Debate Evidence K Sucks

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007
Moore/Stevenson/Wallace
1
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK GOOD (AND OTHER ANSWERS TO DIRTY HIPPIES)

FRAMEWORK GOOD (AND OTHER ANSWERS TO DIRTY HIPPIES)..........................................................1
FRAMEWORK 2AC (LONG) ................................................................................................................................3
FRAMEWORK 2AC (SHORT) ..............................................................................................................................4
FRAMEWORK 2AC/1AR ......................................................................................................................................5
FRAMEWORK 2AC/1AR ......................................................................................................................................6
FRAMEWORK 2AC/1AR ......................................................................................................................................7
FRAMEWORK 1NC...............................................................................................................................................8
FRAMEWORK 1NC...............................................................................................................................................9
FRAMEWORK 1NC.............................................................................................................................................10
FRAMEWORK 1NC.............................................................................................................................................11
FRAMEWORK 1NC.............................................................................................................................................12
FRAMEWORK 1NC.............................................................................................................................................13
FRAMEWORK 2NC.............................................................................................................................................14
AT: WE MEET WE AFFIRM THE TOPIC AS X.............................................................................................15
GROUND 2NC......................................................................................................................................................16
LIMITS GOOD 2NC .............................................................................................................................................17
GRAMMAR GOOD 2NC .....................................................................................................................................18
EXTRATOPICALITY 2NC ..................................................................................................................................19
EMPIRICISM 2NC ...............................................................................................................................................20
EMPIRICISM 2NC ...............................................................................................................................................21
AT: PERSONAL ADVOCACY............................................................................................................................22
AT: CASE OUTWEIGHS .....................................................................................................................................23
AT: CASE OUTWEIGHS .....................................................................................................................................24
AT: STATE FOCUS BAD ....................................................................................................................................25
AT: YOUR DEBATE IS BAD ..............................................................................................................................28
AT: AGENCY .......................................................................................................................................................29
AT: FRAMEWORK BAD FOR EDUCATION....................................................................................................30
AT: WEIGH T LIKE A DA ..................................................................................................................................31
AT: REAL WORLD..............................................................................................................................................32
AT: X IS RESPONSIVE .......................................................................................................................................33
AT: LIGUISTIC VIOLENCE................................................................................................................................34
AT: DIRTY WORDS ............................................................................................................................................35
AT: DIRTY WORDS ............................................................................................................................................36
AT: DIRTY WORDS ............................................................................................................................................37
AT: NAZIS...........................................................................................................................................................38
AT: LIMITS ARE BIOPOWER............................................................................................................................39
AT: LINE-BY-LINE BAD ....................................................................................................................................40
AT: SPEED BAD ..................................................................................................................................................41
AT: KULYNYCH .................................................................................................................................................42
AT: MITCHELL....................................................................................................................................................43
AT: WAR ON TERROR .......................................................................................................................................44
AT: HURTS CREATIVITY ..................................................................................................................................45
AT: Nietzsche Ks of Framework..........................................................................................................................46
AT: Nietzsche Ks of Framework..........................................................................................................................47
AT: Speech Time Cheating....................................................................................................................................48
AT: Speech Time Cheating....................................................................................................................................49
AT: Rules Bad .......................................................................................................................................................50
AT: Role of the Ballot ...........................................................................................................................................51
AT: Friere: Species Link........................................................................................................................................52
AT: Freire- Consciousness Bad .............................................................................................................................53
AT: Freire- Consciousness Bad .............................................................................................................................54
AT: Friere: Your Revolution Fails.........................................................................................................................55
AT: Friere: Your Revolution Fails.........................................................................................................................56
Liberatory Pedagogy Increases Racism and Sexism..............................................................................................57

2
CHEATING BAD
Rationalism Turn ...................................................................................................................................................58

