Contention 1: DOES COLONIALISM MAKE SENSE? (The Undercommons)

In order for colonialism to make sense, its built off of neglect. The neglect that we’re talking about is a rejection of anything that does not recreate or reproduce coloniality. That is the undercommons. The colonizer polices outwards with governance and politics and inwards by instating coloniality and reaffirming itself. Our starting point is a world in which colonialism doesn’t make sense we get there by the call to disorder
Harney &Moten 13 (Stefano Harney and Fred Moten "The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study" pg 7) 

Harney &Moten 13 (Stefano Harney and Fred Moten "The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study" pg 7) 

And when we are called to this other place, the wild beyond, “beyond the beyond” in Moten and Harney’s apt terminology, we have to give ourselves over to a certain kind of craziness. Moten reminds us that even as Fanon took an anti-colonial stance, he knew that it “looks crazy” but, Fanon, as a psychiatrist, also knew not to accept this organic division between the rational and the crazy and he knew that it would be crazy for him not to take that stance in a world that had assigned to him the role of the unreal, the primitive and the wild. Fanon, according to Moten, wants not the end of colonialism but the end of the standpoint from which colonialism makes sense. In order to bring colonialism to an end then, one does not speak truth to power, one has to inhabit the crazy, nonsensical, ranting language of the   other, the other who has been rendered a nonentity by colonialism. Indeed, blackness, for Moten and Harney by way of Fanon, is the willingness to be in the space that has been abandoned by colonialism, by rule, by order. Moten takes us there, saying of Fanon finally: “Eventually, I believe, he comes to believe in the world, which is to say the other world, where we inhabit and maybe even cultivate this absence, this place which shows up here and now, in the sovereign’s space and time, as absence, darkness, death, things which are not (as John Donne would 
The settler continuing under the colonial gaze defines common sense to think that we can continue colonialism by making reparations and perpetuating the idea of brokenness, ultimately continuing practices of managing symptoms of a bigger problem which stems from ignoring the foundation of negligence. We plan to defend the abolishment of the system of credit the settler offers. Endless warfare is guaranteed in a system feeding off of it.
Harney &Moten 13 (Stefano Harney and Fred Moten "The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study" Pg 85)
Of course, the old forms of command have never gone away. The carceral state is still in effect and strategic wars on drugs, youth, violence, and terrorism have even given way to logistic wars of drones and credit. In the clear, critical light of day, illusory administrators whisper of¶ our need for institutions, and all institutions are political, and all politics¶ is correctional, so it seems we need correctional institutions in¶ the common, settling it, correcting us. But we won’t stand corrected.¶ Moreover, incorrect as we are there’s nothing wrong with us. We don’t¶ want to be correct and we won’t be corrected. Politics proposes to¶ make us better, but we were good already in the mutual debt that can¶ never be made good. We owe it to each other to falsify the institution,¶ to make politics incorrect, to give the lie to our own determination.¶ We owe each other the indeterminate. We owe each other everything.¶ An abdication of political responsibility? OK. Now hope is an orientation toward this participation in change, this participation as change. This is the hope policy rolls like tear gas into the undercommons. Policy not only tries to impose this hope, but also enacts it. Those who dwell in policy do so not just by invoking contingency but by riding it, and so, in a sense, proving it. Those who dwell in policy are prepared. They are legible to change, liable to change, lendable to change. Policy is not so much a position as a disposition, a disposition toward display. This is why policy’s chief manifestation is governance. Governance should not be confused with government or governmentality. Governance is most importantly a new form of expropriation. It is the provocation of a certain kind of display, a display of interests as disinterestedness, a display of convertibility, a display of legibility. Governance is an instrumentalisation of policy, a set of protocols of deputisation, where one simultaneously auctions and bids on oneself, where the public and the private submit themselves to post-fordist production. Governance is the harvesting of the means of social reproduction but it appears as the acts of will, and therefore as the death drive, of the harvested. As capital cannot know directly the affect, thought, sociality, and imagination that make up the undercommon means of social reproduction, it must instead prospect for these in order to extract and abstract them as labor. That prospecting, which is the real bio-prospecting, seeks to break an integrity that has been militantly preserved. Governance, the voluntary but dissociative offering up of interests, willing participation in the general privacy and public privation, grants capital this knowledge, this wealth-making capacity. Policy emits this offering, violently manifest as a moral provocation. The ones who would correct and the ones who would be corrected converge around this imperative of submission that is played out constantly not only in that range of correctional facilities that Foucault analysed – the prisons, the hospitals, the asylums – but also in corporations, universities and NGOs. That convergence is given not only in the structures and affects of endless war but also in the brutal processes and perpetual processing of peace.

