critique is extensive, but not exhaustive. It is extensive because economics is the single most important tool used by mainstream institutions for development in the South. Thus if we want to understand why development does not alleviate poverty, then we first need to comprehend why its main instrument, economics, cannot alleviate poverty. A critical analysis of economics and its influence in development is therefore important as an introduction to next chapter, which discusses ecofeminism and development. However, the critique is not exhaustive because it focuses only on the dualised elements in economics. It is highly likely that there are many more critical issues in economics, which should be analyzed in addition to the below mentioned. However, it would exceed this scope. Each of the following 10 sections discusses a specific issue in economics that relates to its dualised nature. Thus, each can as such be read on its own. However, all sections are systemically interconnected. Therefore each re-enforces the others and integrated, they are meant to show the web of masculine forces that make economics dominant towards women, Others and nature. The first three sections intend to show that economics sees itself as a neutral, objective, quantitative and universal science, which does not need to be integrated in social and natural reality. The outcome of this is, however, that economics cannot value social and environmental needs. Hence, a few individuals become very rich from capitalising on free social and natural resources, while the health of the public and the environment is degraded. It also is shown that the exaggerated focus on monetary wealth does not increase human happiness. It rather leads to a deteriorating quality of life. Thus, the false belief in eternal economic growth may eventually destroy life on planet Earth. The next section shows that economics is based on dualism, with a focus solely on yang forces. This has serious consequences for all yin issues: For example, the priority on individualism over community may in its extreme form lead to self-destruction. Similarly, the priority on rationality while excluding human emotions may end in greed, domination, poverty, violence and war. The next section is important as a means to understanding "rational" economics. Its aim is to clarify the psychological meaning of money. In reality, reason and emotion are interrelated parts of the human mind; they cannot be separated. Thus, economic "rationality" and its focus on eternal wealth generation are based on personal emotions like fears and inadequacies, rather than reason. The false belief in dualism means that human beings are lying to themselves, which results in disturbed minds, stupid actions with disastrous consequences. The focus on masculine forces is consequently psychologically unhealthy; it leads to domination of society and nature, and will eventually destroy the world. The following three sections are intending to show that the new global capitalism is doing just that. First, the neo-liberal economical scheme is presented. Secondly, its application in the Third World as Structural Adjustment Programmes and as the New Economic Partnership for African Development is critiqued. Thirdly, the extreme application of the disturbed "rational" human mind, manifested in the form of an institutional psychopath "the corporation", is discussed. After concluding that economics is a patriarchal system of domination, alternative economic models, which can support women, Others and nature, are presented. 

Their use of the ballot as a mode of resistance model is palliative and reaffirms the foundations of neoliberal ontology by valorizing a narrative of an individual overcoming oppression against all odds outside of state policy---their 1AC can easy be a sequel to atlas shrugged.
Reed, Pennsylvania political science professor specializing in race and American politics, 2013
(Adolph, “Django Unchained, or, The Help: How “Cultural Politics” Is Worse Than No Politics at All, and Why”, http://nonsite.org/feature/django-unchained-or-the-help-how-cultural-politics-is-worse-than-no-politics-at-all-and-why)
In addition to knee-jerk anti-statism, the objection that the slaves freed themselves, as it shows up in favorable comparison of Django Unchained to Lincoln, stems from a racial pietism that issued from the unholy union of cultural studies and black studies in the university. More than twenty years of “resistance” studies that find again and again, at this point ritualistically, that oppressed people have and express agency have contributed to undermining the idea of politics as a discrete sphere of activity directed toward the outward-looking project of affecting the social order, most effectively through creating, challenging or redefining institutions that anchor collective action with the objective of developing and wielding power. Instead, the notion has been largely evacuated of specific content at all. “Politics” can refer to whatever one wants it to; all that’s required is an act of will in making a claim. The fact that there has been no serious left presence with any political capacity in this country for at least a generation has exacerbated this problem. In the absence of dynamic movements that cohere around affirmative visions for making the society better, on the order of, say, Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 “Second Bill of Rights,” and that organize and agitate around programs instrumental to pursuit of such visions, what remains is the fossil record of past movements—the still photo legacies of their public events, postures, and outcomes. Over time, the idea that a “left” is defined by commitment to a vision of social transformation and substantive program for realizing it has receded from cultural memory. Being on the left has become instead a posture, an identity, utterly disconnected from any specific practical commitments. Thus star Maggie Gyllenhaal and director Daniel Barnz defended themselves against complaints about their complicity in the hideously anti-union propaganda film Won’t Back Down by adducing their identities as progressives. Gyllenhaal insisted that the movie couldn’t be anti-union because “There’s no world in which I would ever, EVER make an anti-union movie. My parents are left of Trotsky.”15 Barnz took a similar tack: “I’m a liberal Democrat, very pro-union, a member of two unions. I marched with my union a couple of years ago when we were on strike.”16 And Kathryn Bigelow similarly has countered criticism that her Zero Dark Thirty justifies torture and American militarism more broadly by invoking her identity as “a lifelong pacifist.”17 Being a progressive is now more a matter of how one thinks about oneself than what one stands for or does in the world. The best that can be said for that perspective is that it registers acquiescence in defeat. It amounts to an effort to salvage an idea of a left by reformulating it as a sensibility within neoliberalism rather than a challenge to it. Gyllenhaal, Barnz, and Bigelow exemplify the power of ideology as a mechanism that harmonizes the principles one likes to believe one holds with what advances one’s material interests; they also attest to the fact that the transmutation of leftism into pure self-image exponentially increases the potential power of that function of ideology. Upton Sinclair’s quip—“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”—takes on all the more force when applied not merely to actions or interpretations of an external world but to devoutly savored self-perception as well. That left political imagination now operates unself-consciously within the practical ontology of neoliberalism is also the most important lesson to be drawn from progressives’ discussion of Django Unchained and, especially, the move to compare it with Lincoln. Jon Wiener, writing in The Nation, renders the following comparisons: “In Spielberg’s film, the leading black female character is a humble seamstress in the White House whose eyes fill with tears of gratitude when Congress votes to abolish slavery. In Tarantino’s film, the leading female character (Kerry Washington) is a defiant slave who has been branded on the face as a punishment for running away, and is forced—by Leonardo DiCaprio—to work as a prostitute. In Spielberg’s film, old white men make history, and black people thank them for giving them their freedom. In Tarantino’s, a black gunslinger goes after the white slavemaster with homicidal vengeance.”18 Never mind that, for what it’s worth, Kerry Washington’s character, as she actually appears in the film, is mainly a cipher, a simpering damsel in distress more reminiscent of Fay Wray in the original King Kong than heroines of the blaxploitation era’s eponymous vehicles Coffy or Foxy Brown. More problematically, Wiener’s juxtapositions reproduce the elevation of private, voluntarist action as a politics—somehow more truly true or authentic, or at least more appealing emotionally—over the machinations of government and institutional actors. That is a default presumption of the identitarian/culturalist left and is also a cornerstone of neoliberalism’s practical ontology. In an essay on Lincoln published a month earlier, Wiener identifies as the central failing of the film its dedication “to the proposition that Lincoln freed the slaves” and concludes, after considerable meandering and nit-picking ambivalence that brings the term pettifoggery to mind, “slavery died as a result of the actions of former slaves.”19 This either/or construct is both historically false and wrong-headed, and it is especially surprising that a professional historian like Wiener embraces it. The claim that slaves’ actions were responsible for the death of slavery is not only inaccurate; it is a pointless and counterproductive misrepresentation. What purpose is served by denying the significance of the four years of war and actions of the national government of the United States in ending slavery? Besides, it was indeed the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery. Slaves’ mass departure from plantations was self-emancipation, by definition. Their doing so weakened the southern economy and undermined the secessionists’ capacity to fight, and the related infusion of black troops into the Union army provided a tremendous lift both on the battlefield and for northern morale. How does noting that proximity of Union troops greatly emboldened that self-emancipation diminish the import of their actions? But it was nonetheless the Thirteenth Amendment that finally outlawed slavery once and for all in the United States and provided a legal basis for preempting efforts to reinstate it in effect. Moreover, for all the debate concerning Lincoln’s motives, the sincerity of his commitment to emancipation, and his personal views of blacks, and notwithstanding its technical limits with respect to enforceability, the Emancipation Proclamation emboldened black people, slave and free, and encouraged all slavery’s opponents. And, as Wiener notes himself, the proclamation tied the war explicitly to the elimination of slavery as a system. Firefly, or The Road to Serfdom So why is a tale about a manumitted slave/homicidal black gunslinger more palatable to a contemporary leftoid sensibility than either a similarly cartoonish one about black maids and their white employers or one that thematizes Lincoln’s effort to push the Thirteenth Amendment through the House of Representatives? The answer is, to quote the saccharine 1970s ballad, “Feelings, nothing more than feelings.” Wiener’s juxtapositions reflect the political common sense that gives pride of place to demonstrations of respect for the “voices” of the oppressed and recognition of their suffering, agency, and accomplishments. That common sense informs the proposition that providing inspiration has social or political significance. But it equally shapes the generic human-interest “message” of films like The Help that represent injustice as an issue of human relations—the alchemy that promises to reconcile social justice and capitalist class power as a win/win for everyone by means of attitude adjustments and deepened mutual understanding. That common sense underwrites the tendency to reduce the past to a storehouse of encouraging post-it messages for the present. It must, because the presumption that the crucial stakes of political action concern recognition and respect for the oppressed’s voices is a presentist view, and mining the past to reinforce it requires anachronism. The large struggles against slavery and Jim Crow were directed toward altering structured patterns of social relations anchored in law and state power, but stories of that sort are incompatible with both global marketing imperatives and the ideological predilections of neoliberalism and its identitarian loyal opposition. One can only shudder at the prospect of how Gillo Pontecorvo’s 1966 film, The Battle of Algiers, or Costa-Gavras’s State of Siege (1972) would be remade today. (Guy Ritchie’s and Madonna’s execrable 2002 remake of Lina Wertmüller’s 1974 film Swept Away may provide a clue; their abomination completely erases the original film’s complex class and political content and replaces it with a banal—aka “universal”—story of an encounter between an older woman and a younger man, while at the same time meticulously, almost eerily, reproducing, scene by scene, the visual structure of Wertmüller’s film.) Particularly as those messages strive for “universality” as well as inspiration, their least common denominator tends toward the generic story of individual triumph over adversity. But the imagery of the individual overcoming odds to achieve fame, success, or recognition also maps onto the fantasy of limitless upward mobility for enterprising and persistent individuals who persevere and remain true to their dreams. As such, it is neoliberalism’s version of an ideal of social justice, legitimizing both success and failure as products of individual character. When combined with a multiculturalist rhetoric of “difference” that reifies as autonomous cultures—in effect racializes—what are actually contingent modes of life reproduced by structural inequalities, this fantasy crowds inequality as a metric of injustice out of the picture entirely. This accounts for the popularity of reactionary dreck like Beasts of the Southern Wild among people who should know better. The denizens of the Bathtub actively, even militantly, choose their poverty and cherish it and should be respected and appreciated for doing so. But no one ever supposed that Leni Riefenstahl was on the left. The tale type of individual overcoming has become a script into which the great social struggles of the last century and a half have commonly been reformulated to fit the requirements of a wan, gestural multiculturalism. Those movements have been condensed into the personae of Great Men and Great Women—Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King, Jr., Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Ella Baker, Fannie Lou Hamer and others—who seem to have changed the society apparently by virtue of manifesting their own greatness. The different jacket photos adorning the 1982 and 1999 editions of Doug McAdam’s well known sociological study of the civil rights movement, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970, exemplify the shift. The first edition’s cover was a photo of an anonymous group of marching protesters; the second edition featured the (staged) photo—made iconic by its use in an Apple advertising campaign—of a dignified Rosa Parks sitting alone on the front seat of a bus looking pensively out the window.20 Ironically, the scholarly turn away from organizations and institutional processes to valorize instead the local and everyday dimensions of those movements may have exacerbated this tendency by encouraging a focus on previously unrecognized individual figures and celebrating their lives and “contributions.” Rather than challenging the presumption that consequential social change is made by the will of extraordinary individuals, however, this scholarship in effect validates it by inflating the currency of Greatness so much that it can be found any and everywhere. Giving props to the unrecognized or underappreciated has become a feature particularly of that scholarship that defines scholarly production as a terrain of political action in itself and aspires to the function of the “public intellectual.” A perusal of the rosters of African American History Month and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day speakers at any random sample of colleges and universities attests to how closely this scholar/activist turn harmonizes with the reductionist individualism of prosperity religion and the varieties of latter-day mind cure through which much of the professional-managerial stratum of all races, genders, and sexual orientations, narrates its understandings of the world.
The Roll of the ballot is to vote for the team that best presents a collective challenge to institutionalized neoliberalism. Rather than use identity as a starting point to inform critique, as intellectuals WE should reclaim a collective “we” to inform demands on the state
Biebricher, Celikates and Dean 12 (Jodi Dean is a Professor of political and media theory in Geneva Robin Celikates is Asso­ci­ate Pro­fessor of Social and Polit­ical Philo­sophy at the Uni­ver­sity of Ams­ter­dam and an asso­ci­ate member of the Insti­tute for Social Research in Frankfurt. Thomas Biebricher dir­ects the re­search group “Crisis and Normative Order?—?Varieties of ‘Neoliberalism’ in Transformation” at the Cluster of Excellence “Formation of Normative Orders” at the Goethe University, Frankfurt http://criticallegalthinking.com/2012/11/06/saying-we-again-a-conversation-with-jodi-dean-on-democracy-occupy-and-communism/)
Biebricher and Celikates (‘BandC’): You argue that demo­cracy is so in­tim­ately tied up with what you call ‘com­mu­nic­ative cap­it­alism’ that every at­tempt from the left to re-appropriate the term, to give it a more rad­ical meaning and to dis­tin­guish it from the elect­oral re­gimes of rep­res­ent­ative demo­cracy has to fail. This seems dif­fi­cult to ac­cept for many people on the left.
Jodi Dean (‘JD’): There are a couple of reasons why I take this po­s­i­tion. First, and most broadly, democracy is not a category of contestation anymore. Right and left agree on democracy and use a democratic rhetoric to justify their positions. George Bush claimed to be de­fending demo­cracy all over the world by bombing all sorts of people. If that is demo­cracy, then that is not a lan­guage that the left can use to formulate an egalitarian and emancipatory potential or hope. A second reason, which is a re­per­cus­sion of the first one, is that democracy is a kind of ambient milieu, it’s the air we breathe, everything is put in terms of democracy nowadays. And this relates to the third reason: the rhetoric of democracy is particularly strong now in the way in which it is combined with the form of cap­it­alism I call ‘communicative capitalism’, where ideals of inclusion and participation, of making one’s voice heard and one’s opinion known are also used by TMobile and Apple. Participation ends up being the answer to everything. If that’s the case, referring to it is not making a cut with our dominant frame, it’s just reinforcing it. If gov­ern­ments and cor­por­a­tions are en­cour­aging one to par­ti­cipate then left­ists don’t add one thing that’s not already present if they say that what we need is to make sure that everyone is par­ti­cip­ating and in­cluded?—?that’s already what we have. For the left to be able to make a break we have to speak a language that is not already the one we’re in.
BandC: This sounds primarily like a stra­tegic or polit­ical reason for shifting the focus away from demo­cracy. But is there really some­thing fun­da­ment­ally wrong on a the­or­et­ical level with the more rad­ical no­tion of democracy?
JD: What’s wrong with the notion of democracy as even radical democrats have appropriated it is that it leaves cap­it­alism in place. The assumption is that if we have enough demo­cracy the problem of cap­it­alism will either go away or solve it­self?—?and that’s clearly false. Take Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe: their idea of radical democracy is framed specifically to keep class from being a primary polit­ical de­term­in­a­tion. In the Frankfurt School tra­di­tion Habermas’s dis­tinc­tion between life-world and system leaves cap­it­alism un­touched. The same is true for the focus on civil so­ciety which leaves the mode of pro­duc­tion out of the frame. So the the­or­et­ical reason for my skep­ti­cism is that the left has moved away from an ana­lysis and cri­tique of capitalism
BandC: You refer to demo­cracy as a ‘neo­lib­eral fantasy’?—?could you ex­plain that no­tion a bit?
JD: The more neo-liberalism has entrenched itself the more we have been hearing this lan­guage of democracy, as if participation was going to solve all problems?—?but this is a fantasy be­cause the fun­da­mental truth is that it is not going to solve these prob­lems. Keeping all the activity in the demo­cratic sphere makes it seem as if people are busy, en­gaged etc. without ever af­fecting the basic struc­ture. It’s a fantasy be­cause it func­tions like a screen.
BandC: Building on this dia­gnosis, you in­tro­duce an al­tern­ative vocab­u­lary with the term ‘com­munism’ at its center?—?a dif­fi­cult term, one could say, if only for stra­tegic pur­poses given that it is widely re­garded as his­tor­ic­ally discredited.
JD: First, there has been the re­turn of com­munism in the the­or­et­ical dis­cus­sion that started with the con­fer­ences Slavoj Zizek and Alain Badiou have or­gan­ized. Hardt and Negri have been talking about com­munism for a long time already. It’s im­portant to re­turn to the lan­guage of com­munism be­cause that is the one word that says ‘no to cap­it­alism’. No matter what, if people say that they are com­munist, you know that they are against private prop­erty and the private own­er­ship of the means of pro­duc­tion and for the people’s con­trol over these means. There’s no nu­ance about their re­la­tion to cap­it­alism, and that’s what is im­portant. A third reason is that the right in the US still be­lieves in it, they are con­stantly at­tacking com­munism which means that they know that it is the lan­guage of anti-capitalism that ap­peals to some kind of eman­cip­atory egal­it­ari­anism. So I don’t think that com­munism is as dead as the left seems to as­sume. The right knows it’s alive.
BandC: This might of course be spe­cific to the US and a bit dif­ferent in Europe. But let’s turn to a more the­or­et­ical con­cern. We agree that the ana­lysis of cap­it­alism, and more gen­er­ally a Marxist per­spective on class so­ciety, is ab­so­lutely cru­cial and that this has been neg­lected or mar­gin­al­ized in a lot of radical-democratic thought. But on the other hand it seems that the return to com­munism, e.g. in the work of Badiou, is also in a prob­lem­atic way de­tached from a social-theoretical ana­lysis of so­ciety. The effect is that communism is understood in activist or voluntarist terms, as if we could just de­cide to es­tab­lish com­munism, whereas in the Marxist frame­work it was al­ways tied to both a socio-theoretical ana­lysis and to ex­isting eman­cip­atory move­ments. Does com­munism re­turn as utopia in­stead of real movement?
JD: I don’t think this de­tach­ment is so char­ac­ter­istic of the re­turn of com­munism. It’s true that Badiou lacks any ac­count of the eco­nomy, but David Harvey has a strong Marxist ana­lysis of the eco­nomy that re­cog­nizes changes, such as the emer­gence of new places of struggle and or­gan­iz­a­tion such as the city. So here there is a socio-economic an­chor and com­munism is not seen as free-floating. The same is true for Hardt and Negri, par­tic­u­larly in Empire their ac­count, which goes back to the whole post-autonomia dis­cus­sion and its ana­lysis of the so­cial factory, re­cog­nizes that there are socio-economic changes and move­ments that can still be ana­lyzed with vari­ations of Marxist cat­egories and provide a loc­a­tion for some kind of com­munist move­ment. Another ques­tion is whether there is an active, vivid communist movement right now. That would probably be far-fetched with regard to the US and Germany or the Netherlands?—?but look at other parts of the world such as Nepal and India or Greece. We go too quickly if we say that there is no social analysis or link with any real movements.
BandC: What about Occupy? Do you see a pos­sible link with the re­turn to com­munism or is it a demo­cratic movement?
JD: It’s a plural and open move­ment with mul­tiple tendencies.
BandC: That sounds like com­mu­nic­ative capitalism!
JD: You’re right, that’s a problem, and one of the views I often argue against is that Occupy is a ‘meme’ that jumped from the in­ternet onto the streets or that it’s primarily driven by so­cial media. I don’t think this is true. What made the move­ment work in the US was the re­la­tion to Wall Street, it wasn’t Occupy Capitol or Congress. That gives us the an­ti­cap­it­alist core that is the sub­stance of the move­ment even as all the other tend­en­cies some­times make us lose sight of that.
BandC: Can you say some­thing about the in­sti­tu­tional or or­gan­iz­a­tional struc­tures that the move­ment against cap­it­alism and for com­munism would have to have? You argue that we have to renew the idea of the party. Many will re­gard that with some skepticism!
JD: First on the idea of the party. Lukács is really great in his book Lenin: A Study on the Unicity of his Thought in re­cog­nizing that the party is a form for the ac­tu­ality of re­volu­tion, which means that it is a form that we need be­cause of the mul­ti­pli­city of people who be­come mo­bil­ized when a move­ment starts. Of course, they are going to bring all kinds of dif­ferent forms of con­scious­ness to the move­ment and that can easily be re­dir­ected and be­come a kind of pop­u­lism. So a party can be useful in trying to re­spond to this?—?not dog­mat­ic­ally but flex­ibly, trying to push and steer a little bit. But it should not and cannot get ahead of the people. It has to have a much more re­sponsive re­la­tion­ship to it, trying to direct in a re­sponsive way. So with re­gard to the first ques­tion I think that a party is ne­ces­sary and that we can re­cog­nize even in the old his­tory of Communist parties it was never as dog­matic, un­re­sponsive or rigid as the critics want us to think. Second, not a whole lot of people are ex­cited about the party idea; I’ll admit to that. But I think the ex­per­i­ence of Syriza can be made more in­spiring for people out­side of Greece. Because they see that there is a flex­ible left co­ali­tion that was able within four or five months to func­tion as a party and make real pro­gress. That would be different in the United States because we do not have a parliamentary system, so the incentives for the party form are not really there, which is a real problem. On the other hand, one of the experiences that has come out of ‘Occupy’ is that there needs to be a more explicit understanding of how leaders func­tion and arise so that leaders can be accountable and different people can move in and out of leadership positions, in an open, trans­parent and ac­count­able way. So I would hope that over the next year some more co­hesive or­gan­iz­a­tional form can emerge and I do not think that it hurts to call it a party.
BandC: Historically the role that Communist parties have played has often turned out to be anti-revolutionary not only with re­spect to e.g. the more an­archist cur­rents in these re­volu­tionary move­ments but also in other ways. One might think that the council system would be a good al­tern­ative to the party form in terms of or­gan­izing the movement.
JD: I don’t think that the party form is op­posed to coun­cils, cells or so­viets. In October, I was reading Lenin’s April Theses and thought that the gen­eral as­sem­blies of Occupy are a new form of so­viet. All of these are units in which a party can func­tion or which can be com­pon­ents of a party. They are not op­posed to each other. I think Anarchists are too re­ductive here be­cause they treat the party as some­thing on top rather than some­thing within: an or­gan­iz­a­tion of voices within a broader field. I think it is a mis­take to build up this dichotomy.
BandC: But there do seem to be his­tor­ical and so­ci­olo­gical reasons to be skeptical.
JD: There have been mul­tiple kinds of parties. Even in the Soviet Union the party changed over time. It went from being a re­volu­tionary party with mul­tiple splits to one that be­came less tol­erant of vocal op­pos­i­tion within it to one that was a ruling bur­eau­cratic party to a bur­eau­cratic party that would also purge it­self and change over time. People act like freaks when it comes to Communism and in­stall a nar­row­ness and a de­term­inism that would be ana­thema in any other in­tel­lec­tual dis­cus­sion. I think it is really time to get out of that Cold War men­tality that lets us re­duce everything to one kind of bur­eau­cratic Stalinist party as if that were the only thing that a Communist party ever was.
BandC: Let us come back to the Occupy Movement once more. Maybe you could elab­orate a little more on where you see the sig­ni­fic­ance of the movement.
JD: The most im­portant thing about Occupy Wall Street is that it let the Left recognize itself as a Left again instead of speaking in terms of all these different identity categories splitting the Left and saying ad nauseum that there is no Left and that no one can say ‘we’. With Occupy Wall Street we can fi­nally say ‘we’ again. It really was a situ­ation where the ques­tion was: ‘are you for or against Occupy Wall Street?’ And people from a wide variety of po­s­i­tions on the Left ended up having to say, ‘Yes, we are for it’. Even if their accept­ance was qualified or critical, that ‘for or against’ became a dividing line. Occupy is an event partly be­cause of its ability to in­scribe this kind of di­vi­sion so people have to say whether they are for or against it: ‘Are you one of us or not?’?—?even if the ‘us’ is amorphous, chan­ging and plural. But it was a really di­visive mo­ment in the very best pos­sible way. So first, its sig­ni­fic­ance lies in the way it gal­van­ized the Left. Naomi Klein said at the end of the first week of the oc­cu­pa­tion: ‘This is the most ex­citing thing in the world right now’, meaning for us in the US Left to have some­thing that was gal­van­izing and that was an opening. That is what I think of Occupy Wall Street as an evental form. I also think it is a polit­ical or­gan­iz­a­tion of the in­com­pat­ib­ility of cap­it­alism and demo­cracy. Its par­tic­ular form ties it to the con­tent of the gap between cap­it­alism and democracy.
BandC: One of the main cri­ti­cisms re­garding strategy that have been made is the ab­sence of an agenda or a set of demands.
JD: I was in the Demands Working Group, which died a really hor­rible death. It was about March and it was hor­rible to watch as it was painful and on­going. The problem of de­mands was ini­tially presented as if it wasn’t a problem but a choice: ‘We do not want to have demands because we are not addressing the state. Occupation is its own de­mand.’ But this was an unbelievably stupid thing to say because the reality was that the movement at its beginning was so inclusive and amorphous that it was not capable of making demands as a group. There was not enough of any kind of so­cial co­he­sion, any kind of common in­terest, from which de­mands could be for­mu­lated. Instead of ad­dressing that, the dis­cus­sion was formed around ‘de­mands are bad; any­body who wants us to make de­mands is trying to hi­jack the move­ment or elim­inate its potential.’
But what was also exciting about it initially was that not having demands created a space of desire so that the main­stream media and politicians went nuts. Everybody wanted to know: ‘What do they want?’ It was a wonderful proof of the truth of Lacanian theory’s ac­count of the gap of desire. There was this gap and it did incite a lot of enthusiasm and desire and that was good. It was ob­vi­ously not planned but there was an im­mense be­nefit to that open­ness. By early November, though, the demands group was frag­menting, the more lib­eral and in­de­pendent mem­bers would take everything that the rest said and would red-bait it and say: ‘You guys are com­mun­ists; this will never wash with the 99.’ And be­cause of the Anarchist prin­ciples of con­sensus that re­quired full or close to full agree­ment, they were able to block pro­posals nearly all the time. Other people were in the group con­stantly saying that the group should not exist and also blocking de­cisions. So that was a problem.
BandC: You said that Occupy en­abled the Left to say ‘we’ again. But isn’t one of the big achieve­ments of the his­tor­ical Left that it was al­ways wary of saying ‘we’ be­cause it was aware of the ex­clu­sions res­ulting from such a ‘we’? Is this aware­ness in­cor­por­ated into the move­ment and what are mech­an­isms ex­pressing it? How can we re­flect on these more prob­lem­atic as­pects of the ‘we’?
JD: First, there is a very concrete procedure for dealing with the potential problems of an exclusive ‘we’ that is called the ‘progressive stack’. If people want to speak in a general assembly they get ‘on stack’. The progressive stack makes sure that people who have not spoken and/or are from historically disadvantaged or marginalized groups are moved up in the stack. That makes it impossible for privileged people to take up all the speaking time. Most working groups also ad­opted this mech­anism. Secondly, there were multiple groups that were focused on women in the movement, racial differences, problems and issues for the undocumented etc. So there were par­tic­ular caucuses and working groups on these very topics. So there was always self-consciousness in the movement. The assump­tion that every­body just forgot fifty years of dif­fer­ence theory is ludicrous.