Rationalism Link ...................................................................................................................................................59
Criticism of Their Project Good ............................................................................................................................60
Critical pedagogy Fails ..........................................................................................................................................61
AT: Debate Should be about liberation of the oppressed.......................................................................................62
AT: Debate Should be about liberation of the oppressed.......................................................................................63
Churchill Frontline.................................................................................................................................................64
Extension #1- Churchill has bad Scolarship ..........................................................................................................67
Extension #1- Churchill has bad Scolarship ..........................................................................................................68
Extension #2: This undermines your project .........................................................................................................69
Extension #2: This undermines your project .........................................................................................................70
AT: These are all Nazi attack against us................................................................................................................71
No Genocide Now .................................................................................................................................................72
AT: Give Back the Land........................................................................................................................................73
Spark Answers .......................................................................................................................................................76
Spark Answers .......................................................................................................................................................77
Spark Answers .......................................................................................................................................................78
Spark Answers .......................................................................................................................................................79
Spark Answers .......................................................................................................................................................80
Spark Answers .......................................................................................................................................................81
Spark Answers .......................................................................................................................................................82
Spark Answers .......................................................................................................................................................83
The War Against You Know Who .....................................................................................................................84
Appeasement Bad ..................................................................................................................................................89
Appeasement Bad ..................................................................................................................................................90
Appeasement Bad ..................................................................................................................................................91
Cosmopolitanism Bad............................................................................................................................................92
Clash of Civilization ..............................................................................................................................................93
US Power Good .....................................................................................................................................................94
Terrorism Impact Cards .........................................................................................................................................95
AT: Violence Bad ..................................................................................................................................................96
AT: Violence Bad ..................................................................................................................................................97
AT: Violence Bad ..................................................................................................................................................98
AT: Violence Bad ..................................................................................................................................................99
AT: Value to Life.................................................................................................................................................100
AT: Value To Life ...............................................................................................................................................101
AT: Cycle of Violence.........................................................................................................................................102
AT: State of Exception ........................................................................................................................................103
AT: Biopower ......................................................................................................................................................104
AT: Moral Relativism..........................................................................................................................................105
AT: Social Construction ......................................................................................................................................108
AT: Youre the Terrorist......................................................................................................................................109
AT: Youre the Terrorist......................................................................................................................................110
AT: The Word is Bad...........................................................................................................................................111

3
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK 2AC (LONG)

1. Framework. The affirmative must defend a theoretical implementation of the
plan by the federal government versus the status quo or competitive policy option.
Changing this decision calculus is a voting issue for fairness.
A. Predictability the word resolved proves the grammar of the resolution is
based upon enacting a policy. They justify arbitrarily changing the question
of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks, ensuring the
negative always wins. Grammar is the only predictable basis for determining
the meaning of the resolution; its the basis for how words interact together.
Ignoring it justifies changing the focus of the debate on either side, mooting
the resolution all together. A definition of resolved proves our argument.
Words and Phrases 1964 Permanent Edition
Definition of the word resolve, given by Webster is to express an opinion or determination
by resolution or vote; as it was resolved by the legislature; It is of similar force to the word
enact, which is defined by Bouvier as meaning to establish by law.
B. Ground accessing our advantages is predicated upon enacting the plan. A

new framework or roll of the ballot allows them to ignore the entire 1ac, coopting 2ac offense.
C. Utopian their alternative justifies non institutional fiat. Restricting the
negative to public institutions is the only way to pin the negative down with a
stable advocacy and is necessary to prevent infinitely regressive object fiat of
private citizens or corporations.
D. Our theory disad outweighs your criticism.
Shively, Prof Politics at Tx A&M, 2k4 (Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 180)
The ambiguists must say "no" tothey must reject and limitsome ideas and actions. In what
follows, we will also find that they must say "yes" to some things. In particular, they must say "yes" to the idea of rational persuasion.
they must recognize the role of agreement in political contest, or the basic
accord that is necessary to discord. The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common one. The mistake is in thinking that
This means, first, that
agreement marks the end of contestthat consensus kills debate. But this is true only if the agreement is perfectif there is nothing at all left to question or
We agree on some matters but not on others, on generalities

but not on specifics, on principles but not on their applications, and so on. And this kind of
limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate. As John Courtney Murray writes:
We hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about them. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of
intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There can be no
argument except on the premise, and within a context, of agreement. In other words, we cannot argue
about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of
argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or good argument. At the very least, we must agree
about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. For instance, one cannot have an
argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. One cannot
contest. In most cases, however, our agreements are highly imperfect.
successfully stage a sit-in if one's target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. Nor
can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. In other words,
contest is meaningless if
there is a lack of agreement or communication about what is being contested. Resisters,
demonstrators, and debaters must have some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of
their disagreements. The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a demonstrator's
audience must know what is being resisted. In short,
the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about

what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. In other words, contestation
rests on some basic agreement or harmony.

