Tournament: ADA | Round: 1 | Opponent: John Carroll MS | Judge: Joshua Turnage

Case

====K causes conflict. The perm is the best option.====
Thorup 6 (Mikkel Thorup, Ph.D. dissertation @ the Institute of Philosophy and the History of Ideas, January, 2006, "In Defence of Enmity – Critiques of Liberal Globalism," p. 39-40~

This text is mainly about the potential dangers of the liberal approach to politics.
AND
opposite movement – disruption, change, recreation of the entire social space. 

====SCHMITT’S POLITICS OVER PRIVILEDGES WAR.  It turns all conflict into an automatic need for military action.  The idea of friend and enemy effaces responsibility and it ignores that conflict can be resolved.====
Burke ’07 ~Pf Politics 26 International Relations @ U of New South Wales, Sydney, 07
(Anthony, Theory 26 Event, Vol. 10, No. 2)

When such a theory takes the form of a social discourse (which it does
AND
and defence during the twentieth century and persists into the twenty-first. 

2AC FW MAIN

Conditionality eliminates an ethic of accountability necessary for empowering non-white bodies – reject the negative for their performative guerilla tactics.
Collins, 90 (Patricia Hill, Distinguished University Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, Former head of the Department of African American Studies at the University of Cincinnati, and the past President of the American Sociological Association Council, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment, p. 62-65)
A second component of the ethic of caring concerns the appropriateness of emotions in dialogues
AND
passes as truth and simultaneously challenges the process of arriving at the truth.

Role playing leads to political monologue – supports oppressive structures and eliminates agency to question power.
Smith, ’97 (Steve, University of Wales, Professor and Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University, University of Wales, Aberystwyth "Power and Truth, A Reply to William Wallace," Review of International Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), p. 513, NAP)

Those academics who do get involved in talking truth to power must accept that in
AND
that any of this has anything to do with truth and academic objectivity.

====Solely procedural solutions backfire and teach unrealistic advocacy.====
Rana, ’11 ~Aziz Rana received his A.B. summa cum laude from Harvard College and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He also earned a Ph.D. in political science at Harvard, where his dissertation was awarded the university’s Charles Sumner Prize. He was an Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fellow in Law at Yale; "Who Decides on Security?"; 8/11/11; Cornell Law Library; http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87/~~**

Widespread concerns with the government’s security infrastructure are by no means a new phenomenon.
AND
role has not been explored in any sustained way in the scholarly literature.

Tournament: ADA | Round: 3 | Opponent: Liberty AB | Judge: Kevin Kallmyer

Case

Framing the alternative as a "moral obligation" makes violence inevitable
De Cock et al, ’7 ~Christian De Cock, Professor of Organization
AND
Organizing revolution?"; MANAGEMENT 26 ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY Vol 2(2), 2007~

This brings us to our final, and probably most difficult, issue which concerns
AND
in the (business) revolution (cf. Frank 2001, 173)?

Aff reenchants policymaking and is prerequisite to framework by opening space for alternatives to falsely universal solutions.
Parsons, ’10 ~Wayne Parson is Professor of Public Policy at Queen Mary, University of London. He is currently Visiting Professor in policy sciences at FLACSO, Mexico and the Catholic University of Lille; "Modernism redux: po-mo problems and hi-mo public policy" from "Public Management in the Postmodern Era: Challenges and Prospects"; 2010~

The shift towards the discourse of policy capacity involved therefore using the (best)
AND
increasing diversity and competition between different approaches, frameworks, tools and models.

2AC Queer Theory

Status quo defines sexuality of terrorist as justification for state sanctioned torture – the aff’s criticism of rhetorical deployment of war provides space for queer identification of the terrorist.
Jasbir K. Puar, 2008.  (professor of women’s and gender studies at Rutgers University). "Feminists and Queers in the service of empire." From Feminism and War: Confronting US Imperialism by Chandra Mohanty. P. 47-48
One mapping of the folding of homosexuals into the reproductive valorization of living - technologies
AND
, a formation I term homonationalism, short for homo-normative nationalism. 

War metaphor promotes exclusion of femininity and upholds heteronormativity in politics AND the debate space – Bashing back promotes confrontational model of debate.
Knutson, ’96 ~Roxanne L. Knutson is Assoicate Professor in the Department of Communication, Appalachian State University; "Metaphorical Construction: Argument is War"; Contemporary Argumentation and Debate 17 (1996)~

There has been a great deal of research dealing with the rhetorical obstacles faced by
AND
misogynist rhetoric and attitudes to support the building of their own rhetorical legitimacy.

Political spaces such as debate can be transformative – death is inevitable, but there is value in tangible improvements in the human condition AND allows the right to take control over reproductive politics
Brenkman ’2 (John, Distinguished Professor of English and Comprative Literature at CUNY Graduate Center, Narrative, "Queer Post-Politics", Volume 10, Issue 2, p. 174-180, Project Muse)

But Edelman interprets this nonrecognition in very different terms from those I have just used
AND
order strikes me as politically self-destructive and theoretically just plain wrong.

Tournament: ADA | Round: 5 | Opponent: Georgia LJ | Judge: Ben Hagwood

Case

Conditionality eliminates an ethic of accountability necessary for empowering non-white bodies – reject the negative for their performative guerilla tactics.
Collins, 90 (Patricia Hill, Distinguished University Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, Former head of the Department of African American Studies at the University of Cincinnati, and the past President of the American Sociological Association Council, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment, p. 62-65)
A second component of the ethic of caring concerns the appropriateness of emotions in dialogues
AND
passes as truth and simultaneously challenges the process of arriving at the truth.

2AC FW MAIN

Aff prerequisite to solve warming – war metaphor makes environmental change impossible.
Audebrand, ’10 ~Luc K. Audebrand, (PhD, HEC Montreal), assistant professor of strategic management and organizational behavior in the Faculty of Management at the University of British Columbia, Kelowna Campus; "Sustainability in Strategic Management Education: The Quest for New Root Metaphors", Academy of Management Learning 26 Education, 2010, Volume 9, Issue 3~

Romaine (1996) examined the role played by metaphorical thought in the discussion of
AND
future-oriented one" (Nordhaus 26 Shellenberger, 2007: 2).

Plan-focus teaches flawed decisionmaking – the government is a bad role-model.
Hafner, ’7 ~Ferdinand Hafner, Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy; "COGNITIVE BIASES AND STRUCTURAL FAILURES IN UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY: EXPLAINING DECISION-MAKING DISSONANCE IN PHASE IV POLICY AND PLANS FOR IRAQ"; NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL December 2007~

B. ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS In this model, foreign policy decisions are not based on
AND
dominate the policy process by limiting the consideration of multiple courses of action.

—-2AC T Version - Rana

====Solely procedural solutions backfire and teach unrealistic advocacy.====
Rana, ’11 ~Aziz Rana received his A.B. summa cum laude from Harvard College and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He also earned a Ph.D. in political science at Harvard, where his dissertation was awarded the university’s Charles Sumner Prize. He was an Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fellow in Law at Yale; "Who Decides on Security?"; 8/11/11; Cornell Law Library; http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87/~~**

Widespread concerns with the government’s security infrastructure are by no means a new phenomenon.
AND
role has not been explored in any sustained way in the scholarly literature.

2AC

====Perm – vote aff and endorse all non-competitive parts of the alternative.====

====Perm solves – must experiment to find methods of subversion – totalizing conceptions of the "global capitalist system" doom alt solvency.====
Connolly, ’11 ~William Connolly, 2011, review quotes of his book "a world of becoming", http://obsoletematter.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/william-connolly-a-world-of-becoming/**~~**

Specific cultural priorities, habits of family life, religious belief and ritual, underground
AND
imperfectly incorporated into it, and to present an apolitical orientation to it.

2AC Herod Alt

====Their own author says the alternative fails.====
Herod 7 (James, awesome theorist-character, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/5thEd/PrintEd.htm)**
We cannot destroy capitalism by dropping out, either as an individual, a small
AND
. Until they are defeated, there will be no freedom for anyone. 

2AC Revolution Alt

Alt’s revolutionary framing ignores the adaptability of 21st century capitalism, gets coopted by the system.
De Cock et al, ’7 ~Christian De Cock, Professor of Organization
AND
Organizing revolution?"; MANAGEMENT 26 ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY Vol 2(2), 2007~

Revolution seems a constant in the world of business. Textbooks talk about Taylorism and
AND
and promoters of revolution, which then becomes a commodity like everything else.

Tournament: CEDA | Round: 1 | Opponent: Kansas State KM | Judge: Daniel Stout

1AC

What is war?

Peace is the absence of war. But how do we know if we’ve never lived in a world without war? What can we do to find peace? Is peace even possible?

Rejecting war outright to move towards a state of peace ignores that the justifications for pacifism are tied to the executive’s reasons for war. Despite their numerous differences, those preaching flower power and seeking peace and love had similar endpoints for politics as the military hawks whose policies brought about war and hatred. Whether or not they actually desire peace, war makers evoke the rhetoric of peace to rationalize war as the best way to exterminate all those who considered threats to stability.

But the term "war" is not powerful by itself. Instead its significance comes from its abilities to describe the reality of conflict and motivate further violence with an end goal of creating peace.

War is not just the product of the political system that magically appears on the command of the president. War is the process of politics constantly falling short of ever bringing about peace.

If peace is the ends, war is the means.

But war means different things to different individuals in different situations. War for Congress and the Courts is something better left to the executive. War for the executive is never the fault of the United States. War means protection. War means loving one’s country. War means uniting the world under a common framework. War means appeasing the gods. War means erasing difference. War means victory is the only option. War is the means. Peace is the end.

For me, war means living and breathing, constantly questioning the power manifested around me, and refusing to go on with "business as usual." But can I ever find peace when I know that others may still be at war? What worth are individual conquests of peace over war when others continually suffer?

What use is any goal at all?

Peace is the end forever out of reach, while war extends its reach forever.

Now, all war is not the same and all debate is not the same. Nor can they be treated that simply.

And yet, debaters act like war is just another word on the flow. They claim that a single ballot can bring a state of peace. How might a judge decide between two imaginary worlds when both are prophesized to go boom? Is it meaningful for debaters to claim to have the final solution on how to bring peace without first questioning the meaning of war? What ends justify these means?

Debates about war powers never reach an ending point. After this round, they will continue outside this room. They will continue within halls of power. They will continue in the meetings of local grassroots organizations. They will continue on the everyday level, among people who know the arguments way more than we ever could because they experience presidential war policy act directly upon them. Argument to some people doesn’t just mean a way to develop some skills so we can do better in law school. Instead, argument means protecting oneself from the horrors of the law. This is, after all, a legal topic.

So before proceeding through the rest of this one debate, we must start this conversation with a question: what even is debate?

There are two ways to answer this: either ascribe meaning to debate or allow it to define itself.

Supplying singular meaning to debate is the more dominant answer. This interpretive move constructs debate as a war of words. Debaters treat the ballot as a bullet and seek to destroy anyone blocking the path towards peace.

Anyone believed to be in opposition to one’s end goals become labeled as an enemy through propaganda tactics, justifying argumentative holy wars against all those considered "unreasonable." Peace can begin only once the enemy is vanquished.

It’s only fitting that the metaphor of debate as a war-of-words grew more powerful on the war powers topic. The opening shots were fired when the Kentucky Round Robin didn’t invite the returning national champion.

Then hostilities increased.

After the historic moment when for the first time two black women won the top two speaker awards at the Kentucky tournament, some judges used point inflation as the only option to charge policy relevance back onto the battlefield of elims. Whether or not it was their goal, they punished the rest of the pool and undid the purpose of affirmative action point inflation.

All the while the flame wars on facebook and ceda forums continued.

But that description is incomplete because the text always adds pages. If debate truly is a war, we cannot understand it fully just by focusing on flashpoint conflicts. Each round would be a battle with individual tactical decisions.

Is debate a war with just two sides of the conflict? Can the divisiveness of debate really be that simple? No and no. This framing ignores how within each section are multiple subsections, comprised of debaters each with unique perspectives on the topic, on argument, and on debate as a whole.

And the central issue of war has not been unique to this year’s resolution, nor even debate. We shouldn’t need evidence to prove how political promises have always fallen short of their mark.

The problem with current forms of politics and debate is their emphasis on a grand-narrative telos, or an endpoint or purpose to be achieved.

The executive claims that the telos of war is to bring peace, but war has yet to reach that conclusion. If we ever reached a utopian state of peace, there would be no more need for war.

Language contains a telos as well. The goal of each sentence is to perfectly encapsulate meaning. Definitions of words establish a telos of signification. The word struggles to perfectly represent the essence of its object. Peace is the absence of war. But if we have yet to realize a state of peace, does the word have any meaning at all?

The president utilizes the power of war to justify targeted killing, indefinite detention, offensive cyber operations, and the introduction of armed forces as means toward the end of peace.

Similarly, debating for the purpose of a single overarching goal means we will do anything necessary to achieve that goal, whether that means excluding teams who do not frame their work in the same unified manner or setting unreachable benchmarks for change that cannot be resolved by a single ballot.

While certain telos have importance in themselves, the problem is how we frame the argument through defining endpoints for debate.

Change in debate is DEFINITELY needed, but if we ever believe it’s finally arrived then we will give up striving for it, and debate will just stay the same.

Change is not a product, but rather a process.

The intellectual battles of debate have not brought us any closer to peace. They’ve only demonstrated the privilege and intellectual dogmatism of debaters claiming to have the silver bullet to end war once and for all. Arguing in circles, the cycles of war continue.