2nc
K
K prior
The driving course of the Filipino economy is nurses they train to send to other contries, a legacy of colonialism has drained their natural resources which locks them into a detrimental hierarchical relationship with other counties. This disproves their solvency and the necessity of placing class first in our analysis.
the right wing denies using race as their explanation for their adverse policies and codes their injustice in terms of economics, they say people have not been working hard enough. Putting calss at the forefront of our analysis is the best way to contest this framing
Reed, Pennsylvania political science professor, 2005
(Adolph, “The Real Divide”, November, http://progressive.org/mag_reed1105, ldg)
Race in this context becomes a cheap and safely predictable alternative to pressing a substantive critique of the sources of this horror in New Orleans and its likely outcomes. Granted, the images projected from the Superdome, the convention center, overpasses, and rooftops seemed to cry out a stark statement of racial inequality. But that’s partly because in the contemporary U.S., race is the most familiar language of inequality or injustice. It’s what we see partly because it’s what we’re accustomed to seeing, what we look for. As I argued in The Nation, class—as income, wealth, and access to material resources, including a safety net of social connections—was certainly a better predictor than race of who evacuated the city before the hurricane, who was able to survive the storm itself, who was warehoused in the Superdome or convention center or stuck without food and water on the parched overpasses, who is marooned in shelters in Houston or elsewhere, and whose interests will be factored into the reconstruction of the city, who will be able to return. New Orleans is a predominantly black city, and it is a largely poor city. The black population is disproportionately poor, and the poor population is disproportionately black. It is not surprising that those who were stranded and forgotten, probably those who died, were conspicuously black and poor. None of that, however, means that race—or even racism —is adequate as an explanation of those patterns of inequality. And race is especially useless as a basis on which to craft a politics that can effectively pursue social justice. Before the “yes, buts” begin, I am not claiming that systemic inequalities in the United States are not significantly racialized. The evidence of racial disparities is far too great for any sane or honest person to deny, and they largely emerge from a history of discrimination and racial injustice. Nor am I saying that we should overlook that fact in the interest of some idealized nonracial or post-racial politics. Let me be blunter than I’ve ever been in print about what I am saying: As a political strategy, exposing racism is wrongheaded and at best an utter waste of time. It is the political equivalent of an appendix: a useless vestige of an earlier evolutionary moment that’s usually innocuous but can flare up and become harmful. There are two reasons for this judgment. One is that the language of race and racism is too imprecise to describe effectively even how patterns of injustice and inequality are racialized in a post-Jim Crow world. “Racism” can cover everything from individual prejudice and bigotry, unself-conscious perception of racial stereotypes, concerted group action to exclude or subordinate, or the results of ostensibly neutral market forces. It can be a one-word description and explanation of patterns of unequal distribution of income and wealth, services and opportunities, police brutality, a stockbroker’s inability to get a cab, neighborhood dislocation and gentrification, poverty, unfair criticism of black or Latino athletes, or being denied admission to a boutique. Because the category is so porous, it doesn’t really explain anything. Indeed, it is an alternative to explanation. Exposing racism apparently makes those who do it feel good about themselves. Doing so is cathartic, though safely so, in the same way that proclaiming one’s patriotism is in other circles. It is a summary, concluding judgment rather than a preliminary to a concrete argument. It doesn’t allow for politically significant distinctions; in fact, as a strategy, exposing racism requires subordinating the discrete features of a political situation to the overarching goal of asserting the persistence and power of racism as an abstraction. This leads to the second reason for my harsh judgment. Many liberals gravitate to the language of racism not simply because it makes them feel righteous but also because it doesn’t carry any political warrant beyond exhorting people not to be racist. In fact, it often is exactly the opposite of a call to action. Such formulations as “racism is our national disease” or similar pieties imply that racism is a natural condition. Further, it implies that most whites inevitably and immutably oppose blacks and therefore can’t be expected to align with them around common political goals. This view dovetails nicely with Democrats’ contention that the only way to win elections is to reject a social justice agenda that is stigmatized by association with blacks and appeal to an upper-income white constituency concerned exclusively with issues like abortion rights and the deficit. Upper-status liberals are more likely to have relatively secure, rewarding jobs, access to health care, adequate housing, and prospects for providing for the kids’ education, and are much less likely to be in danger of seeing their nineteen-year-old go off to Iraq. They tend, therefore, to have a higher threshold of tolerance for political compromises in the name of electing this year’s sorry pro-corporate Democrat. Acknowledging racism—and, of course, being pro-choice—is one of the few ways many of them can distinguish themselves from their Republican co-workers and relatives. As the appendix analogy suggests, insistence on understanding inequality in racial terms is a vestige of an earlier political style. The race line persists partly out of habit and partly because it connects with the material interests of those who would be race relations technicians. In this sense, race is not an alternative to class. The tendency to insist on the primacy of race itself stems from a class perspective. For roughly a generation it seemed reasonable to expect that defining inequalities in racial terms would provoke some, albeit inadequate, remedial response from the federal government. But that’s no longer the case; nor has it been for quite some time. That approach presumed a federal government that was concerned at least not to appear racially unjust. Such a government no longer exists. A key marker of the right’s victory in national politics is that the discussion of race now largely serves as a way to reinforce a message to whites that the public sector is there merely to help some combination of black, poor, and loser. Liberals have legitimized this perspective through their own racial bad faith. For many whites, the discussion of race also reinforces the idea that cutting public spending is justifiably aimed at weaning a lazy black underclass off the dole or—in the supposedly benign, liberal Democratic version—teaching them “personal responsibility.” New Orleans is instructive. The right has a built-in counter to the racism charge by mobilizing all the scurrilous racial stereotypes that it has propagated to justify attacks on social protection and government responsibility all along. Only those who already  are inclined to believe that racism is the source of inequality accept that charge. For others, nasty victim-blaming narratives abound to explain away obvious racial disparities. What we must do, to pursue justice for displaced, impoverished New Orleanians as well as for the society as a whole, is to emphasize that their plight is a more extreme, condensed version of the precarious position of millions of Americans today, as more and more lose health care, bankruptcy protection, secure employment, afford¬able housing, civil liberties, and access to education. And their plight will be the future of many, many more people in this country once the bipartisan neoliberal consensus reduces government to a tool of corporations and the investor class alone.