Contention 2: The Call to Disorder

We looked at the resolution and asked ourselves, can we affirm it? No, but why? The resolution is a call to order that governs the thought in this debate space and restricts it only to produce and reproduce the same knowledge production that is both negligent and inherently violent to the undercommons. Once we ask questions, we deconstruct the commons that we were instrumented to focus on. Questions of indecision or questions of refusal allow us to deconstruct what we were expected to do. We as students are responsible for the knowledge we produce but we wouldn’t have a say in it within the topic. 

Contention 3: The Study: Perhaps Prisons are Abolished?

Deonstruction arrives as an event of the impossible outside the horizon of the possible this is the unimaginable revolution it is created by thoughts generated by “the perhaps” 
Jacques Derrida 02 Jacques Derrida was a French philosopher, born in French Algeria. Derrida is best known for developing a form of semiotic analysis known as deconstruction. He is one of the major figures associated with post-structuralism and postmodern philosophy.“Without Alibi Mericidan Crossin Aesthetics”

It is too often said that the performative produces the event of which it speaks. To be sure. One must also realize that, inversely, where there is the performative, an event worthy of the name cannot arrive. If what arrives belongs to the horizon of the possible, or even of a possible performative, it does not arrive, it does not happen, in the full sense of the word. As I have often tried to demonstrate, only the impossible can arrive. In frequently pointing out about deconstruction that it is impossible or the impossible, and that it is not a method, a doctrine, a speculative meta­ philosophy, but what arrives, what comes about, I was relying on the same thought. The examples with which I have attempted to accede to this thought (invention, the gift, forgiveness, hospitality, justice, friendship, and so forth)23 all confirmed this thinking of the impossible possible, of the pos­sible as impossible, of an impossible-possible that can no longer be deter­mined by the metaphysical interpretation of possibility or virtuality. I will not say that this thought of the impossible possible, this other thinking ofthe possible is a thinking of necessity but rather, as I have also tried to demonstrate elsewhere, a thinking of the "perhaps, " of the dan­gerous modality of the "perhaps" that Nietzsche speaks of and that philosophy has always tried to subjugate. There is no future and no relation to the coming of the event without experience of the "perhaps." What takes place does not have to announce itself as possible or necessary; if it did, its irruption as event would in advance be neutralized. The event be­longs to a perhaps that is in keeping not with the possible but with the im­possible. And its force is therefore irreducible to the force or the power of a performative, even if it gives to the performative itself, to what is called the force of the performative, its chance and its effectiveness. The force of the event is always stronger than the force of a performa­tive. In the face of what arrives to me, what happens to me, even in what I decide (which, as I tried to show in Politics of Friendship, must involve a certain passivity, my decision being always the decision of the other), in the face of the other who arrives and arrives to me, all performative force is overrun, exceeded, exposed. This force in keeping with an experience of the perhaps retains, no doubt, an affinity or a complicity with the "if" of the "as if." And thus with a certain grammar of the conditional: What if this arrived? This, which is altogether other, could well arrive, this would happen. To think perhaps is to think "if," "what if?" But you see quite clearly that this "if," this "what if," this "as if" is no longer reducible to all the "as if's" that we have been talking about up until now.24 And if it is declined according to the verbal mode of the conditional, this is also to announce the uncondi­tional, the eventual, or the possible event of the impossible uncondi­tional, the altogether other-which we should from now on (and this is something else I have not yet said or done today) dissociate from the the­ological idea of sovereignty. Basically, this would perhaps be my hypoth­esis (it is extremely difficult, and almost im-probable, inaccessible to proof) : It would be necessary to dissociate a certain unconditional inde­pendence of thought, of deconstruction, of justice, of the Humanities, of the university, and so forth from any phantasm of indivisible sovereignty and of sovereign mastery.

It hurts me and it hurts you too - all privilege should first be used to recognize that all of our lives are being threatened by the same system of oppression this creates the coalition needed for the unimaginable revolution 
Harney & Moten 13  Stefano Harney and Fred Moten "The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study"
The mission then for the denizens of the undercommons is to recognize that when you seek to make things better, you are not just doing it for the Other, you must also be doing it for yourself. While men may think they are being “sensitive” by turning to feminism, while white people may think they are being right on by opposing racism, no one will really be able to embrace the mission of tearing “this shit down” until they realize that the structures they oppose are not only bad for some of us, they are bad for all of us. Gender hierarchies are bad for men as well as women and they are really bad for the rest of us. Racial hierarchies are not rational and ordered, they are chaotic and nonsensical and must be opposed by precisely all those who benefit in any way from them. Or, as Moten puts it: “The coalition emerges out of your recognition that it’s fucked up for you, in the same way that we’ve already recognized that it’s fucked up for us. I don’t need your help. I just need you to recognize that this shit is killing you, too, however much more softly, you stupid motherfucker, you know?” The coalition unites us in the recognition that we must change things or die. All of us. We must all change the things that are fucked up and change cannot come in the form that we think of as “revolutionary." Not as a masculinist surge or an armed confrontation. Revolution will come in a form we cannot yet imagine. Moten and Harney propose that we prepare now for what will come by entering into study. Study, a mode of thinking with others separate from the thinking that the institution requires of you, prepares us to be embedded in what Harney calls “the with and for” and allows you to spend less time antagonized and antagonizing.

