Tournament: UNT | Round: Doubles | Opponent: UCO | Judge: NA
Deploying Red Pedagogy in the academic setting is inherently Western and discounts worldviews outside of university.
Beauline-Sterling 12—Rebecca, MA student at York University, A review of Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought by Sandy Grande, NeoAmericanist Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring/Summer, http://www.neoamericanist.org/review/red-pedagogy, Shree
I certainly appreciate…of that relation.

Red Ped trades off with indigenous knowledge – turns the case.
Calderón 6—Dolores, J.D., is a PhD Candidate at UCLA’s Graduate School of Education and Information Studies with a specialization in race and ethnic studies, Review: Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought by Sandy Grande, InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3qp8c635, Shree
The manner in…for tribal sovereignty.

The indígena ignores tribe-specific ontologies and cosmologies.
Calderón 6—Dolores, J.D., is a PhD Candidate at UCLA’s Graduate School of Education and Information Studies with a specialization in race and ethnic studies, Review: Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought by Sandy Grande, InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies Volume 2, Issue 1, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3qp8c635, Shree
Furthermore, Grande’s notion…geographies and cosmologies.

Emphasis on local knowledge breeds antagonisms between teachers and students – leads to resistance which turns solvency.
Pace and Hemmings 7—Judith L., associate professor in the School of Education at the University of San Francisco and Annette, professor of educational studies at the University of Cincinnati, Understanding Authority in Classrooms: A Review of Theory, Ideology, and Research, REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH vol. 77 no. 1, March, p. 4-27, SAGE, Shree
Although these scholars…and fuels resistance.

Tournament: UTD | Round: 7 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
The 1AC’s leaves out the war on the nonhuman. Every year, billions of nonhumans are slaughtered by humans. They are captured, detained, tortured and killed for consumption. This violence is rendered invisible by their normative understanding of war that excuses the violence against the non-human as legitimate.
Kochi 9 – Sussex Law School, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK (Tarik, “Species War: Law, Violence and Animals,” SAGE Journals)
7. The idea that…Animals ( London: Routledge, 2000).

Anthropocentrism is THE original hierarchy – turns case.
Best 7 (Steven, Chair of Philosophy at UT-EP, JCAS 5.2)
While a welcome…Christianity left behind.

Only accepting global suicide can solve.
Kochi and Ordan 8 – Lecturer in Law and International Security at the U of Sussex, and *Research in Translation Studies at Bar Ilan U, (Tarik and Noam, “An argument for the global suicide of humanity” borderlands”, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6981/is_3_7/ai_n31524968/
The move towards…the non-human world.

Tournament: UNVL | Round: 1 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
The 1AC exemplifies human chauvinism: formulating our ethics around minimizing death/suffering is informed by a nature-loathing philosophy.
Callicott 89 (J Baird, Prof of Phil @ U of Wisconsin—Steven’s Point, In Defense of Land Ethics)
The "shift of…ethic were implemented.

Anthro allows the destruction of all forms of being by allowing it to be reengineered for human purposes.
Lee 99 (Keekok, Visiting Chair in Philosophy at Lancaster University, The Natural and the Artefactual)
To appreciate this…ontology precedes axiology.

Your impact calculus should transcend human value: the alternative is to vote negative to endorse an eco-centric ethic that sees the universe as having intrinsic value independent of humanity.
Lee 99 (Keekok, Visiting Chair in Philosophy at Lancaster University, The Natural and the Artefactual, 1999)
We should not…around or not.

Tournament: UNLV | Round: 1 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
Apocalyptic predictions make serial policy failure and rushing into things inevitable
Kurasawa 4 – Professor of Sociology, York University of Toronto, Fuyuki, “Cautionary Tales: The Global Culture of Prevention and the Work of Foresight”, Constellations Volume 11, No 4, http://www.yorku.ca/kurasawa/Kurasawa20Articles/Constellations20Article.pdf
Up to this…and global justice. 

This worst case storytelling causes social paralysis and serial policy failure—extinction.
Furedi 10 – Professor of sociology at the University of Kent, Frank, “This shutdown is about more than volcanic ash”, Spiked, 4/19, http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8607/
Whatever the risks… to our future.