War powers debates do not begin or end along a straight line. They are never resolved. Rather, they revolve circularly, around and around, round after round. Just as each war involves differing contexts that provide new meaning for the word, each debate approaches radically different conclusions.

From the several presidential authority resolutions in the past to the hundreds of individual debates this year, we have not answered once and for all the questions of the topic. Debates over war powers will continue outside of this space and even way after this topic is long forgotten because the literature has no solid base. It’s not frozen as a noun but instead fluid like a verb, constantly spiraling down the drain.

I’d be lying if I said the affirmative has the perfect solution to all these problems. I’d also be employing a grand-narrative telos for voting affirmative. No one individual has all the answers. No collective has all the answers either. But that is the beauty of debate21 There is no end-all-be-all of argument. If there was such thing as a perfect speech, there would be no more purpose to debate because the pinnacle has already been reached. Paradoxically, the grand purpose of debate would then be to never realize or actualize the purpose of debate, or else there would be no more reason to debate at all21

Telos is unavoidable, as all argument retains some form of purpose or else nobody would have communicated in the first place. The importance lies in understanding the limits of each argument in ever reaching its purpose and questioning those limits that we establish.

Competition within debate is also inevitable to some extent, so the question is just what metric the judge uses to decide. Treating debate as an ends and ignoring our means is the problem. It ensures that the ballot doesn’t represent a product, but rather, endorses our process.

Rather than debating war powers with a singular product in mind, we must embrace the process of debate itself.

To break free from the teleological confines that define debate-as-war, the affirmative allows debate to simply be debate. There are no final-ends to our means. War means war, peace means peace, and debate means debate.

If words loop around themselves with the goal perfect signification, allowing debate to define itself THROUGH itself concedes the shortcomings of language to ever reach its end.

Our solvency is not in the end of achievement, but rather gained through by deconstructing the means of communicative practice that continuously questions its own capabilities to reach a grand finale.

Instead of arguing in favor of a single set conclusion, we debate for the sake of debating.

We can either read into the resolution and become caught in the loop of argument-wars or we can take away from this topic the power to argue through the circularity, through the limitations on speech and thought, through the means… BUT not towards that singular end off in the distance.

The only way out is through. So let’s debate about executive war powers.

First question. What is war?

2AC

Case

Our process of deconstructive performance breaks down logocentric domination that justifies oppressive hierarchies.
Montgomery, ’10 ~Erwin B. Montgomery III, Prof of English at Bryant University; "SPECTERS OF MARKS: ELEMENTS OF DERRIDEAN HAUNTOLOGY AND
BENJAMINIAN POLITICO-HISTORICAL ESCHATOLOGY IN FRANKENSTEIN,
HEART OF DARKNESS, AND THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN", 2010~

A deconstructive performance implies an awareness that that to which the performance addresses itself proceeds
AND
concerning the being of beings becomes transformed by deconstruction into ?hauntology.?42

T 2AC

Our interpretation is that the question of the topic should be political strategy and NOT law enforcement – Aff is a prerequisite to topic knowledge about restrictions.
Rana, ’11 ~Aziz Rana received his A.B. summa cum laude from Harvard College and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He also earned a Ph.D. in political science at Harvard, where his dissertation was awarded the university’s Charles Sumner Prize. He was an Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fellow in Law at Yale; "Who Decides on Security?"; 8/11/11; Cornell Law Library; http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87/~~

If both objective sociological claims at the center of the modern security concept are themselves
AND
, we can expect our prevailing security arrangements to become ever more entrenched. 

—-AT Decisionmaking

Aff teaches most portable skills for real world activism and decisionmaking – gov expertism and secrecy means we can’t know what we’re up against so we should role-play as ourselves in a state of epistemological incompetence because not everyone who leaves this space will be politicians.
Mansfield, ’6 ~Nick Mansfield; As the Dean Higher Degree Research at
AND
16 NUMBER 3 (SEPTEMBER 2006); Accessed 3/12/14~

What is at stake here is the politics of decision and the insistence on responsibility
AND
to be retrieved as an actively considering responsibility, not panicky defeatist intolerance. 

Debate needs differential relationships to the politics of war – making framework a voting issue
AND
will eliminate difference through war as a means to the end of peace.
Butler ’4 ~2004, Judith Butler is a Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at U.C. Berkeley, "Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence", pg. xix-xxi~

Dissent and debate depend upon the inclusion of those who maintain critical views of state
AND
no war can claim popular consent, and no administration can maintain popularity.

 To produce what will constitute the public sphere, however, it is necessary
AND
as the ability to think critically and publicly about the effects of war.

Cap

Framework is a double turn with cap – alternative must escape control over politics – proves the inauthenticity of the alternative and means the perm solves.
Invisible Committee 1
The Invisible Committee. The Cybernetic Hypothesis. 2001

• • 
    But that also means that its first objective must be to resist all attempts to
    AND
    the intensification of their interrelations, will give rise to an irreversible disequilibrium.
    
    Perm solves – must experiment to find methods of subversion – totalizing conceptions of the "global capitalist system" doom alt solvency.
    Connolly, ’11 ~William Connolly, 2011, review quotes of his book "a world of becoming", http://obsoletematter.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/william-connolly-a-world-of-becoming/**~~**

Specific cultural priorities, habits of family life, religious belief and ritual, underground
AND
imperfectly incorporated into it, and to present an apolitical orientation to it.

Aff accesses sequencing DA – deconstructing outdated concepts and starting afresh solves best, otherwise our old remedies become hegemonic.
Galli 10, Carlo Galli, Professor of Political Philosophy at the Univeristy of Bologna, Politics Spaces and Global War, trans. Adam Sitze, p. 188

Rather than denying the theoretico-political novelty of Global War, ratherthan closing our
AND
the ground—for today, that rubble hinders more than it helps.

Revolutionary framing of Zavarzedeh ev ignores the adaptability of 21st century capitalism, gets coopted by the system.
De Cock et al, ’7 ~Christian De Cock, Professor of Organization
AND
Organizing revolution?"; MANAGEMENT 26 ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY Vol 2(2), 2007~

Revolution seems a constant in the world of business. Textbooks talk about Taylorism and
AND
and promoters of revolution, which then becomes a commodity like everything else.

Tournament: CEDA | Round: 1 | Opponent: Kansas State KM | Judge: Daniel Stout

1AC

What is war?

Peace is the absence of war. But how do we know if we’ve never lived in a world without war? What can we do to find peace? Is peace even possible?

Rejecting war outright to move towards a state of peace ignores that the justifications for pacifism are tied to the executive’s reasons for war. Despite their numerous differences, those preaching flower power and seeking peace and love had similar endpoints for politics as the military hawks whose policies brought about war and hatred. Whether or not they actually desire peace, war makers evoke the rhetoric of peace to rationalize war as the best way to exterminate all those who considered threats to stability.

But the term "war" is not powerful by itself. Instead its significance comes from its abilities to describe the reality of conflict and motivate further violence with an end goal of creating peace.

War is not just the product of the political system that magically appears on the command of the president. War is the process of politics constantly falling short of ever bringing about peace.

If peace is the ends, war is the means.

But war means different things to different individuals in different situations. War for Congress and the Courts is something better left to the executive. War for the executive is never the fault of the United States. War means protection. War means loving one’s country. War means uniting the world under a common framework. War means appeasing the gods. War means erasing difference. War means victory is the only option. War is the means. Peace is the end.

For me, war means living and breathing, constantly questioning the power manifested around me, and refusing to go on with "business as usual." But can I ever find peace when I know that others may still be at war? What worth are individual conquests of peace over war when others continually suffer?

What use is any goal at all?

Peace is the end forever out of reach, while war extends its reach forever.

Now, all war is not the same and all debate is not the same. Nor can they be treated that simply.

And yet, debaters act like war is just another word on the flow. They claim that a single ballot can bring a state of peace. How might a judge decide between two imaginary worlds when both are prophesized to go boom? Is it meaningful for debaters to claim to have the final solution on how to bring peace without first questioning the meaning of war? What ends justify these means?

Debates about war powers never reach an ending point. After this round, they will continue outside this room. They will continue within halls of power. They will continue in the meetings of local grassroots organizations. They will continue on the everyday level, among people who know the arguments way more than we ever could because they experience presidential war policy act directly upon them. Argument to some people doesn’t just mean a way to develop some skills so we can do better in law school. Instead, argument means protecting oneself from the horrors of the law. This is, after all, a legal topic.

So before proceeding through the rest of this one debate, we must start this conversation with a question: what even is debate?

There are two ways to answer this: either ascribe meaning to debate or allow it to define itself.

Supplying singular meaning to debate is the more dominant answer. This interpretive move constructs debate as a war of words. Debaters treat the ballot as a bullet and seek to destroy anyone blocking the path towards peace.

Anyone believed to be in opposition to one’s end goals become labeled as an enemy through propaganda tactics, justifying argumentative holy wars against all those considered "unreasonable." Peace can begin only once the enemy is vanquished.

It’s only fitting that the metaphor of debate as a war-of-words grew more powerful on the war powers topic. The opening shots were fired when the Kentucky Round Robin didn’t invite the returning national champion.

Then hostilities increased.

After the historic moment when for the first time two black women won the top two speaker awards at the Kentucky tournament, some judges used point inflation as the only option to charge policy relevance back onto the battlefield of elims. Whether or not it was their goal, they punished the rest of the pool and undid the purpose of affirmative action point inflation.

All the while the flame wars on facebook and ceda forums continued.

But that description is incomplete because the text always adds pages. If debate truly is a war, we cannot understand it fully just by focusing on flashpoint conflicts. Each round would be a battle with individual tactical decisions.

Is debate a war with just two sides of the conflict? Can the divisiveness of debate really be that simple? No and no. This framing ignores how within each section are multiple subsections, comprised of debaters each with unique perspectives on the topic, on argument, and on debate as a whole.

And the central issue of war has not been unique to this year’s resolution, nor even debate. We shouldn’t need evidence to prove how political promises have always fallen short of their mark.

The problem with current forms of politics and debate is their emphasis on a grand-narrative telos, or an endpoint or purpose to be achieved.

The executive claims that the telos of war is to bring peace, but war has yet to reach that conclusion. If we ever reached a utopian state of peace, there would be no more need for war.

Language contains a telos as well. The goal of each sentence is to perfectly encapsulate meaning. Definitions of words establish a telos of signification. The word struggles to perfectly represent the essence of its object. Peace is the absence of war. But if we have yet to realize a state of peace, does the word have any meaning at all?

The president utilizes the power of war to justify targeted killing, indefinite detention, offensive cyber operations, and the introduction of armed forces as means toward the end of peace.

Similarly, debating for the purpose of a single overarching goal means we will do anything necessary to achieve that goal, whether that means excluding teams who do not frame their work in the same unified manner or setting unreachable benchmarks for change that cannot be resolved by a single ballot.

While certain telos have importance in themselves, the problem is how we frame the argument through defining endpoints for debate.

Change in debate is DEFINITELY needed, but if we ever believe it’s finally arrived then we will give up striving for it, and debate will just stay the same.

Change is not a product, but rather a process.

The intellectual battles of debate have not brought us any closer to peace. They’ve only demonstrated the privilege and intellectual dogmatism of debaters claiming to have the silver bullet to end war once and for all. Arguing in circles, the cycles of war continue.

War powers debates do not begin or end along a straight line. They are never resolved. Rather, they revolve circularly, around and around, round after round. Just as each war involves differing contexts that provide new meaning for the word, each debate approaches radically different conclusions.

From the several presidential authority resolutions in the past to the hundreds of individual debates this year, we have not answered once and for all the questions of the topic. Debates over war powers will continue outside of this space and even way after this topic is long forgotten because the literature has no solid base. It’s not frozen as a noun but instead fluid like a verb, constantly spiraling down the drain.

I’d be lying if I said the affirmative has the perfect solution to all these problems. I’d also be employing a grand-narrative telos for voting affirmative. No one individual has all the answers. No collective has all the answers either. But that is the beauty of debate21 There is no end-all-be-all of argument. If there was such thing as a perfect speech, there would be no more purpose to debate because the pinnacle has already been reached. Paradoxically, the grand purpose of debate would then be to never realize or actualize the purpose of debate, or else there would be no more reason to debate at all21

Telos is unavoidable, as all argument retains some form of purpose or else nobody would have communicated in the first place. The importance lies in understanding the limits of each argument in ever reaching its purpose and questioning those limits that we establish.

Competition within debate is also inevitable to some extent, so the question is just what metric the judge uses to decide. Treating debate as an ends and ignoring our means is the problem. It ensures that the ballot doesn’t represent a product, but rather, endorses our process.

Rather than debating war powers with a singular product in mind, we must embrace the process of debate itself.

To break free from the teleological confines that define debate-as-war, the affirmative allows debate to simply be debate. There are no final-ends to our means. War means war, peace means peace, and debate means debate.

If words loop around themselves with the goal perfect signification, allowing debate to define itself THROUGH itself concedes the shortcomings of language to ever reach its end.

Our solvency is not in the end of achievement, but rather gained through by deconstructing the means of communicative practice that continuously questions its own capabilities to reach a grand finale.

Instead of arguing in favor of a single set conclusion, we debate for the sake of debating.

We can either read into the resolution and become caught in the loop of argument-wars or we can take away from this topic the power to argue through the circularity, through the limitations on speech and thought, through the means… BUT not towards that singular end off in the distance.

The only way out is through. So let’s debate about executive war powers.

First question. What is war?