The AFF can’t turn the k---
Collectivity---the AFF is structured by neoliberalism to be a private expression of agency that doesn’t undermine neoliberalism’s underlying structures-only calls for new collectivism can solve.
Giroux, McMaster university Chair in English and Cultural Studies, 2005
(Henry, “The Terror of Neoliberalism: Rethinking the Significance of Cultural Politics”, College Literature 32.1, proquest, ldg)
Neoliberalism has indeed become a broad-based political and cultural movement designed to obliterate public concerns and liquidate the welfare state, and make politics everywhere an exclusively market-driven project (Leys 2001). But neoliberalism does more than make the market "the informing principle of politics" (Duggan 2003, 34), while allocating wealth and resources to those who are most privileged by virtue of their class, race, and power. Its supporting political culture and pedagogical practices also put into play a social universe and cultural landscape that sustain a particularly barbaric notion of authoritarianism, set in motion under the combined power of a religious and market fundamentalism and anti-terrorism laws that suspend civil liberties, incarcerate disposable populations, and provide the security forces necessary for capital to destroy those spaces where democracy can be nourished. All the while, the landscape and soundscape become increasingly homogenized through the spectacle of flags waving from every flower box, car, truck, and house, encouraged and supplemented by jingoistic bravado being broadcast by Fox Television News and Clear Channel radio stations. As a cultural politics and a form of economic domination, neoliberalism tells a very limited story, one that is antithetical to nurturing democratic identities, values, public spaces, and institutions and thereby enables fascism to grow because it has no ethical language for recognizing politics outside of the realm of the market, for controlling market excesses, or for challenging the underlying tenets of a growing authoritarianism bolstered by the pretense of religious piety. Neoliberal ideology, on the one hand, pushes for the privatization of all non-commodified public spheres and the upward distribution of wealth. On the other hand, it supports policies that increasingly militarize facets of public space in order to secure the privileges and benefits of the corporate elite and ultra-rich. Neoliberalism does not merely produce economic inequality, iniquitous power relations, and a corrupt political system; it also promotes rigid exclusions from national citizenship and civic participation. As Lisa Duggan points out, "Neoliberalism cannot be abstracted from race and gender relations, or other cultural aspects of the body politic. Its legitimating discourse, social relations, and ideology are saturated with race, with gender, with sex, with religion, with ethnicity, and nationality" (2003, xvi). Neoliberalism comfortably aligns itself with various strands of neoconservative and religious fundamentalisms waging imperial wars abroad as well as at home against those groups and movements that threaten its authoritarian misreading of the meaning of freedom, security, and productiveness. Neoliberalism has to be understood and challenged as both an economic theory and a powerful public pedagogy and cultural politics. That is, it has to be named and critically understood before it can be critiqued. The commonsense assumptions that legitimate neoliberalism's alleged historical inevitability have to be unsettled and then engaged for the social damage they cause at all levels of human existence. Such a recognition suggests identifying and critically examining the most salient and powerful ideologies that inform and frame neoliberalism. It also suggests a need on the part of progressives to make cultural politics and the notion of public pedagogy central to the struggle against neoliberalism, particularly since education and culture now play such a prominent political and economic role in both securing consent and producing capital (Peters 2002). In fact, this implies as Susan Buck-Morss has insisted that "the recognition of cultural domination as just as important as, and perhaps even as the condition of possibility of, political and economic domination is a true 'advance' in our thinking" (2003, 103). Of course, this position is meant not to disavow economic and institutional struggles but to supplement them with a cultural politics that connects symbolic power and its pedagogical practices with material relations of power. Engaging the cultural politics and economics of neoliberalism also points to the need for progressives to analyze how neoliberal policies work at the level of everyday life through the language of privatization and the lived cultural forms of class, race, gender, youth, and ethnicity. Finally, such a project must employ a language of critique and possibility, engagement and hope as part of a broader project of viewing democracy as a site of intense struggle over matters of representation, participation, and shared power. Central to the critique of neoliberalism is the belief, as Alain Touraine argues, that neoliberal globalization has not "dissolved our capacity for political action" (2001, 2). Such action depends on the ability of various groups-the peace movement, the anti-corporate globalization movement, the human rights movement, the environmental justice movement-within and across national boundaries-to form alliances in which matters of community and solidarity provide a common symbolic space and multiple public spheres where norms are created, debated, and engaged as part of an attempt to develop a new political language, culture, and set of relations. Such efforts must be understood as part of a broader attempt not only to collectively struggle against domination, but also to defend all those social advances that strengthen democratic public spheres and services, demand new rights, establish modes of power sharing, and create notions of social justice adequate to imagining and sustaining democracy on a global level. Consider, for example, the anti-corporate globalization movement's slogan "Another World is Possible!" which demands, as Alex Callinicos insightfully points out, a different kind of social logic, a powerful sense of unity and solidarity. Another world-that is, a world based on different social logic, run according to different priorities from those that prevail today. It is easy enough to specify what the desiderata of such an alternative social logic would be-social justice, economic efficiency, environmental sustainability, and democracy-but much harder to spell out how a reproducible social system embodying these requirements could be built. And then there is the question of how to achieve it. Both these questions-What is the alternative to capitalism? What strategy can get us there?-can be answered in different ways. One thing the anti-capitalist movement is going to have to learn is how to argue through the differences that exist and will probably develop around such issues without undermining the very powerful sense of unity that has been one of the movement's most attractive qualities. (Callinicos 2003, 147) Callinicos's insight suggests that any viable struggle against neoliberal capitalism will have to rethink "the entire project of politics within the changed conditions of a global public sphere, and to do this democratically, as people who speak different political languages, but whose goals are nonetheless the same: global peace, economic justice, legal equality, democratic participation, individual freedom, mutual respect" (Buck-Morss 2003, 4-5). One of the most central tasks facing intellectuals, activists, educators, and others who believe in an inclusive and substantive democracy is the need to use theory to rethink the language and possibilities of politics as a way to imagine a future outside the powerful grip of neoliberalism and the impending authoritarianism that has a different story to tell about the future, one that reinvents the past in the image of the crude exercise of power and the unleashing of unimaginable human suffering. Critical reflection and social action in this discourse must acknowledge how the category of the global public sphere extends the space of politics beyond the boundaries of local resistance. Evidence of such actions can be found in the World Social Forums that took place in 2003 in Porto Alegre, Brazil and in Hyderabad, India in 2004. Successful forms of global dissent can also be observed in the international campaign to make AIDS drugs affordable for poor countries as well as in the international demonstrations against multinational corporations in cities from Melbourne and Seattle to Genoa and New York City. New alliances among intellectuals, students, labor unions, and environmentalists are taking place in the streets of Argentina, the West Bank, and in many other places fighting globalization from above. At the same time, a new language of agency and resistance is emerging among many activists and is being translated into new approaches to what it means to make the pedagogical more political as part of a global justice movement. Politics can no longer exclude matters of social and cultural learning and reproduction in the context of globalization or ignore the ways in which, as Imre Szeman asserts, globalization itself constitutes "a problem of and for pedagogy" (2002, 4). The slogan, "Another World is Possible!" reinforces the important political insight that one cannot act otherwise unless one can think otherwise, but acting otherwise demands a new politics in which it is recognized that global problems need global solutions along with global institutions, global modes of dissent, global intellectual collaboration, and global social movements. Sidebar Under the reign of neoliberalism with its growing commercialization of everyday life, the corporatization of higher education, the dismantling of the welfare state, the militarizing of public space, and the increasing privatization of the public sphere, it has become more difficult to address not only the complex nature of social agency and the importance of democratic public spheres, but also the fact that active and critical political agents have to be formed, educated, and socialized into the world of politics. Lacking a theoretical paradigm for linking learning to social change, existing political vocabularies appear increasingly powerless about how to theorize the crisis of political agency and political pessimism in the face of neoliberal assaults on all democratic public spheres. As the vast majority of citizens become detached from public forums that nourish social critique, political agency not only becomes a mockery of itself, it is replaced by market-based driven form of cultural politics in which private satisfactions replace social responsibilities and confessional culture become a substitute for systemic change. This paper argues that in the face of a virulent neoliberalism that spawns a vast educational propaganda machine, educators, cultural workers, and others need to rethink the entire project of politics within the changed conditions of a global political/pedagogical sphere. This article attempts to address the current crisis of meaning and political agency as a fundamental challenge to educators, public intellectuals, social movements, and others who believe in the promise of global democracy. In addressing this challenge, it argues that the urgency of the times demands a notion of global politics in which pedagogy, international alliances, and new forms of solidarity play a prominent role in the call for educators and others to be able to imagine otherwise in order to act otherwise.

Return of the Commonality---the starting point of blackness ontologically grounds identity which cannot create effective negativity---blackness is defined in opposition to whiteness which places white hegemony back at the forefront of our politics. This also fractures coalitions by beginning with difference instead of sameness.
Rectenwald 13 (Michael Rectenwald Ph.D Carnegie Mellon University- Literary and Cultural Studies, “From the Vampire Castle to Duck Dynasty: The Ideals of Identity Politics and How it Functions,” http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=11671)
I have no objection to this point, which has been presented as antithetical to my take on identity politics. Ironically, in an article otherwise respectful of differences, Red Maistre ends up lumping me in a category of those who draw from the work of Friedrich Nietzsche to attack identity politics. While I am no stranger to the work of Nietzsche, the notion that my critique of the politics of identity might, by association I suppose, draw from the work of Nietzsche, is ludicrous. My criticism of identity politics has nothing to do with Nietzsche’s (or anyone else’s) problem with “ressentiment” or “slave morality.” Nor do I associate subaltern identity or even identity politics with either slave morality or ressentiment. If anything, my view might be said to be a critique of identity politics for falling short of the necessary negation, for not having strong enough politics of ressentiment or negation, and rather than breaking down oppression, serving instead to reify the categories against which oppression is levied. My argument more likely draws from and is analogous to that made by Marx in his argument with the Young Hegelians in The German Ideology. Rather than a battle against religion, Marx argued, we should be engaging in a battle against the conditions that make religions necessary. That is, rather than fighting against concepts that constrain or oppress the subject’s thinking, self-image, or identity, we should be fighting against the conditions that make such concepts or ideations possible or necessary. The capitalist system has enormous capacities for reconstitution and accommodation, one day favoring this, the next that identity, and also for serving up opponents mobilized against each other in a Hobbesian war.
However, contrary to what Red Maistre asserts in his piece, my argument is not against identities per se, which would be a ridiculous notion on its face. Under existing conditions, subaltern identities exist and to suggest that they simply go away is tantamount to blaming people for their own oppression. As Red Maistre points out it also suggests that subalterns as such cannot fully participate in social life. Of course, that this is the case is also part of the reason that identity politics exists in the first place.
But my argument is against a politics of identity en se, a politics of identity as an end of politics, rather than as a part of an ultimate politics to overcome capitalism. My critique of identity politics is not that identities themselves must be “liquidated” before class politics can proceed apace (although I do maintain that identity represents a one-sided aspect of human potentiality and that it, like the division of labor and the class itself, must eventually be negated and overcome). Rather, my argument is that, in the meanwhile, and as stopgaps in class politics, or out of despair for the class struggle against capitalism, identities can and have been used by a politics of identity to keep class politics from even registering on the horizon of political visibility. This is not the same as suggesting that identity is ultimately an insubstantial façade that must give way in the name of class. This is to say that identity politics, that which suggests that some necessary connection subsists between class, politics and identity, can and has been used as part of diversionary tactics away from an ultimate negation of commodity relations, the class, and subordinated categories of all kinds. Identity politics obscures a commonality within difference, and elevates identity difference to a political meaning that it does not deserve. To say this is not some simple “class reductionism.” It is to descry the relations and operations of identity in connection with class, not to boil down identity into class as such. Identity, it notes, is resistant to such class subsumption. If anything, it recognizes identity at a structural level, more so than does identity politics itself.
While easy, the case of Barack Obama should prove illustrative of the problems with identity politics, but not merely as a person of color who is also a member of the ruling class. Rather than mobilizing the class as a representative of an oppressed and super-exploited group within that class, as the Obama narrative suggested, Obama has served as a decoy of identity, a decoy that has been used precisely to divert change potentiality into a Democratic Party cul de sac and away from substantial politics. That is to say, identity and its rhetorics have been deployed as a substitute for a politics that grasps such identities as partss of a broader class oppression and exploitation. As in many other cases, in the case of Obama, identity politics has elevated identity to supremacy in political meaning, serving as a trompe-l’œil by suggesting that “race” has a necessary political meaning. But “race,” like other identities, has no necessary political meaning. It is thus a faulty gauge for the politics of identity group members.
More broadly speaking, in fact, as Jonathan Munis and I argued after the second election of Obama, in the United States,
the immediate producers have always been divided across the two-party system, and thus disunited and rendered virtually inert… The Obama coalition, as official media dubs it, has successfully maintained a vice-like grip on ethnic minority workers, as well as organized white workers. Meanwhile, the Republican Party continues to disorient unorganized white workers and rural populations more generally, on “cultural” and purported “privilege” grounds… Meanwhile, appeals in the opposite direction are made to professional and educated white liberals, who are flattered and ingratiated for their “progressive” identity politics by Obama and the Democrats, and are likewise encouraged to malign their natural class counterparts among the white working-class Republicans. This combination of self-flattery, ingratiation and denigration is precisely aimed at ruling out cross-party politics and results in the cultural and political isolation of white workers currently atomized and co-opted by rightist nostalgic identity politics. In short, together, the Democrats and Republicans have engineered a remarkable division of the working class along the lines of identity politics, which is a relative evil for precisely this reason. (emphasis added)
That identity and cultural politics have been mobilized as a means to alienate and antagonize, to produce rifts and to engage in vilification, is easily demonstrable. The case of Duck Dynasty is only the latest installment in a long, disgusting tired litany of identity and cultural politics, which is nothing if not a gift to the ruling class as it works to put its own construction on the working class. Liberal and “progressive” politics feeds right into such efforts, albeit unwittingly. Such identity and cultural politics function to produce class as an identity (and as an abject identity at that), rather than showing it for what it is, a positionality within the relations of production. That’s right; class is not, at base, an identity, because there are no particular characteristics that attend to persons in the working class, and members of various identity groups can likewise occupy the working-class positionality. The working class is not an identity group; it is the occupation of a position of necessary subordination to and service of capital in the reproduction of capital and the alienation of the class from both the means and the ends of production. This cannot be said unequivocally for identities, which may migrate beyond the class, and seek to form alliances that are antithetical to the class’s interests, and thus to the politics of ultimate emancipation. This identity politics includes, of course, the efforts of the right to identify white workers with class interests antithetical to their own.
This broader outline of the function of identity politics has been necessary for descrying how it functions within the “left,” whatever that may be. The wider function of identity politics must be understood before any miniature politics — a mere a tempest within a teapot I might add — can make the slightest bit of sense. The animus or supposed “vampirism” of identity politickers on the left, which is sometimes directed at Marxists who critique it, derives from this broader source: the persecution of subaltern identities by rightists who are trained by capital relations to produce themselves as such, and are trained to produce the denigrated groups as such, as well. Similarly, the leftists are trained to produce themselves as such, and to produce their denigrated opponents as such, as well. To say that these parallel forms of identity production and denigration mirror the master slave dialectic is to state the obvious; nevertheless it is notable that the categories are mutually constitutive. And it should be clear that their negation as such, as denigrated categories that is, could never be accomplished on the basis of identity alone.

AT: Foot Noting
Identity critique has a built in half life; it’s impossible to privilege every identity group which requires prioritization of oppression or an infinitely regressive process of watching over watchers. The perpetual assessment machinizes identity without improving knowledge production or our relationships to alterity
Davis 1 (Lennard, is an internationally known specialist in disability studies, Distinguished Professor of English at the University of Illinois, “Identity Politics, Disability, and Culture,” Handbook of Disability Studies, Sage Publications. http://isc.temple.edu/neighbor/ds/read/identitypolitics.pdf)
The lack of attention paid to disability by those in the forefront of identity and multicultural studies dramatically shows that the Occam's razor, used to evaluate critical works ("Docs it focus on race, gender, or sexual orientation?") is a dull razor indeed. Rather, one can say that identity politics, as a method of literary analysis, will necessarily reflect the biases of its own time. While our consciousness of some selected and canonized identities has certainly been raised, the biases of those within the confines of the canon remain confirmed by their invisibility. Identity studies is no more perfect, value free, and objective than hermeneutics, structuralism, or any other applied discourse. Perhaps people of the future will be astounded, puzzled, and disturbed that works by scholars such as Eve Sedgewick, Judith Butler, Henry Louis Gates, bell hooks, and others managed to steer so completely away from any discussion of disability. I should make clear that my solution to the problem of identity is not inclusion of disability to the roster of favored identities. Rather, the point is that identity studies itself is limited in our time by the necessarily taxonomic peculiarity of its endeavor. Inclusiveness will not solve the problem. The list of identities will only grow larger, tied to an ever-expanding idea of inclusiveness. After all, when all identities are finally included in the roster, how can there be this particular kind of identity? If alterity is subsumed under the rubric of identity, then what can identity mean, particularly if this kind of cultural identity is somehow actually based on a binary opposition between self and other? Identity becomes so broad a category that it cannot contain identity. In other words, identity politics, while useful during the latter part of the twentieth century in securing civil rights for some disenfranchised groups, has by the twenty-first century reached a paradoxical resolution to a problem that started as a logical extension of a discussion about rights. It is Wendy Brown's (1995) point citing Foucault, that "the universal juridical ideal of liberalism," combined with "the normalizing principle of disciplinary regimes and taken up within the discourse of politicized identity," yields a new kind of subject "reiterative of regulatory, disciplinary society," which "ceaselessly characterizes, classifies, and specializes," working through "surveillance, continuous registration, perpetual assessment, and classification" and through a social machinery "that is both immense and minute" (p. 65). In other words, the classificatory and judgmental system inherent in an identity critique of novels will necessarily end up surveilling texts through an ever-expanding and therefore increasingly imprecise grid. This framework will therefore yield less and less information about more and more works and will become a system that explains everything, thus ultimately explaining nothing. For example, if the function of identity criticism has been to point out the sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, and so on in canonical texts, then this policing action will eventually turn in on itself. In this case, the ever-increasing trolling for missed identities or stereotypical characters will have to, by its own logic, begin to critique itself. Critics will then point to other critics who have failed to notice incidents of particular "isms." And so on. Likewise, identity critics can point favorably at other texts that exhibit positive images of oppressed identities. Finally, there is also the possibility of locating "resistant" texts that appeared in more oppressive periods but that managed to tactically and strategically pass muster of the dominant culture while offering transgressive and elusive readings that allowed certain collusive readers to find resistance to that dominant paradigm. That seems to be the extent of identity critique, and this kind of work seems to have a built-in half-life. How long can any particular critic perform this particular activity? What will be perpetually needed are new identities on the block to keep the process going, although methodologically not much new will be happening in that street game. To complicate this already complicated critique further, I want to point to the inability of identity politics to include disability under its tent in some way other than with second-class status. My point is to question the following: How effective is an antidiscriminatory stance, based on identity politics, when the watchman always needs to be watched? Another way of putting this point is that no coalition of identity-based activists or scholars will ever be able to avoid marginalizing and minoritizing some group. Bosnian mothers. East Timorese Christians, or Ethiopian Jews

Tournament: GSU | Round: 1 | Opponent: Samford KS | Judge: Russell

*1NC

1NC – NonViolence K

Insisting on law to constrain executive violence ignores the role it plays in constructing exceptionalism; this depolitisization of war powers can only be resisted by rejecting the politics of security

Neocleous 8 (Mark Professor of the Critique of Political Economy at Brunel University ("Critique of Security", McGill-Queen’s University, pp. 72-75, Published 2008))
But there is a wider argument to be made, one with political implications.
AND
to now refocus our attention more specifically on security as a political technology.