4
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK 2AC (SHORT)

1. Framework. The affirmative must defend a theoretical implementation of the
plan by the
federal government versus the status quo. Changing this decision
calculus is a voting issue for fairness.
A. Predictability the word resolved proves the grammar of the resolution is
based upon enacting a policy. They justify arbitrarily changing the question
of the debate to an infinite number of potential frameworks, ensuring the
negative always wins.
Definition of the word resolve, given by Webster is to express an opinion or
determination by resolution or vote; as it was resolved by the legislature; It is of similar
force to the word enact, which is defined by Bouvier as meaning to establish by law.
B. Ground accessing our advantages is predicated upon enacting the plan.

A new framework or roll of the ballot allows them to ignore the entire 1ac,
co-oopting 2ac offense.

5
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK 2AC/1AR
2. This straight turns their K
The negative will always win that the principles of their advocacy are good in the
abstract however we can only test the merits of the affirmative if they negate the
specific consequences of political implementation
Michael Ignatieff, Carr professor of human rights at Harvard, 2k4 Lesser Evils p. 20-1
As for moral perfectionism, this would be the doctrine that a liberal state should never have truck
with dubious moral means and should spare its officials the hazard of having to decide between
lesser and greater evils. A moral perfectionist position also holds that states can spare their officials this hazard
simply by adhering to the universal moral standards set out in human rights conventions and the laws of war. There
are two problems with a perfectionist stance, leaving aside the question of whether it is realistic. The first is that
articulating nonrevocable, nonderogable moral standards is relatively easy. The problem is

deciding how to apply them in specific cases. What is the line between interrogation and torture, between
targeted killing and unlawful assassination, between preemption and aggression? Even when legal and moral
distinctions between these are clear in the abstract, abstractions are less than helpful when
political leaders have to choose between them in practice. Furthermore, the problem with
perfectionist standards is that they contradict each other. The same person who shudders, rightly, at the
prospect of torturing a suspect might be prepared to kill the same suspect in a preemptive attack on a terrorist base.
Equally, the perfectionist commitment to the right to life might preclude such attacks altogether and restrict our
response to judicial pursuit of offenders through process of law. Judicial responses to the problem of terror have
their place, but they are no substitute for military operations when terrorists possess bases, training camps, and
heavy weapons. To stick to a perfectionist commitment to the right to life when under terrorist attack
might achieve moral consistency at the price of leaving us defenseless in the face of evildoers.
Security, moreover, is a human right, and thus respect for one right might lead us to betray another.
Without predictable ground debate becomes meaningless and produces a political

strategy wedded to violence that fails to achieve productive change
The point may seem trite, as surely the ambiguists would agree that basic terms must be shared
before they can be resisted and problematized. In fact, they are often very candid about this seeming paradox
in their approach: the paradoxical or "parasitic" need of the subversive for an order to subvert. But admitting the
paradox is not helpful if, as usually happens here, its implications are ignored; or if the only implication drawn is
that order or harmony is an unhappy fixture of human life. For what the paradox should tell us is that some
kinds of harmonies or orders are, in fact, good for resistance; and some ought to be fully supported.
As such, it should counsel against the kind of careless rhetoric that lumps all orders or harmonies
together as arbitrary and inhumane. Clearly some basic accord about the terms of contest is a
necessary ground for all further contest. It may be that if the ambiguists wish to remain full-fledged
ambiguists, they cannot admit to these implications, for to open the door to some agreements or reasons as good
and some orders as helpful or necessary, is to open the door to some sort of rationalism. Perhaps they might just
continue to insist that this initial condition is ironic, but that the irony should not stand in the way of the real
business of subversion.Yet difficulties remain. For agreement is not simply the initial condition, but the
continuing ground, for contest. If we are to successfully communicate our disagreements, we

cannot simply agree on basic terms and then proceed to debate without attention to further agreements. For debate and contest are forms of dialogue: that is, they are activities premised on the
building of progressive agreements. Imagine, for instance, that two people are having an argument
about the issue of gun control. As noted earlier, in any argument, certain initial agreements will be
needed just to begin the discussion. At the very least, the two discussants must agree on basic terms:
for example, they must have some shared sense of what gun control is about; what is at issue in arguing
about it; what facts are being contested, and so on. They must also agreeand they do so simply by
entering into debatethat they will not use violence or threats in making their cases and that they
are willing to listen to, and to be persuaded by, good arguments. Such agreements are simply
implicit in the act of argumentation.