2AC

Case

Our process of deconstructive performance breaks down logocentric domination that justifies oppressive hierarchies.
Montgomery, ’10 ~Erwin B. Montgomery III, Prof of English at Bryant University; "SPECTERS OF MARKS: ELEMENTS OF DERRIDEAN HAUNTOLOGY AND
BENJAMINIAN POLITICO-HISTORICAL ESCHATOLOGY IN FRANKENSTEIN,
HEART OF DARKNESS, AND THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN", 2010~

A deconstructive performance implies an awareness that that to which the performance addresses itself proceeds
AND
concerning the being of beings becomes transformed by deconstruction into ?hauntology.?42

T 2AC

Our interpretation is that the question of the topic should be political strategy and NOT law enforcement – Aff is a prerequisite to topic knowledge about restrictions.
Rana, ’11 ~Aziz Rana received his A.B. summa cum laude from Harvard College and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He also earned a Ph.D. in political science at Harvard, where his dissertation was awarded the university’s Charles Sumner Prize. He was an Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fellow in Law at Yale; "Who Decides on Security?"; 8/11/11; Cornell Law Library; http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87/~~

If both objective sociological claims at the center of the modern security concept are themselves
AND
, we can expect our prevailing security arrangements to become ever more entrenched. 

—-AT Decisionmaking

Aff teaches most portable skills for real world activism and decisionmaking – gov expertism and secrecy means we can’t know what we’re up against so we should role-play as ourselves in a state of epistemological incompetence because not everyone who leaves this space will be politicians.
Mansfield, ’6 ~Nick Mansfield; As the Dean Higher Degree Research at
AND
16 NUMBER 3 (SEPTEMBER 2006); Accessed 3/12/14~

What is at stake here is the politics of decision and the insistence on responsibility
AND
to be retrieved as an actively considering responsibility, not panicky defeatist intolerance. 

Debate needs differential relationships to the politics of war – making framework a voting issue
AND
will eliminate difference through war as a means to the end of peace.
Butler ’4 ~2004, Judith Butler is a Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at U.C. Berkeley, "Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence", pg. xix-xxi~

Dissent and debate depend upon the inclusion of those who maintain critical views of state
AND
no war can claim popular consent, and no administration can maintain popularity.

 To produce what will constitute the public sphere, however, it is necessary
AND
as the ability to think critically and publicly about the effects of war.

Cap

Framework is a double turn with cap – alternative must escape control over politics – proves the inauthenticity of the alternative and means the perm solves.
Invisible Committee 1
The Invisible Committee. The Cybernetic Hypothesis. 2001

• • 
    But that also means that its first objective must be to resist all attempts to
    AND
    the intensification of their interrelations, will give rise to an irreversible disequilibrium.
    
    Perm solves – must experiment to find methods of subversion – totalizing conceptions of the "global capitalist system" doom alt solvency.
    Connolly, ’11 ~William Connolly, 2011, review quotes of his book "a world of becoming", http://obsoletematter.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/william-connolly-a-world-of-becoming/**~~**

Specific cultural priorities, habits of family life, religious belief and ritual, underground
AND
imperfectly incorporated into it, and to present an apolitical orientation to it.

Aff accesses sequencing DA – deconstructing outdated concepts and starting afresh solves best, otherwise our old remedies become hegemonic.
Galli 10, Carlo Galli, Professor of Political Philosophy at the Univeristy of Bologna, Politics Spaces and Global War, trans. Adam Sitze, p. 188

Rather than denying the theoretico-political novelty of Global War, ratherthan closing our
AND
the ground—for today, that rubble hinders more than it helps.

Revolutionary framing of Zavarzedeh ev ignores the adaptability of 21st century capitalism, gets coopted by the system.
De Cock et al, ’7 ~Christian De Cock, Professor of Organization
AND
Organizing revolution?"; MANAGEMENT 26 ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY Vol 2(2), 2007~

Revolution seems a constant in the world of business. Textbooks talk about Taylorism and
AND
and promoters of revolution, which then becomes a commodity like everything else.

Tournament: CEDA | Round: 4 | Opponent: Johnson County CC BN | Judge: Derek Ziegler

1AC

====What is war?====

====Peace is the absence of war. But how do we know if we’ve never lived in a world without war? What can we do to find peace? Is peace even possible?====

====Rejecting war outright to move towards a state of peace ignores that the justifications for pacifism are tied to the executive’s reasons for war. Despite their numerous differences, those preaching flower power and seeking peace and love had similar endpoints for politics as the military hawks whose policies brought about war and hatred. Whether or not they actually desire peace, war makers evoke the rhetoric of peace to rationalize war as the best way to exterminate all those who considered threats to stability. ====

====But the term "war" is not powerful by itself. Instead its significance comes from its abilities to describe the reality of conflict and motivate further violence with an end goal of creating peace.====

====War is not just the product of the political system that magically appears on the command of the president. War is the process of politics constantly falling short of ever bringing about peace.====

====If peace is the ends, war is the means.====

====But war means different things to different individuals in different situations. War for Congress and the Courts is something better left to the executive. War for the executive is never the fault of the United States. War means protection. War means loving one’s country. War means uniting the world under a common framework. War means appeasing the gods. War means erasing difference. War means victory is the only option. War is the means. Peace is the end.====

====For me, war means living and breathing, constantly questioning the power manifested around me, and refusing to go on with "business as usual." But can I ever find peace when I know that others may still be at war? What worth are individual conquests of peace over war when others continually suffer?====

====What use is any goal at all?====

====Peace is the end forever out of reach, while war extends its reach forever.====

====Now, all war is not the same and all debate is not the same. Nor can they be treated that simply. ====

====And yet, debaters act like war is just another word on the flow. They claim that a single ballot can bring a state of peace. How might a judge decide between two imaginary worlds when both are prophesized to go boom? Is it meaningful for debaters to claim to have the final solution on how to bring peace without first questioning the meaning of war? What ends justify these means?====

==== ====

====Debates about war powers never reach an ending point. After this round, they will continue outside this room. They will continue within halls of power. They will continue in the meetings of local grassroots organizations. They will continue on the everyday level, among people who know the arguments way more than we ever could because they experience presidential war policy act directly upon them. Argument to some people doesn’t just mean a way to develop some skills so we can do better in law school. Instead, argument means protecting oneself from the horrors of the law. This is, after all, a legal topic.====

====So before proceeding through the rest of this one debate, we must start this conversation with a question: what even is debate? ====

====There are two ways to answer this: either ascribe meaning to debate or allow it to define itself. ====

====Supplying singular meaning to debate is the more dominant answer. This interpretive move constructs debate as a war of words. Debaters treat the ballot as a bullet and seek to destroy anyone blocking the path towards peace.====

====Anyone believed to be in opposition to one’s end goals become labeled as an enemy through propaganda tactics, justifying argumentative holy wars against all those considered "unreasonable." Peace can begin only once the enemy is vanquished.====

====It’s only fitting that the metaphor of debate as a war-of-words grew more powerful on the war powers topic. The opening shots were fired when the Kentucky Round Robin didn’t invite the returning national champion.====

====Then hostilities increased. ====

====After the historic moment when for the first time two black women won the top two speaker awards at the Kentucky tournament, some judges used point inflation as the only option to charge policy relevance back onto the battlefield of elims. Whether or not it was their goal, they punished the rest of the pool and undid the purpose of affirmative action point inflation.====

====All the while the flame wars on facebook and ceda forums continued.====

====But that description is incomplete because the text always adds pages. If debate truly is a war, we cannot understand it fully just by focusing on flashpoint conflicts. Each round would be a battle with individual tactical decisions.====

====Is debate a war with just two sides of the conflict? Can the divisiveness of debate really be that simple? No and no. This framing ignores how within each section are multiple subsections, comprised of debaters each with unique perspectives on the topic, on argument, and on debate as a whole.====

====And the central issue of war has not been unique to this year’s resolution, nor even debate. We shouldn’t need evidence to prove how political promises have always fallen short of their mark. ====

====The problem with current forms of politics and debate is their emphasis on a grand-narrative telos, or an endpoint or purpose to be achieved. ====

====The executive claims that the telos of war is to bring peace, but war has yet to reach that conclusion. If we ever reached a utopian state of peace, there would be no more need for war.====

====Language contains a telos as well. The goal of each sentence is to perfectly encapsulate meaning. Definitions of words establish a telos of signification. The word struggles to perfectly represent the essence of its object. Peace is the absence of war. But if we have yet to realize a state of peace, does the word have any meaning at all?====

====The president utilizes the power of war to justify targeted killing, indefinite detention, offensive cyber operations, and the introduction of armed forces as means toward the end of peace.====

====Similarly, debating for the purpose of a single overarching goal means we will do anything necessary to achieve that goal, whether that means excluding teams who do not frame their work in the same unified manner or setting unreachable benchmarks for change that cannot be resolved by a single ballot. ====

====While certain telos have importance in themselves, the problem is how we frame the argument through defining endpoints for debate. ====

====Change in debate is DEFINITELY needed, but if we ever believe it’s finally arrived then we will give up striving for it, and debate will just stay the same. ====

====Change is not a product, but rather a process.====

====The intellectual battles of debate have not brought us any closer to peace. They’ve only demonstrated the privilege and intellectual dogmatism of debaters claiming to have the silver bullet to end war once and for all. Arguing in circles, the cycles of war continue. ====

====War powers debates do not begin or end along a straight line. They are never resolved. Rather, they revolve circularly, around and around, round after round. Just as each war involves differing contexts that provide new meaning for the word, each debate approaches radically different conclusions. ====

==== ====

====From the several presidential authority resolutions in the past to the hundreds of individual debates this year, we have not answered once and for all the questions of the topic. Debates over war powers will continue outside of this space and even way after this topic is long forgotten because the literature has no solid base. It’s not frozen as a noun but instead fluid like a verb, constantly spiraling down the drain.====

====I’d be lying if I said the affirmative has the perfect solution to all these problems. I’d also be employing a grand-narrative telos for voting affirmative. No one individual has all the answers. No collective has all the answers either. But that is the beauty of debate21 There is no end-all-be-all of argument. If there was such thing as a perfect speech, there would be no more purpose to debate because the pinnacle has already been reached. Paradoxically, the grand purpose of debate would then be to never realize or actualize the purpose of debate, or else there would be no more reason to debate at all21====

====Telos is unavoidable, as all argument retains some form of purpose or else nobody would have communicated in the first place. The importance lies in understanding the limits of each argument in ever reaching its purpose and questioning those limits that we establish.====

====Competition within debate is also inevitable to some extent, so the question is just what metric the judge uses to decide. Treating debate as an ends and ignoring our means is the problem. It ensures that the ballot doesn’t represent a product, but rather, endorses our process.====

====Rather than debating war powers with a singular product in mind, we must embrace the process of debate itself. ====

====To break free from the teleological confines that define debate-as-war, the affirmative allows debate to simply be debate. There are no final-ends to our means. War means war, peace means peace, and debate means debate.====

====If words loop around themselves with the goal perfect signification, allowing debate to define itself THROUGH itself concedes the shortcomings of language to ever reach its end. ====

====Our solvency is not in the end of achievement, but rather gained through by deconstructing the means of communicative practice that continuously questions its own capabilities to reach a grand finale. ====

====Instead of arguing in favor of a single set conclusion, we debate for the sake of debating.====

====We can either read into the resolution and become caught in the loop of argument-wars or we can take away from this topic the power to argue through the circularity, through the limitations on speech and thought, through the means… BUT not towards that singular end off in the distance.====

====The only way out is through. So let’s debate about executive war powers.====

====First question. What is war?====

2AC

Our process of deconstructive performance breaks down logocentric domination that justifies oppressive hierarchies.
Montgomery, ’10 ~Erwin B. Montgomery III, Prof of English at Bryant University; "SPECTERS OF MARKS: ELEMENTS OF DERRIDEAN HAUNTOLOGY AND
BENJAMINIAN POLITICO-HISTORICAL ESCHATOLOGY IN FRANKENSTEIN,
HEART OF DARKNESS, AND THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT’S WOMAN", 2010~

A deconstructive performance implies an awareness that that to which the performance addresses itself proceeds
AND
concerning the being of beings becomes transformed by deconstruction into ?hauntology.?42

The logocentric privileging of the spoken over the written word is a drive to impose violent consistency on the world and is at the root of all forms of exclusion. Only the counterplan’s act of deconstruction can dismantle hierarchical ordering. 
Lilla, ’98 ~Mark, Social Thought Studies @ University of Chicago, "The Politics of Jacques Derrida," http://www.jya.com/lilla-derrida.htm~~

Deconstruction was conceived in the spirit of Heidegger’s Destruktion, though Derrida had no intention
AND
rights, humanitarianism, even crimes against humanity would have to be forsworn. 

Representations of North Korea are rooted in ideological hegemony not objective data

Shim 08, David Shim, Phd Candidate  GIGA Institute of Asian Studies, 2008 Paper prepared for presentation at the 2008 ISA, Production, Hegemonization and Contestation of Discursive Hegemony: The Case of the Six-Party Talks in Northeast Asia, www.allacademic.com/meta/p253290_index.html

Laclau and Mouffe’s (2001: chapter 2) concept of hegemony, which is
AND
practices of problematizing North Korea took place even before an action was done. 

Embrace instability of argumentation – a turn to openness is the most meaningful decision – star this card.
Corder, ’85 ~Jim W. Corder is Professor of English at Texas Christian University. In 1975 he received the NCTE’s Braddock Prize. He has published articles on rhetoric in various journals and has written several textbooks on writing.; "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love"; Rhetoric Review, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Sep., 1985); Taylor 26 Francis~

d. We arguers can learn the lessons that rhetoric itself wants to teach us
AND
may thus be elevated, may grow to hold both arguer and other.