The 1AC’s securitization and obsession with American military dominance create a form of social relations that make extinction inevitable. Their knowledge production has been bankrupted by this system; and their epistemological underpinnings should be evaluated prior to the advantages.

Willson 13 (Brain, is a Ph.D New College San Fransisco, Humanities, JD, American University, "Developing Nonviolent Bioregional Revolutionary Strategies," http://www.brianwillson.com/developing-nonviolent-bioregional-revolutionary-strategies/)
Industrial civilization is on a collision course with life itself. Facilitating its collapse is
AND
locally reliant communities patterned on instructive models of historic Indigenous and Neolithic villages. 

Nonviolence is the only political act—the aff is worse than the conservative status quo  they critique because they actively empower it—try or die for an ethics of equality

May 7 (Todd May is Professor of Philosophy at Clemson University. He is the author of seven books of philosophy, most recently Gilles Deleuze: An Introduction (Cambridge, 2005) and The Philosophy of Foucault (Acumen, 2006), "Jacques Rancière and the Ethics of Equality," Project Muse)
In political action, the tapestry of this weaving together of cognitive and affective elements
AND
buried alongside other challenges to the pervasive and multifarious dominations of our world.

1NC Court Politics

Court will uphold treaty power in Bond now but it’s close.

Greve 2013
Michael S., professor at George Mason University School of Law, Straight Up, With Multiple Twists: Bond v. United States, January 21 2013, http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/01/21/straight-up-with-multiple-twists-bond-v-united-states/

In truth, you don’t have to read Missouri so broadly. The treaty at
AND
treaty law and its constitutional boundaries for many, many years to come.

Aff is a massive change – kills court capital and will be ignored by the President.

Devins 2010
Neal, Professor of Law at William and Mary, Talk Loudly and Carry a Small Stick: The Supreme Court and Enemy Combatants, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=102426context=facpubs

Without question, there are very real differences between the factual contexts of Kiyemba and
AND
practice during the Bush years, and it is the Court’s practice today.

Capital key is to uphold the Missouri precedent.

Spiro 2008
Peter J., Professor of Law, Temple University, Resurrecting Missouri v. Holland, Missouri Law Review http://law.missouri.edu/lawreview/files/2012/11/Spiro.pdf

At the same time that the international price of non-participation rises, a
AND
law on the states and at the risk of offending powerful international actors.

Key to the chemical industry – patchwork regulation.

ACC 2013
American Chemistry Council, leading chemical manufacturing industry trade group, BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/08_16_13-American-Chemistry-Council-Amicus-Brief_115164106_1.pdf

Like the federal statute considered by this Court in Gonzales v. Raich, 545
AND
the impairment of lawful interstate or international trade in chemicals for their beneficial uses

The chemical industry solves extinction

Baum 1999 (Rudy, C26EN Washington, MILLENNIUM SPECIAL REPORT, Volume 77, Number 49 CENEAR 77 49 pp.46-47, http://pubs.acs.org/cen/hotarticles/cenear/991206/7749spintro2.html)

Here is the fundamental challenge we face: The world’s growing and aging population must
AND
mysteries and provide for humanity’s basic and not-so-basic needs.

1NC Warfighting

The plan opens the US up to lawfare—-creates a chilling effect on operations
Cheng, Heritage Chinese political and security affairs research fellow, 2012
(Dean, "Winning Without Fighting: Chinese Legal Warfare", 5-21, lexis, ldg)
On the other hand, the proper conduct of armies and nations, especially in
AND
home and abroad, if military operations were seen as contravening legal standards.

That makes fighting terrorists, rouge states and proliferation impossible

Yoo 12 (John, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, "War Powers Belong to the President," http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/war_powers_belong_to_the_president)
A radical change in the system for making war might appease critics of presidential power
AND
time to introduce sweeping, untested changes in the way we make war.

Rogue states multiply and cause extinction

Johnson, Forbes contributor and Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, 2013
(Paul, "A Lesson For Rogue States", 5-8, http://www.forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2013/05/08/a-lesson-for-rogue-states/, ldg)
Although we live in a violent world, where an internal conflict such as the
AND
an eventual and monumental disaster that could be the end of us all.

1NC Executive Order

Text:

The Executive Branch should end President’s targeting killing policy involving drones strikes noting in a memo the reason is because it violates international law.

Executive orders avoid politics, have the force of law, and are rarely overturned

Cooper-prof public administration Portland State- 2 ~Phillip, By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action"  p.59

Executive orders are often used because they are quick, convenient, and relatively easy
AND
. President Kennedy’s executive order on that process specifically pro¬vides for orders generated elsewhere

1NC Drones Arms Race Advantage

Deterrence STILL checks – diplomatic costs

Singh 12 (Joseph Singh is a researcher at the Center for a New American Security. "Betting Against a Drone Arms Race," http://nation.time.com/2012/08/13/betting-against-a-drone-arms-race/)
Bold predictions of a coming drones arms race are all the rage since the uptake
AND
of 21st Century warfare remains fundamentally unaltered despite their arrival in large numbers.

No great power war – tech failure

Lewis 11 (Michael W. Lewis teaches international law and the law of war at Ohio Northern University School of Law. He is a former Navy fighter pilot and is the coauthor of "The War on Terror and the Laws of War: A Military Perspective." "Unfounded drone fears," http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/17/opinion/la-oe—lewis-drones-20111017)
Almost since the United States began using the unmanned aerial vehicles known as drones,
AND
by a foreign nation could be easily detected and either destroyed or captured.

Lack of technology means no drone war

Boyle 12 (Ashley, is an Adjunct Junior Fellow at the American Security Project, "The US and its UAVs: Addressing Legality and Overblown Scenarios," http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-us-and-its-uavs-addressing-legality-and-overblown-scenarios/)
While there is no question that the US has used drones, it is hardly
AND
alarmist messages about impending drone wars are just that: alarming and unfounded.

Norms fail – international manipulation

Lerner 13 (Ben, is Vice President for Government Relations at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. "Judging ’Drones’ From Afar," http://spectator.org/archives/2013/03/25/judging-drones-from-afar/1
Whatever the potential motivations for trying to codify international rules for using UAVs, such
AND
countries that already use UAVs responsibly, while empowering those that do not.

1NC I-Law Advantage

CIL can’t solve their impacts – vague and unpredictable.

Bradley and Gulati 2010
Curtis and Mitu, both professors of Law at Duke University, CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WITHDRAWAL RIGHTS IN AN AGE OF TREATIES DUKE JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE 26 INTERNATIONAL LAW ~Vol 21:30~ http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=293026context=faculty_scholarship

It is more difficult to ascertain the state of CIL in practice, but there
AND
but rather to the failure to adapt exit rights to the new system. 

Violations of international law don’t spillover – changing variables.

Brewster 2009
Rachel, Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Unpacking the State’s Reputation, Harvard International Law Journal VOLUME 50, NUMBER 2, SUMMER 2009 http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3353696/unpackingstatesrep.pdf?...

The second question addresses the informational content of specific violations of international law for predicting
AND
because the strategic situation is different, do not lead to reputational costs.

Just because we violate ilaw in one instance doesn’t mean it can’t solve their generic impact.

Ku 2009
Julian G., Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Faculty Development at Hofstra University School of Law, The Prospects for the Peaceful Co-Existence of Constitutional and International Law, the yale law journal online 119:15, http://www.yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/international-law/the-prospects-for-the-peaceful-co11existence-of-constitutional-and-international-law/

Supporting a dominant role for political branches in the interpretation of international law does not
AND
, so is every other kind of law that is not constitutional law. 

Status quo solves warming—-epa regs 
Baltimore Sun 12 ("EPA’s climatic victory" http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-epa-climate-20120627,0,7041174.story)
Tuesday’s victory by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in federal appeals court
AND
time Washington stopped bickering over global warming and started supporting the EPA’s efforts.

no extinction

Green 11 (Roedy, PHD from British Colombia, "Extinction of Man", http://mindprod.com/environment/extinction.html//umich-mp)
Mankind is embarking on a strange ecological experiment. Over a couple of centuries,
AND
result, but some people will survive. That is not complete extinction.

Technology solves water shortages

Selby 5 (Jan, professor at the University of Sussex and sits on the Department of International Relations and Politics.  March 1^st, 2005. Third World Quarterly. "The Geopolitics of Water in the Middle East: fantasies and realties" http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0143659042000339146)
In most popular political and also environmental discourse the Middle East’s water problems are usually
AND
powerless to modify either our material practices or ’’nature’’ according to human requirements’ 

Obsolescence of the Constitution means SCOTUS won’t be modeled.

Law and Versteeg 2012
David S., University of Washington St. Louis Professor of Law and PoliSci, and Mila, UVA Law Professor, The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution New York University Law Review, Vol. 87, 2012 http://whatthegovernmentcantdoforyou.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ssrn-id1923556.pdf

It is equally plausible, however, that responsibility for the declining appeal of American
AND
attention from the fact that the Constitution itself is an increasingly atypical document.

No one models the US system anymore.

Liptak 2012
Adam, New York Times, ’We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World
Sure, it is the nation’s founding document and sacred text. And it is
AND
adopted in 1982, may now be more influential than its American counterpart. 

Turn – backlash causes a chilling effect. Scalia proves.

Parrish 2007
Austen, STORM IN A TEACUP: THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S USE OF FOREIGN LAW Associate Professor of Law, Southwestern Law School. J.D. 1997, Columbia University; UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2007/2/Parrish.pdf

Yet it is consistent. Stripped of its rhetoric, the hostility towards citing foreign
AND
in transnational constitutional dialogue is a commendable goal, not an illegitimate one. 

*2NC

*XO

2NC Future Presidents Rollback

—-Fiat Solves—-A minimal interpretation of structural fiat would preserve the existence of the executive order, just like legislation or court decisions would survive elections or appointments. At best this is a question of implementation and enforcement.

—-Political barriers check – new, stronger constituencies

Branum-Associate Fulbright and Jaworski- 2
Tara L, Associate, Fulbright 26 Jaworski L.L.P, "President or King? The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders in Modern Day America" Journal of Legislation  28 J. Legis. 1

Congressmen and private citizens besiege the President with demands  ~*58~  that action be
AND
own peril. This is not the way it is supposed to be.

—-Future administrations rarely overturn previous executive orders

Washington Times  8/23/99
 "Clinton’s Executive Orders are Still Packing a Punch: Other Presidents Issued More, but His are Still Sweeping" Frank Murray  http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-55543736/clinton-s-executive-orders-still- are-packing-a-punch

Clearly, Mr. Clinton knew what some detractors do not: Presidential successors of
AND
still highly coveted and often revealed only in the obituary of its recipient. 

International Law

Executive order incorporation of international law has massive symbolic and legal importance for future policy and court action-solves better than the plan

Nachbar-prof law Virginia-11
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1967217
Executive Order 13567: Executive Branch Policy Meets International Law in the Evolution of the Domestic Law of Detention

Conclusion Neither the Order nor the accompanying Fact Sheet will have a major impact on
AND
it to the diplomats to debate whether that change should be welcomed.198

Executive Orders can effectively encourage judicial incorporation of international law

Nachbar-prof law Virginia-11
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1967217
Executive Order 13567: Executive Branch Policy Meets International Law in the Evolution of the Domestic Law of Detention

In the short term, neither the Order nor the President’s statement of adherence to
AND
in litigation in U.S. courts and in international legal circles.

2NC Perception-Public

The president is the focal point of American politics – everyone perceives executive action

Fitts-prof law, Penn-96 ~Michael, Professor of Law @ UPenn Law School, "The Paradox Of Power In The Modern State", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 827, Lexis~

I. The Presidency A. The Modern Presidency What is the nature of the
AND
is an important factor in his ability to effectively negotiate with Congress. 67

2NC Perception-International

Presidential action is perceived globally

Sunstein-prof law, Chicago- 95 ~Cass, Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence, University of Chicago Law School and Department of Political Science, "An Eighteenth Century Presidency in a Twenty-First Century World" Arkansas Law Review, 48 Ark. L. Rev. 1, Lexis~

With the emergence of the United States as a world power, the President’s foreign
AND
or during an interview, can have enormous consequences for the international community.

*DA

2NC Link

And, it’s the worst kind of lawfare, every attack will be contested with legality, creates a chilling effect 
Rivkin 7 (David B. Rivkin Jr. is a Washington lawyer who served in the Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, "Lawfare," http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117220137149816987.html)
There was a quixotic attempt to save Saddam Hussein’s life by asking a federal court
AND
against officials directing an ongoing armed conflict overseas reveals an unsettling policy agenda.

That causes a chilling effect on operations

Cheng, Heritage Chinese political and security affairs research fellow, 2012
(Dean, "Winning Without Fighting: Chinese Legal Warfare", 5-21, lexis, ldg)
On the other hand, the proper conduct of armies and nations, especially in
AND
home and abroad, if military operations were seen as contravening legal standards.

Lawfare flips the whole case—-collapses public and international support for the war, makes it impossible to exercise force

Rivkin 7 (David B. Rivkin Jr. is a Washington lawyer who served in the Justice Department in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, "Lawfare," http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117220137149816987.html)
The effect of this lawfare effort, were it successful, would be to make
AND
to winning the lawfare battle as the ground combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.

*Case-

Drone Prolif

Lack of GPS means no one uses them for waging war

Noreika 10 (J., Matt, Assistant @ Science Department – American Geophysical Union, "TOWARD UNMANNED POWER How a Revolution in Military Affairs i s Transforming the Way We Understand Warfare in the Twenty-First Century" http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/9388/Noreika2c20J20Matt20-20Spring202710.pdf?sequence=1)
Meanwhile, the United States had recently perfected the technological capacity to control UAS from
AND
the world with a military infrastructure truly capable of wielding global unmanned power.

No Compliance (Binding Ilaw fails)

Joyner 8 (Daniel, is an Associate Professor, University of Alabama School of Law, "JUS AD BELLUM IN THE AGE OF WMD PROLIFERATION," http://docs.law.gwu.edu/stdg/gwilr/PDFs/40-1/40-1-Joyner.pdf)
To argue that a deformalization of international use of force law¶ to produce a
AND
which efforts of domestic and international compliance¶ pressure may be focused.108

Deformalized norm creation is key—the alts hardline shift collapses cooperation; we preserve cooperation 
Joyner 8 (Daniel, is an Associate Professor, University of Alabama School of Law, "JUS AD BELLUM IN THE AGE OF WMD PROLIFERATION," http://docs.law.gwu.edu/stdg/gwilr/PDFs/40-1/40-1-Joyner.pdf)
The essential practical benefits of such a deformalization of¶ international use of force law
AND
likely to compel compliance, the moniker and¶ trappings of valid law.

*1NR – Court Politics

1NR Impact Overview – Court Politics

Chemical industry solves food

The Fertilizer Institute 9 ~Trade Group representing the fertilizer industry, "The U.S. Fertilizer Industry and Climate Change Policy," April 2 2009, http://www.kochfertilizer.com/pdf/TFI2009ClimateChange.pdf~~
Fertilizer nutrients – nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium – are all naturally occurring elements that
AND
disaster or substandard world harvest away from a full-scale food crisis.

—-Food shortages cause global violence and collapse civilization.

Brown 2009 
Lester R, founder of the Worldwatch Institute and the Earth Policy Institute "Can Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?" Scientific American, May
The biggest threat to global stability is the potential for food crises in poor countries
AND
states disintegrate, their fall will threaten the stability of global civilization itself. 

we strengthen foreign international law

Gordon et al 2013
Robert, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and Chancellor Kent Professor Emeritus of Law and Legal History at Yale Law School, BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE PROFESSORS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND LEGAL HISTORY IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/12-158bsacProfsIntlLawandLegalHistory-FINAL-ok-to-print.pdf

The history of the treaty power indicates that at various points in the nation’s history
AND
concern. Instead, the Court should leave settled precedent well enough alone.

And ruling for Bond kills the CWC and arms control

Graham et al 2013
Thomas, served as Special Representative of the President for Arms Control, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, senior negotiator at the CWC, writing with 9 other experts spanning academia, law, diplomacy, and the military, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION NEGOTIATORS AND EXPERTS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Amicus-Brief1.pdf

Finally, Congress recognized that national and international consistency in CWC implementing legislation had signi?cant
AND
432; Medellín, 552 U.S. at 1368–69.