6
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK 2AC/1AR
Exploding predictable limits neutralizes the discursive benefits to debate and
renders their advocacy meaninglessonly our interpretation preserves the
revolutionary potential of a deliberative activity
'Thus far, I have argued that if the ambiguists mean to be subversive about anything, they need to be
conservative about some things. They need to be steadfast supporters of the structures of openness and
democracy: willing to say "no" to certain forms of contest; willing to set up certain clear limitations
about acceptable behavior. To this, finally, I would add that if the ambiguists mean to stretch the boundaries of behaviorif they want to be revolutionary and disruptive in their skepticism and iconoclasm
they need first to be firm believers in something. Which is to say, again, they need to set clear limits
about what they will and will not support, what they do and do not believe to be best. As G. K.
Chesterton observed, the true revolutionary has always willed something "definite and limited." For
example, "The Jacobin could tell you not only the system he would rebel against, but (what was more
important) the system he would not rebel against..." He "desired the freedoms of democracy." He "wished
to have votes and not to have titles . . ." But "because the new rebel is a skeptic"because he cannot bring
himself to will something definite and limited "he cannot be a revolutionary." For "the fact that he wants
to doubt everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything" (Chesterton 1959,41).
Thus, the most radical skepticism ends in the most radical conservatism. In other words, a refusal to
judge among ideas and activities is, in the end, an endorsement of the status quo. To embrace
everything is to be unable to embrace a particular plan of action, for to embrace a particular plan of
action is to reject all others, at least for that moment. Moreover, as observed in our discussion of
openness, to embrace everything is to embrace self-contradiction: to hold to both one's purposes and to
that which defeats one's purposesto tolerance and intolerance, open-mindedness and close-mindedness,
democracy and tyranny. In the same manner, then, the ambiguists' refusals to will something "definite
and limited" undermines their revolutionary impulses. In their refusal to say what they will not
celebrate and what they will not rebel against, they deny themselves (and everyone else in their political
world) a particular plan or ground to work from. By refusing to deny incivility, they deny themselves a
civil public space from which to speak. They cannot say "no" to the terrorist who would silence dissent.
They cannot turn their backs on the bullying of the white supremacist. And, as such, in refusing to bar the
tactics of the anti-democrat, they refuse to support the tactics of the democrat. In short, then, to be a true
ambiguist, there must be some limit to what is ambiguous. To fully support political contest, one must
fully support some uncontested rules and reasons. To generally reject the silencing or exclusion of
others, one must sometimes silence or exclude those who reject civility and democracy.