Tournament: UTD | Round: 1 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
(A) Interpretation: The affirmative should defend a topical plan of action is a good idea.

(B) Reasons to prefer:

1. Limits and Ground: refusing common ground leaves one side unprepared, resulting in shallow and un-educational debate – a balanced controversy is key to decision-making skills.
   Steinberg and Freeley 8 *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 pp43-45
   Debate is a…the following discussion.

2. Ground: the topic is not a yes/no question about whether the US actions suck, rather how we should restrict authority over US imperialism.

3. Critique is not sufficient to solve – must have a plan of action.
Bryant 12 - Professor of Philosophy at Collin College (Levi R., Author of a number of articles on Deleuze, Badiou, Zizek, Lacan, and political theory, November 11th, 2012, http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/underpants-gnomes-a-critique-of-the-academic-left/)
Unfortunately, the academic…luck with that.

Tournament: UNT | Round: 5 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
The affirmatives discourse on proliferation is equivalent to Nuclear Apartheid where non-white countries are denied the bomb because of an underlying racist ideology rooted in colonialism.
Gusterson 99 (Hugh, American Anthropological Association, MIT; "Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination": Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 111-143; MUSE)
Thus in Western…recognized nuclear powers.

Tournament: UTD | Round: 1 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
The 1AC represents a strategy of lawfare – using the law as a means to legitimize and justify an ever-expanding and authoritarian system of violence.
John Morrissey 11, Lecturer in Political and Cultural Geography, National University of Ireland, Galway; has held visiting research fellowships at University College Cork, City University of New York, Virginia Tech and the University of Cambridge. Liberal Lawfare and Biopolitics: US Juridical Warfare in the War on Terror, Geopolitics, Volume 16, Issue 2, 2011
Foucault’s envisioning of…overseas ground presence.

The impact is militarism.
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…be dim indeed.

The affirmative represents a strategy of lip service restraint re-affirms executive power granting legitimacy to sovereign manipulation of law.
Posner and Vermeule 10 Eric A. Posner Kirkland and Ellis Distinguished Service Professor of Law AND Adrian Vermeule Jr. Professor of Law at Harvard Law School “The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic”, Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2010 Questia pp 3-5
Some commentators argue…with the law.2'

This presentation of legitimacy continues crumbling the distinction between democracy and totalitarianism and reinforces death-centered thanatopolitics.
Hall 7 Lindsay Anne Hall MA Political Science “Death, Power, and the Body: A Bio-political Analysis of Death and Dying” May 7, 2007 (Research paper presented to faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05152007-134833/unrestricted/etd.pdf
Agamben, on the…really worth preserving.

Vote negative refuse the 1AC’s legal analysis.
Joseph William Singer, Associate Professor of Law at Boston University, 84
“The Player and the Cards: Nihilism and Legal Theory,” Yale Law Journal (94 Yale L.J. 1), November, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis
What shall we…that question ourselves.

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Augustana | Judge: Kirk Evans
Courts and Congress won’t exercise true restraint over the executive – it will be lip service restraint at best and re-affirms executive power granting legitimacy to sovereign manipulation of law.
Eric A.  Posner Kirkland and Ellis Distinguished Service Professor of Law AND Adrian Vermeule Jr.  Professor of Law at Harvard Law School “The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic”, Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2010 Questia pp 3-5
Some commentators argue…with the law.2

Manipulated sovereignty creates shifts from mere governmentality and biopolitics to death-centric thanatopolitics which collapses the distinction between liberal democracy and authoritarianism
Lindsay Anne Hall MA Political Science “Death, Power, and the Body: A Bio-political Analysis of Death and Dying” May 7, 2007 (Research paper presented to faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)¶ http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05152007-134833/unrestricted/etd.pdf
Agamben, on the…really worth preserving.