1NR A2: Uniqueness

SCOTUS will likely rule against Bond now but the link controls the direction of uniqueness .

Bashman 2013
Howard J., nationally known attorney and appellate commentator, Looking Ahead: October Term 2013, Cato Supreme Court Review http://howappealing.law.com/BashmanCatoEssayFinal-091713.pdf

No lawyer worth his or her salt would ever advise a client to attempt to
AND
of federal prosecutors to treat Mrs. Bond’s bizarre offenses as federal crimes.

Roberts has capital now – ACA decision.

Rosen 2013
Jeff, Law Prof @ George Washington, Can the Judicial Branch be a Steward in a Polarized Democracy? https://www.amacad.org/publications/daedalus/spring2013/13_spring_daedalus_Rosen.pdf

Against this background of partisan divisions, many observers expected the Roberts Court to strike
AND
stake, the Chief Justice may occasionally break ranks with his conservative colleagues.

And its not about other decisions but DEFERENCE on war powers – your uniqueness arguments don’t apply

Entin 12 (Jonathan L. Entin Associate Dean for Academic Affairs (School of Law), David L. Brennan Professor of Law, and Professor of Political Science, Case Western Reserve University. "War Powers, Foreign Affairs, and the Courts: Some Institutional Considerations," http://law.case.edu/journals/JIL/Documents/45CaseWResJIntlL1262.21.Article.Entin.pdf) 

Although these procedural and jurisdictional barriers to judicial review can be overcome, those who
AND
challenges to the legality of the Vietnam War consistently rejected those challenges.80

1NR A2: Winners Win

Even if legitimacy is inevitable in the long term the link is enough to stop short term decisions.

Bazelon 2009
Emily Bazelon is a founding editor of Slate’s women’s Web site, DoubleX, and the Truman Capote law and media fellow at Yale Law School, Supreme Courtship, NYT Sunday Book Review, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/books/review/Bazelon-t.html?_r=0

That observation captures Friedman’s thesis about the influence of public opinion on the Supreme Court
AND
Obama’s rating of 51 percent, and Congress way behind at 31 percent.

1NR A2: Capital Doesn’t Trade Off

This theory is incorrect -courts will react if they perceive their popularity is in jeopardy

Clark 2009
Tom, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Emory, The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 53, No. 4, October 2009 http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~~tclark7/constitutional.pdf
This theoretical model and empirical analyses presented in this article provide a new interpretation of
AND
however, predicted by the public-Congress-Court interaction analyzed here.

The theory isn’t true for prez powers cases – extremely visible.

Curry 2006
Todd, PoliSci Master’s Thesis, THE ADJUDICATION OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT: A PREDICTIVE MODEL OF INDIVIDUAL JUSTICE VOTING, University of Central Florida Summer 2006

If the predominant theory of Supreme Court decision-making, the attitudinal model,
AND
power, there will be numerous hypotheses in order to test this theory.

1NR A2: No Link

Intervening in presidential powers during wartime decks court capital – gives a perception of siding with the enemy

Cole 2011 - Professor, Georgetown University Law Center (Winter, David, "WHERE LIBERTY LIES: CIVIL SOCIETY AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AFTER 9/11," 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, Lexis)

Indeed, a court concerned about conserving its own institutional power might be more likely
AND
push it in the direction of intervention, rather than deference or avoidance.

Institutional integrity is key to implementation and legitimacy overall – courts get unpopular when they have to take a side in exec/legislative disagreements

DiPaulo 2010 – assistant professor of constitutional law at Middle Tennessee State(Amanda, "Zones of Twilight, Wartime Presidential Powers and Federal Court Decision Making" Lexington Books, Google Books)

Institutional integrity is important for the courts because if the courts have the force of
AND
looking for agreement between Congress and the Executive and the Constitution is protected.

And the public will backlash to the plan and pay attention

Cillizza 2013
Chris, The American public loves drones, Washington Post, founder and editor of The Fix, a leading blog on state and national politics, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/06/the-american-public-loves-drones/

The ongoing debate between Congress and the White House over its use of drone strikes
AND
public has anything to do with it, drones are here to stay.

The link only goes one direction-Negative reactions to court decisions are more intense and last longer than positive ones.

Friedman-prof law NYU-05, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Professor of Law
AND
opinion and the Court regularly advise it to keep a low profile. n398

Tournament: GSU | Round: 5 | Opponent: Georgia DG | Judge: Miller
*1NC
1NC – T Hostilties
T – HOSTILITIES
“Hostilities” require an active exchange of fire with enemy force—the aff isn’t
Lee, U.S. Senator from Utah, and Koh, Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State and Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale, 6/28/2011
(Mike and Harold, Libya and War Powers, hearing of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, CQ Testimony, Lexis)
First question I'd like to ask you relates to the definition of -- of the
AND
history alone. And so they invited the executive branch to give clarification.

Vote neg for limits—any military policy involves the chance of conflict – this is the only clear standard
At best they’re extra topical which is still a reason to reject the team because it doesn’t affirm the resolution and gives the aff unpredictable advantage ground
1NC – T Restrictions
T – RESTRICTIONS
Restrictions are prohibitions on action—the aff is not
Schiedler-Brown ‘12
Jean, Attorney, Jean Schiedler-Brown and Associates, Appellant Brief of Randall Kinchloe v. States Dept of Health, Washington,  The Court of Appeals of the State of Washington, Division 1, http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A01/68642920Appellant20Randall20Kincheloe27s.pdf

3. The ordinary definition of the term "restrictions" also does not include
AND
some supervision conditions, but he did not agree to restrict his license.

Vote neg—for limits and coherence—there are hundreds of insignificant conditions congress could impose and the question of the resolution is what powers the president has, not how he must use them—they destroy clash and literature

1NC – NonViolence K
NON VIOLENCE
Insisting on law to constrain executive violence ignores the role it plays in constructing exceptionalism; this depolitisization of war powers can only be resisted by rejecting the politics of security  
Neocleous 8 (Mark Professor of the Critique of Political Economy at Brunel University (“Critique of Security”, McGill-Queen’s University, pp. 72-75, Published 2008))
But there is a wider argument to be made, one with political implications.
AND
to now refocus our attention more specifically on security as a political technology.
The 1AC’s securitization and obsession with American military dominance create a form of social relations that make extinction inevitable. Their knowledge production has been bankrupted by this system; and their epistemological underpinnings should be evaluated prior to the advantages.
Willson 13 (Brain, is a Ph.D New College San Fransisco, Humanities, JD, American University, “Developing Nonviolent Bioregional Revolutionary Strategies,” http://www.brianwillson.com/developing-nonviolent-bioregional-revolutionary-strategies/)
Industrial civilization is on a collision course with life itself. Facilitating its collapse is
AND
locally reliant communities patterned on instructive models of historic Indigenous and Neolithic villages.
Nonviolence is the only political act—the aff is worse than the conservative status quo  they critique because they actively empower it—try or die for an ethics of equality  
May 7 (Todd May is Professor of Philosophy at Clemson University. He is the author of seven books of philosophy, most recently Gilles Deleuze: An Introduction (Cambridge, 2005) and The Philosophy of Foucault (Acumen, 2006), “Jacques Rancière and the Ethics of Equality,” Project Muse)
In political action, the tapestry of this weaving together of cognitive and affective elements
AND
buried alongside other challenges to the pervasive and multifarious dominations of our world.

1NC – Court Capital DA
Court Capital
Court will uphold treaty power in Bond now but it’s close.
Greve 2013
Michael S., professor at George Mason University School of Law, Straight Up, With Multiple Twists: Bond v. United States, January 21 2013, http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/01/21/straight-up-with-multiple-twists-bond-v-united-states/

In truth, you don’t have to read Missouri so broadly. The treaty at
AND
treaty law and its constitutional boundaries for many, many years to come.
Aff is a massive change – kills court capital.
Devins 2010
Neal, Professor of Law at William and Mary, Talk Loudly and Carry a Small Stick: The Supreme Court and Enemy Combatants, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024andcontext=facpubs

Without question, there are very real differences between the factual contexts of Kiyemba and
AND
practice during the Bush years, and it is the Court's practice today.
Upholding Missouri v Holland is key to treaties but capital is key.
Spiro 2008
Peter J., Professor of Law, Temple University, Resurrecting Missouri v. Holland, Missouri Law Review http://law.missouri.edu/lawreview/files/2012/11/Spiro.pdf

Even with respect to the Children’s Rights Convention, the balance may change. At
AND
law on the states and at the risk of offending powerful international actors.
Treaties solve extinction
Koh and Smith 2003
Harold Hongju Koh, Professor of International Law, and Bernice Latrobe Smith, Yale Law School; Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, “FOREWORD: On American Exceptionalism,” May 2003, 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1479

Similarly, the oxymoronic concept of "imposed democracy" authorizes top-down regime
AND
the Middle East crisis, or the renewed nuclear militarization of North Korea. 

1NC – Warfighting DA
WARFIGHTING 

First link is Lawfare – creates a chillin effect on operations
Cheng, Heritage Chinese political and security affairs research fellow, 2012
(Dean, “Winning Without Fighting: Chinese Legal Warfare”, 5-21, lexis, ldg)
On the other hand, the proper conduct of armies and nations, especially in
AND
home and abroad, if military operations were seen as contravening legal standards.

Causes terrorism and rogue state proliferation
Yoo 12 (John, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, “War Powers Belong to the President,” http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/war_powers_belong_to_the_president)
A radical change in the system for making war might appease critics of presidential power
AND
time to introduce sweeping, untested changes in the way we make war.
Rogue states cause extinction
Johnson, Forbes contributor and Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, 2013
(Paul, “A Lesson For Rogue States”, 5-8, http://www.forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2013/05/08/a-lesson-for-rogue-states/, ldg)
Although we live in a violent world, where an internal conflict such as the
AND
an eventual and monumental disaster that could be the end of us all.
The second Link is the NAVY – their lawsuits compromise it
Cohen, National Center for Public Policy Research senior fellow, 2003
(Bonner, “Environmental Regulations Impede Pentagon Readiness”, http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2003/03/01/environmental-regulations-impede-pentagon-readiness, ldg)

Lawsuits brought by such groups as the Center for Biological Diversity and the Natural Resources
AND
argues, those decisions are best left in the hands of local commanders.

Nuclear war
England et al., former deputy secretary of defense, 2011
(Gordon, “The Necessity of U.S. Naval Power”, 7-11, http://gcaptain.com/necessity-u-s-naval-power?27784, ldg)

The future security environment underscores two broad security trends. First, international political realities
AND
is exactly what we will need to meet the challenges of the future.

1NC – Citizen Suit CP
CITIZEN SUIT COUNTERPLAN
The federal judiciary should determine that equitable relief be granted under the citizen suit provisions in federal environmental legislation. The federal judiciary should determine that environmental citizen suits are justiciable and in particular that global warming suits have standing.
That determination should not apply to the military.
It solves the case and avoids the disads
equitable relief ruling solves their citizen suit good advantage
Taylor 13 (1AC)
Archita, J.D., Seattle University School of Law, Lead Article Editor on the Seattle Journal of Environmental Law. Adopting the Principle of Equitable Relief in Clean Water Act Challenges, 5/13/13, http://www.sjel.org/vol3/adopting-the-principle-of-equitable-relief-in-cwa-challenges

I. Introduction Citizen groups have historically had a huge impact in affecting legislation and
AND
continue to play a major role in addressing environmental concerns in the future.

1NC Environment Advantage
ENVIRONMENT
The plan bankrupts the DOD .
Palatucci 04 (Scott M. Palatucci, 10 Widener L. Rev. 585, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CITIZEN SUITS IN PREVENTING THE ENVIRONMENT FROM BECOMING A CASUALTY OF WAR, http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/iilpp/EnvironmentalRoundtableResearchDocs/Palatucci20-20Effectiveness20of20Citizen.pdf)
The DOD has good reason to fear "citizen suits," not only because they
AND
than the DOD originally estimated to effectuate the same clean--up. n31

That undermines the Asian pivot – turns their East Asia impact
Barno and Bensahel 12
David Barno, Lieutenant General, Center for a New American Security Senior Advisor and Senior Fellow, Nora Bensahel, Ph.D., CNAS Deputy Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, 1/6/12, You Can't Have It All, www.cnas.org/node/7641
On Thursday, President Barack Obama and his top defense advisers unveiled new strategic guidance
AND
United States can continue to play the central role on the global stage.

--the Environmental impact to HOSTILITIES is uncertain and hard to quantify—this is their 1ac evidence with the tiny parts blown up
Cohan 3 (John Alan – J.D., Loyola Law School, “MODES OF WARFARE AND EVOLVING STANDARDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF WAR”, 2003, 15 Fla. J. Int'l L. 481, lexis)
A further problem is that predictions of the extent of damage to an environment are
AND
norms in opposition to military activities that cause direct or indirect environmental harm.

--They cant solve environmental damage from OTHER militaries—their evidence
Parsons 98 (Rymn James – Lieutenant Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy. Staff Judge Advocate to Commander, “The Fight to Save the Planet: U.S. Armed Forces, "Greenkeeping," and Enforcement of the Law Pertaining to Environmental Protection During Armed Conflict”, 1998, 10 Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev. 441, lexis)
Environmental damage occurs with any adverse, incremental change in the existing status of the
AND
despite advancing military technologies that promise a lessening of adverse environmental impact. n153

--The have ZERO internal link to biodiversity loss through species extinctions—battlefield environmental damage is site-specific, they have NO CLAIM that this wipes out entire species
--Alt causes to base kick out—again, this is their tiny text blown up
Scoville 6 (Ryan M. – Stanford Law School, “A Sociological Approach to the Negotiation of Military Base Agreements” 2006, 14 U. Miami Int'l and Comp. L. Rev. 1, lexis)
Over the past half century, the United States has relied on its overseas military
AND
and by helping to identify proactively local populations that will most require appeasement.

--No iran impact- US is not committed to the STRATEGY of containment-- AGAIN, their tiny text blown up
London 10 (Herbert – President Emeritus of Hudson Institute and Professor Emeritus of New York University, The Coming Crisis in the Middle East, Family Security Matters, 6/23,  http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_detailsandid=7101andpubType=HI_Opeds)
The gathering storm in the Middle East is gaining momentum. War clouds are on
AND
is not sustainable and one the Iranian leadership looks to with imperial exhilaration.

--Japan prolif inevitable- THEIR CARD,
Mauro 7 (Ryan – geopolitical analyst for Tactical Defense Concepts and for the Northeast Intelligence Network, founder of WorldThreats.com, national security advisor to the Christian Action Network, and an intelligence analyst with the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC), “The Consequences of Withdrawal from Iraq”, 5/7, http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=27)
Consequences in Asia American forces would be less able to block the shipment of drugs
AND
North Korea, South Korea, Japan, and possibly Taiwan and Australia.

No extinction from biodiversity
Easterbrook 3 (Gregg, senior fellow at the New Republic, “We're All Gonna Die!”, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=1andtopic=andtopic_set=)

If we're talking about doomsday - the end of human civilization - many scenarios simply
AND
as he was, wrote Remembrance of Things Past while lying in bed.
Adaptation solves environment
Ian Thompson et al. 9, Canadian Forest Service,  Brendan Mackey, The Australian National University, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment,  Steven McNulty, USDA Forest Service,  Alex Mosseler, Canadian Forest Service, 2009, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity “Forest Resilience, Biodiversity, and Climate Change” Convention on Biological Diversity
 While resilience can be attributed to many levels of organization of biodiversity, the genetic composition of species is the most fundamental. Molecular genet- ic diversity within a species, species diversity within a forested community, and community or ecosystem diversity across a landscape and bioregion represent expressions of biological diversity at different scales.
The basis of all expressions of biological diversity is the genotypic variation found in populations
AND
and generally ignore the ecological interactions that also govern species dis- tributions.
No Iranian escalation
Alcaro, European Foreign and Security Policy Studies research fellow, 2012
(Riccardo, “Avoiding the Unnecessary War. Myths and Reality of the West-Iran Nuclear Standoff”, March, online pdf, ldg)

There are at least three countries that might feel compelled to catch up with Iran
AND
international non-proliferation regime make a nuclear arms race an unlikely prospect. 

1NC Citizen Suit Advantage
CITIZEN SUIT
No extinction-from warming – empirically denied  
Carter et al., James Cook University adjunct research fellow, 2011
(Robert, “Surviving the Unpreceented Climate Change of the IPCC”, 3-8, http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/mar/8mar2011a5.html, ldg) 

On the other hand, they indicate that some biologists and climatologists have pointed out
AND
the fossil record indicates remarkable biotic resilience to wide amplitude fluctuations in climate.
Not try or die
Aikman, Australian correspondent, 2011
(Amos, “Climate forecasts 'exaggerated': Science journal”, 11-25, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/climate-forecasts-exaggerated-science-journal/story-e6frg8y6-1226205464958, DOA: 3-16-13, ldg)

DRAMATIC forecasts of global warming resulting from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide have been
AND
, the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought.

Status quo solves warming
Baltimore Sun 12 (“EPA's climatic victory” http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-epa-climate-20120627,0,7041174.story)
Tuesday's victory by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in federal appeals court
AND
time Washington stopped bickering over global warming and started supporting the EPA's efforts.
Even if it did, no extinction
Green 11 (Roedy, PHD from British Colombia, “Extinction of Man”, http://mindprod.com/environment/extinction.html//umich-mp)
Mankind is embarking on a strange ecological experiment. Over a couple of centuries,
AND
result, but some people will survive. That is not complete extinction.