7
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK 2AC/1AR
3. The impacts
A. Fairness is key to education and increasing participation in the activity
Spiece 2k3 Traditional Policy Debate: Now More Than Ever Patrick Speice, Wake Forest University,
and Jim Lyle, Debate Coach, Clarion University 2003 - Oceans Policy Adrift
As with any game or sport, creating a level playing field that affords each competitor a fair chance
of victory is integral to the continued existence of debate as an activity. If the game is slanted
toward one particular competitor, the other participants are likely to pack up their tubs and go
home, as they dont have a realistic shot of winning such a rigged game. Debate simply wouldnt
be fun if the outcome was pre-determined and certain teams knew that they would always win or lose.
The incentive to work hard to develop new and innovative arguments would be non-existent
because wins and losses would not relate to how much research a particular team did. TPD, as
defined above, offers the best hope for a level playing field that makes the game of debate fun
and educational for all participants.
B. The critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by debate outweigh any
impact they can weigh against our framework. Its not the content of our
arguments, but the skills we learn which increase our quality of life.
Dickson, 2k4 Assistant Prof at Queens Collage, Developing "Real-World Intelligence": Teaching
Argumentative Writing through Debate Randi Dickson. English Journal. (High school edition).
In learning about argument and preparing debates, students learn critical-thinking skills, such
as the ability to "identify an issue, consider different views, form and defend a viewpoint, and
consider and respond to counterarguments" (Yeh 49). Yeh's study, an important examination of
the "effectiveness of two heuristics based on Toulmin's (1958) model of argument and classical
rhetoric for helping middle-school students . . . write argumentative essays" (49), begins by
examining the place of argument in school and the workplace. He says, "The ability to write
effective arguments influences grades, academic success, and preparation for college and
employment" (49), and he examines the importance of being able to "pose and defend contestable
ideas" (MacKinnon, qtd. in Yeh 51) in most academic and workplace settings. Argumentation and
debate are crucial to participation in democracy. Richard Fulkerson, in Teaching the Argument in
Writing, says, "As I perceive argumentation, it is the chief cognitive activity by which a
democracy, a field of study, a corporation, or a committee functions. . . . And it is vitally
important that high school and college students learn both to argue well and to critique the
arguments of others" (16). Deanna Kuhn, author of "Thinking as Argument," would concur.
Results from her research study indicate that "[i]t is in argument that we find the most significant
way in which higher order thinking and reasoning figure in the lives of most people" and that
"social contexts, such as the classroom, are the most promising arena for practicing and developing
argumentative thinking skills" (155). Kuhn looks to the skills developed when students learn
argument as being vital to all aspects of life. Beyond the next grade and the next job, she believes
that thinking as argument reflects "real-world intelligence" and that "no other kind of
thinking matters more-or contributes more-to the quality and fulfillment of people's lives,
both individually and collectively" (156). The ability to form and hold beliefs, make
judgments, and consider opposing views is vital to the significant decisions that people make in
their lives.

8
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK 1NC
A. Interpretation: Debate should be a site for contest over political proposals. This
requires that the affirmative present a predictable plan of action and defends that
their policy should be adopted by the USFG.
Our interpretation is the most predictable given the wording of the resolution.
1. The topic is defined by the phrase following the colonthe USFG is the
agent of the resolution, not the individual debaters
Websters Guide to Grammar and Writing 2k
Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by
itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go oneIf the introductory phrase
preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon represents the real
business of the sentence, beginning the clause after the colon with a capital letter.
2. Resolved proves the framework for the resolution is to enact a policy.

Definition of the word resolve, given by Webster is to express an opinion or determination by
resolution or vote; as it was resolved by the legislature; It is of similar force to the word
enact, which is defined by Bouvier as meaning to establish by law.
3. Should denotes an expectation the aff will be enacted.

American Heritage Dictionary 2k
Used to express probability or expectation
4. The USFG is the government in Washington D.C.

Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2k http://encarta.msn.com
The federal government of the United States is centered in Washington DC

9
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK 1NC
B. Violation:
1. The affirmative fails to defend a fiat based interpretation of their plan through
the federal government. (They instead)
2. Brightline test could the arguments in the 1ac form the outline of a proposal to
policymakers? Obviously they couldnt.
Lutz, Prof PolSci U of Huston, 2k (Donald, Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 46)
The surprising fact is not that politicians tend to ransack anything that political scientists might have
said about a proposed constitutional change. The surprising fact is how little we have to tell them.
Nor is this a minor problem. If we cannot tell them about the probable tendencies of a given
institutional design, which is one of the easier tasks we face, why do we have any confidence that
what we have to tell them about more ephemeral matters, such as the probable outcome of a
particular election, is grounded any more securely? Let me put the matter a little more directly by
proposing that our ability as political scientists to speak to constitutional/institutional matters
is the very litmus test of our ability to speak usefully to politicians and our willingness to speak
of constitutional/institutional matters is the litmus test of our willingness to speak to politicians
at all. Those political scientists unable and unwilling to engage in such discourse have opted
out entirely from any possible discourse with elected political actors, political activists, and
interested citizens. There is nothing inherently wrong with opting out of the direct conversation,
but it is futile to pretend that discourse with political actors could proceed in splendid isolation
from constitutional/institutional matters. Therefore, any political scientist interested in such
discourse will need to ask herself/himself if their research is aimed at contributing to an
understanding of constitutional/institutional possibilities, probabilities and actualities. In sum,
if the discourse between political theorists and political actors is not going well, we need to examine
our contribution to the problem that may lie in our won unwillingness and/or inability to address
matters of mutual concern. Perhaps one way of conceptualizing the problem is to use the physical
sciences as a comparative enterprise. Much of what we do in contemporary political science looks
like an attempt to imitate theoretical physics and basic scientific research to seek new,
fundamental knowledge through research that is unfettered with respect to agenda or immediate
utility. If this scientific model is worth anything at all, then it is instructive to remember that
without applied research designed to link fundamental knowledge with real-world problems,
we would still be lighting our streets with gas lamps, or perhaps stumbling about in a world of shadows.
That is, the possible application of knowledge has be the strongest spur to theoretical knowledge.
For those who reject such a model altogether, I need to say that I am not enamored of, nor are
political actors interested in, discourse about how many rational voters can dance on the head of
an ideal, or discourse about how all political institutions are merely and inevitably the
instruments of oppression of those in power. In these latter instances, the issue is not one of
merely methodological irrelevance but moral irrelevance. Our problem is not as simple as
choosing between science and morality, but rather the more stark one of choosing between trying
to integrate the entire enterprise of political theory or not trying at all.