The alternative is a process that rejects that affirmative’s mechanism of authority shifting between sovereign branches.  Voting negative is a way engage in micro-political resistance against sovereign manipulation of law that creates the guise of restrictions that serve a larger purpose of granting legitimacy to sovereign exceptions in law
Bent Flyvbjerg Aalborg University, Department of Development and Planning and Tim Richardson University of Sheffield, Department of Town and Regional Planning Dept of Planning is broad studying the development of society with emphasis in social science 2002— “Planning and Foucault In Search of the Dark Side of Planning Theory” http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/DarkSide2.pdf
Towards Foucault  Instead…and structural issues.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 5 | Opponent: Southern California Vitzileos-Purk | Judge: Barouch, Reed, Zagorin
To be queer is to experience captivity and destruction in all facets of society. Violence is protected and condoned by systems of law. Queer inferiority produces a fleshy and discursive body to be policed, disciplined, and exterminated by straight supremacy.
Lamble 11; S. Transforming Carceral Logics: 10 Reasons to Dismantle the Prison Industrial Complex Through Queer/Trans Analysis and Action in "Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison-Industrial Complex" ed. Eric Stanley and Dean Spade, Pp 235-236
2. Queer, trans, and gender-non-conforming people, particularly
AND
, survival often means working in criminalized economies like drug and sex trade.
The affirmative attempts to stabilize a world that is anti-queer – backing the laws and normative standards of safety that allow the "good white gays and lesbians" to be a part of a larger power structure of oppression. The alternative is to be in total conflict with normalcy.
The Mary Nardini Gang 9; a group of criminalized queers; criminal queers from Milwaukee, Wisconsin "toward the queerest insurrection," https://archive.org/details/TowardTheQueerestInsurrection
In the discourse of queer, we are talking about a space of struggle against
AND
against capitalism, racism and patriarchy and empire. This is our history.
The impact is ontological captivity. Violence and captivity transforms queer life into a life vulnerable to extermination. The queer body becomes a site to be destroyed not just in the moment, but a concept that must be assimilated under the "common sense" morality of straight supremacy.
Stanley 11; Eric A Stanley (PhD History of Consciousness @ UC Santa Cruz; visiting faculty in Critical Studies @ San Francisco Art Institute; director of Homotopia and Criminal Queers, coeditor of Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex; former homeless youth in Richmond VA.). "Near Life, Queer Death Overkill and Ontological Capture."Social Text 29.2 107 (2011): 1-19
"Dirty faggot21" Or simply, "Look, a Gay21" These words
AND
object, retroactively visible through the hope of a radical politics to come.
This is a process of overkill, where the individual is set in to symbolize the extermination of the whole. Straight law protects these forms of violence that go beyond death, allowing the deletion of the past, present, and future of queer populations. The first question of this debate is: "What does it mean to do violence to what is nothing?"
Stanley 11; Eric A Stanley (PhD History of Consciousness @ UC Santa Cruz; visiting faculty in Critical Studies @ San Francisco Art Institute; director of Homotopia and Criminal Queers, coeditor of Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex; former homeless youth in Richmond VA.). "Near Life, Queer Death Overkill and Ontological Capture."Social Text 29.2 107 (2011): 1-19
Overkill is a term used to indicate such excessive violence that it pushes a body
AND
, what it must mean, to do violence to what is nothing.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 5 | Opponent: Southern California Vitzileos-Purk | Judge: Barouch, Reed, Zagorin
Restriction is a prohibition of action.
Jean Schiedler-Brown 12, Attorney, Jean Schiedler-Brown 26 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.
War powers authority is defined by statute
Kinkopf 7 – Professor of Law @ GSU
(Neil, "THE CONGRESS AS SURGE PROTECTOR," http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/Kinkopf-Surge.pdf)
This understanding of the President's power as Commander in Chief is plain enough ¶ from
AND
war powers are defined by statute and may not exceed ¶ statutory limits.

Violation: the aff doesn't stop Obama from doing anything, but rather lets others pursue more power.