Soft power doesn’t solve
Miller, Wilson Center distinguished scholar, 2013
(Aaron, “Speak No Evil”, 5-28, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/28/speak_no_evil_obama_drone_speech, ldg)

I'll take the word of those who argue that drones are the poster child for
AND
strikes or the closure of Gitmo is going to change any of that.

*2NC
*Court Politics
Key to the chemical industry – patchwork regulation.
ACC 2013
American Chemistry Council, leading chemical manufacturing industry trade group, BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE THE AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/08_16_13-American-Chemistry-Council-Amicus-Brief_115164106_1.pdf

Like the federal statute considered by this Court in Gonzales v. Raich, 545
AND
. chemical trade and investment could be constricted under even tighter export controls.

” Convention on Chemical Weapons: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Foreign
AND
the impairment of lawful interstate or international trade in chemicals for their beneficial uses
The chemical industry solves extinction
Baum 1999 (Rudy, CandEN Washington, MILLENNIUM SPECIAL REPORT, Volume 77, Number 49 CENEAR 77 49 pp.46-47, http://pubs.acs.org/cen/hotarticles/cenear/991206/7749spintro2.html)

Here is the fundamental challenge we face: The world's growing and aging population must
AND
mysteries and provide for humanity's basic and not-so-basic needs.

2NC – Bond Loses Now
SCOTUS will likely rule against Bond now but it’s uncertain.
Bashman 2013
Howard J., nationally known attorney and appellate commentator, Looking Ahead: October Term 2013, Cato Supreme Court Review http://howappealing.law.com/BashmanCatoEssayFinal-091713.pdf

No lawyer worth his or her salt would ever advise a client to attempt to
AND
of federal prosecutors to treat Mrs. Bond’s bizarre offenses as federal crimes.
2NC – Roberts PC High
Roberts has capital now – ACA decision.
Rosen 2013
Jeff, Law Prof @ George Washington, Can the Judicial Branch be a Steward in a Polarized Democracy? https://www.amacad.org/publications/daedalus/spring2013/13_spring_daedalus_Rosen.pdf

Against this background of partisan divisions, many observers expected the Roberts Court to strike
AND
stake, the Chief Justice may occasionally break ranks with his conservative colleagues.

Yes spill over
Will spillover and sets a precedent
Graham et al 2013
Thomas, served as Special Representative of the President for Arms Control, Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, senior negotiator at the CWC, writing with 9 other experts spanning academia, law, diplomacy, and the military, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION NEGOTIATORS AND EXPERTS IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Amicus-Brief1.pdf

Bond argues that failure to prosecute her individual case would not bring down any international
AND
exceptions, in future cases in the U.S. and abroad. 

2NC – War Powers Link
Intervening in presidential powers during wartime decks court capital – gives a perception of siding with the enemy
Cole 2011 - Professor, Georgetown University Law Center (Winter, David, “WHERE LIBERTY LIES: CIVIL SOCIETY AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AFTER 9/11,” 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, Lexis)

Indeed, a court concerned about conserving its own institutional power might be more likely
AND
push it in the direction of intervention, rather than deference or avoidance.
Institutional integrity is key to implementation and legitimacy overall – courts get unpopular when they have to take a side in exec/legislative disagreements
DiPaulo 2010 – assistant professor of constitutional law at Middle Tennessee State(Amanda, “Zones of Twilight, Wartime Presidential Powers and Federal Court Decision Making” Lexington Books, Google Books)

Institutional integrity is important for the courts because if the courts have the force of
AND
looking for agreement between Congress and the Executive and the Constitution is protected.

Breaking PQD kills court capital – lack of expertise
Litwak 2012
Brian, UNC JD Candidate “PUTTING CONSTITUTIONAL TEETH INTO A ¶ PAPER TIGER: HOW TO FIX THE WAR POWERS  RESOLUTION”, National Security Law Brief, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2012

The court’s exercise of the political question doctrine, excusing itself from deciding the differing
AND
in justifying the dismissal of ¶ claims made pursuant to the WPR.56

Bickering over foreign policy causes great power war
Haass 13 (Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations, “What is the effect of U.S. domestic political gridlock on international relations?” http://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-politics/effect-us-domestic-political-gridlock-international-relations/p30725) 

There is a well-known adage that politics stops at the water's edge,
AND
—one reason I titled my new book Foreign Policy Begins at Home.

AT: ideology
Unpopular decisions constrain future court decision making.
Clark 2009
Tom, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Emory, The Separation of Powers, Court Curbing, and Judicial Legitimacy, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 53, No. 4, October 2009 http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~tclark7/constitutional.pdf

This theoretical model and empirical analyses presented in this article provide a new interpretation of
AND
however, predicted by the public-Congress-Court interaction analyzed here.

*Citizen Suit Counterplan
2NC CP Solves
Warming suits rest on shaky ground – standing and political questions key
Guarino 11 -- Exec Editor @ Boston College Enviro Affairs Law Review, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP Associate (Katherine A., 2011, "NOTE: THE POWER OF ONE: CITIZEN SUITS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING," 38 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 125, L/N)

I. THE JUSTICIABILITY AND STANDING BARRIERS Since their inception, global warming suits have
AND
claims against greenhouse-gas-emitting companies for global warming injuries. n115
This card also says the CP solves
Courts model the plan and rule in favor of environmental citizen’s suits – forces US emissions reductions
Guarino 11 -- Exec Editor @ Boston College Enviro Affairs Law Review, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP Associate (Katherine A., 2011, "NOTE: THE POWER OF ONE: CITIZEN SUITS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING," 38 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 125, L/N)

IV. COMER V. MURPHY OIL USA: A TEST CASE FOR FUTURE GLOBAL
AND
choose the role they will play in defending the Earth from global warming.
*A2: Civil Suit Advantage
US Cheats Suits
No base kickout-elites always side with the US
Yeo, Catholic politics professor, 2010
(Andrew, “Anti-Base Movements in South Korea: Comparative Perspective on the Asia-Pacific”, http://www.japanfocus.org/-Andrew-Yeo/3373, ldg)

Although anti-base movements may successfully mobilize, as witnessed in Maehyangri and Pyeongtaek
AND
of base relocation for maintaining positive bilateral relations with the United States.24
No kickout SOFAs preempt application of the plan and the US just refuses pay even when it DOES lose suits—their card!
Weyand 12 (Matt –Executive Online Editor, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, “Department of Defense, Inc.: The DoD's Use of Corporate Strategies to Manage U.S. Overseas Military Bases”, 2012, 19 Ind. J. Global Leg. Stud. 391, lexis)
The United States also is able to usually avoid costs by contracting out of liability
AND
at the very least, a record of cleaning up after itself. n145

Congress Rollback
Congress will find a way to circumvent the aff
Palatucci 04 (Scott M. Palatucci, 10 Widener L. Rev. 585, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CITIZEN SUITS IN PREVENTING THE ENVIRONMENT FROM BECOMING A CASUALTY OF WAR, http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/iilpp/EnvironmentalRoundtableResearchDocs/Palatucci20-20Effectiveness20of20Citizen.pdf)
Citizen suit provisions are designed to hold the federal government accountable for the violation of
AND
the military did not give legislators enough time to consider their requests. n26

*1NR
*A2: Soft Power Impact
Soft power fails
Layne 2011
Christopher, Professor and Robert M Gates Chair in National Security in the George HW Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A and M University, “The unipolar exit: beyond the Pax Americana”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs,Volume 24, Number 2, June 2011
Curiously, Brooks and Wohlforth (and other analysts, notably Fareed Zakaria) believe
AND
Pax Americana is doomed to wither in the early twenty-first century.
US fails at shaping international norms and doesn’t want to – empirics.
Legro 2011
Jeffrey W., Randolph P Compton Professor at the University of Virginia, The mix that makes unipolarity: hegemonic purpose and international constraints, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 24, Number 2, June 2011
This record seems straightforward: the United States has only undertaken limited efforts to reshape
AND
puzzle of limited US ambition for the ten years before 9/11. 

*Warfighting
1NR A2: NEPA Flex
NEPA is overly cumbersome and permeates all department decisions
Lamar Smith, 7-17-2012, Congressman, represents the 21st Congressional District of Texas, Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over programs at NASA, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, “RAPID ACT,” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt596/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt596-pt1.pdf

III. PROJECT DELAYS DUE TO THE NEPA PROCESS It has long been alleged that
AND
1.9 million jobs through the 7 years of construction.’’ 37

1NR A2: Better Decisions
Court action is too slow AND encourages extreme position taking which hurts future foreign affairs cooperation
Entin 12 (Jonathan L. Entin Associate Dean for Academic Affairs (School of Law), David L. Brennan Professor of Law, and Professor of Political Science, Case Western Reserve University. “War Powers, Foreign Affairs, and the Courts: Some Institutional Considerations,” http://law.case.edu/journals/JIL/Documents/45CaseWResJIntlL1and2.21.Article.Entin.pdf) 

Whatever the merits of the decisions discussed in the previous section, those rulings should
AND
help, but events on the ground might well frustrate orderly judicial disposition.

PQD is to key to chain of command—plan destroys effective operations
Fenster et al., Mckenna Long and Aldridge LLP, 2010
(Herbert, Phillip Carter, “Brief Of The Veterans Of Foreign Wars Of The United States As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Defendants And Dismissal”, http://ccrjustice.org/files/Amicus_Curiae_Brief_of_VFW.pdf)

“Unity of command,” and its corollary, “unity of effort,” are fundamental principles of warfare which are central to the effectiveness of Western militaries. See Carl von Clausewitz, On War 200-210 (Michael Howard and Peter Paret, ed. and trans., Princeton University Press 1976) (1832) (hereinafter “Clausewitz”). There “is no higher and simpler law of strategy” than to apply this principle in order to concentrate a nation’s military power its adversaries’ “center of gravity.” Id. at 204. This principle was first embraced by the American military during the 19th Century, and has subsequently shaped the organizational structure of American warfighting through two world wars and countless other conflicts. See James F. Schnabel, History of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, Vol. 1 at 80-87 (1996); Russell F. Weigley, History of the United States Army at 422-423 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984). Unity of command requires the integration of all combat functions into a single organizational element, with command authority vested in a single individual. See U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub. 3-0, Joint Operations at Appx. A, p. A-2 (2010), available at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_0.pdf. The U.S. military implements “unity of command” through its chain of command—a hierarchical organizational structure which transmits command authority from the President through the Secretary of Defense, through subordinate military officers, down to the lowest ranking soldier, sailor, airman or Marine on the frontlines of America’s armed conflicts. This chain of command serves important organizational purposes, by vesting command authority in individual officers who are responsible for specific missions, and are empowered to command their personnel to achieve those missions. The chain of command also supports important normative and legal policy purposes, such as the doctrine of “command responsibility,” which renders battlefield commanders responsible for all their units do or fail to do, whether they knew about such conduct, or should have known about it. See Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 14-16 (1946); see also Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare at ¶ 501 (1956) (stating U.S. Army doctrine on “command responsibility”). “Everything in war is very simple,” Clausewitz noted “Everything in war is very simple,” Clausewitz noted, “but the simplest thing is difficult.” Clausewitz at 119. The dangers of war, the fatigue of close combat, and the uncertainty which lurks within the fog of war, all combine to create a kind of “friction” which impedes the progress of armies. Id. A more contemporary author and veteran describes this fog: For the common soldier, at least, war has the feel, the spiritual texture, of a great ghostly fog, thick and permanent. There is no clarity. Everything swirls. The old rules are no longer binding, the old truths no longer true. Right spills over into wrong. Order blends into chaos, love into hate, ugliness into beauty, law into anarchy, civility into savagery. The vapor sucks you in. You can’t tell where you are, or why you’re there, and the only certainty is overwhelming ambiguity . . . . You lose your sense of the definite, hence your sense of truth itself. Tim O’Brien, The Things They Carried 88 (1990). The military chain of command is designed to counteract this fog and friction of war, by providing clarity of orders and purpose to individual soldiers and their units. Similarly, this organizational structure exists to impose some order on the behavior and actions of soldiers and units, aligning their conduct with national goals, framing their actions in the context of strategic and operational campaigns, and focusing their efforts on the missions which support these broader endeavors. It is this structure which differentiates the armed forces of a nation from an armed group of thugs, and which ensures that national armed forces conduct themselves in accordance with the laws of armed conflict. Cf. Annex to the Convention, Hague Convention No. IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, art. 1, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2277, 205 Consol. T.S. 277; Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, art. 4, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, T.I.A.S. No. 3364. Our nation’s military personnel depend on their chain of command to provide them with certainty, clarity and authority in the heat of battle. Into this ordered system, Plaintiff wishes to inject the uncertainty of the American adversarial litigation process, by seeking, inter alia, that this Court declare there is no armed conflict in Yemen, and that orders issued by the President in response to that conflict should be enjoined. Not only would this force the court to go far beyond the “limited institutional competence of the judiciary” by involving it in sensitive matters of national security, cf. Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559, 576 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted), but this also would undermine the chain of command by literally interposing this Court between the President and his subordinate officers, thereby contravening the core doctrinal principle of “unity of command,” which has served American military forces in good stead since the Civil War. In asking the Court to hear this case, and to entertain the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief against the President and his cabinet, the Plaintiff is asking the court to overturn the political judgment of the President and Congress that the nation is at war; that this war is an armed conflict against Al Qaeda; and that it is appropriate to use a blend of military, intelligence and diplomatic force to wage this war. All three branches of Government have decided that “we are  at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.” Remarks of the President on National Security, May 21, 2009; see also Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”), Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001); Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 628-31 (2006). Political leaders from both political parties, over the course of two presidencies and five elected Congresses, have agreed upon, authorized, and appropriated funds for this war against Al Qaeda. It is a fundamental axiom among American strategists that, “as a nation, the United States wages war employing all instruments of national power – diplomatic, informational, military, and economic.” U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub. 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States at I-1 (2009), available at http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1.pdf. Plaintiff would seek to overturn the considered judgment of this nation’s political leaders in choosing the national strategy for this war, including the Attorney General of the United States, who has written that, in this war against Al Qaeda, “we must use every weapon at our disposal . . . including direct military action, military justice, intelligence, diplomacy, and civilian law enforcement.” See Letter from Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. to Sen. Mitch McConnell, February 3, 2010 (emphasis added). The relief requested by plaintiff is both extraordinary and inappropriate, and completely inconsistent with the strategic imperative for “unified action which ensures unity of effort focused on national objectives and leading to the conclusion of operations on terms favorable to the United States.” See Joint Pub. 1 at I-1.

1NR A2: Alliances Solve
its not a question of yes/no intervention, just a question of speed and effectiveness
Posner and Vermeule 11(Eric, Kirkland and Ellis Professor of Law, The University of Chicago, and Adrian, John H. Watson Professor of Law, Harvard Law School “DEMYSTIFYING SCHMITT,” http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/file/333-eap-Schmitt.pdf)
Schmitt believed that constitution-writing assemblies and legislatures cannot enact substantive laws that govern
AND
a response to the perceived threat, and hence have little practical effect.

*Naval Power DA  

1NR Impact Overview  

1. Magnitude-preventing great power is key to avoid extinction-it is not obsolete
   Dyer, University of London Military and Middle Eastern History PhD, 2006
   (Gwynne, War: the Lethal Custom, pg 1, ldg)

The only kind of international violence that worries most people in the developed countries is
AND
look forward to but the “nuclear winter” that closes the account.

2. Probability-naval power is key to reassure allies and maintain power projection-the alternative is hotspot escalation
Kagan, Carnegie senior associate, 2007
(Robert, “End of Dreams, Return of History” Policy Review, 2007, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html#n10, ldg)

This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal
AND
a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path. 

3, Navy is key to cooperation and containment of piracy-that’s England. Piracy collapses global trade and finances terror networks
Middleton, Chatham House Royal Institute of Economic Affairs consultant researcher, 2008
(Roger, “Piracy in Somalia”, October, http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Africa/1008piracysomalia.pdf, ldg)

Clearly a company whose cargo is prevented from reaching its destination on time will lose
AND
case scenarios rather than try to solve the problem once it has escalated.
Trade decline causes war-the impact is linear
Hillebrand, Kentucky diplomacy professor, 2010
(Evan, “Deglobalization Scenarios: Who Wins? Who Loses?”, Global Economy Journal, Volume 10, Issue 2, ebsco, ldg)

A long line of writers from Cruce (1623) to Kant (1797)
AND
for more fractious relations among states and the probability for interstate war rises.
Terrorism causes nuclear war
Speice, William and Mary JD, 2006
(Patrick, “Negligence And Nuclear Nonproliferation: Eliminating The Current Liability Barrier To Bilateral U.S.-Russian Nonproliferation Assistance Programs”, lexis, ldg)

The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups
AND
number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. n50
1NR Link
The plan would be catastrophic for readiness
NDM 2001
(National Defense Magazine, “Environmental Regulations Limit Training of U.S. Troops “, July, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2001/July/Pages/Environmental6997.aspx, ldg)

Such factors as urban sprawl, endangered species and regulatory restrictions on live-fire
AND
designed training exercises on our ranges and training areas designed for that purpose."
Plan compromises training that is key to Naval effectiveness
Young, former chair of the appropriations and defense committees, 2012
(Bill, “Representative Young Casts Another Vote to Protect Florida's Gulf Coast from Drilling”, States News Service, 7-25, lexis, ldg)

"I rise today to express my continued support for the restrictions placed on oil
AND
order to ensure that our military readiness and training capabilities are not compromised."
Plan compromises key Naval training-no replacement exists
Jackson, Emerald Coast Magazine writer, 2012
(Scott, “Is Offshore Drilling Affecting National Security?”, 11-17, atd.agranite.com/emerald-coast/living/national-security-affected-by-offshore-platforms/, ldg)

Beyond the wondrous vista of the shimmering and pristine coastal waters of the Gulf of
AND
hitting the water with the force of a minivan collision at 45 mph.
The plan would obliterate military training
Knickerbocker, CSM staff writer, 2001
(Brad, “Military readiness vs. the environment”, 10-4, http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1004/p13s1-usmi.html, ldg)

The controversy is likely to heat up, particularly as the armed services push for
AND
combat, really care about whether he's destroying some pristine wilderness or wetlands?