10
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK 1NC
C. Standards
1. Ground - the aff will always win that the principles of their advocacy are
good in the abstractwe can only debate the merits of their framework if
they defend the specific consequences of political implementation
Michael Ignatieff, Carr professor of human rights at Harvard, 2k4 Lesser Evils p. 20-1
As for moral perfectionism, this would be the doctrine that a liberal state should never
have truck with dubious moral means and should spare its officials the hazard of having
to decide between lesser and greater evils. A moral perfectionist position also holds that states can spare
their officials this hazard simply by adhering to the universal moral standards set out in human rights conventions and
the laws of war. There are two problems with a perfectionist stance, leaving aside the question of whether it is realistic.
The first is that articulating nonrevocable, nonderogable moral standards is relatively easy.
The problem is deciding how to apply them in specific cases. What is the line between interrogation
and torture, between targeted killing and unlawful assassination, between preemption and aggression? Even when
legal and moral distinctions between these are clear in the abstract, abstractions are less
than helpful when political leaders have to choose between them in practice. Furthermore,
the problem 1with perfectionist standards is that they contradict each other. The same person
who shudders, rightly, at the prospect of torturing a suspect might be prepared to kill the same suspect in a preemptive
attack on a terrorist base. Equally, the perfectionist commitment to the right to life might preclude such attacks
altogether and restrict our response to judicial pursuit of offenders through process of law. Judicial responses to the
problem of terror have their place, but they are no substitute for military operations when terrorists possess bases,
training camps, and heavy weapons. To stick to a perfectionist commitment to the right to life when
under terrorist attack might achieve moral consistency at the price of leaving us defenseless
in the face of evildoers. Security, moreover, is a human right, and thus respect for one right
might lead us to betray another.
And, without predictable ground debate becomes meaningless and produces

a political strategy wedded to violence that fails to achieve productive change
The point may seem trite, as surely the ambiguists would agree that basic terms must be shared
before they can be resisted and problematized. In fact, they are often very candid about this seeming paradox in
their approach: the paradoxical or "parasitic" need of the subversive for an order to subvert. But admitting the paradox is
not helpful if, as usually happens here, its implications are ignored; or if the only implication drawn is that order or
harmony is an unhappy fixture of human life. For what the paradox should tell us is that some kinds of
harmonies or orders are, in fact, good for resistance; and some ought to be fully supported. As
such, it should counsel against the kind of careless rhetoric that lumps all orders or
harmonies together as arbitrary and inhumane. Clearly some basic accord about the terms of
contest is a necessary ground for all further contest. It may be that if the ambiguists wish to remain fullfledged ambiguists, they cannot admit to these implications, for to open the door to some agreements or reasons as good
and some orders as helpful or necessary, is to open the door to some sort of rationalism. Perhaps they might just continue to
insist that this initial condition is ironic, but that the irony should not stand in the way of the real business of
subversion.Yet difficulties remain. For agreement is not simply the initial condition, but the
continuing ground, for contest. If we are to successfully communicate our disagreements, we

cannot simply agree on basic terms and then proceed to debate without attention to further agreements. For
debate and contest are forms of dialogue: that is, they are activities premised on the building
of progressive agreements. Imagine, for instance, that two people are having an argument about
the issue of gun control. As noted earlier, in any argument, certain initial agreements will be
needed just to begin the discussion. At the very least, the two discussants must agree on basic
terms: for example, they must have some shared sense of what gun control is about; what is at issue in arguing about it;
what facts are being contested, and so on. They must also agreeand they do so simply by entering
into debatethat they will not use violence or threats in making their cases and that they are
willing to listen to, and to be persuaded by, good arguments. Such agreements are simply
implicit in the act of argumentation.