War policies are not accidents – they are deliberate attempts to expand the state dominance – the government doesn’t care what we think it "should" do – reformist focus prevents true change.
Herod, ’1 (James, "A Stake, Not a Mistake: On Not Seeing the Enemy," October. http://www.jamesherod.info/index.php?sec=paper26id=9**)**

I spent several years in the early sixties studying Underdevelopment. It was frustrating,
AND
initiate draconian repression against internal dissent in order to achieve "domestic tranquility".

Aff reenchants policymaking and is prerequisite to framework by opening space for alternatives to falsely universal solutions.
Parsons, ’10 ~Wayne Parson is Professor of Public Policy at Queen Mary, University of London. He is currently Visiting Professor in policy sciences at FLACSO, Mexico and the Catholic University of Lille; "Modernism redux: po-mo problems and hi-mo public policy" from "Public Management in the Postmodern Era: Challenges and Prospects"; 2010~

The shift towards the discourse of policy capacity involved therefore using the (best)
AND
increasing diversity and competition between different approaches, frameworks, tools and models.

Tournament: CEDA | Round: 6 | Opponent: San Francisco StateIrvine AP | Judge: Andy Montee

FW

Aff teaches most portable skills for real world activism and decisionmaking – gov expertism and secrecy means we can’t know what we’re up against so we should role-play as ourselves in a state of epistemological incompetence because not everyone who leaves this space will be politicians.
Mansfield, ’6 ~Nick Mansfield; As the Dean Higher Degree Research at
AND
16 NUMBER 3 (SEPTEMBER 2006); Accessed 3/12/14~

What is at stake here is the politics of decision and the insistence on responsibility
AND
to be retrieved as an actively considering responsibility, not panicky defeatist intolerance. 

\

debate mimics the roles and goals of war-mongers instead of revolutionizing creative solutions – our process is a prerequisite to any deliberative politics.
Mansfield, ’6 ~Nick Mansfield; As the Dean Higher Degree Research at
AND
16 NUMBER 3 (SEPTEMBER 2006); Accessed 3/12/14~

In Virilio’s domain of ’’pure war’’, the inspired antagony of unresolved controversy in
AND
deliberation, a reduction to zero of contingent, inventive, critical thinking.

Debate needs differential relationships to the politics of war – making framework a voting issue
AND
will eliminate difference through war as a means to the end of peace.
Butler ’4 ~2004, Judith Butler is a Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at U.C. Berkeley, "Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence", pg. xix-xxi~

Dissent and debate depend upon the inclusion of those who maintain critical views of state
AND
as the ability to think critically and publicly about the effects of war.

K

Anti-blackness is not an ontological antagonism but is comprised from a knot of hegemonic signification that can be undone – openness towards new conceptions of meaning for whiteness and blackness creates possibility for interrupting the dominant narrative of politics – confining identity to ontological categories forecloses any opportunity for change.
Peter Hudson, ’13, Political Studies Department, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg , South Africa, has been on the editorial board of the Africa Perspective: The South African Journal of Sociology and Theoria: A Journal of Political and Social Theory and Transformation, and is a member of the Johannesburg Workshop in Theory and Criticism, The state and the colonial unconscious, Social Dynamics: A journal of African studies, 2013

Thus the self-same/other distinction is necessary for the possibility of identity
AND
, as distinct from "subject" position based on a determinate identity.

2AC Intersections of Slavery Turn

Racial analysis of slavery crowds out an intersectional analysis – wrecks our ability to have an effective tool for understanding the inter-locking relations of domination under chattal slavery – Slavery was not solely an anti-black institution – it was a race, class, and gender specific institution – the rhetorical absence of _ ensure it reinforces anti-blackness and will continue it in worse and more insidious forms 
Collins 13 (Patricia Hill, Prof of Sociology @ University of Maryland at College Park, On Intellectual Activism)
Even though I realize that many in the current administration would not share this assumption
AND
, and gender interlocked in structuring slavery’s systemic organization of domination and subordination.

Alt fails – if necessary, the military could decimate entire cities and move others in smaller towns to camps to dissuade any would be revolutionaries from joining in the fight – numerous examples prove.
Welsh, ’9 ~March 30, 2009, Ian Welsh, work appeared at Huffington Post, Alternet, and Truthout, "Guerrilla Warfare: The Way of the Weak", http://www.ianwelsh.net/guerrilla-warfare/~~ 

Let’s talk about the easy way first. Scare and weaken the population into no longer supporting the insurgency. The primary method here is mass killing, and removal of the population to camps. If a city (like Fallujah) is a problem, you destroy it entirely, and you kill everyone in it, or at least every fighting-age male. This is one reason why US marines would not allow men out of Fallujah in the run up to the final assault. Do this often enough, and people get the message that supporting the insurgency is a really bad idea. And if you’re willing to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians,  you’re bound to get a lot of the right people, along with a lot of the wrong people. Immoral? Of course, but it does work. Take other towns and cities which are troublesome but not quite so bad, and move their populations to camps. This allows you to control the population in such a way that they can’t support guerrillas.3 Both of these methods were used by the US in the Philippines on a large scale. They worked. Wiping out a huge chunk of the population also worked for Russia against Chechnya, notable for inspiring enough hatred to spawn female suicide bombers, who were mostly avenging male relatives or lovers tortured to death by the Russians; and for Turkey against their own Kurds, a campaign notable for wiping out entire villages, killing the men and raping the women. The camp strategy is currently being used by India against some of its indigenous guerrilla movements. A sufficiently ruthless commander could win the Iraq occupation in a few years, if given the green-light to commit massive atrocities and kill a few million Iraqis.

Wise Whiteness

The critique is wrong about whiteness – by acknowledging the difference between the racial category of "whiteness" and the racial behavior of "whiteliness", the aff can effectively change social positions – privilege is inevitable, the only question is how to articulate that privilege to undermine racism – if society is divided now, there’s only a risk that we do something good.
Sullivan, ’6 ~2006; Shannon Sullivan; Penn State, Professor of Philosophy, Women’s Studies, and African and African American Studies, Philosophy Department Head; Ph.D., Vanderbilt University; Indiana University Press; "Revealing Whiteness: The Unconscious Habits Of Racial Privilege"~

So then, what are white people to do with respect to space if they wish to be ’’race traitors’’ but cannot and should not attempt to shed their whiteness?50 How might white people live their spatiality such that they challenge rather than support racism? The distinction between being white and being whitely can help address these questions.51 ’’Being white’’ refers to physical traits such as pale skin color, while ’’being whitely’’ refers to ’’a deeply ingrained way of being in the world’’ that includes behaviors, habits, and dispositions.52 The connection between being white and being whitely is contingent, rather than necessary, which means that people who are white need not also be whitely. The fact that a person has physical features, such as pale skin, that tend to locate her as white does not necessarily mean that she has to think or behave as if white people are racially superior to non-white people. While biology contributes to a person’s cultural, social, and political habits, it does not determine them. The relationship between being white and being whitely is transactional, which means that their relationship is never as simple as one of cultural whiteliness overlaying biological whiteness. Biological whiteness— the fact that particular skin, hair, facial, and other physical features are identified as racially white—is not prior to, but is a product of whiteliness itself.53 But the white-whitely distinction still can be used in meaningful ways; it can be invoked without resorting to a biologism of race. One can and should acknowledge that whiteness is not a ’’natural,’’ physical substratum that is overlaid by cultural forms of whiteliness. One can and should understand whiteness as transactional and acknowledge that spatiality helps constitute who counts as white. One also can and should recognize that often troubling political motivations for appealing to the existence of white and black races are informed by the racism of whiteliness. One can and should do all of this at the same time that one retains the use of the category of whiteness. This is because even though being categorized as white may be a product of whiteliness, being white is no less real for being such. Even though it is psychically, socially, and materially constituted rather than biologically determined, whiteness will continue to be a necessary and useful category for philosophical analyses as long as white racist societies continue to discriminate invidiously against people based on their physical characteristics. There are additional reasons to be cautious when using a white-whitely distinction. To the extent that it implies that whiteness is fairly difficult (if not impossible) to change but that whiteliness is relatively simple to transform, the distinction is problematic. It is not the case that deeply ingrained ways of being in the world—habits, in other words—are easy to modify merely because they are not physical features. (And even this way of phrasing the concern is odd since many habits manifest themselves in one’s physical features.) Especially when they are unconscious, habits of whiteliness can be extremely difficult to detect, let alone change. While acquired rather than innate, unconscious habits of white privilege can develop a relative fixity that makes them just as difficult to modify as one’s physical features, if not more so. Carefully qualified in these ways, the distinction between being white and whitely allows both the insistence that white people cannot and should not attempt to think of themselves as ceasing to be white and the realization that this insistence does not have to mean that acknowledging oneself as white dooms one to total complicity with racism. White people cannot willfully change the physical features that tend to result in their classification as white—at least, not many of them and only to a limited degree—but they can and should attempt to unlearn their whiteliness— even if here too those attempts must be partial and limited. White people can and need to find ways of transacting with the world as white that undermine white racism. Doing so means that white people must find ways to use their racial privilege against racism. It also means that when fighting racism, white people do not become marginal in white racist societies in the same ways that non-white people are. Unlearning whiteliness does not mean pretending to have no racial privileges or thinking of oneself as having renounced all racial privileges. Instead, renouncing one’s whiteliness often means acknowledging and using one’s privilege as a white person to combat racism. This claim may seem paradoxical since one feature of whiteliness is the exercise of white privilege. To use one’s privilege as a white person, even in the service of antiracist projects, may appear to only strengthen, rather than dismantle, that privilege. And, indeed, this is a danger that can never be completely eliminated. But if a person cannot step out of her skin and cease being white and if at least some privileges will continue to be awarded to white people in a racist society whether they want them or not, white people will continue to be privileged. Like it or not, a white person’s ’’unjust privilege and power will not ~completely~ ’go away’, no matter how hard one works to become a traitor.’’54 The question for white race traitors is not will they continue to have some racial privileges, but what will they do with those privileges? The answer to that question and a key to being a white race traitor at this point in history is finding ways to use white racial privilege against itself. ’’Privilege, in the hands of a traitor, ~can~ becom~e~ a tool for democracy,’’ rather than a tool for the increase of unjust privileges for white people.55 White people need to be accountable for how and to what ends they use the tools of their privilege.

Main

The neg’s dualistic thinking promotes an us-them binary of white and non-
AND
of accountability is comparatively more effective in addressing domination than a politics of blame
hooks 12, Distinguished Professor in Residence at Barea
(bell, Writing Beyond Race: Living Theory and Practice, pg. 43)
Clearly the future of diversity lies in creating greater awareness and greater critical consciousness about
AND
notion of forgiveness, the more an internalized sense of victimhood became the norm

. Tragically, today many black folks are more despairing of any possibility that racism
AND
our society – both black and white – resist seeing the larger picture.

Tournament: Districts | Round: 2 | Opponent: Emory DK | Judge: Sean Ridley

1AC

The executive retains power through the intentional ambiguity of the "war" metaphor –
AND
and policies’ justification of force against indistinct enemies makes war powers expansion inevitable.
Elkins, ’10 ~Jeremy Elkins, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley. Professor in Political Science at Bryn Mawr College. He has taught at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he served as chair of the Legal Studies Program; "The Model of War", 2010; Political Theory 38(2)~

The U.S. war on terrorism, as it was being constructed during
AND
of defining the nation and its enemies in this way are daunting.74

The traditional concept of peace doesn’t exist – war powers mandate social systems to declare war on one population to create peace for another – reflection on the conceptual state of war precedes instrumental solutions.

Mansfield, ’8 ~Nick Mansfield; As the Dean Higher Degree Research at
AND
Palgrave Macmillan, November 11, 2008; p. 150-155~

It is not simply wrong to argue that the difference between war and its other
AND
only attain their co-ordination because of the irreducible disjunction between them.¶ 

We must understand war as constantly evolving – attempting to strive for peace ignores that war is always the medium – understanding war as an unstable concept allows for adaptation of political understanding to cope with the political uncertainty of the future.

- Our current conditions of war can’t be changed if we don’t seek to understand war itself.
War as a term can only be defined in relation to its opposite, such as peace, love, et cetera, BUT that opposite is always changing.
Rejection of war in favor of its opposites ignores how war is always fought in the name of realizing these states of peace.
The future will inevitably bring new social, political problems that will be impossible to address with one grand solution.
Instead we must understand war not as a stable concept but as ever evolving.
Mansfield, ’8 ~Nick Mansfield; As the Dean Higher Degree Research at
AND
Palgrave Macmillan, November 11, 2008; p. 162-167~

The aim of this book has been to show that war is always defined in
AND
events, it may take over the function of our previous political paradigms.¶ 

Metaphor is everywhere and unavoidable BUT there are certain metaphors that are detrimental.

The argument-as-war metaphor utilized by debate becomes a form of rhetorical violence that puts participants and critics at odds with each other.
The metaphorical guides the literal as conceptions of argument-as-war makes it so.
Lakoff and Johnson, ’80 ~George Lakoff, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley; Mark Johnson, Knight Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Oregon; excerpt from "Metaphors We Live By"; http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html~~

Metaphor is for most people device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish—
AND
metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide variety of expressions:
ARGUMENT IS WAR
Your claims are indefensible.
She ~sic~  attacked every weak point in my argument.
Her ~sic~ criticisms were right on target.
I demolished his argument.
I’ve never won an argument with him.
you disagree? Okay, shoot21
If you use that strategy, he’ll wipe you out.
She ~sic~ shot down all of my arguments.
It is important to know ~sic~ that we don’t just talk about arguments
AND
concepts and to gain an understanding of the metaphorical nature of our activities.