Plan will result in a mess of local case law and regulations that hamper effectiveness
Moxness, Harvard National Security Journal, 2011
(James, “Regulatory Obstacles to Military Operational Readiness” 10-13, http://harvardnsj.org/2011/10/regulatory-obstacles-to-military-operational-readiness/, ldg)

The U.S. Navy probably faces the most profound example of regulation threatening
AND
system where unclear legislation is allowed to have unforeseen and potentially grave consequences.
Military’s strategy relies upon using lands the plan takes away
Elwood, Nature Serve, 2008
(John, “One Way Street?”, http://www.dodbiodiversity.org/ch4/index_2.html, ldg)

Military demands for land and airspace have grown dramatically since World War II. A
AND
the degree of tolerance and/or level of annoyance that is tolerated.

Uniqueness – 2NC
Naval power is high but not guaranteed-question of capabilities not numbers
Schofield, “Assessing Navy's Strength Requires More Than Math”, 2012
(Matthew, “Assessing Navy's Strength Requires More Than Math”, 10-24, http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/10/24/tallying-navys-strength-requires-more-than-math.html, ldg)

James R. Holmes, an associate professor of strategy at the U.S
AND
this 20-year period will be viewed as a vacation from history."

Tournament: GSU | Round: 7 | Opponent: Harvard BS | Judge:
*1NC
1NC
Their wrong about the unitary executive-~--it has the unprecedented capability of taking information and processing it deescalate conflicts
Sulmasy, US Coast Guard Academy law faculty, 2009
(Glenn, “Anniversary Contributions: Use of Force: Executive Power: the Last Thirty Year”, 30 U. Pa. J. Intand#39;l L. 1355, lexis, ldg)
Since the attacks of 9/11, the original concerns noted by Hamilton,
AND
of the reality of executive power in the twenty-first century. n24

Modifying how we fight wars invites WMD terrorism prolif and rouge state aggression-~--speed is possible and ought to be embraced to solve conflict
Yoo 12 (John, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, “War Powers Belong to the President,” http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/war_powers_belong_to_the_president)
This time, President Obama has the Constitution about right. His exercise of war
AND
time to introduce sweeping, untested changes in the way we make war.

Extinction
Johnson, Forbes contributor and Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, 2013
(Paul, “A Lesson For Rogue States”, 5-8, http://www.forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2013/05/08/a-lesson-for-rogue-states/, ldg)
Although we live in a violent world, where an internal conflict such as the
AND
an eventual and monumental disaster that could be the end of us all.

Loss of mission effectiveness results in nuclear war in every hotspot
Kagan and O’Hanlon 7 Frederick, resident scholar at AEI and Michael, senior fellow in foreign policy at Brookings, “The Case for Larger Ground Forces”, April 2007, http://www.aei.org/files/2007/04/24/20070424_Kagan20070424.pdf
We live at a time when wars not only rage in nearly every region but
AND
Such a measure is not only prudent, it is also badly overdue.

Rejecting war collapses deterrence and risks nuclear war—ideological conflict assures escalation
Dipert 6 (Randall, PhD, Professor of Philosophy, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, “Preventive War and the Epistemological Dimension of the Morality of War,” https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/1291-dipert-preventive-war)
One might think that this principle would give little guidance in recommending anticipatory wars.
AND
. This is not a conclusion that I am especially happy with.45
Rule utilitarianism solves a war of ideology which is the only time when conflict devolves into atrocity, limits imperialism and solves blowback
Whitman 7 (Jeffery, Prof of Philosophy, Religion, and Classical Studies Susquehanna University, “Just War Theory and the War on Terrorism A Utilitarian Perspective,” http://www.mesharpe.com/PIN/05Whitman.pdf)
How might the rule-utilitarian perspective for just war theory helpfully inform the war
AND
is in relationship to criminal activity more generally. (2003, 168)

1NC
The affirmative has to defend the congress or the judiciary increase restrictions on the presidents war power authority
1.should means the debate is about USFG policy change
Ericson 2003 Jon M., Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts – California Polytechnic U., et al., The Debater’s Guide, Third Edition, p. 4
The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains
AND
compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose.
2. Resolved with a colon indicates policy
Army Officer School ’04 (5-12, “# 12, Punctuation – The Colon and Semicolon”, http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm)
The colon introduces the following: a. A list, but only after and#34;
AND
resolved:and#34; Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor.

Vote negative
1.Limits-~-- there are an infinite number of aff when you just have to mention the resolution and don’t have to defend it, limits explosion makes research impossible and destroys dialogue
Hanghoj 2008
Thorkild, researcher for the Danish Research Centre on Education and Advanced Media Materials, http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/phd_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf
Debate games are often based on pre-designed scenarios that include descriptions of issues
AND
dialogue as an end in itself” (Wegerif, 2006: 61).
-~--Specific, limited resolutions ensure mutual ground which is key to sustainable argumentative clash without sacrificing the potential for creativity or openness, crucial to decision making
Steinberg and Freeley 2008
Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp45-
Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a difference of
AND
particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.

Limits outweigh-~--unrestricted aff ground explodes research burdens to the point where our lives become over consumed by debate-~--topicality MUST be a voting issue-~--definition debates matter and affect us in everyday life  
Harris 13 (Scott, Kansas Debate God, “This Ballot,” http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/scott-harris-writes-long-ballot-for-ndt.html)
I understand that there has been some criticism of Northwestern’s strategy in this debate round
AND
are a real impact because I feel their impact in my everyday existence.
And, they are a prerequisite to debate
Ruth Lessl Shively, Assoc Prof Polisci at Texas AandM, 2000 Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 181-2
The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. The ambiguists must say and#34;no
AND
. In other words, contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony.
Dialogue is critical to education, well prepared 2 way exchanges are better than monologues
Morson 4 (Gary, Northwestern professor,  Bakhtinian Perspectives on Language, Literacy, and Learning “Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives,” pg 330-2)
A belief in truly dialogic ideological becoming would lead to schools that were quite different
AND
most important thing. What we must do is keep the conversation going. 

Generalities are not enough; Debating specific policies on both sides of the targeted killing debate is critical to make us better advocates against government violence—criticizing war without being willing to discuss actual policy details is a bankrupt strategy for social resistance.
--we can use these categories to critique them; simulation does not undercut our potential for critique
--have to roll-play the enemy to know their language and learn their strategies
Mellor 13 (Ewan E. Mellor – European University Institute, Why policy relevance is a moral necessity: Just war theory, impact, and UAVs, Paper Prepared for BISA Conference 2013, accessed: http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Drones_Targeted_Killing_Ethics_of_War)
This section of the paper considers more generally the need for just war theorists to
AND
the public engagement and political activism that are necessary for democratic politics.52

No offense, their critiques of debate miss the point -~-- Defending a topic that involves the state for the sake of deliberation is distinct from accepting it, and limiting out some arguments for the sake of that deliberation is a more productive discourse that solves the aff better
Talisse 2005 Robert, philosophy professor at Vanderbilt, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 31.4, “Deliberativist responses to activist challenges” *note: gendered language in this article refers to arguments made by two specific individuals in an article by Iris Young
These two serious activist challenges may be summarized as follows. First, the activist
AND
are distorting in important ways and that further discourse cannot remedy these distortions.
2. Switch Side Debate The forum of college debate is vitally important for creating effective forms of public deliberation necessary to challenge illegitimate national security policy-switch side debate is intrinsically linked to this process.
Kurr-Ph.D. student Communication, Penn State-9/5/13
Bridging Competitive Debate and Public Deliberation on Presidential War Powers
http://public.cedadebate.org/node/14
The second major function concerns the specific nature of deliberation over war powers. Given
AND
where deliberation was being stifled. As a result, debaters reinvigorate debate.
This doesn’t preclude finding personal meanings, having to research all sides allows you to maintain your ethical beliefs while also being able to advocate for them better
Zwarensteyn 2012
Ellen C., Masters Candidate in Communications at Grand Valley State University, High School Policy Debate as an Enduring Pathway to Political Education: Evaluating Possibilities for Political Learning, Masters Theses. Paper 35, http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/theses/35
As discussed previously, sources of political information matters to how politically pluralistic the general
AND
help establish empathy through seeing the humanity and credibility in one another’s arguments. 

The impact is an engaged citizenry which has the capacity and the will power to reign in the worst of ideological extremism  
Zwarensteyn 2012
Ellen C., Masters Candidate in Communications at Grand Valley State University, High School Policy Debate as an Enduring Pathway to Political Education: Evaluating Possibilities for Political Learning, Masters Theses. Paper 35, http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/theses/35
The background of many conversations relating to secondary education concerns the appropriateness of teaching politics
AND
, Beaumont, Ehrlich, and Corngold, 2007, p. 115).

This is empirically proven-~--Neal Katyal used training he got from switch side debate techniques to challenge post 9/11 combat definitions
English et al 2007
Eric English, Stephen Llano, Gordon R. Mitchell, Catherine E. Morrison, John Rief  and Carly Woods, Communications—University of Pittsburg “Debate as a Weapon of Mass Destruction,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Volume 4, Number 2, June, http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/EnglishDAWG.pdf
It is our position, however, that rather than acting as a cultural technology
AND
heirs to brand the  activity as a ‘‘weapon of mass destruction.’’
3.Policy expertise-~--refusing to confront military policy doesn’t make it go away; it just leaves its injustice unexamined; you can’t be concerned with the “silencing” of our framework argument when you don’t care about equality, researching direct policy prescriptions is key to effective scholarship  to reign in militarism
Mazur 5 (Diane H. Mazur is a Research Foundation Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law, “ARTICLE: A Blueprint for Law School Engagement with the Military,” Lexis)
Law schools have settled into a policy of aloof disengagement in matters concerning the military
AND
that any interaction with military personnel is inconsistent with a commitment to equality.

*2NC
AT: direction of the resolution
Reasonability is impossible it’s arbitrary and undermines research and preparation
Resnick, assistant professor of political science – Yeshiva University, ‘1
(Evan, “Defining Engagement,” Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 54, Iss. 2)
In matters of national security, establishing a clear definition of terms is a precondition
AND
and#34;engagement,and#34; they undermine the ability to build an effective foreign policy.
A course of action is key-only predictable reading of the resolution
Parcher 1 (Jeff, former Georgetown debate coach, February, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html)
(1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American
AND
or and#39;noand#39; - which, of course, are answers to a question.

AT: Government=The people
United States federal government refers to the three branches-~--
Black’s Law ‘90 (Dictionary, p. 695)
“Government In the United States, government consists of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in addition to administrative agencies.  In a broader sense, includes the federal government and all its agencies and bureaus, state and county governments, and city and township governments.”

Ext: English
This is empirically proven-~--Neal Katyal used training he got from switch side debate techniques to challenge post 9/11 combat definitions
English et al 2007
Eric English, Stephen Llano, Gordon R. Mitchell, Catherine E. Morrison, John Rief  and Carly Woods, Communications—University of Pittsburg “Debate as a Weapon of Mass Destruction,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Volume 4, Number 2, June, http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/EnglishDAWG.pdf
It is our position, however, that rather than acting as a cultural technology
AND
heirs to brand the  activity as a ‘‘weapon of mass destruction.’’ 

OV
They result in worse exclusion,  personal conviction over deliberative switch side models is the logic that all of their impact cards critique.  
Day 1966
Dennis, Assistant professor and director of forensics @ U. of Wisconsin, Madison, central states speech journal, “The Ethics of Democratic Debate” v17 p8
The ethic suggested here is similar to another ethical position which is widely accepted.  
AND
difficult to overcome because of the ego involvement that usually accompanies personal conviction.  

AT: Predicability Bad/Impossible
Predictability maintains meaningful politics and empathy even if somewhat rigid
Massaro 89 (Toni, Florida law professor, “Legal Storytelling: Empathy, Legal Storytelling, And The Rule Of Law: New Words, Old Wounds?”, August, 87 Mich. L. Rev. 2099, lexis)
Yet despite their acknowledgment that some ordering and rules are necessary, empathy proponents tend
AND
this sort of and#34;formalismand#34; provides actually may encourage human relationships. 60

SSD Impact-~--2NC 

-~--SSD allows us to TEST ideas and experiment with arguments-~--the static fixedness under their interpretation cannot result in the same educational benefits  
Koehle 2010
Joe, Phd candidate in communications at Kansas, former West Georgia debater, http://mccfblog.org/actr/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Koehle_Paper_ACTR-editedPDF.pdf.
Much like criticism of the sophists has persisted throughout time; criticism of switch side
AND
sense of self-reflexivity that is crucial to promoting tolerance and preventing dogmatism 

(Muir 287). Others have attempted to justify switch side debate in educational terms
AND
capable of making sound decisions (Mitchell, “Pedagogical Possibilities”, 41).  
  

*Warfighting 

1NR A2: Executive Ineffective  
Their uniqueness claim is wrong-institutions and the executive are effectively dealing with social acceleration now
GSN 2013
(Global Solutions Networkm “Global Problem Solving in an Era of Big Data”, http://gsnetworks.org/global-problem-solving-in-an-era-of-big-data, ldg)

With the right tools and the right training, global solution networks can also harness
AND
grips with the infrastructure and tools required to take advantage of big data.
The executive is currently making the world better and can fight war better even with an abundance of data – social acceleration is fine in the status quo
Cukier and Schönberger   et al., Economist data editor, 2013
(Kenneth, “The Rise of Big Data”, Foreign Affairs, May/June, ebsco, ldg)

Big data will have implications far beyond medicine and consumer goods: it will profoundly
AND
with its Data.gov website, and many other countries have followed.

1NR Link Debate
Speed key to stop 21st century threats-reacting is untenable  
Winter, former Navy secretary, 2011
(Donald, “Adapting to the Threat Dynamics of the 21st Century”, 9-15, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/adapting-to-the-threat-dynamics-of-the-21st-century, ldg)
In today’s vastly different situation, the U.S. needs to effectively prosecute
AND
was 70 years ago, able to hold off the adversary without us.

1NR A2: Theory False
More evidence unipolarity theory is true and academically sound
Wohlforth, government professor at Dartmouth, 2009 (William, “Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War”, World Politics, Volume 61, Number 1, January, project muse, ldg)

To most observers, moreover, satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the status quo among today’s
AND
inherently scarce, and competitions for status tend to be zero sum.9 

1NR A2: Katrina
People don’t respond to social acceleration in agency destroying ways-instead they try to better what they can-institutions have spare capacity now and they don’t try to order everything – the aff is already happening in the status quo and their criticism of the executive only undermines it
Schönberger , Oxford Internet Governance and Regulation professor, 2013
(Viktor, “Tackling Global Problems with Big Data”, 3-25, http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Meetings/Meeting20Transcripts/250313BigData.pdf, ldg)

First: more. That means we can collect and analyse far more data relative
AND
what – at a crucial moment and in time for us to act.

They are gonna say this approach to the world is bad-~--but it actually makes us less scared of uncertaintiy-stay the course
Cukier and Schönberger   et al., Economist data editor, 2013
(Kenneth, “The Rise of Big Data”, Foreign Affairs, May/June, ebsco, ldg)

The Internet has reshaped how humanity communicates. Big data is different: it marks
AND

all,and#34; to use the terminology of statistics -- the problem disappears.
Big data means we stop caring about linear styles of thinking while simultaneously making the world better alleviating the need for static political identity-it will change the way we think about politics
Cukier and Schönberger   et al., Economist data editor, 2013
(Kenneth, “The Rise of Big Data”, Foreign Affairs, May/June, ebsco, ldg)

Big data is poised to reshape the way we live, work, and think
AND
, and intellectual ambition -- since human ingenuity is the source of progress.

1NR A2: Blowback 

Hegemonic decline wouldn’t result in a decline of blowback, it is inevitable, only a question of subduing it through deterrence
Drezner, Tufts international politics professor, 2009
 (Daniel, “The False Hegemon”, 7-15, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21858, ldg)

The rest of the world certainly seems to treat America as the hegemonic power,
AND
causes everything, however, then the attempt at modesty will inevitably fail. 

No blowback and empirical studies show that the U.S. pacifies aggression
Brooks et al., Dartmouth government professor, 2013
(Stepehn, John and William, “Donand#39;t Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment”, International Security, 37.3, project muse, ldg)
A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far
AND
disengaged—even as it pushes cooperation toward U.S. preferences. 

 1NR A2: Endless War
No endless war – this argument is illogical
Gray 7—Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies and Professor of International Relations and Strategic Studies at the University of Reading, graduate of the Universities of Manchester and Oxford, Founder and Senior Associate to the National Institute for Public Policy, formerly with the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Hudson Institute (Colin, July, “The Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines: A Reconsideration”, http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ssi10561/ssi10561.pdf)

7. A policy that favors preventive warfare expresses a futile quest for absolute security
AND
strategy, though not always policy, must be nothing if not pragmatic.

