Tournament: UTD | Round: 2 | Opponent: UCO VY | Judge: DiPiazza
Steven M. Wise, professor of animal law, harvard, Rattling the Cage, 1-2
Jerom died on … sicken and die.

PETA, “The Military’s War on Animals” http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-used-experimentation-factsheets/military-war-animals/
News reports tally … on innocent victims.

Vivisection requires an expulsion of test subjects from moral consideration, maintaining a human/animal divide that justifies all possible cruelty.
Danta 10 Chris, Senior Lecturer, Comparative Literature Studies, University of New South Wales, “The Metaphysical Cut: Darwin and Stevenson on Vivisection,” Victorian Review 36.2, 54-55
But there is … with other animals.

This produces a psychic numbing that makes understanding suffering of the other impossible, and leads to gratuitous violence.
Danta 10 Chris, Senior Lecturer, Comparative Literature Studies, University of New South Wales, “The Metaphysical Cut: Darwin and Stevenson on Vivisection,” Victorian Review 36.2, 57-59
For Stevenson, literature … weapons against itself.

Vote affirmative to restrict presidential war powers that authorize the use of force against nonhuman animals.

This is not only a matter of government policy: http://www.animalearn.org/dissection.php
Every year, millions …, the study of life.

We are complicit in the vivisection industry, and should use every opportunity to challenge it. To do otherwise is unethical.
Balls 99 Michael, professor, medical cell biology, nottingham “The biomedical sciences and the need for less-inhumane animal procedures,” Humane endpoints in animal experiments for biomedical research, p2
How a purpose …, in any way.

Absent the aff we can’t understand war, environmental collapse, or oppression.
Best 12 Steven, professor of philosophy at ut – el paso, co-founder of the institute for critical animal studies, banned from the uk, http://drstevebest.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/the-revolutionary-implications-of-animal-standpoint-theory-2/
While not widely … on this planet.

Tournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: ALL | Judge: ALL
Vote aff to affirm an understanding of war powers through the lens of warfare against non-human animals.

Vote affirmative to restrict war powers against nonhuman anmals.

War powers against non-human animals should be reduced. 

NO TEXT

Tournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: ALL | Judge: ALL
Vote aff to affirm an understanding of war powers through the lens of warfare against non-human animals.

Vote affirmative to restrict war powers against nonhuman anmals.

Tournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: ALL | Judge: ALL
Vote aff to affirm an understanding of war powers through the lens of warfare against non-human animals.

Vote affirmative to restrict war powers against nonhuman anmals.

Tournament: UNT | Round: 1 | Opponent: Kansas BC | Judge: Alex Martel
We are called to discuss war powers, but central to any possible discussion of the resolution is the structure of the exception: the distinction between declared war, undeclared war, and war so disavowed as to be unrecognizable as war.
The ability of the executive to create zones where violence is legitimate is based on the sovereign’s ability to exile people from the human community. This, however, is not a crime against their humanity, but an extension of the original exception: the unending war against nonhumans.
The backdrop of civil society is a relationship of total domination of humans over non-human animals. Democratic deliberation can never be progressive for the non-human animal as its existence is premised upon their exclusion. The impact to this relationship is beyond calculation as the cruelty exerted is beyond description.
Wadiwel 9 Dinesh, Adj researcher at Hawke Research Institute for Sustainable Societies Social Policy Research Group, “The War Against Animals: Domination, Law and Sovereignty” Griffith Law Review 18.2
How might we imagine friendship … in a much more significant way. 

Politics is dependent upon a double disavowal of animality – banning nonhumans from participation and separating political life from biological life and defining humanity as the former. Traditional politics can only function as interest convergence on behalf of humans, parasitic on the lives of nonhumans whose suffering provides the ground for human existence. The paradoxical task is to a radical democratization, but one that rejects the coordinates of any existing political structure. We should not include nonhuman animals, but abolish humanity.
Wadiwel 8 Dinesh, Adj researcher at Hawke Research Institute for Sustainable Societies Social Policy Research Group “Three Fragments from a Biopolitical History of Animals: Questions of Body, Soul, and the Body Politic in Homer, Plato, and Aristotle” Journal for Critical Animal Studies, 6.1
Not only does … anatomically “human” or “animal.” 

Use the ballot to affirm that we are in a war zone. Nonhuman animals can make demands on us, but a prerequisite to true engagement is a laying down of arms, a negation of human sovereignty that opens up the space for animal sovereignties. This ruptures the Western tradition’s logic of exception – the failure to prioritize animal sovereignty as a new means of politics means deliberation will always be violent.
Wadiwel 9 Dinesh, Adj researcher at Hawke Research Institute for Sustainable Societies Social Policy Research Group, “The War Against Animals: Domination, Law and Sovereignty” Griffith Law Review 18.2
Sovereignty has the power … to a fundamental dehumanisation 

This is prior to any discussion of specific war powers.
Kochi 9 Tarik, senior lecturer in law, sussex, “Species War: Law, Violence and Animals,” Law, Culture and the Humanities 5, 353-356
In everyday speech, in … its possible re-inclusion.