Vote aff to restrict the power of the war metaphor.

Just like there’s no one perfect definition of war, there’s no perfect definition of debate; the activity constitutes a multitude of different things in various contexts. The war metaphor antagonizes debaters and stifles debate’s potential.

The meaning behind language is not stagnant, but instead constantly fluctuating.

There are a vast number of replacements to the metaphor of argument as war. Instead of choosing just one, we should expand our rhetorical possibilities and never end the search for how to define and relate to debate.
Cohen, ’95 ~Daniel H. Cohen, Ph.D., Philosophy, Indiana University. Professor of Philosophy at Colby College; "Argument is War ... and War is Hell: Philosophy, Education, and Metaphors for Argumentation"; Informal Logic Vol. 17, No.2 (Spring 1995)~

To be sure, there are alternative understandings of argumentation available. I think it
AND
traffic in as many metaphors as possible-including all those traffic metaphors21

2AC

Flex

====War powers’ expertism uniquely fails AND is supercharged by secret information – aff prevents serial policy failure.====
Rana, ’11 ~Aziz Rana received his A.B. summa cum laude from Harvard College and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He also earned a Ph.D. in political science at Harvard, where his dissertation was awarded the university’s Charles Sumner Prize. He was an Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fellow in Law at Yale; "Who Decides on Security?"; 8/11/11; Cornell Law Library; http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87/~~**

Despite such democratic concerns, a large part of what makes today’s dominant security concept
AND
fundamentally by epistemological uncertainty as opposed to verifiable fact – than policymakers admit.

AT Heg – Myth D and Turn

Hegemony is a myth without historical basis – upholding the fiction of American domination causes lash out and prevents possibility for cooperation
Doran, ’9 ~Charles F. Doran, Andrew W. Mellon Prof. of International Relations, Director of the Global Theory and History Program, and Director of the Center for Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins University; "Fooling Oneself: The Mythology of Hegemony" International Studies Review, Vol. 11.1. 2009~

More than a catalogue of techniques other governments use to resist U.S.
AND
be self-financing, self-enforcing, and self-sufficient.

Drones

Drones policy is shrouded in secrecy – debate is impossible because of the lack of transparency – instead of assessing the information selectively leaked by the government, focus should be on the production of knowledge behind policy.
Toth, ’13 ~Kate Toth, London School of Economics, Dissertation; "REMOTE-CONTROLLED WAR: IMPLICATIONS OF THE DISTANCING OF STATE-SPONSORED VIOLENCE ON AMERICAN DEMOCRACY"; Apr 27, 2013; http://www.academia.edu/3125323/REMOTE-CONTROLLED_WAR_IMPLICATIONS_OF_THE_DISTANCING_OF_STATE-SPONSORED_VIOLENCE_ON_AMERICAN_DEMOCRACY~~

With regard to drones, what the public knows has been released through leaks to
AND
is also indicative of the weakness of current American civil society and media.

Al Qaeda does not exist as a unique entity – it is an umbrella term for anyone the US considers as an enemy.
Corrigan 13 (Edward Corrigan, human rights and international lawyer from Ontario, to shed more light on the issue of the US and al-Qaeda interrelations., http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/08/07/317696/alqaeda-threat-ploy-to-silence-americans/)

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview. Press TV: Now,
AND
the mounting opposition to the United States to these massive illegal spying programs. 

War on Poverty

Aff accesses critical sequencing question – The War Metaphor justified the war on poverty.
Elkins, ’10 ~Jeremy Elkins, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley. Professor in Political Science at Bryn Mawr College. He has taught at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he served as chair of the Legal Studies Program; "The Model of War", 2010; Political Theory 38(2)~

The United States emerged from World War II as the dominant military power in the
AND
the United States had demanded and helped to secure against the Axis powers.

Embrace instability of argumentation – a turn to openness is the most meaningful decision – star this card.
Corder, ’85 ~Jim W. Corder is Professor of English at Texas Christian University. In 1975 he received the NCTE’s Braddock Prize. He has published articles on rhetoric in various journals and has written several textbooks on writing.; "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love"; Rhetoric Review, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Sep., 1985); Taylor 26 Francis~

d. We arguers can learn the lessons that rhetoric itself wants to teach us
AND
may thus be elevated, may grow to hold both arguer and other.

2AC FW MAIN

Our interpretations are beneficial for understanding perspectives of debate education as fluid – utilizing metaphor as a starting point solves all their offense.
O’Donnell, ’4 ~Timothy M. O’Donnell, Director of Debate, University of Mary Washington; "And the Twain Shall Meet: Affirmative Framework Choice and the Future of Debate"; Debater’s Research Guide, 2004; http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/ DRGArticles/Framework20article20for20the20DRG20final2.doc~

In a world where proponents for any one of the varied questions are equally strident
AND
debate from other forms of communication and gives the exchange a directed focus.
  

—-Metaphor Key to Topic

War powers education is bankrupt without investigation of metaphor – 
Lakoff and Frisch, ’6 ~George Lakoff, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley; Evan Frisch, Rockridge Institute’s technology Strategist; "Five Years After 9/11: Drop the War Metaphor" September 11, 2006 http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0911-20.htm~~

Language matters, because it can determine how we think and act. For a
AND
claim that it is necessary in order to protect America and spread democracy.

1AR

The war on poverty externalizes the poor and causes violent exclusion – this card is justified because of the changing of the frame of the net benefit.
Elkins, ’10 ~Jeremy Elkins, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley. Professor in Political Science at Bryn Mawr College. He has taught at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he served as chair of the Legal Studies Program; "The Model of War", 2010; Political Theory 38(2)~

As with cancer, a true national commitment to eradicating poverty would have required turning
AND
the national body rather than a condition that was the product of it.

Our interpretations are beneficial for understanding perspectives of debate education as fluid – utilizing metaphor as a starting point solves all their offense.
O’Donnell, ’4 ~Timothy M. O’Donnell, Director of Debate, University of Mary Washington; "And the Twain Shall Meet: Affirmative Framework Choice and the Future of Debate"; Debater’s Research Guide, 2004; http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/ DRGArticles/Framework20article20for20the20DRG20final2.doc~

In a world where proponents for any one of the varied questions are equally strident
AND
debate from other forms of communication and gives the exchange a directed focus.

Tournament: Districts | Round: 3 | Opponent: Emory Si | Judge: Andy Montee

1AC

The executive retains power through the intentional ambiguity of the "war" metaphor –
AND
and policies’ justification of force against indistinct enemies makes war powers expansion inevitable.
Elkins, ’10 ~Jeremy Elkins, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley. Professor in Political Science at Bryn Mawr College. He has taught at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he served as chair of the Legal Studies Program; "The Model of War", 2010; Political Theory 38(2)~

The U.S. war on terrorism, as it was being constructed during
AND
of defining the nation and its enemies in this way are daunting.74

The traditional concept of peace doesn’t exist – war powers mandate social systems to declare war on one population to create peace for another – reflection on the conceptual state of war precedes instrumental solutions.

Mansfield, ’8 ~Nick Mansfield; As the Dean Higher Degree Research at
AND
Palgrave Macmillan, November 11, 2008; p. 150-155~

It is not simply wrong to argue that the difference between war and its other
AND
only attain their co-ordination because of the irreducible disjunction between them.¶ 

We must understand war as constantly evolving – attempting to strive for peace ignores that war is always the medium – understanding war as an unstable concept allows for adaptation of political understanding to cope with the political uncertainty of the future.

- Our current conditions of war can’t be changed if we don’t seek to understand war itself.
War as a term can only be defined in relation to its opposite, such as peace, love, et cetera, BUT that opposite is always changing.
Rejection of war in favor of its opposites ignores how war is always fought in the name of realizing these states of peace.
The future will inevitably bring new social, political problems that will be impossible to address with one grand solution.
Instead we must understand war not as a stable concept but as ever evolving.
Mansfield, ’8 ~Nick Mansfield; As the Dean Higher Degree Research at
AND
Palgrave Macmillan, November 11, 2008; p. 162-167~

The aim of this book has been to show that war is always defined in
AND
events, it may take over the function of our previous political paradigms.¶ 

Metaphor is everywhere and unavoidable BUT there are certain metaphors that are detrimental.

The argument-as-war metaphor utilized by debate becomes a form of rhetorical violence that puts participants and critics at odds with each other.
The metaphorical guides the literal as conceptions of argument-as-war makes it so.
Lakoff and Johnson, ’80 ~George Lakoff, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley; Mark Johnson, Knight Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Oregon; excerpt from "Metaphors We Live By"; http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html~~

Metaphor is for most people device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish—
AND
metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide variety of expressions:
ARGUMENT IS WAR
Your claims are indefensible.
She ~sic~  attacked every weak point in my argument.
Her ~sic~ criticisms were right on target.
I demolished his argument.
I’ve never won an argument with him.
you disagree? Okay, shoot21
If you use that strategy, he’ll wipe you out.
She ~sic~ shot down all of my arguments.
It is important to know ~sic~ that we don’t just talk about arguments
AND
concepts and to gain an understanding of the metaphorical nature of our activities.

Vote aff to restrict the power of the war metaphor.

Just like there’s no one perfect definition of war, there’s no perfect definition of debate; the activity constitutes a multitude of different things in various contexts. The war metaphor antagonizes debaters and stifles debate’s potential.

The meaning behind language is not stagnant, but instead constantly fluctuating.

There are a vast number of replacements to the metaphor of argument as war. Instead of choosing just one, we should expand our rhetorical possibilities and never end the search for how to define and relate to debate.
Cohen, ’95 ~Daniel H. Cohen, Ph.D., Philosophy, Indiana University. Professor of Philosophy at Colby College; "Argument is War ... and War is Hell: Philosophy, Education, and Metaphors for Argumentation"; Informal Logic Vol. 17, No.2 (Spring 1995)~

To be sure, there are alternative understandings of argumentation available. I think it
AND
traffic in as many metaphors as possible-including all those traffic metaphors21

2AC

Exec

Their paranoid mythologizing sanitizes imperial domination and erupts into pyrotechnic violence – fear of threats to hegemony causes cycles of enemy construction, making their impacts inevitable.
McClintock 9 (Anne, Simone de Beauvoir Professor of English and Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, "Paranoid Empire: Specters from Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib," Muse)

By now it is fair to say that the United States has come to be
AND
unspeakable violence. For how else can we understand such debauches of cruelty? 

Terror

Drones policy is shrouded in secrecy – debate is impossible because of the lack of transparency – instead of assessing the information selectively leaked by the government, focus should be on the production of knowledge behind policy.
Toth, ’13 ~Kate Toth, London School of Economics, Dissertation; "REMOTE-CONTROLLED WAR: IMPLICATIONS OF THE DISTANCING OF STATE-SPONSORED VIOLENCE ON AMERICAN DEMOCRACY"; Apr 27, 2013; http://www.academia.edu/3125323/REMOTE-CONTROLLED_WAR_IMPLICATIONS_OF_THE_DISTANCING_OF_STATE-SPONSORED_VIOLENCE_ON_AMERICAN_DEMOCRACY~~

With regard to drones, what the public knows has been released through leaks to
AND
is also indicative of the weakness of current American civil society and media.

War on Poverty

Perm – do both.

Aff accesses critical sequencing question – The War Metaphor justified the war on poverty – before affirming a metaphor they must understand it’s basis.
Elkins, ’10 ~Jeremy Elkins, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley. Professor in Political Science at Bryn Mawr College. He has taught at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he served as chair of the Legal Studies Program; "The Model of War", 2010; Political Theory 38(2)~

The United States emerged from World War II as the dominant military power in the
AND
the United States had demanded and helped to secure against the Axis powers.

Reject the negative for perpetuating the enemy creation behind the war-on-poverty metaphor that rhetorically positions those in poverty as enemies –
The war on poverty metaphor externalizes the poor and causes violent exclusion.
Elkins, ’10 ~Jeremy Elkins, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley. Professor in Political Science at Bryn Mawr College. He has taught at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Santa Cruz, where he served as chair of the Legal Studies Program; "The Model of War", 2010; Political Theory 38(2)~

As with cancer, a true national commitment to eradicating poverty would have required turning
AND
the national body rather than a condition that was the product of it.

2AC FW MAIN

Aff reenchants policymaking and is prerequisite to framework by opening space for alternatives to falsely universal solutions.
Parsons, ’10 ~Wayne Parson is Professor of Public Policy at Queen Mary, University of London. He is currently Visiting Professor in policy sciences at FLACSO, Mexico and the Catholic University of Lille; "Modernism redux: po-mo problems and hi-mo public policy" from "Public Management in the Postmodern Era: Challenges and Prospects"; 2010~

The shift towards the discourse of policy capacity involved therefore using the (best)
AND
which causal relationships are so complex that we cannot know when one problem ends

 and another begins, or whether the problems themselves have been caused by previous
AND
increasing diversity and competition between different approaches, frameworks, tools and models.

Tournament: UGA | Round: 1 | Opponent: Vanderbilt BM | Judge: Joshua Turnage

For the 1AC Open Source, download the UGA Rd 1 vs Vanderbilt Open Ev Document

The metaphor of war is ingrained in our thoughts and our actions. We attempt to understand the enemy in the "war on terror" without identifying the cause for fighting – the figurative becomes literal as reality reinforces the metaphor. This devalues the Other and marks them for extermination, allowing for exponential increases of war powers authority.

Steuter and Willis, ’8 ~Erin Steuter is associate professor of Sociology at Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada. She also conducts community workshops and visits schools. ; Deborah Wills teaches in the English Department at Mount Allison University. She has received awards for her Excellence in Teaching. ; "At War with Metaphor: Media, Propaganda, and Racism in the War on Terror"; 2008; p. 7-15~

The phrase "the war on terror" has been used so frequently that it
AND
we continue to indulge it, risks reducing our own value ~sic~.