1NR A2: War of Atrition 

And a continual war of attrition wouldn’t undermine the stability of hegemony – its stable in the face of counter-balancing forces
Brooks et al., Dartmouth government professor, 2013
(Stepehn, John and William, “Donand#39;t Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment”, International Security, 37.3, project muse, ldg)

Some advocates of retrenchment suggest that deep engagement in the security affairs of the worldand#39;s
AND
States is and#34;soft balancingand#34; other states all the time.43 F

or example, in 2011 Washington coordinated action with a number of Southeast Asian states
AND
taken only against the United States misses the forest for a few trees.

Tournament: GSU | Round: 7 | Opponent: Harvard BS | Judge:
*1NC
1NC
Their wrong about the unitary executive-~--it has the unprecedented capability of taking information and processing it deescalate conflicts
Sulmasy, US Coast Guard Academy law faculty, 2009
(Glenn, “Anniversary Contributions: Use of Force: Executive Power: the Last Thirty Year”, 30 U. Pa. J. Intand#39;l L. 1355, lexis, ldg)
Since the attacks of 9/11, the original concerns noted by Hamilton,
AND
of the reality of executive power in the twenty-first century. n24

Modifying how we fight wars invites WMD terrorism prolif and rouge state aggression-~--speed is possible and ought to be embraced to solve conflict
Yoo 12 (John, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, “War Powers Belong to the President,” http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/war_powers_belong_to_the_president)
This time, President Obama has the Constitution about right. His exercise of war
AND
time to introduce sweeping, untested changes in the way we make war.

Extinction
Johnson, Forbes contributor and Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, 2013
(Paul, “A Lesson For Rogue States”, 5-8, http://www.forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2013/05/08/a-lesson-for-rogue-states/, ldg)
Although we live in a violent world, where an internal conflict such as the
AND
an eventual and monumental disaster that could be the end of us all.

Loss of mission effectiveness results in nuclear war in every hotspot
Kagan and O’Hanlon 7 Frederick, resident scholar at AEI and Michael, senior fellow in foreign policy at Brookings, “The Case for Larger Ground Forces”, April 2007, http://www.aei.org/files/2007/04/24/20070424_Kagan20070424.pdf
We live at a time when wars not only rage in nearly every region but
AND
Such a measure is not only prudent, it is also badly overdue.

Rejecting war collapses deterrence and risks nuclear war—ideological conflict assures escalation
Dipert 6 (Randall, PhD, Professor of Philosophy, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, “Preventive War and the Epistemological Dimension of the Morality of War,” https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/1291-dipert-preventive-war)
One might think that this principle would give little guidance in recommending anticipatory wars.
AND
. This is not a conclusion that I am especially happy with.45
Rule utilitarianism solves a war of ideology which is the only time when conflict devolves into atrocity, limits imperialism and solves blowback
Whitman 7 (Jeffery, Prof of Philosophy, Religion, and Classical Studies Susquehanna University, “Just War Theory and the War on Terrorism A Utilitarian Perspective,” http://www.mesharpe.com/PIN/05Whitman.pdf)
How might the rule-utilitarian perspective for just war theory helpfully inform the war
AND
is in relationship to criminal activity more generally. (2003, 168)

1NC
The affirmative has to defend the congress or the judiciary increase restrictions on the presidents war power authority
1.should means the debate is about USFG policy change
Ericson 2003 Jon M., Dean Emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts – California Polytechnic U., et al., The Debater’s Guide, Third Edition, p. 4
The Proposition of Policy: Urging Future Action In policy propositions, each topic contains
AND
compelling reasons for an audience to perform the future action that you propose.
2. Resolved with a colon indicates policy
Army Officer School ’04 (5-12, “# 12, Punctuation – The Colon and Semicolon”, http://usawocc.army.mil/IMI/wg12.htm)
The colon introduces the following: a. A list, but only after and#34;
AND
resolved:and#34; Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor.

Vote negative
1.Limits-~-- there are an infinite number of aff when you just have to mention the resolution and don’t have to defend it, limits explosion makes research impossible and destroys dialogue
Hanghoj 2008
Thorkild, researcher for the Danish Research Centre on Education and Advanced Media Materials, http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/Files/Information_til/Studerende_ved_SDU/Din_uddannelse/phd_hum/afhandlinger/2009/ThorkilHanghoej.pdf
Debate games are often based on pre-designed scenarios that include descriptions of issues
AND
dialogue as an end in itself” (Wegerif, 2006: 61).
-~--Specific, limited resolutions ensure mutual ground which is key to sustainable argumentative clash without sacrificing the potential for creativity or openness, crucial to decision making
Steinberg and Freeley 2008
Austin J. Freeley is a Boston based attorney who focuses on criminal, personal injury and civil rights law, AND David L. Steinberg , Lecturer of Communication Studies @ U Miami, Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making pp45-
Debate is a means of settling differences, so there must be a difference of
AND
particular point of difference, which will be outlined in the following discussion.

Limits outweigh-~--unrestricted aff ground explodes research burdens to the point where our lives become over consumed by debate-~--topicality MUST be a voting issue-~--definition debates matter and affect us in everyday life  
Harris 13 (Scott, Kansas Debate God, “This Ballot,” http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/scott-harris-writes-long-ballot-for-ndt.html)
I understand that there has been some criticism of Northwestern’s strategy in this debate round
AND
are a real impact because I feel their impact in my everyday existence.
And, they are a prerequisite to debate
Ruth Lessl Shively, Assoc Prof Polisci at Texas AandM, 2000 Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 181-2
The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. The ambiguists must say and#34;no
AND
. In other words, contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony.
Dialogue is critical to education, well prepared 2 way exchanges are better than monologues
Morson 4 (Gary, Northwestern professor,  Bakhtinian Perspectives on Language, Literacy, and Learning “Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives,” pg 330-2)
A belief in truly dialogic ideological becoming would lead to schools that were quite different
AND
most important thing. What we must do is keep the conversation going. 

Generalities are not enough; Debating specific policies on both sides of the targeted killing debate is critical to make us better advocates against government violence—criticizing war without being willing to discuss actual policy details is a bankrupt strategy for social resistance.
--we can use these categories to critique them; simulation does not undercut our potential for critique
--have to roll-play the enemy to know their language and learn their strategies
Mellor 13 (Ewan E. Mellor – European University Institute, Why policy relevance is a moral necessity: Just war theory, impact, and UAVs, Paper Prepared for BISA Conference 2013, accessed: http://www.academia.edu/Documents/in/Drones_Targeted_Killing_Ethics_of_War)
This section of the paper considers more generally the need for just war theorists to
AND
the public engagement and political activism that are necessary for democratic politics.52

No offense, their critiques of debate miss the point -~-- Defending a topic that involves the state for the sake of deliberation is distinct from accepting it, and limiting out some arguments for the sake of that deliberation is a more productive discourse that solves the aff better
Talisse 2005 Robert, philosophy professor at Vanderbilt, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 31.4, “Deliberativist responses to activist challenges” *note: gendered language in this article refers to arguments made by two specific individuals in an article by Iris Young
These two serious activist challenges may be summarized as follows. First, the activist
AND
are distorting in important ways and that further discourse cannot remedy these distortions.
2. Switch Side Debate The forum of college debate is vitally important for creating effective forms of public deliberation necessary to challenge illegitimate national security policy-switch side debate is intrinsically linked to this process.
Kurr-Ph.D. student Communication, Penn State-9/5/13
Bridging Competitive Debate and Public Deliberation on Presidential War Powers
http://public.cedadebate.org/node/14
The second major function concerns the specific nature of deliberation over war powers. Given
AND
where deliberation was being stifled. As a result, debaters reinvigorate debate.
This doesn’t preclude finding personal meanings, having to research all sides allows you to maintain your ethical beliefs while also being able to advocate for them better
Zwarensteyn 2012
Ellen C., Masters Candidate in Communications at Grand Valley State University, High School Policy Debate as an Enduring Pathway to Political Education: Evaluating Possibilities for Political Learning, Masters Theses. Paper 35, http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/theses/35
As discussed previously, sources of political information matters to how politically pluralistic the general
AND
help establish empathy through seeing the humanity and credibility in one another’s arguments. 

The impact is an engaged citizenry which has the capacity and the will power to reign in the worst of ideological extremism  
Zwarensteyn 2012
Ellen C., Masters Candidate in Communications at Grand Valley State University, High School Policy Debate as an Enduring Pathway to Political Education: Evaluating Possibilities for Political Learning, Masters Theses. Paper 35, http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/theses/35
The background of many conversations relating to secondary education concerns the appropriateness of teaching politics
AND
, Beaumont, Ehrlich, and Corngold, 2007, p. 115).

This is empirically proven-~--Neal Katyal used training he got from switch side debate techniques to challenge post 9/11 combat definitions
English et al 2007
Eric English, Stephen Llano, Gordon R. Mitchell, Catherine E. Morrison, John Rief  and Carly Woods, Communications—University of Pittsburg “Debate as a Weapon of Mass Destruction,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Volume 4, Number 2, June, http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/EnglishDAWG.pdf
It is our position, however, that rather than acting as a cultural technology
AND
heirs to brand the  activity as a ‘‘weapon of mass destruction.’’
3.Policy expertise-~--refusing to confront military policy doesn’t make it go away; it just leaves its injustice unexamined; you can’t be concerned with the “silencing” of our framework argument when you don’t care about equality, researching direct policy prescriptions is key to effective scholarship  to reign in militarism
Mazur 5 (Diane H. Mazur is a Research Foundation Professor of Law, University of Florida Levin College of Law, “ARTICLE: A Blueprint for Law School Engagement with the Military,” Lexis)
Law schools have settled into a policy of aloof disengagement in matters concerning the military
AND
that any interaction with military personnel is inconsistent with a commitment to equality.

*2NC
AT: direction of the resolution
Reasonability is impossible it’s arbitrary and undermines research and preparation
Resnick, assistant professor of political science – Yeshiva University, ‘1
(Evan, “Defining Engagement,” Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 54, Iss. 2)
In matters of national security, establishing a clear definition of terms is a precondition
AND
and#34;engagement,and#34; they undermine the ability to build an effective foreign policy.
A course of action is key-only predictable reading of the resolution
Parcher 1 (Jeff, former Georgetown debate coach, February, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html)
(1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American
AND
or and#39;noand#39; - which, of course, are answers to a question.

AT: Government=The people
United States federal government refers to the three branches-~--
Black’s Law ‘90 (Dictionary, p. 695)
“Government In the United States, government consists of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in addition to administrative agencies.  In a broader sense, includes the federal government and all its agencies and bureaus, state and county governments, and city and township governments.”

Ext: English
This is empirically proven-~--Neal Katyal used training he got from switch side debate techniques to challenge post 9/11 combat definitions
English et al 2007
Eric English, Stephen Llano, Gordon R. Mitchell, Catherine E. Morrison, John Rief  and Carly Woods, Communications—University of Pittsburg “Debate as a Weapon of Mass Destruction,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, Volume 4, Number 2, June, http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/EnglishDAWG.pdf
It is our position, however, that rather than acting as a cultural technology
AND
heirs to brand the  activity as a ‘‘weapon of mass destruction.’’ 

OV
They result in worse exclusion,  personal conviction over deliberative switch side models is the logic that all of their impact cards critique.  
Day 1966
Dennis, Assistant professor and director of forensics @ U. of Wisconsin, Madison, central states speech journal, “The Ethics of Democratic Debate” v17 p8
The ethic suggested here is similar to another ethical position which is widely accepted.  
AND
difficult to overcome because of the ego involvement that usually accompanies personal conviction.  

AT: Predicability Bad/Impossible
Predictability maintains meaningful politics and empathy even if somewhat rigid
Massaro 89 (Toni, Florida law professor, “Legal Storytelling: Empathy, Legal Storytelling, And The Rule Of Law: New Words, Old Wounds?”, August, 87 Mich. L. Rev. 2099, lexis)
Yet despite their acknowledgment that some ordering and rules are necessary, empathy proponents tend
AND
this sort of and#34;formalismand#34; provides actually may encourage human relationships. 60

SSD Impact-~--2NC 

-~--SSD allows us to TEST ideas and experiment with arguments-~--the static fixedness under their interpretation cannot result in the same educational benefits  
Koehle 2010
Joe, Phd candidate in communications at Kansas, former West Georgia debater, http://mccfblog.org/actr/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Koehle_Paper_ACTR-editedPDF.pdf.
Much like criticism of the sophists has persisted throughout time; criticism of switch side
AND
sense of self-reflexivity that is crucial to promoting tolerance and preventing dogmatism 

(Muir 287). Others have attempted to justify switch side debate in educational terms
AND
capable of making sound decisions (Mitchell, “Pedagogical Possibilities”, 41).  
  

*Warfighting 

1NR A2: Executive Ineffective  
Their uniqueness claim is wrong-institutions and the executive are effectively dealing with social acceleration now
GSN 2013
(Global Solutions Networkm “Global Problem Solving in an Era of Big Data”, http://gsnetworks.org/global-problem-solving-in-an-era-of-big-data, ldg)

With the right tools and the right training, global solution networks can also harness
AND
grips with the infrastructure and tools required to take advantage of big data.
The executive is currently making the world better and can fight war better even with an abundance of data – social acceleration is fine in the status quo
Cukier and Schönberger   et al., Economist data editor, 2013
(Kenneth, “The Rise of Big Data”, Foreign Affairs, May/June, ebsco, ldg)

Big data will have implications far beyond medicine and consumer goods: it will profoundly
AND
with its Data.gov website, and many other countries have followed.

1NR Link Debate
Speed key to stop 21st century threats-reacting is untenable  
Winter, former Navy secretary, 2011
(Donald, “Adapting to the Threat Dynamics of the 21st Century”, 9-15, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/adapting-to-the-threat-dynamics-of-the-21st-century, ldg)
In today’s vastly different situation, the U.S. needs to effectively prosecute
AND
was 70 years ago, able to hold off the adversary without us.

1NR A2: Theory False
More evidence unipolarity theory is true and academically sound
Wohlforth, government professor at Dartmouth, 2009 (William, “Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War”, World Politics, Volume 61, Number 1, January, project muse, ldg)

To most observers, moreover, satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the status quo among today’s
AND
inherently scarce, and competitions for status tend to be zero sum.9 

1NR A2: Katrina
People don’t respond to social acceleration in agency destroying ways-instead they try to better what they can-institutions have spare capacity now and they don’t try to order everything – the aff is already happening in the status quo and their criticism of the executive only undermines it
Schönberger , Oxford Internet Governance and Regulation professor, 2013
(Viktor, “Tackling Global Problems with Big Data”, 3-25, http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Meetings/Meeting20Transcripts/250313BigData.pdf, ldg)

First: more. That means we can collect and analyse far more data relative
AND
what – at a crucial moment and in time for us to act.

They are gonna say this approach to the world is bad-~--but it actually makes us less scared of uncertaintiy-stay the course
Cukier and Schönberger   et al., Economist data editor, 2013
(Kenneth, “The Rise of Big Data”, Foreign Affairs, May/June, ebsco, ldg)

The Internet has reshaped how humanity communicates. Big data is different: it marks
AND

all,and#34; to use the terminology of statistics -- the problem disappears.
Big data means we stop caring about linear styles of thinking while simultaneously making the world better alleviating the need for static political identity-it will change the way we think about politics
Cukier and Schönberger   et al., Economist data editor, 2013
(Kenneth, “The Rise of Big Data”, Foreign Affairs, May/June, ebsco, ldg)

Big data is poised to reshape the way we live, work, and think
AND
, and intellectual ambition -- since human ingenuity is the source of progress.

1NR A2: Blowback 

Hegemonic decline wouldn’t result in a decline of blowback, it is inevitable, only a question of subduing it through deterrence
Drezner, Tufts international politics professor, 2009
 (Daniel, “The False Hegemon”, 7-15, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21858, ldg)

The rest of the world certainly seems to treat America as the hegemonic power,
AND
causes everything, however, then the attempt at modesty will inevitably fail. 

No blowback and empirical studies show that the U.S. pacifies aggression
Brooks et al., Dartmouth government professor, 2013
(Stepehn, John and William, “Donand#39;t Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment”, International Security, 37.3, project muse, ldg)
A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far
AND
disengaged—even as it pushes cooperation toward U.S. preferences. 

 1NR A2: Endless War
No endless war – this argument is illogical
Gray 7—Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies and Professor of International Relations and Strategic Studies at the University of Reading, graduate of the Universities of Manchester and Oxford, Founder and Senior Associate to the National Institute for Public Policy, formerly with the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the Hudson Institute (Colin, July, “The Implications of Preemptive and Preventive War Doctrines: A Reconsideration”, http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/ssi10561/ssi10561.pdf)

7. A policy that favors preventive warfare expresses a futile quest for absolute security
AND
strategy, though not always policy, must be nothing if not pragmatic.

1NR A2: War of Atrition 

And a continual war of attrition wouldn’t undermine the stability of hegemony – its stable in the face of counter-balancing forces
Brooks et al., Dartmouth government professor, 2013
(Stepehn, John and William, “Donand#39;t Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment”, International Security, 37.3, project muse, ldg)

Some advocates of retrenchment suggest that deep engagement in the security affairs of the worldand#39;s
AND
States is and#34;soft balancingand#34; other states all the time.43 F

or example, in 2011 Washington coordinated action with a number of Southeast Asian states
AND
taken only against the United States misses the forest for a few trees.

Tournament: Pitt RR | Round: 6 | Opponent: Cal MS | Judge: Warden
so we post docs