Tournament: india | Round: 1 | Opponent: minnesota mw | Judge: henning

The 1AC’s attempt to reign in the executive by placing faith in the law only serves to legalize the violent nature of the law itself

Smith 2 – prof of phil @ U of South Florida
(Thomas, International Studies Quarterly 46, The New Law of War: Legitimizing Hi-Tech and Infrastructural Violence)

The role of military lawyers in all this has, according to one study,
AND
and construed, hopes of rescuing law from politics will be dim indeed.

The impact outweighs—to tolerate violence to the slightest degree is to engender war as the solution to all problems—this frames all impacts and precludes socially just policymaking

Lawrence 9 (Grant, "Military Industrial "War" Consciousness Responsible for Economic and Social Collapse," OEN—OpEdNews, March 27)
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama-http://obama.senate.gov/ called Afghanistan-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_282001E28093present29 ’’the war we must win.
AND
will be forced to live the life our present war consciousness is creating.

Nonviolence is an existential and ethical imperative—militaristic mindsets are the driving force for all forms of conflict and environmental destruction

Burrowes 13—Fellowship of Reconciliation
(Robert, "Life on the Line: Can Humanity Survive?", http://forusa.org/blogs/robert-j-burrowes/life-line-can-humanity-survive/12483-http://forusa.org/blogs/robert-j-burrowes/life-line-can-humanity-survive/12483, dml)

As we approach the International Day of Nonviolence on October 2, which recognizes Mahatma
AND
damage human violence is doing to ourselves, each other and the Earth.
Despite his example, most of us are familiar with those horror lists that reveal the extent of our ongoing violence. Here is a sample just to refresh your memory.
Human beings spend 242,000,000,000 each day on military
AND
over 90 of the large fish in the ocean are already gone.
As polluters, humans are supreme: Eighty-one tons of mercury — the
AND
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and release radioactive contaminants into the environment too.
How serious is this? According to James Hansen and colleagues, ongoing burning of
AND
-Peer Science: The Century-Long Challenge to Respond to Fukushima.")
Can humanity survive? The odds are now stacked heavily against us: despite the
AND
inflict more violence upon us when we do find the courage to resist.
But there is good news too. The good news is that there are a lot of great people. And by "great people" I mean ordinary people like you and me who are willing to listen to the truth and then do something tangible to make a difference, sometimes by taking no risk at all and sometimes by taking a small, shared risk. So what can we do?

The alternative is a pedagogical commitment to non-violence—refuse the forced choice of the 1AC, interrogating the discursive frames through which its violence is justified is a prerequisite to any ethically tenable political action

Evans 13—Lecturer in the School of Politics and International Studies at the University of Leeds and Programme Director for International Relations ~the word "a" has been added for correct sentence structure and is denoted by brackets~
(Brad, "INAUGURAL STATEMENT", On Violence 1:1, 2-6, dml)

Violence is a complex phenomenon that defies neat description. It cannot be reduced to
AND
is the ethical problem that compels us to challenge all its multiple forms.
The concept of violence is not taken lightly here. Violence remains poorly understood if
AND
it eschews intellectual dogmatism with a commitment to the open possibilities in thought.
Hannah Arendt then was only partly correct when she famously contrasted violence with power.
AND
to destroy something that refuses to conform to the oppressive model/standard?
So rather than countering violence with a "purer violence" (discursive or otherwise
AND
beginning of a violence that amounts to a death sentence for critical thought.
Perhaps the most difficult task faced today is to avoid the false promises of violence
AND
-violently for the better, the fight for dignity is already lost.

The alternative raises a question that comes prior to aff impacts or solvency—voting negative injects epistemic doubt about militarism into our decision calculus which is the prerequisite to shifting away from violence as the solution

Neu 13—University of Brighton ~the word "livers" has been replaced with "lives"…  how do typos like that get through?~
(Michael, "The tragedy of justified war", International Relations 27(4) 461–480, dml)

Just war theory is not concerned with millions of starving people who could be saved
AND
and the moralistic attitudes that politicians and the media are capable of adopting.
To insist that, in the final analysis, the injustice of wars is completely
AND
justifiably let us assume, in the course of a ’just war’:
See, we did not bomb your toddler into pieces intentionally. You should also
AND
did not violate it.) Needless to say, we regret your loss.
This would be a deeply pathological thing to say, but it is precisely what at least some contemporary just war theorists would seem to advise. The monstrosity of some accounts of contemporary just war theory seems to derive from a combination of the degree of certainty with which moral judgements are offered and the ability to regard the moral case as closed once the judgements have been made.
One implication of my argument for just theorists is clear enough: they should critically
AND
the same grounds on which certain forms of pacifism are themselves grounded’.60
If this is correct, just war theorists have good reason to stop calling themselves by their name. They would no longer be just war theorists, but unjust war theorists, confronting politicians with a jus contra bellum, rather than offering them a jus ad bellum. Beyond being that, they would be much ’humbler in ~their~ approach to considering the justness of war’ (or, rather, the justifiability), acknowledging that:
notions of legitimate violence which appear so vivid and complete to the thinking individual are only moments and snapshots of a wider history concerning the different ways in which humans have ordered their arguments and practices of legitimate violence. Humility in this context does not mean weakness. It involves a concern with the implicit danger of adopting an arrogant approach to the problem of war.61
Binary thinking in just war theory is indeed arrogant, as is the failure to
AND
thing as a morally justified war that comes without ambiguity and moral remainders.
Any language of justified warfare must therefore be carefully drafted and constantly questioned. It
AND
fought and what the consequences of fighting or not fighting them will be.
Philosophers of war should also become more sensitive to the problem of political moralism.
AND
and structures, asking them: Who are you to make that claim?
A philosopher determined to go beyond the narrow discursive parameters provided by the contemporary just
AND
otherwise deprive themselves, today, of the possibility of not wronging tomorrow.