Vote neg:

1. Limits: allows plans who don't stop Obama directly but rather lets others pursue action on him indirectly.
   2. Bidirectionality: Obama could ramp up drones as long as law suits continue.
   3. Extra-T: the way they write the plan text allows for people to sue heirs that unlawfully hurt someone – that's not restricting the authority of Obama.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 5 | Opponent: Southern California Vitzileos-Purk | Judge: Barouch, Reed, Zagorin
Targeted killing's vital to counterterrorism—-disrupts leadership and makes carrying out attacks impossible
Kenneth Anderson 13, Professor of International Law at American University, June 2013, "The Case for Drones," Commentary, Vol. 135, No. 6
Targeted killing of high-value terrorist targets, by contrast, is the end result of a long, independent intelligence process. What the drone adds to that intelligence might be considerable, through its surveillance capabilities — but much of the drone's contribution will be tactical, providing intelligence that assists in the planning and execution of the strike itself, in order to pick the moment when there might be the fewest civilian casualties.
Nonetheless, in conjunction with high-quality intelligence, drone warfare offers an unparalleled means to strike directly at terrorist organizations without needing a conventional or counterinsurgency approach to reach terrorist groups in their safe havens. It offers an offensive capability, rather than simply defensive measures, such as homeland security alone. Drone warfare offers a raiding strategy directly against the terrorists and their leadership.
If one believes, as many of the critics of drone warfare do, that
AND
common enemies are examples of the methods that are just of military nature.
Drone warfare today is integrated with a much larger strategic counterterrorism target — one in
AND
acknowledged in communications, have a significant impact on planning and organizational effectiveness.

Constraining targeted killing's role in the war on terror causes extinction
Louis Rene Beres 11, Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue, 2011, "After Osama bin Laden: Assassination, Terrorism, War, and International Law," Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 44 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 93
Even after the U.S. assassination of Osama bin Laden, we are
AND
that it could represent distinctly, even especially, law-enforcing behavior.
For this to be the case, a number of particular conditions would need to
AND
populations than would all of the alternative forms of anticipatory self-defense.
Such an argument may appear manipulative and dangerous; permitting states to engage in what
AND
international law may sometimes still require extraordinary methods of law-enforcement. n71
Let us suppose, for example, that a particular state determines that another state
AND
assassination could prove reasonable, life-saving, and cost-effective.
What of another, more common form of anticipatory self-defense? Might a conventional military strike against the prospective attacker's nuclear, biological or chemical weapons launchers and/or storage sites prove even more reasonable and cost-effective? A persuasive answer inevitably depends upon the particular tactical and strategic circumstances of the moment, and on the precise way in which these particular circumstances are configured.
But it is entirely conceivable that conventional military forms of preemption would generate tangibly greater harms than assassination, and possibly with no greater defensive benefit. This suggests that assassination should not be dismissed out of hand in all circumstances as a permissible form of anticipatory self-defense under international law.  ~*115~
What of those circumstances in which the threat to particular states would not involve higher
AND
, it could be followed, in certain circumstances, by unconventional attacks.

Nuclear terrorism is feasible—-high risk of theft and attacks escalate
Vladimir Z. Dvorkin '12 Major General (retired), doctor of technical sciences, professor, and senior fellow at the Center for International Security of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  The Center participates in the working group of the U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism, 9/21/12, "What Can Destroy Strategic Stability: Nuclear Terrorism is a Real Threat," belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22333/what_can_destroy_strategic_stability.html
Hundreds of scientific papers and reports have been published on nuclear terrorism. International conferences
AND
a common understanding of these threats and develop a strategy to combat them.
Targeted killing against terrorists is a moral imperative—-the point of terrorism is senseless, un-targeted killing—-responding with force is necessary to preserve and uphold the value of innocent lives—-in the context of Camus, targeted killing is most analogous to the figure of the just assassin
Michael Walzer 13, Professor Emeritus of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study and co-Editor of Dissent Magazine, 1/11/13, "Targeted Killing and Drone Warfare," http://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/targeted-killing-and-drone-warfare
First things first. Untargeted killing, random killing, the bomb in the supermarket
AND
refused to do that or, at least, he didn't do it.
There are radical limits on political assassinations. In democracies, they can never be
AND
blowing up the neighborhood in which they live is not a moral option.
Military leaders are obviously legitimate targets in wartime. A sniper sent to a forward
AND
and women who organized it—and lawyers and judges after the police.
The targeted killing of insurgents and terrorists in wartime is subject to the same constraints
AND
field, the risks must be accepted before the killing can be justified.