The traditional concept of peace doesn’t exist – war powers mandate social systems to declare war on one population to create peace for another – reflection on the conceptual state of war precedes instrumental solutions.

Mansfield, ’8 ~Nick Mansfield; As the Dean Higher Degree Research at
AND
Palgrave Macmillan, November 11, 2008; p. 150-155~

It is not simply wrong to argue that the difference between war and its other
AND
only attain their co-ordination because of the irreducible disjunction between them.¶ 

We must understand war as constantly evolving – attempting to strive for peace ignores that war is always the medium – understanding war as an unstable concept allows for adaptation of political understanding to cope with the political uncertainty of the future.

- Our current conditions of war can’t be changed if we don’t seek to understand war itself.
War as a term can only be defined in relation to its opposite, such as peace, love, et cetera, BUT that opposite is always changing.
Rejection of war in favor of its opposites ignores how war is always fought in the name of realizing these states of peace.
The future will inevitably bring new social, political problems that will be impossible to address with one grand solution.
Instead we must understand war not as a stable concept but as ever evolving.
Mansfield, ’8 ~Nick Mansfield; As the Dean Higher Degree Research at
AND
Palgrave Macmillan, November 11, 2008; p. 162-167~

The aim of this book has been to show that war is always defined in
AND
events, it may take over the function of our previous political paradigms.¶ 

Metaphor is everywhere and unavoidable BUT there are certain metaphors that are detrimental.

The argument-as-war metaphor utilized by debate becomes a form of rhetorical violence that puts participants and critics at odds with each other.
The metaphorical guides the literal as conceptions of argument-as-war makes it so.
Lakoff and Johnson, ’80 ~George Lakoff, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley; Mark Johnson, Knight Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Oregon; excerpt from "Metaphors We Live By"; http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html~~

Metaphor is for most people device of the poetic imagination and the rhetorical flourish—
AND
metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide variety of expressions:
ARGUMENT IS WAR
Your claims are indefensible.
He attacked every weak point in my argument.
His criticisms were right on target.
I demolished his argument.
I’ve never won an argument with him.
you disagree? Okay, shoot21
If you use that strategy, he’ll wipe you out.
She ~sic~ shot down all of my arguments.
It is important to know ~sic~ that we don’t just talk about arguments
AND
concepts and to gain an understanding of the metaphorical nature of our activities.

Vote aff to restrict the power of the war metaphor.

Just like there’s no one perfect definition of war, there’s no perfect definition of debate; the activity constitutes a multitude of different things in various contexts. The war metaphor antagonizes debaters and stifles debate’s potential.

The meaning behind language is not stagnant, but instead constantly fluctuating.

There are a vast number of replacements to the metaphor of argument as war. Instead of choosing just one, we should expand our rhetorical possibilities and never end the search for how to define and relate to debate.
Cohen, ’95 ~Daniel H. Cohen, Ph.D., Philosophy, Indiana University. Professor of Philosophy at Colby College; "Argument is War ... and War is Hell: Philosophy, Education, and Metaphors for Argumentation"; Informal Logic Vol. 17, No.2 (Spring 1995)~

To be sure, there are alternative understandings of argumentation available. I think it
AND
may begin with a cacophony of voices-and end the same way.
For all its openness to the variety of forms arguments can take, the purposes
AND
traffic in as many metaphors as possible-including all those traffic metaphors21

Tournament: UGA | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Georgia DG | Judge: Joe Keeton, Nick Miller, Joe Bellon

2AC

War Powers - Warming

====Presidents empirically proven to fail at war planning – hasty decision-making leads to unintended conflicts.====
Griffin, ’12 ~Stephen M. Griffin is a Rutledge C. Clement, Jr. Professor in Constitutional Law at Tulane University Law School, served as a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago and research instructor in law at New York University, received the Sumter Marks Award in recognition of his publications; "The Tragic Pattern of the War Power: Presidential Decisions for War since 1945"; 2012~

This is an essential pillar of the reasoning of enthusiasts of unilateral presidential decisionmaking in
AND
hard choices are too great to be overcome by one branch working alone. 

Climate change is not anthropocentric and isn’t just the extinction of humanity—climate change is a product of white culture and means the extinction of minorities—their neutral representations of climate make warming inevitable
Wynter, ’07 ~2007, Sylvia, Professor Emeritus in Spanish and Romance Languages at Stanford Univeristy, "The Human being as noun? Or being human as praxis? Towards the Autopoietic turn/overturn: A Manifesto," otl2.wikispaces.com/file/view/The+Autopoetic+Turn.pdf~ 

For if, as Time magazine reported in January 2007 (Epigraph 2), a U.N. Intergovernmental panel of Natural Scientists, were soon to release "a smoking-gun report which confirms that human activities are to blame for global warming" (and thereby for climate change), and had therefore predicted "catastrophic disruptions by 2100," by April, the issued Report not only confirmed the above, but also repeated the major contradiction which the Time account had re-echoed. This contradiction, however, has nothing to do in any way with the rigor, and precision of their natural scientific findings, but rather with the contradiction referred to by Derrida’s question in Epigraph 3—i.e., But who, we? That is, their attribution of the non-natural factors driving global warming and climate change to, generic human activities, and/or to "anthropocentric forcings"; with what is, in effect, this mis-attribution then determining the nature of their policy recommendations to deal with the already ongoing reality of global warming and climate change, to be ones couched largely in economic terms. That is, in the terms of our present mode of knowledge production, and its "perceptual categorization system" as elaborated by the disciplines of the Humanities and Social Sciences (or "human sciences") and which are reciprocally enacting of our present sociogenic genre of being human, as that of the West’s Man in its second Liberal or bio-humanist reinvented form, as homo oeconomicus; as optimally "virtuous Breadwinner, taxpayer, consumer, and as systemically over-represented as if it, and its behavioral activities were isomorphic with the being of being human, and thereby with activities that would be definable as the human-as-a-species ones. Consequently, the Report’s authors because logically taking such an over-representation as an empirical fact, given that, as highly trained natural scientists whose domains of inquiry are the physical and (purely) biological levels of reality, although their own natural-scientific order of cognition with respect to their appropriate non-human domains of inquiry, is an imperatively self-correcting and therefore, necessarily, a cognitively open/open-ended one, nevertheless, because in order to be natural scientists, they are therefore necessarily, at the same time, middle class Western or westernized subjects, initiated 15 as such, by means of our present overall education system and its mode of knowledge production to be the optimal symbolically encoded embodiment of the West’s Man, it its second reinvented bio-humanist homo oeconomicus, and therefore bourgeois self-conception, over-represented as if it were isomorphic with the being of being human, they also fall into the trap identified by Derrida in the case of his fellow French philosophers. The trap, that is, of conflating their own existentially experienced (Western-bourgeois or ethno-class) referent "we," with the "we" of "the horizon of humanity." This then leading them to attribute the reality of behavioral activities that are genre-specific to the West’s Man in its second reinvented concept/self-conception as homo oeconomicus, ones that are therefore as such, as a historically originated ensemble of behavioral activitiesas being ostensibly human activities-in-general. This, in spite of the fact that they do historicize the origin of the processes that were to lead to their recent natural scientific findings with respect to the reality of the non-naturally caused ongoing acceleration of global warming and climate change, identifying this process as having begun with the ~West’s~ Industrial Revolution from about 1750 onwards. That is, therefore, as a process that can be seen to have been correlatedly concomitant in Great Britain, both with the growing expansion of the largely bourgeois enterprise of factory manufacturing, as well with the first stages of the political and intellectual struggles the British bourgeoisie who were to spearhead the Industrial Revolution, to displace the then ruling group hegemony of the landed aristocracy cum gentry, and to do so, by inter alia, the autopoetic reinvention of the earlier homo politicus/virtuous citizen civic humanist concept of Man, which had served to legitimate the latter’s traditionally landed, political, social and economic dominance, in new terms. This beginning with Adam Smith and the Scottish School of the Enlightenment in the generation before the American, French, and Haitian (slave) revolutions, as a reinvention tat was to be effected in now specifically bourgeois terms as homo oeconomicus/and virtuous Breadwinner. 116 That is as the now purely secular genre of being human, which although not to be fully (i.e., politically, intellectually, and economically) institutionalized until the mid-nineteenth century, onwards, when its optimal incarnation came to be actualized in the British and Western bourgeoisie as the new ruling class, was, from then on, to generate its prototype specific ensemble of new behavioral activities, that were to impel both the Industrial Revolution, as well as the West’s second wave of imperial expansion, this based on the colonized incorporation of a large majority of the world’s peoples, all coercively homogenized to serve its own redemptive material telos, the telos initiating of global warming and climate change. Consequently, if the Report’s authors note that about 1950, a steady process of increasing acceleration of the processes of global warming and climate change, had begun to take place, this was not only to be due to the Soviet Revolution’s (from 1917 onwards) forced march towards industrialization (if in its still homo oeconomicus conception, since a march spearheaded by the 116 See the already cited essay by J.G.A. Pocock "symbolic capital," education credentials owning and technically skilled Eastern European bourgeoisie)—as a state-directed form of capitalism, nor indeed by that of Mao’s then China, but was to be also due to the fact that in the wake of the range of successful anti-colonial struggles for political independence, which had accelerated in the wake of the Second World War, because the new entrepreneurial and academic elites had already been initiated by the Western educational system in Western terms as homo oeconomicus, they too would see political independence as calling for industrialized development on the "collective bovarysme "117 model of the Western bourgeoisie. Therefore, with the acceleration of global warming and climate change gaining even more momentum as all began to industrialize on the model of homo oeconomicus, with the result that by the time of the Panel’s issued April 2007 Report the process was now being driven by a now planetarily homogenized/standardized transnational "system of material provisioning or mode of techno-industrial economic production based on the accumulation of capital; as the means of production of ever-increasing economic growth, defined as "development"; with this calling for a single model of normative behavioral activities, all driven by the now globally (post-colonially and post-the-1989-collapse-of-the-Soviet Union), homogenized desire of "all men (and women) to," realize themselves/ourselves, in the terms of homo oeconomicus. In the terms, therefore, of "its single (Western-bourgeois or ethno-class) understanding" of "man’s humanity," over-represented as that of the human; with the well-being and common good of its referent "we"—that, not only of the transnational middle classes but even more optimally, of the corporate multinational business industries and their financial networks, both indispensable to the securing of the Western-bourgeois conception of the common good, within the overall terms of the behavior-regulatory redemptive material telos of ever-increasing economic growth, put forward as the Girardot-type "cure" for the projected Malthusian-Ricardo transumed postulate of a "significant ill" as that, now, ostensibly, of mankind’s threatened subordination to ~the trope~ of Natural Scarcity, this in the reoccupied place of Christianity of its postulate of that "ill" as that of enslavement to Original Sin."’ With the result that the very ensemble of behavioral activities indispensable, on the one hand, to the continued hegemony of the bourgeoisie as a Western and westernized transnational ruling class, is the same ensemble of behaviors that is directly causal of global worming and climate change, as they are, on the other, to the continued dynamic enactment and stable replication of the West’s second reinvented concept of Man; this latter in response to the latter’s existential imperative of guarding against the entropic disintegration of its genre of being human and fictive nation-state mode of kind. Thereby against the possible bringing to an end, therefore, of the societal order, and autopoetic living Western and westernized macro world system in it bourgeois configuration, which is reciprocally the former’s (i.e., its genre of being human, and fictive modes of kind’s condition of realization, at a now global level. This, therefore, is the cognitive dilemma, one arising directly from the West’s hitherto unresolvable aporia of the secular, that has been precisely captured by Sven Lutticken in a recent essay. Despite, he writes, "the consensus that global warming cannot be ascribed to normal fluctuations in the earth’s temperature... ~the~ social and political components of this process have been minimized; man-made nature is re-naturalized, the new (un)natural history presented as fate." And with this continuing to be so because (within the terms, I shall add, of our present "single understanding of man’s humanity" and the unresolvable aporia which it continues to enact), "~t~he truly terrifying notion is not that ~global warming and climate change~ is irreversible, but that it actually might be reversible—at the cost of radically changing the economic and social order..."119 The changing, thereby, of the now globally hegemonic biologically absolute answer that we at present give to the question to who we are, and of whose biohumanist homo oeconomicus symbolic life/death (i.e., naturally selected/dysselected) code’s intentionality of dynamic enactment and stable replication, our present "economic and social order" is itself the empirical actualization.

War on Christmas

Embrace instability of argumentation – a turn to openness is the most meaningful decision – star this card.
Corder, ’85 ~Jim W. Corder is Professor of English at Texas Christian University. In 1975 he received the NCTE’s Braddock Prize. He has published articles on rhetoric in various journals and has written several textbooks on writing.; "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love"; Rhetoric Review, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Sep., 1985); Taylor 26 Francis~

d. We arguers can learn the lessons that rhetoric itself wants to teach us
AND
may thus be elevated, may grow to hold both arguer and other.

2AC FW MAIN

Our interpretations are beneficial for understanding debate education as fluid – utilizing metaphor as a starting point solves all their offense

O’Donnell, ’4 ~Timothy M. O’Donnell, Director of Debate, University of Mary Washington; "And the Twain Shall Meet: Affirmative Framework Choice and the Future of Debate"; Debater’s Research Guide, 2004; http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/ DRGArticles/Framework20article20for20the20DRG20final2.doc~

In a world where proponents for any one of the varied questions are equally strident
AND
debate from other forms of communication and gives the exchange a directed focus.
 