11
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK 1NC
2. Limits - There are an infinite number of contexts through which they could
advocate the plan. Our interpretation limits debate to promote politically relevant
dialogue and structured communication
Lutz, Prof PolSci U of Huston, 2k (Donald, Political Theory and Partisan Politics p 39-40)
Aristotle notes in the Politics that political theory simultaneously proceeds at three levels discourse about the ideal, about the best
possible in the real world, and about existing political systems. Put another way, comprehensive political theory must ask several
different kinds of questions that are linked, yet distinguishable. In order to understand the interlocking set of
questions that political theory can ask, imagine a continuum stretching from left to right. At the end,
to the right is an ideal form of government, a perfectly wrought construct produced by the imagination. At
the other end is the perfect dystopia, the most perfectly wretched system that the human imagination can produce.
Stretching between these two extremes is an infinite set of possibilities, merging into one another, that
describe the logical possibilities created by the characteristics defining the end points. For example, a
political system defined primarily by equality would have a perfectly inegalitarian system described at the other end,
and the possible states of being between them would vary primarily in the extent to which they
embodied equality. An ideal defined primarily by liberty would create a different set of possibilities
between the extremes. Of course, visions of the ideal often are inevitably more complex than these single-value examples indicate, but
it is also true that in order to imagine an ideal state of affairs a kind of simplification is almost always required since normal states of
affairs invariably present themselves to human consciousness as complicated, opaque, and to a significant extent indeterminate. A
non-ironic reading of Platos republic leads one to conclude that the creation of these visions of the ideal characterizes political
philosophy. This is not the case. Any person can generate a vision of the ideal. One job of political
philosophy is to ask the question Is this ideal worth pursuing? Before the question can be pursued,
however, the ideal state of affairs must be clarified, especially with respect to conceptual precision and the logical
relationship between the propositions that describe the ideal. This pre-theoretical analysis raises the vision of the
ideal from the mundane to a level where true philosophical analysis and the careful comparison with
existing systems can proceed fruitfully. The process of pre-theoretical analysis, probably because it
works on clarifying ideas that most capture the human imagination, too often looks to some like the
entire enterprise of political philosophy. However, the value of Jean-Jacques Rousseaus concept of the General Will,
for example, lies not in its formal logical implications, nor in its compelling hold on the imagination, but on the power and clarity it
lends to an analysis and comparison of the actual political systems. Among other things it allows him to show that anyone who wishes
to pursue a state of affairs closer to that summer up in the concept of the General Will must successfully develop a civil religion. To
the extent politicians believe theorists who tell them that pre-theoretical clarification of language
describing an ideal is the essence and sum total of political philosophy, to that extent they will
properly conclude that political philosophers have little to tell them, since politics is the realm of the
possible not the realm of logical clarity. However, once the ideal is clarified, the political philosopher
will begin to articulate and assess the reasons why we might want to pursue such an ideal. At this
point, analysis leaves the realm of pure logic and enters the realm of the logic of human longing,
aspiration, and anxiety. The analysis is now limited by the interior parameters of the human heart (more properly the
human psyche) to which the theorist must appeal. Unlike the clarification stage where anything that is logical is
possible, there are now define limits on where logical can take us. Appeals to self-destruction, less
happiness rather than more, psychic isolation, enslavement, loss of identity, a preference for the lives
of mollusks over that of humans, to name just a few ,possibilities, are doomed to failure. The theorist
cannot appeal to such values if she or he is to attract an audience of politicians. Much political theory
involves the careful, competitive analysis of what a given ideal state of affairs entails, and as Plato
shows in his dialogues the discussion between the philosopher and the politician will quickly
terminate if he or she cannot convincingly demonstrate the connection between the political ideal
being developed and natural human passions. In this way, the politician can be educated by the possibilities that the
political theorist can articulate, just as the political theorist can be educated by the relative success the normative analysis has in
setting the Hook of interest among nonpolitical theorists. This realm of discourse, dominated by the logic of
humanly worthwhile goals, requires that the theorist carefully observe the responses of others in
order not to be seduced by what is merely logical as opposed to what is humanly rational. Moral
discourse conditioned by the ideal, if it is to e successful, requires the political theorist to be fearless
in pursuing normative logic, but it also requires the theorist to have enough humility to remember
that, if a non-theorist cannot be led toward an idea, the fault may well lie in the theory, not in the
moral vision of the non-theorist.