Turn—-Alternatives: Moral evaluation of drones requires considering the most likely alternatives that would replace targeted killings—-they're all worse for civilian casualties and state violence
Kenneth Anderson 13, Professor of International Law at American University, June 2013, "The Case for Drones," Commentary, Vol. 135, No. 6
EFFECTIVENESS IS ONE THING, MORALITY ANOTHER. The leading objection to drone warfare today
AND
bigger question of whether one ought to use force in counterterrorism at all. 

Turn—-Distancing created by drones is good—-battlefield pressure makes soldiers more likely to commit unethical actions and demonize the enemy—-removal from the field of battle causes ethical decisionmaking and restraint
Stephen Holmes 13, the Walter E. Meyer Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, July 2013, "What's in it for Obama?," The London Review of Books, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n14/stephen-holmes/whats-in-it-for-obama-http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n14/stephen-holmes/whats-in-it-for-obama
But Obama can make an even subtler case for drones. Well-meaning but
AND
side, and is therefore much less likely to escalate out of control.

Drones raise the threshold for violence because they spotlight civilian casualties
Scott Shane 12, National Security Reporter, New York Times, 7/14/12, "The Moral Case for Drones," http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sunday-review/the-moral-case-for-drones.html?_r=0
The drone's promise of precision killing and perfect safety for operators is so seductive, in fact, that some scholars have raised a different moral question: Do drones threaten to lower the threshold for lethal violence?
"In the just-war tradition, there's the notion that you only wage war as a last resort," said Daniel R. Brunstetter, a political scientist at the University of California at Irvine who fears that drones are becoming "a default strategy to be used almost anywhere."
With hundreds of terrorist suspects killed under President Obama and just one taken into custody overseas, some question whether drones have become not a more precise alternative to bombing but a convenient substitute for capture. If so, drones may actually be encouraging unnecessary killing.
Few imagined such debates in 2000, when American security officials first began to think about arming the Predator surveillance drone, with which they had spotted Osama bin Laden at his Afghanistan base, said Henry A. Crumpton, then deputy chief of the C.I.A.'s counterterrorism center, who tells the story in his recent memoir, "The Art of Intelligence."
"We never said, 'Let's build a more humane weapon,' " Mr. Crumpton said. "We said, 'Let's be as precise as possible, because that's our mission — to kill Bin Laden and the people right around him.' "
Since then, Mr. Crumpton said, the drone war has prompted an intense focus on civilian casualties, which in a YouTube world have become harder to hide. He argues that technological change is producing a growing intolerance for the routine slaughter of earlier wars.
"Look at the firebombing of Dresden, and compare what we're doing today," Mr. Crumpton said. "The public's expectations have been raised dramatically around the world, and that's good news."

Drones increase the threshold for violence
Kenneth Anderson 13, Professor of International Law at American University, September 2013, "A Too Perfect Weapon?," Commentary, Vol. 136, No. 2, p. 6-7
As to Mr. Alazar's point that drones pose so little risk to the U
AND
own forces, then the temptation to use force more frequently is increased.
But saying that drones make it "easier" to resort to force is not
AND
it too easy — or, for that matter, not easy enough.
Finally, the "solution" to the problem of political leadership's resorting to force too easily is simply immoral: a scenario whereby a side should put its soldiers at risk in order to force their own political leaders to weigh the risk as they ought. This is, as I wrote, a hostage-taking argument. It uses the soldiers as mere means, in the Kantian sense, to the ends of pressuring leaders.

Drones institutionalize a vastly stronger commitment to military proportionality than other weapons—-removal from active combat and multiple decision-makers reviewing targets makes damage to civilians far less likely
Michael W. Lewis 12, Associate Professor of Law at Ohio Northern University Pettit College of Law, Spring 2012, "ARTICLE: SYMPOSIUM: THE 2009 AIR AND MISSILE WARFARE MANUAL: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS: Drones and the Boundaries of the Battlefield," Texas International Law Journal, p. lexis
Another operational advantage that drones provide is greater legal compliance with IHL's requirements of military
AND
a video game, n19 it undoubtedly leads to much sounder proportionality determinations.

