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. 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)
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 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.

The massive carceral-cultural form of the prison has naturalized a systemic disorientation of the teaching act so that teaching is no longer separable from the work of policing, juridical discipline, and state-crafted punishment.
Rodriguez 10 (Dylan Rodriguez “The distortion of the teaching act: Abolition as pedagogical position” p7-8)
Third, the prison regime encompasses¶ the multiple knowledges and meanings¶ that are created around the institutional¶ site and cultural symbol of “the prison,”¶ including those that circulate in popular¶ culture and among the administrative¶ bureaucracies and curriculum of schools.¶ Given this conception of the prison¶ regime as a far-reaching and invasive¶ arrangement of social power, state violence,¶ and human domination, we might¶ better be able to understand the significance¶ of everyday routines of school-based¶ discipline that imply the possibility of¶ imprisonment as the punitive bureaucratic¶ outcome of misbehavior, truancy,¶ and academic failure. What, then, is the¶ condition of “teaching” in the context of¶ a prison regime that is so relentless in its¶ innovation and intrusiveness?¶ We might depart from another critical¶ premise: that the prison (jail, detention¶ center, etc.) cannot be conceptualized as¶ a place that is wholly separate or alienated¶ from the normalized intercourses of¶ civil society or “the free world.” Speaking¶ more precisely to the concerns raised by¶ this issue of Radical Teacher, the massive¶ carceral-cultural form of the prison¶ has naturalized a systemic disorientation¶ of the teaching act, so that teaching is no¶ longer separable from the work of policing,¶ juridical discipline, and state-crafted¶ punishment.¶
Thought experiment is self-sufficiency, 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 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 abolition
Rodriguez 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 link two-fold: Anyone who affirms themselves is a call to recognition within the system and allows the stratification by coloniality to make sense and buys into the idea that we are broken and only credit can get us out of this debt. Any criticism that doesn’t look for the outwards deconstruction to opt for reform is assimilation. That is the settler’s logic, to make reparations and reform to justify that coloniality can make sense if we were to tweak it. Through the negs world we’re still running circles into the historic past of how politics entrenched itself in colonialism. Although colonialism was rampant even before the settling of the United states. This is the perpetual circle of staying and producing knowledge which only ever goes back to affirm the state or perpetuate sovereign exceptionalism. This is the Davis card, we always continue to defend the state rather than tearing it down. The 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 drive of logistics for dominance becomes endless war
Harney & Moten 13  Stefano Harney and Fred Moten "The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black Study"  pg.93)
The rise of logistics is rapid. Indeed, to read today in the field of logistics is to read a booming field, a conquering field. In military science and in engineering of course, but also in business studies, in management research, logistics is everywhere. And beyond these classic capitalist sciences, its ascent is echoed ahistorically in the emerging fields of object-oriented philosophy and cognitive neuroscience, where the logistical conditions of knowledge production go unnoticed, but not the effects. In military science the world has been turned upside down. Traditionally strategy led and logistics followed. Battle plans dictated supply lines. No more. Strategy, traditional ally and partner of logisitics, is today increasingly reduced to collateral damage in the drive of logistics for dominance. In war without end, war without battles, only the ability to keep fighting, only logistics, matters. 

You have an ethical obligation to orient your teaching & education production towards genocide abolition rather than genocide management to see which methodoly deconstructs the colonial structures. 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