—-2AC T Version - Rana

====Solely procedural solutions backfire and teach unrealistic advocacy.====
Rana, ’11 ~Aziz Rana received his A.B. summa cum laude from Harvard College and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He also earned a Ph.D. in political science at Harvard, where his dissertation was awarded the university’s Charles Sumner Prize. He was an Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fellow in Law at Yale; "Who Decides on Security?"; 8/11/11; Cornell Law Library; http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87/~~**

Widespread concerns with the government’s security infrastructure are by no means a new phenomenon.
AND
role has not been explored in any sustained way in the scholarly literature.

—-2AC Decisionmaking

Plan-focus teaches flawed decisionmaking – the government is a bad role-model.
Hafner, ’7 ~Ferdinand Hafner, Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy; "COGNITIVE BIASES AND STRUCTURAL FAILURES IN UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY: EXPLAINING DECISION-MAKING DISSONANCE IN PHASE IV POLICY AND PLANS FOR IRAQ"; NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL December 2007~

B. ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS In this model, foreign policy decisions are not based on
AND
dominate the policy process by limiting the consideration of multiple courses of action.

—-Conformity Turn

====Their framework forces conformity, devaluing alternative rhetorical perspectives.====
Secomb 2K (Linnell, a lecturer in Gender Studies at the University of Sydney "Fractured Community" Hypatia – Volume 15 Number 2 Spring 2000 pg. 138-139

This reformulated universalist model of community would be founded on "a moral conversation in
AND
the dominant modes of authoritative and rational conversation that assume homogeneity and transparency.
  

—-Reenchant Policymaking

Aff reenchants policymaking and is prerequisite to framework – the deconstructive joker opens space for alternatives to falsely universal solutions – we make play better
Parsons, ’10 ~Wayne Parson is Professor of Public Policy at Queen Mary, University of London. He is currently Visiting Professor in policy sciences at FLACSO, Mexico and the Catholic University of Lille; "Modernism redux: po-mo problems and hi-mo public policy" from "Public Management in the Postmodern Era: Challenges and Prospects"; 2010~

The shift towards the discourse of policy capacity involved therefore using the (best)
AND
which can be arrived at purely through the exercise of reason and analysis. 

We face problems for which causal relationships are so complex that we cannot know when
AND
increasing diversity and competition between different approaches, frameworks, tools and models.

1AR

Scientific solutions fail and postpone our realization that warming has already intruded every aspect of existence. Only the aff gives value to an existence slowly melting away.

====Morton 2012====
(Timothy Morton is a Professor of Literature and Environment at the University of California – Davis. January 11, 2012. "Peak Nature." http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/98/peak-nature.html)
But these sorts of violent changes are exactly what global warming predicts. So every
AND
unrecognizable ~sic~ scenery for us, as backdrops, have dissolved.

Tournament: UGA | Round: 1 | Opponent: Vanderbilt BM | Judge: Joshua Turnage

Material K

—-2AC AT Apolitical

====Aff reclaims politics – current system isn’t capable of meaningful solutions without ====

====Sokoloff ’5 ~Political Research Quarterly Vol. 58, No. 2 (Jun., 2005) "Between Justice and Legality: Derrida on Decision" William W. Sokoloff pp. 341-352~====

Derrida places imperatives of paradox in the heart of the legal order in order to connect political action to a higher conception of responsibility but without abandoning the need for political action today. For Derrida, politics does not happen when one follows a program or when one dreams about an impossible notion of justice but in the non-programmatic interface between justice and legality. His re-conceptualization of decision is a strategy intended to make political decisions more difficult but without abandoning the call for more responsible modes of political action. He prevents us from deciding too quickly but also rules out as irresponsible the deferral of decision. He breaks the unhelpful opposition between premature action and irresponsible indifference in the name of more responsible modes of engagement. Even if I have somewhat arbitrarily brought Derrida and Rawls’s work into contact in this essay; Derrida attempts to rescue the word politics from the weakening ~sic~ malaise that has resulted from the cramped political imagination and narrow view of citizenship that we can see in Rawls. Signs at the exhaustion of politics are the signs of our time: a narrowing of credible political alternatives that have rendered elections almost irrelevant, the corporate domination of the political sphere that casts an ominous shadow over the voter, the disappearance of substantive dialogue, the gag order on dissent, widespread apathy, dubious unilateral foreign ventures, a crisis in education and health care, public contempt for politicians; and little faith that anything can be done to address this. Interpreted affirmatively, decision is a strategy of political renewal. It creates an extralegal ethical space from which one can launch a permanent critique of the legal order. This permanent critique appears as a spontaneous politics that cannot be represented by a party or a leader. Like Socrates in Apology (Plato 200:3) it is annoying, defiant, and it stings; but unlike him in Crito (Plato 2003) it never passively submits to state power. This spontaneous politics is the scourge of tyrants and their flatterers. As Sheldon Wolin (1996. 37) reminds us, citizenship is more than merely following the rules of a particular legal order; for him, "democracy is born in transgressive acts."

—-2AC Reality Tho

No part of our aff denies reality – metaphorical focus precedes real world change.
Lakoff, ’91 ~George Lakoff, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley; "Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf"; January 1, 1991~

Reality exists. So does the unconscious system of metaphors that we use without awareness
AND
thought, especially because such mechanisms are necessarily used in foreign policy deliberations.

Heg

—-2AC K of Heg

====Fear of hegemonic decline results in endless cycles of antagonistic violence====
Lifton 3 (Robert Jay, Visiting Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, 2003, Superpower Syndrome: America’s Apocalyptic Confrontation with the World, pg 174-178)
The world’s only superpower is haunted by a fear of weakness. From psychiatric experience
AND
and absolute invulnerability. But the fear of weakness will not go away.

====Extinction====
Lifton 3 (Robert Jay, Visiting Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, 2003, Superpower Syndrome: America’s Apocalyptic Confrontation with the World, pg 27-29)
But the phenomenon has hardly disappeared from our world. The hubris of "forcing
AND
, of destroying vast numbers of human beings as therapy for the world. 

Extinction Impact

The impact is extinction
Foster 3 (John, Prof. Sociology - U of Oregon, Poli Sci at York U - Toronto, "The new Age of Imperialism," Monthly Review 55.3)
At the same time, it is clear that in the present period of global
AND
prove to be its own—we hope not the world’s—undoing.

2AC FW MAIN

====(   ) FW should be unconditional – THEY’VE DECLARED WAR – statements about the way debate MUST operate cannot be jettisoned – they must be responsible for war-like demands to eradicate certain styles of debate.====

====Their framework functions as argumentative violence – the rhetorical deployment of the voting issue implies that NONE of our investigation of metaphor was productive – to win they must prove why the 1AC should never have happened – there are no universal rules dictating what arguments we MUST make – instead there are norms that should be up for contestation – monolithic interpretations condition debaters to argue antagonistically, indoctrinating us into warlike culture that justified the War on Terror in the first place – that’s Cohen and Lakoff – turns advocacy skills because we only learn how to vehemently oppose each other rather than how to respect alternative perspectives that we’ll inevitably encounter in our quest for change.====
 

====We offer the interpretation that role of the ballot is to decide whether to rhetorically restrict the war powers authority of the president AND that the judge is a critic of argumentation – its reasonable because inevitably all forms of debate involve rhetorical engagement – we don’t think these are the only or even the best interpretations, but instead we remain open to the creative development of debate to allow the possibility for multiple engagements with the topic.====

====The difference between our two frameworks is that they impose subjective limits based on their preconceived notions of "fair and predictable" debate while we don’t pretend to have authority to know the objectively "BEST" form of debate – that’s Cohen.====
 

====Aff is the ONLY EFFECTIVE RESTRICTION – that’s Steuter and Willis – EVEN IF preserving traditional debate is good, none of their education will lead to change without investigating how war metaphor unfolds to construct government policy – instrumental restrictions are ineffective because the executive persuades congress and the courts to preserve its authority by employing the "war" metaphor – this means only our questioning of war as a concept can rupture the source of power.====

====Instrumental solutions fail AND aff improves their  standards – that’s Mansfield – policy oversimplifies the causes of conflict and ignores the entangled relationship between war and its other – any skills that allow effective engagement now aren’t guaranteed to have material benefit because of the unpredictability of the future – we create true pragmatism by breaking from preexisting problem-solution mindsets too reliant on past theories to be useful.====

====—-This turns decision-making skills – learning from state actors ill prepared for the future of warfare means we adopt bad habits and won’t learn to think creatively.====

====Their framework ossifies debate, turning back the clock rather than moving forward – they assume that plan-focus is the pinnacle of the argumentative potential, ignoring how debate evolves – adapting our metaphor of debate reclaims our agency by allowing us to alter our relationship to argument as we wish instead of going through the motions of fiat.====

—-Turns their _ standards….

====We save the topic from the resolution and preserve negative ground – they get links to War on Terror Good and the Executive Power DA, critiques and counter-methodologies BUT agent counterplans shift the focus away from the topic’s central issue of War Power and avoid how argumentation replicates the war metaphor in debate – AND resolutional affs are only rubber stamps strategically designed to avoid links by either enacting ineffective restrictions that save executive authority or codifying existing legislation that preserves the status quo.====

==== ====

====Metaphor is inevitable and precedes all theories of argumentation – that’s Lakoff – because linguistic relationships shape how we relate to debate itself, there can be no discussion of the topic without first addressing the power behind rhetorical connections.====
—-Debate education is structured on war metaphor – voting aff is key to understanding how we relate to the activity and precedes their standards.
Knutson, ’96 ~Roxanne L. Knutson is Assoicate Professor in the Department of Communication, Appalachian State University; "Metaphorical Construction: Argument is War"; Contemporary Argumentation and Debate 17 (1996)~

It is particularly pertinent to my thesis of this paper that Lakoff and Johnson began
AND
’repairing damage’ and ’the defeat of positions taken" (1991).

—-AT Fairness Impact

===="Fairness" is not objective – their preconceived rules uphold interests of the powerful.====
Delgado, ’92 (Richard, UC Berkeley Law, Shadowboxing: an Essay on Power, 77 Cornell L. Rev. 813, lexis)

We have cleverly built power’s view of the appropriate standard of conduct into the very
AND
acts. n59 A nice trick if you can get away with it. 

—-2AC T Version - Rana

====Solely procedural solutions backfire and teach unrealistic advocacy.====
Rana, ’11 ~Aziz Rana received his A.B. summa cum laude from Harvard College and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He also earned a Ph.D. in political science at Harvard, where his dissertation was awarded the university’s Charles Sumner Prize. He was an Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fellow in Law at Yale; "Who Decides on Security?"; 8/11/11; Cornell Law Library; http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87/~~**

Widespread concerns with the government’s security infrastructure are by no means a new phenomenon.
AND
role has not been explored in any sustained way in the scholarly literature.

2NC - Heg – Cred K

Their cred advantage forces the US to obsess with building its reputation ——— makes miscalculation and escalation possible

Press ’5 – Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth (Daryl Press, "Calculating credibility: how leaders assess military threats", Google Books)
How can these results be true? How can so many wise statesmen be wrong
AND
source of credibility permits a more flexible and powerful approach to foreign policy. 

2AC

Their narratives of U.S. hegemony rely on images of anarchy and racial inferiority that colonize knowledge production and lead to perpetual intervention
Kaplan, humanities prof, ’4—President of the American Studies Association as well as a professor of English and the Edmund J. and Louise W. Kahn Endowed Term Professor in the Humanities at the University of Pennsylvania (Amy, American Quarterly 56.1 (2004) 1-18, "Violent Belongings and the Question of Empire Today Presidential Address to the American Studies Association, October 17, 2003," Project MUSE)