Tournament: UTD | Round: 2 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
The notion that nuclear weapons are “accidents” waiting to happen re-enforces the nuclearist status quo by creating responsibility free zones for government nuclear indiscretion.
William Chaloupka.  book Knowing Nukes The Politics and Culture of the Atom. 92 (pp.13-14)
This absurd outcome…the saying goes.

Prioritizing nuclear war as the ultimate impact ignores the implications of other forms of instability throughout the world. The 1AC engages in nuclearist role playing that entrenches the domination of the status quo.
William Chaloupka.  book Knowing Nukes The Politics and Culture of the Atom. 92  (pp.12)
Although opposition has…sign of stability.?

The logic of nuclearism inevitability turns case – causes us to want the Bomb.
William Chaloupka.  book Knowing Nukes The Politics and Culture of the Atom. 92 (pp.60-61)
As Deleuze and…to be embodied.

Tournament: UNT | Round: 4 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
The affirmative’s discussion of policy is based on a positivist mode of “knowing” China. China is not something that we stand back and observe- this constructs a mode of thought that can only relate to China as a threat.
Pan, PhD degree in Political Science and International Relations from the Australian National University, 2K4 Chengxin, The "China Threat" in American Self-Imagination: The Discursive Construction of Other as Power Politics, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 29, 2004
China and its…make a contribution.

Threat theory makes containment and nuclear war inevitable.
Pan 4, PhD degree in Political Science and International Relations from the Australian National University, Chengxin, , Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol. 29, 2004
Not only does…might become possible.

Tournament: UNT | Round: 6 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
We dig the 1AC, hate the use of the plan text

Sovereignty maintains itself with the imposition of law as appearing neutral – this is the most powerful weapon of the sovereign because it disarms opposition’s desire to resist.
Giorgio Agamben 2K Phd., Baruch Spinoza Chair at European Graduate School EGS, is a professor of aesthetics at the University of Verona, Italy and teaches philosophy at the Collège International de Philosophie in Paris and at the University of Macerata in Italy “Means Without End: Notes on Politics”, p. 93-95)
Because human beings…over its management.

This seemingly neutral imposition shifts modern biopower to thanatopolitics.
Agamben 98 Giorgio, Prof.  of Philosophy and Aesthetics at the University of Verona Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life.  Translated by Daniel Heller-Roazen.  P.  120-123
Along with the…learn to recognize.

Their legitimized version of targeted killing furthers counter-insurgency and war fighting objectives.
Grayson 12—Kyle, Politics, Newcastle University, Six Theses on Targeted Killing, Politics Volume 32 Issue 2, June, p. 120-128, Wiley, Shree
Targeted killing is…practices of lawfare.

Restraints on the executive legitimize authorization of violence.
Dyzenhaus 05
(David, is a professor of Law and Philosophy at the University of Toronto, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, “Schmitt v. Dicey: Are States of Emergency Inside or Outside the Legal Order?” Cardozo Law Review 27)
Rossiter had in…true black holes.

Tournament: UNT | Round: 1 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
The 1AC leaves unchallenged the referent object of security - not only is the impact extinction, but this makes warfare, threat construction and human insecurity inevitable, turning the aff. Be suspect of their specific scenarios - national security is a ploy used by security elites to leave citizens in a constant state of fear.
Lal 7 - Master of Arts in International Relations (Preerna, 2007, http://gwu.academia.edu/PrernaLal/Papers/646118/Critical_Security_Studies_Deconstructing_the_National_Security_State)
Under the lens…identity and existence.

The 'threats' are not 'out there' as the 1AC wants you to believe - they are right here. Our alternative is grass-roots citizen activism - we must make the people, not the state, the referent object of security.
Lal 7  - Master of Arts in International Relations (Preerna, 2007, http://gwu.academia.edu/PrernaLal/Papers/646118/Critical_Security_Studies_Deconstructing_the_National_Security_State)
Throughout this paper…towards human emancipation.

Tournament: UNT | Round: 1 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
Interp: Armed forces refers to U.S. soldiers NOT weapon systems.