It’s try or die—the aff is a perfection of the military cooption of academic spaces—the role of the judge should be to dismantle the militarization of knowledge production—individual action is critical and the impact is extinction

BondGraham and Hell 3—PhD Sociology UC Santa Barbara AND UC Fiat Pax Research Project Group
(Darwin and Emily, "THE MILITARIZATION OF AMERICA’S UNIVERSITIES", http://santacruz.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/5/ucsc_demil.pdf-http://santacruz.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/5/ucsc_demil.pdf, dml)

The militarization of knowledge is found in its pure form in the university. Militarized
AND
world which find solutions in peace and organization, not violence and quantity.
Because universities are at the center of knowledge creation in our society, we find our institutions of higher learning imbued with violence. The militarization of universities leads to a spiraling effect further strengthening the forces of war.
Militarized universities produce: military technologies including – new weapons, warfare systems, ways
AND
war, the institutions of knowledge produce destruction at the expense of creation.
The technologies meant to banish war as unimaginabley destructive, and obsolete have only accomplished the former. New technologies meant to make war more humane, and conductable have only accomplished the latter.
TechnoWar 26 How the University Makes War Possible
The greatest effect the militarization of universities has had is by making war more conductable
AND
communications, advanced sensors, all intended to make the US soldier invulnerable.
Science in the service of warfare reinforces a political establishment more willing to use violence than diplomacy. US politicians become sure of their military’s capabilities to defeat the enemy, and to do so in a manner that the American public can accept. The population falls into a similar mindstate. The technological revolution to make war more effectively against the enemy leads us only to more war.
Does science, technology, and knowledge emanating from our universities produce an ethical and
AND
to make war more humane, and conductable have only accomplished the latter.
What is at Stake?
The future, and everything. The university takes its namesake from this fact.
AND
powerful attempt humanity has made to understand and re-make the world.
With this fact in mind there are two conclusions to be drawn from the militarization
AND
betrays the fundamental idealogical basis of the university which is progress through enlightenment.
In contrast, it can be said that the militarization of universities is a problem
AND
resistance, in peace, and toward the creation of a meaningful future.

Tournament: india | Round: 5 | Opponent: wayne bb | Judge: abelkop

Next off, the speciesism counter-method—

The 1AC is vocal in its criticism of the racial formations within contemporary politics—but fails to address the more structural question of anthropocentric oppression.  For example—if the black body is truly the locus of fungibility, how can the aff explain the inability of the slave master to eat the slave?  Questions like this are important—they reveal an underlying reliance on anthropocentric hierarchies within the 1AC’s emancipatory discourse.

Pugliese 13—Research Director, MMCCS @ Macquarie U
(Joseph, State Violence and the Execution of Law: Biopolitical Caesurae of Torture, Black Sites, Drones pg 44-45, dml)

In the course of her painstaking documentation of the scenes of violent subjection that mark
AND
non- negotiable claim to the human: they could not be eaten.

This is a question of starting points.  No perms—the aff has decided to forego an instrumental advocacy in favor of defending a speech act—their decision to shift the discussion to something more than a normative statement about what should happen must be met with a willingness to assign links to their speech act and what they didn’t bring up.  Vote for who has a better explanation for oppression—they say civil society’s founded on anti-blackness, we say it’s speciesism.

We’ll offer a counter-role of the ballot—write in the place of animals that die—the role of the ballot is to move towards a true political space which necessarily entails consideration of speciesism as prior

Collard 13—Geography Department at the University of British Columbia
(Rosemary-Claire, "Apocalypse Meow", Capitalism Nature Socialism, 24:1, 35-41, dml)

’’A true political space,’’ writes Swyngedouw (2010b, 194), ’’
AND
of animals that die seems a preferable, though still fraught, characterization.
This paper is therefore written in the place of those uncounted and unnamed non-
AND
neglects how these very subversions and exclusions are the order’s condition of being.

This is exceedingly relevant to the 1AC’s political project—our demand for the recognition of the non-human shatters the concepts of humanity that they criticize—their failure to interrogate speciesism makes their supposedly radical discourse suspect

Best No Date ~Steven, Chair of Philosophy at UT-EP, "Animal Rights and the New Enlightenment", http://www.drstevebest.org/AnimalRightsandtheNewEnlightenment.htm-http://www.drstevebest.org/AnimalRightsandtheNewEnlightenment.htm~~ 

Western society has made rapid moral progress since the 1960s. The student, black
AND
change; we must. The message of nature is evolve or die.

Tournament: india | Round: 1 | Opponent: minnesota mw | Judge: henning

CIRCUMVENTION!

Glennon 14—Professor of International Law, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University ~Trumanites="the network of several hundred high-level military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement officials within the Executive Branch who are responsible for national security policymaking"~
 (Michael, "National Security and Double Government", Harvard National Security Journal / Vol. 5, pg 1-114, dml)

The first set of potential remedies aspires to tone up Madisonian muscles one by one
AND
? What are the responsibilities not of the government but of the people?