The global U.S. prison regime is the primary condition of schooling, education, and pedagogy and is central to the (re)production & (re)invention of white supremacy conceptionlization of freedom safety and peace under colonialitic epistemology                                                                  Rodriguez 10 (Dylan Rodriguez “The distortion of the teaching act: Abolition as pedagogical position” p7) The global U.S. prison regime has no¶ precedent or peer and has become¶ a primary condition of schooling, education,¶ and pedagogy in every possible site.¶ Aside from its sheer accumulation of¶ captive bodies (more than 2.5 million,¶ if one includes children, military captives,¶ undocumented migrants, and the¶ mentally ill/disordered),1 the prison has become central to the (re)production and (re)invention of a robust and historically dynamic white supremacist state: at its farthest institutional reaches, the prison has developed a capacity to organize and disrupt the most taken-for-granted features of everyday social life, including “family,” “community,” “school,” and individual¶ social identities. Students, teachers, and administrators of all kinds have¶ come to conceptualize “freedom,” “safety,” and “peace” as a relatively direct outcome¶ of state-conducted domestic war (wars¶ on crime, drugs, gangs, immigrants, terror,¶ etc.), legitimated police violence, and¶ large-scale, punitive imprisonment.¶

Planning is self-sufficiency at the social level, and it reproduces in its experiment not just what it needs, but what it wants What we want after “the break” will be different from what we think we want before the break. We plan to defend life in resistance with continuous experimentation with what we want which allows us to escape from oppressive logistics of coloniality by never settling for a prescription which destroys the plans of the multitude
Angela Y. Davis 03 Angela Davis, born on January 26, 1944, in Birmingham, Alabama, became a master scholar who studied at the Sorbonne. She joined the U.S. Communist Party and was jailed for charges related to a prison outbreak, though ultimately cleared. Known for books like Women, Race & Class, she has worked as a professor and activist who advocates gender equity, prison reform and alliances across color lines"Are Prisons Obsolete"
"Forget about reform; it's time to talk about abolishing jails and prisons in American society . . . Still-abolition? Where do you put the prisoners? The 'criminals'? What's the alternative? First, having no alternative at all would create less crime than the present criminal training cen­ters do. Second, the only full alternative is building the kind of society that does not need prisons: A decent redis­tribution of power and income so as to put out the hidden fire of burning envy that now flames up in crimes of prop­erty-both burglary by the poor and embezzlement by the affluent. And a decent sense of community that can sup­ port, reintegrate and truly rehabilitate those who sudden­ly become filled with fury or despair, and that can face them not as objects-'criminals'-but as people who have committed illegal acts, as have almost all of us."
We must expose genocide and move past genocide management to genocide abolistionRodriguez 10 (Dylan Rodriguez “The distortion of the teaching act: Abolition as pedagogical position” p16-17)The prison regime is the institutionalization¶ and systemic expansion of massive¶ human misery. It is the production¶ of bodily and psychic disarticulation on¶ multiple scales, across different physiological¶ capacities. The prison industrial¶ complex is, in its logic of organization¶ and its production of common sense, at¶ least proto-genocidal. Finally, the prison¶ regime is inseparable from—that is, present¶ in—the schooling regime in which¶ teachers are entangled. Prison is not simply¶ a place to which one is displaced and¶ where one’s physiological being is disarticulated,¶ at the rule and whim of the state¶ and its designated representatives (police,¶ parole officers, school teachers). The¶ prison regime is the assumptive premise¶ of classroom teaching generally. While¶ many of us must live in labored denial¶ of this fact in order to teach as we must¶ about “American democracy,” “freedom,”¶ and “(civil) rights,” there are opportune¶ moments in which it is useful to come¶ clean: the vast majority of what occurs¶ in U.S. classrooms—from preschool to¶ graduate school—cannot accommodate¶ the bare truth of the proto-genocidal¶ prison regime as a violent ordering of the¶ world, a primary component of civil society/¶ school, and a material presence in our¶ everyday teaching acts.¶ As teachers, we are institutionally hailed¶ to the service of genocide management, in¶ which our pedagogical labor is variously¶ engaged in mitigating, valorizing, critiquing,¶ redeeming, justifying, lamenting,¶ and otherwise reproducing or tolerating¶ the profound and systemic violence of¶ the global-historical U.S. nation building¶ project. As “radical” teachers, we are¶ politically hailed to betray genocide management¶ in order to embrace the urgent¶ challenge of genocide abolition. The¶ short-term survival of those populations¶ rendered most immediately vulnerable to¶ the mundane and spectacular violence of¶ this system, and the long-term survival¶ of most of the planet’s human population¶ (particularly those descended from¶ survivors of enslavement, colonization,¶ conquest, and economic exploitation), is¶ significantly dependent on our willingness¶ to embrace this form of pedagogical¶ audacity.