Prefer this interp – prior legal standards and a history of congressional interpretation prove.
Lorber 13 - J.D. Candidate, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Ph.D Candidate, Duke University Department of Political Science (Eric, EXECUTIVE WARMAKING AUTHORITY AND OFFENSIVE CYBER OPERATIONS: CAN EXISTING LEGISLATION SUCCESSFULLY CONSTRAIN PRESIDENTIAL POWER?, JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Vol. 15:3)
As discussed above, critical to the application of the War Powers Resolution—especially in the context of an offensive cyber operation—are the definitions of key terms, particularly “armed forces,” as the relevant provisions of the Act are only triggered if the President “introduces armed forces into hostilities or into situations of imminent . . . hostilities,”172 or if such forces are introduced “into the territory, airspace, or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces.”173 The requirements may also be triggered if the United States deploys armed forces “in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation.”174 As is evident, the definition of “armed forces” is crucial to deciphering whether the WPR applies in a particular circumstance to provide congressional leverage over executive actions. The definition of “hostilities,” which has garnered the majority of scholarly and political attention,175 particularly in the recent Libyan conflict,176 will be dealt with secondarily here because it only becomes important if “armed forces” exist in the situation. As is evident from a textual analysis,177 an examination of the legislative history,178 and the broad policy purposes behind the creation of the Act,179 “armed forces” refers to U.S. soldiers and members of the armed forces, not weapon systems or capabilities such as offensive cyber weapons. Section 1547 does not specifically define “armed forces,” but it states that “the term ‘introduction of United States Armed Forces’ includes the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government.”180 While this definition pertains to the broader phrase “introduction of armed forces,” the clear implication is that only members of the armed forces count for the purposes of the definition under the WPR. Though not dispositive, the term “member” connotes a human individual who is part of an organization.181 Thus, it appears that the term “armed forces” means human members of the United States armed forces. However, there exist two potential complications with this reading. First, the language of the statute states that “the term ‘introduction of United States Armed Forces’ includes the assignment of members of such armed forces.”182 By using inclusionary—as opposed to exclusionary— language, one might argue that the term “armed forces” could include more than members. This argument is unconvincing however, given that a core principle of statutory interpretation, expressio unius, suggests that expression of one thing (i.e., members) implies the exclusion of others (such as nonmembers constituting armed forces).183 Second, the term “member” does not explicitly reference “humans,” and so could arguably refer to individual units and beings that are part of a larger whole (e.g., wolves can be members of a pack). As a result, though a textual analysis suggests that “armed forces” refers to human members of the armed forces, such a conclusion is not determinative. An examination of the legislative history also suggests that Congress clearly conceptualized “armed forces” as human members of the armed forces. For example, disputes over the term “armed forces” revolved around who could be considered members of the armed forces, not what constituted a member. Senator Thomas Eagleton, one of the Resolution’s architects, proposed an amendment during the process providing that the Resolution cover military officers on loan to a civilian agency (such as the Central Intelligence Agency).184 This amendment was dropped after encountering pushback,185 but the debate revolved around whether those military individuals on loan to the civilian agency were still members of the armed forces for the purposes of the WPR, suggesting that Congress considered the term to apply only to soldiers in the armed forces. Further, during the congressional hearings, the question of deployment of “armed forces” centered primarily on past U.S. deployment of troops to combat zones,186 suggesting that Congress conceptualized “armed forces” to mean U.S. combat troops. The broad purpose of the Resolution aimed to prevent the large-scale but unauthorized deployments of U.S. troops into hostilities.187 While examining the broad purpose of a legislative act is increasingly relied upon only after examining the text and legislative history, here it provides further support for those two alternate interpretive sources.188 As one scholar has noted, “the War Powers Resolution, for example, is concerned with sending U.S. troops into harm’s way.”189 The historical context of the War Powers Resolution is also important in determining its broad purpose; as the resolutions submitted during the Vietnam War and in the lead-up to the passage of the WPR suggest, Congress was concerned about its ability to effectively regulate the President’s deployments of large numbers of U.S. troops to Southeast Asia,190 as well as prevent the President from authorizing troop incursions into countries in that region.191 The WPR was a reaction to the President’s continued deployments of these troops into combat zones, and as such suggests that Congress’s broad purpose was to prevent the unconstrained deployment of U.S. personnel, not weapons, into hostilities. This analysis suggests that, when defining the term “armed forces,” Congress meant members of the armed forces who would be placed in harm’s way (i.e., into hostilities or imminent hostilities). Applied to offensive cyber operations, such a definition leads to the conclusion that the War Powers Resolution likely does not cover such activities. Worms, viruses, and kill switches are clearly not U.S. troops. Therefore, the key question regarding whether the WPR can govern cyber operations is not whether the operation is conducted independently or as part of a kinetic military operation. Rather, the key question is the delivery mechanism. For example, if military forces were deployed to launch the cyberattack, such an activity, if it were related to imminent hostilities with a foreign country, could trigger the WPR. This seems unlikely, however, for two reasons. First, it is unclear whether small-scale deployments where the soldiers are not participating or under threat of harm constitute the introduction of armed forces into hostilities under the War Powers Resolution.192 Thus, individual operators deployed to plant viruses in particular enemy systems may not constitute armed forces introduced into hostilities or imminent hostilities. Second, such a tactical approach seems unlikely. If the target system is remote access, the military can attack it without placing personnel in harm’s way.193 If it is close access, there exist many other effective ways to target such systems.194 As a result, unless U.S. troops are introduced into hostilities or imminent hostilities while deploying offensive cyber capabilities—which is highly unlikely—such operations will not trigger the War Powers Resolution.