This coming-out narrative, associated primarily with neoconservatives, aggressively celebrates the United States as finally revealing its true essence—its manifest destiny—on a global stage. We won the Cold War, so the story goes, and as the only superpower, we will maintain global supremacy primarily by military means, by preemptive strikes against any potential rivals, and by a perpetual war against terror, defined primarily as the Muslim world. We need to remain vigilant against those rogue states and terrorists who resist not our power but the universal human values that we embody. This narrative is about time as well as space. It imagines an empire in perpetuity, one that beats back the question haunting all empires in J. M. Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians: "One thought alone preoccupies the submerged mind of Empire: how not to end, how not to die, how to prolong its era." 9 In this hypermasculine narrative there’s a paradoxical sense of invincibility and unparalleled power and at the same time utter and incomprehensible vulnerability—a lethal combination, which reminds us that the word vulnerable once also referred to the capacity to harm. Another dominant narrative about empire today, told by liberal interventionists, is that of the "reluctant imperialist." 10 In this version, the United States never sought an empire and may even be constitutionally unsuited to rule one, but it had the burden thrust upon it by the fall of earlier empires and the failures of modern states, which abuse the human rights of their own people and spawn terrorism. The United States is the only power in the world with the capacity and the moral authority to act as military policeman and economic manager to bring order to the world. Benevolence and self-interest merge in this narrative; backed by unparalleled force, the United States can save the people of the world from their own anarchy, their descent into an ~End Page 4~ uncivilized state. As Robert Kaplan writes—not reluctantly at all—in "Supremacy by Stealth: Ten Rules for Managing the World": "The purpose of power is not power itself; it is a fundamentally liberal purpose of sustaining the key characteristics of an orderly world. Those characteristics include basic political stability, the idea of liberty, pragmatically conceived; respect for property; economic freedom; and representative government, culturally understood. At this moment in time it is American power, and American power only, that can serve as an organizing principle for the worldwide expansion of liberal civil society." 11 This narrative does imagine limits to empire, yet primarily in the selfish refusal of U.S. citizens to sacrifice and shoulder the burden for others, as though sacrifices have not already been imposed on them by the state. The temporal dimension of this narrative entails the aborted effort of other nations and peoples to enter modernity, and its view of the future projects the end of empire only when the world is remade in our image. This is also a narrative about race. The images of an unruly world, of anarchy and chaos, of failed modernity, recycle stereotypes of racial inferiority from earlier colonial discourses about races who are incapable of governing themselves, Kipling’s "lesser breeds without the law," or Roosevelt’s "loosening ties of civilized society," in his corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. In his much-noted article in the New York Times Magazine entitled "The American Empire," Michael Ignatieff appended the subtitle "The Burden" but insisted that "America’s empire is not like empires of times past, built on colonies, conquest and the white man’s burden." 12 Denial and exceptionalism are apparently alive and well. In American studies we need to go beyond simply exposing the racism of empire and examine the dynamics by which Arabs and the religion of Islam are becoming racialized through the interplay of templates of U.S. racial codes and colonial Orientalism. These narratives of the origins of the current empire—that is, the neoconservative and the liberal interventionist—have much in common. They take American exceptionalism to new heights: its paradoxical claim to uniqueness and universality at the same time. They share a teleological narrative of inevitability, that America is the apotheosis of history, the embodiment of universal values of human rights, liberalism, and democracy, the "indispensable nation," in Madeleine Albright’s words. In this logic, the United States claims the authority to "make sovereign judgments on what is right and what is wrong" for everyone ~End Page 5~ else and "to exempt itself with an absolutely clear conscience from all the rules that it proclaims and applies to others." 13 Absolutely protective of its own sovereignty, it upholds a doctrine of limited sovereignty for others and thus deems the entire world a potential site of intervention. Universalism thus can be made manifest only through the threat and use of violence. If in these narratives imperial power is deemed the solution to a broken world, then they preempt any counternarratives that claim U.S. imperial actions, past and present, may have something to do with the world’s problems. According to this logic, resistance to empire can never be opposition to the imposition of foreign rule; rather, resistance means irrational opposition to modernity and universal human values.

—-Reenchant Policymaking

Aff reenchants policymaking and is prerequisite to framework – the deconstructive joker opens space for alternatives to falsely universal solutions.
Parsons, ’10 ~Wayne Parson is Professor of Public Policy at Queen Mary, University of London. He is currently Visiting Professor in policy sciences at FLACSO, Mexico and the Catholic University of Lille; "Modernism redux: po-mo problems and hi-mo public policy" from "Public Management in the Postmodern Era: Challenges and Prospects"; 2010~

The shift towards the discourse of policy capacity involved therefore using the (best)
AND
increasing diversity and competition between different approaches, frameworks, tools and models.

—-Conformity Turn

====Their framework forces conformity, devaluing alternative rhetorical perspectives.====
Secomb 2K (Linnell, a lecturer in Gender Studies at the University of Sydney "Fractured Community" Hypatia – Volume 15 Number 2 Spring 2000 pg. 138-139

This reformulated universalist model of community would be founded on "a moral conversation in
AND
the dominant modes of authoritative and rational conversation that assume homogeneity and transparency.

Tournament: UGA | Round: 3 | Opponent: Liberty HM | Judge: Andrew Hart
Perm – Vote affirmative and embrace the negative’s counterdiscourse to the politics of fear.

Embrace instability of argumentation – a turn to openness is the most meaningful decision – star this card.
Corder, ’85 ~Jim W. Corder is Professor of English at Texas Christian University. In 1975 he received the NCTE’s Braddock Prize. He has published articles on rhetoric in various journals and has written several textbooks on writing.; "Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love"; Rhetoric Review, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Sep., 1985); Taylor 26 Francis~

d. We arguers can learn the lessons that rhetoric itself wants to teach us
AND
may thus be elevated, may grow to hold both arguer and other.

Messianism Turn

PERMUTATION IS THE BEST OPTION – WAR IN THE NAME OF RELIGION MUST BE DECONSTRUCTED –– PRESUMING A SPECIFIC AND DEFINITE UNDERSTANDING OF MESSIANIC TRUTH MOBILIZES VIOLENCE AND IS THE MOTIVATION FOR EVERY RELIGIOUS WAR RATHER WE SHOULD REJECT THE MESSIANISM OF THE STATUS QUO FOR AN ABSOLUTE INDETERMINATE MESSIANIC TO COME

CAPUTO, THOMAS J. WATSON PROFESSOR OF RELIGION 26 HUMANITIES, 97
Deconstruction in a Nutshell
It is clear to anyone with a Jewish ear, to anyone with half an
AND
as I have elsewhere tried to show—"Come would be his prayer.
Viens, oui, oui. That is deconstruction in a word, in three words. In a nutshell.
Derrida at first avoided the notion of the messianic on the ground that it entailed
AND
the affirmation of the future, of those who are yet to come.
Deconstruction encourages religion from its own worst instincts by holding the feet of religion to the fire of faith, insisting on seeing things through a glass darkly, that is on believing them not thinking that they are seeing them. Deconstruction saves religion from seeing things, from fanaticism and triumphalism. Deconstruction is not the destruction of religion but its reinvention.  
Like an old and wise father confessor, deconstruction helps religion examine its conscience,
AND
. That religion is good news, for the oppressed and everybody else.
That is why Derrida distinguishes the Messianic as a universal structure (like Benjamin’s "
AND
messianisms over the "appropriation of Jerusalem" has become a world war.
The "messianic" on the other hand, has to do with the absolute
AND
the present, the absolutely undeconstructible that breaks the spell of present constructions.
The messianic, Derrida says, is a "structure of experience," the very structure of experience itself where experience means running up against the other, encountering something we could not anticipate, expect, fore-have, or fore-see, something that knocks our socks off, that bring us up short and takes our breath away.
Vanitas vanitatum, said Qoheleth in his best Latin, et omnia vanitates. The
AND
must pray, plead, desire the coming of the Messiah. Always.
That is part of the force of the story of the coming of the Messiah
AND
/not beyond, the beyond that is never reached but always pursued.
Were the Messiah ever to show up in the flesh, were per impossibile,
AND
be broken were it kept, whose possibility is sustained by its impossibility.
Now, the remarkable thing is that all this is not just a bit of
AND
, and who is therefore not the private property of some chosen people.

Crusader Turn

—-Turn Crusader —- The mission to create a universal community of believers rests on a foundation of endless crusade to eradicating non-believers. The alternative CANNOT resolve the society of enemies by uniting all into one community without reverting to genocide, because that very project cannot exist without the drive to eradicate the barbarians who refuse to enter the City of God.

Rasch 2003 
William, Henry H.H. Remak Professor of Germanic Studies at Indiana University, Spring, Cultural Critique, Vol. 54, 135-137
Yes, this passage attests to the antiliberal prejudices of an unregenerate Eurocentric conservative with
AND
legal outlaw and thus to come under the city’s moral and legal jurisdiction.

—-Christianity creates an all encompassing form of fluidity that the permutations openness resolves – The creation of an inhuman, non-Christian barbarian turns 100 of their argument —- The choice between belief and non-belief is a false one when imposed as the willful non-believer comes to symbolize all that must be eradicated.

Rasch 2003 
William, Henry H.H. Remak Professor of Germanic Studies at Indiana University, Spring, Cultural Critique, Vol. 54, 135-137
The Spanish conquest of the New World gave rise to two pressing and interconnected questions
AND
—are lesser members than others, possessing fewer rights and deserving opprobrium.

Tournament: UGA | Round: 6 | Opponent: Georgia BF | Judge: Erik Mathis

2AC

Drones

Drones policy is shrouded in secrecy – debate is impossible because of the lack of transparency – instead of assessing the information selectively leaked by the government, focus should be on the production of knowledge behind policy.
Toth, ’13 ~Kate Toth, London School of Economics, Dissertation; "REMOTE-CONTROLLED WAR: IMPLICATIONS OF THE DISTANCING OF STATE-SPONSORED VIOLENCE ON AMERICAN DEMOCRACY"; Apr 27, 2013; http://www.academia.edu/3125323/REMOTE-CONTROLLED_WAR_IMPLICATIONS_OF_THE_DISTANCING_OF_STATE-SPONSORED_VIOLENCE_ON_AMERICAN_DEMOCRACY~~**

With regard to drones, what the public knows has been released through leaks to
AND
is also indicative of the weakness of current American civil society and media.

The meaning given to the word "terrorist" causes catastrophe – recognizing the instability of the construct solves cycle of enemy creation
Whitbeck 2 (John V. International Lawyer from Saudi Arabia, " "Terrorism": The World Itself Is Dangerous," http://www.wrmea.com/component/content/article/237/4063-qterrorismq-the-world-itself-is-dangerous.html)
The greatest threat to world peace and civil society today is clearly "terrorism"
AND
death is the only cure for the despair which inspires such gruesome violence. 

Al Qaeda does not exist as a unique entity – it is an umbrella term for anyone the US considers as an enemy.
Corrigan 13 (Edward Corrigan, human rights and international lawyer from Ontario, to shed more light on the issue of the US and al-Qaeda interrelations., http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/08/07/317696/alqaeda-threat-ploy-to-silence-americans/)

What follows is an approximate transcription of the interview. Press TV: Now,
AND
the mounting opposition to the United States to these massive illegal spying programs. 

2AC War Fighting

Presidents empirically proven to fail at war planning – hasty decision-making leads to unintended conflicts.
Griffin, ’12 ~Stephen M. Griffin is a Rutledge C. Clement, Jr. Professor in Constitutional Law at Tulane University Law School, served as a Bigelow Fellow at the University of Chicago and research instructor in law at New York University, received the Sumter Marks Award in recognition of his publications; "The Tragic Pattern of the War Power: Presidential Decisions for War since 1945"; 2012~

This is an essential pillar of the reasoning of enthusiasts of unilateral presidential decisionmaking in
AND
hard choices are too great to be overcome by one branch working alone. 

War powers’ expertism uniquely fails AND is supercharged by secret information – aff prevents serial policy failure.
Rana, ’11 ~Aziz Rana received his A.B. summa cum laude from Harvard College and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He also earned a Ph.D. in political science at Harvard, where his dissertation was awarded the university’s Charles Sumner Prize. He was an Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fellow in Law at Yale; "Who Decides on Security?"; 8/11/11; Cornell Law Library; http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87/~~**

Despite such democratic concerns, a large part of what makes today’s dominant security concept
AND
fundamentally by epistemological uncertainty as opposed to verifiable fact – than policymakers admit.

Nuclear fear is mobilized to preemptively intervene in countries – causes 1NC impacts and turns the case
Masco, ’8 (Joseph, ""Survival Is Your Business": Engineering Ruins and Affect in Nuclear America" Cultural Anthropology, May 2008. Vol. 23, Issue 2)
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the
AND
be a surprise to see the exportation of ruins on a global scale./

2AC FW MAIN

—-2AC Decisionmaking

====There’s no brightline to their decisionmaking impacts – you can’t quantify one’s ability to make decisions based solely on plan-focus debate. ====

Plan-focus teaches flawed decisionmaking – the government is a bad role-model.
Hafner, ’7 ~Ferdinand Hafner, Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy; "COGNITIVE BIASES AND STRUCTURAL FAILURES IN UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY: EXPLAINING DECISION-MAKING DISSONANCE IN PHASE IV POLICY AND PLANS FOR IRAQ"; NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL December 2007~

B. ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS In this model, foreign policy decisions are not based on
AND
dominate the policy process by limiting the consideration of multiple courses of action.

—-AT Role Playing

====Role playing leads to political monologue – supports oppressive structures and eliminates agency to question power.====
Smith, ’97 (Steve, University of Wales, Professor and Pro-Vice Chancellor of the University, University of Wales, Aberystwyth "Power and Truth, A Reply to William Wallace," Review of International Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), p. 513, NAP)

Those academics who do get involved in talking truth to power must accept that in
AND
that any of this has anything to do with truth and academic objectivity.

—-2AC T Version - Rana

====Solely procedural solutions backfire and teach unrealistic advocacy.====
Rana, ’11 ~Aziz Rana received his A.B. summa cum laude from Harvard College and his J.D. from Yale Law School. He also earned a Ph.D. in political science at Harvard, where his dissertation was awarded the university’s Charles Sumner Prize. He was an Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fellow in Law at Yale; "Who Decides on Security?"; 8/11/11; Cornell Law Library; http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clsops_papers/87/~~**

Widespread concerns with the government’s security infrastructure are by no means a new phenomenon.
AND
role has not been explored in any sustained way in the scholarly literature.

—-Conformity Turn

====Their framework forces conformity, devaluing alternative rhetorical perspectives.====
Secomb 2K (Linnell, a lecturer in Gender Studies at the University of Sydney "Fractured Community" Hypatia – Volume 15 Number 2 Spring 2000 pg. 138-139

This reformulated universalist model of community would be founded on "a moral conversation in
AND
the dominant modes of authoritative and rational conversation that assume homogeneity and transparency.
  

1AR

====Drone secrecy is the norm of the Obama administration – May’s disclosure of information was calibrated to avoid public scrutiny.====
Shah, ’8/13 ~Naureen Shah is an advocacy adviser at Amnesty International USA and author of several studies on the impact of US drone strikes; "Obama Has Not Delivered on May’s Promise of Transparency on Drones"; August 17, 2013; http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/obama-has-not-delivered-mays-promise-transparency-drones?paging=off**

The past two weeks have seen an escalation in drone strikes more dramatic than any
AND
the sting of government secrecy, but it does not cure the disease.