Contention 3: University 

The idea of the professional is constructed out of the fear and negligence of “the criminal” one who may rise up and challenges the negligence perpetuated by the state. The professional is in the profession of settling and neglecting. They have an invested interest in a world where colonialism makes sense. They have accepted the credit offered by the University and have become police who’s sole purpose is to enforce policies that reinforce the system of neglect and education of neglect generated by the University. Thus we as the laborers (students) of this activity first have the power and 2nd the responsibility to use radical thought in the context of this free space to study, to question and challenge truth, coloniality, negligence and genocide management. The role of the unconditional University is precisely to inspire and create this type of knowledge. The role of the conditional University is to reproduce negligent knowledge production. 

The role of the university in the status quo continues the colonial choice of offering credit both through the political and critical fringe voices to create professionals for the state which both neglects the labor of the undercommons and exploits the brokenness it pushes upon the undercommons
Harney &Moten 13 (Stefano Harney and Fred Moten  "The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study" pg 38) 
The mode of professionalization that is the American university is precisely dedicated to promoting this consensual choice: an antifoundational critique of the University or a foundational critique of the university. Taken as choices, or hedged as bets, one tempered with the other, they are nonetheless always negligent. Professionalization is built on this choice. It rolls out into ethics and efficiency, responsibility and science, and numerous other choices, all built upon the theft, the conquest, the negligence of the outcast mass intellectuality of the undercommons. It is therefore unwise to think of professionalization as a narrowing and better to think of it as a circling, an encircling of war wagons around the last camp of indigenous women and children. Think about the way the American doctor or lawyer regard themselves as educated, enclosed in the circle of the state’s encyclopedia, though they may know nothing of philosophy or history. What would be outside this act of the conquest circle, what kind of ghostly labored world escapes in the circling act, an act like a kind of broken phenomenology where the brackets never come back off and what is experienced as knowledge is the absolute horizon of knowledge whose name is banned by the banishment of the absolute. It is simply a horizon that does not bother to make itself possible. No wonder that whatever their origins or possibilities, it is theories of pragmatism in the United States and critical realism in Britain that command the loyalty of critical intellectuals. Never having to confront the foundation, never having to confront antifoundation out of faith in the unconfrontable foundation, critical intellectuals can float in the middle range. These loyalties banish dialectics with its inconvenient interest in pushing the material and abstract, the table and its brain, as far as it can, unprofessional behavior at its most obvious. 

The essence of the university is to be unconditional and to spur and create radical thought that challenges the concept of truth thus capable of taking on the task of deconstruction
Jacques Derrida 02  Jacques Derrida was a French philosopher, born in French Algeria. Derrida is best known for developing a form of semiotic analysis known as deconstruction. He is one of the major figures associated with post-structuralism and postmodern philosophy.“Without Alibi Mericidan Crossin Aesthetics”
This university without conditions does not, infact, exist, as we know only too well. Nevertheless, in principle and in conformity with its de­clared vocation, its professed essence, it should remain an ultimate place of critical resistance-and more than critical-to all the powers of dog­matic and unjust appropriation.
When I say "more than critical," I have in mind "deconstructive." (Why not just say it directly and without wasting time?) I am referring to the right to deconstruction as an unconditional right to ask critical ques­tions not only about the history of the concept of man, but about the his­tory even of the notion of critique, about the form and the authority of the question,2 about the interrogative form of thought. For this implies the right to do it affirmatively and performatively,3 that is, by producing events (for example, by writing) and by giving rise to singular oeuvres (which up until now has not been the purview of either the classical or the modern Humanities) . With the event of thought constituted by such oeu­vres, it would be a matter of making something happen to this concept of truth or of humanity, without necessarily betraying it, that is, to the con­cept that forms the charter and the profession of faith of all universities.
This principle of unconditional resistance is a right that the university itself should at the same time reflect, invent, and pose, whether it does so through its law faculties or in the new Humanities capable of working on these questions of right and of law-in other words, and again why not say it without detour, the Humanities capable of taking on the tasks of deconstruction, beginning with the deconstruction of their own history and their own axioms.

You have an ethical obligation to orient your teaching & education production towards genocide abolition rather than genocide management If colonialism doesn’t make sense to you your arguments and your ballot should affirm that and if it does make sense 2 U then with all due disrespect FUCK YOU