Vote negative for predictable limits -- their interpretation- explodes the topic by opening the floodgates to thousands of technologies: chemical, nuclear, biological, just to name a few - each large enough to be their open topic area.

Tournament: UNT | Round: 1 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
Nuclear terrorism is feasible – high risk of theft and attacks escalate.
Vladimir Z. Dvorkin ‘12 Major General (retired), doctor of technical sciences, professor, and senior fellow at the Center for International Security of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  The Center participates in the working group of the U.S.-Russia Initiative to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism, 9/21/12, "What Can Destroy Strategic Stability: Nuclear Terrorism is a Real Threat," belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/22333/what_can_destroy_strategic_stability.html
Hundreds of scientific…to combat them.

Nuke terror causes extinction – equivalent to full-scale nuclear war.
Owen B. Toon 7, chair of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at CU-Boulder, et al., April 19, 2007, “Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism,” online: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-1973-2007.pdf
To an increasing…and physical outcomes.

Terrorism causes extinction – hardline responses are key.
Nathan Myhrvold 13, Phd in theoretical and mathematical physics from Princeton,  and founded Intellectual Ventures after retiring as chief strategist and chief technology officer of Microsoft Corporation , July 2013, "Stratgic Terrorism: A Call to Action," The Lawfare Research Paper Series No.2, http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-Terrorism-Myhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf
Several powerful trends…us for decades.

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 8 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
When choosing how to be, we can choose either tragic or comic frames. The 1AC affirms a tragic politics that grapples with death and destruction rather than engaging in comic reframing and perspective by incongruity. Adoption of the tragic frame fails to rupture the dominance of the status quo. The theatre space of debate should be a comic theatre. We advocate the adoption of a comic frame to rupture the dogmatism of the status quo. This is a prerequisite to ethical action.
Borchers 98 Dr. Tim Borchers, Moorhead State University, The Burlesque, the Comic, and the Tragic: Politics in Postmodern America, Paper presented to the National Communication Association 1998 Convention, New York, NY Nov. 22, 1998, http://web.mnstate.edu/borchers/Research/burlesque.htm
Burke says rhetoric…good social relationships" (Duncan 390).

Tragic frames justify expunging and killing in an attempt to remedy problems – only a comic frame serves as an ethical corrective that works toward preventing violence.
Lewis 7 Camille Kaminski Lewis, Romancing the Difference: Kenneth Burke, Bob Jones University, and the Rhetoric of Religious Fundamentalism, 2007
This tragic cycle…to prevent violence.11