12
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK 1NC
Exploding predictable limits neutralizes the discursive benefits to debate and

renders their advocacy meaninglessonly our interpretation preserves the
revolutionary potential of a deliberative activity
'Thus far, I have argued that if the ambiguists mean to be subversive about anything, they need to be
conservative about some things. They need to be steadfast supporters of the structures of openness and
democracy: willing to say "no" to certain forms of contest; willing to set up certain clear limitations
about acceptable behavior. To this, finally, I would add that if the ambiguists mean to stretch the boundaries of behaviorif they want to be revolutionary and disruptive in their skepticism and iconoclasm
they need first to be firm believers in something. Which is to say, again, they need to set clear limits
about what they will and will not support, what they do and do not believe to be best. As G. K.
Chesterton observed, the true revolutionary has always willed something "definite and limited." For
example, "The Jacobin could tell you not only the system he would rebel against, but (what was more
important) the system he would not rebel against..." He "desired the freedoms of democracy." He "wished
to have votes and not to have titles . . ." But "because the new rebel is a skeptic"because he cannot bring
himself to will something definite and limited "he cannot be a revolutionary." For "the fact that he wants
to doubt everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything" (Chesterton 1959,41).
Thus, the most radical skepticism ends in the most radical conservatism. In other words, a refusal to
judge among ideas and activities is, in the end, an endorsement of the status quo. To embrace
everything is to be unable to embrace a particular plan of action, for to embrace a particular plan of
action is to reject all others, at least for that moment. Moreover, as observed in our discussion of
openness, to embrace everything is to embrace self-contradiction: to hold to both one's purposes and to
that which defeats one's purposesto tolerance and intolerance, open-mindedness and close-mindedness,
democracy and tyranny. In the same manner, then, the ambiguists' refusals to will something "definite
and limited" undermines their revolutionary impulses. In their refusal to say what they will not
celebrate and what they will not rebel against, they deny themselves (and everyone else in their political
world) a particular plan or ground to work from. By refusing to deny incivility, they deny themselves a
civil public space from which to speak. They cannot say "no" to the terrorist who would silence dissent.
They cannot turn their backs on the bullying of the white supremacist. And, as such, in refusing to bar the
tactics of the anti-democrat, they refuse to support the tactics of the democrat. In short, then, to be a true
ambiguist, there must be some limit to what is ambiguous. To fully support political contest, one must
fully support some uncontested rules and reasons. To generally reject the silencing or exclusion of
others, one must sometimes silence or exclude those who reject civility and democracy.
3. Topical Educationby manipulating the topic to access their political project

they skirt debate about the implementation of policies by the government. Their
education is distrusting of institutional study and pragmatic reform. Even if their
intentions are noble, their message results in fascist totalitarianism
Lewis, 92 (Martin, Green Delusions p 247)
A majority of those born between 1960 and 1980 seem to tend toward cynicism, and we can thus hardly
expect them to be converted en masse to radical doctrines of social and environmental salvation by a
few committed thinkers. It is actually possible that radical education may make them even more
cynical than they already are. While their professors may find the extreme relativism of
subversive postmodernism bracingly liberating, many of todays students may embrace only the
new creeds rejection of the past. Stripped of leftist social concerns, radical postmodernisms
contempt for established social and political philosophyindeed, its contempt for liberalism
may well lead to right-wing totalitarianism. When cynical, right-leaning students are taught that
democracy is a sham and that all meaning derives from power, they are being schooled in fascism,
regardless of their instructors intentions.

13
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK 1NC
4. Grammar our reading of the resolution is the only predictable way to develop
an interpretation because it is based off of grammatical rules and definitions.
Grammar is the only way to prevent arbitrarily limited and unpredictable
interpretations.
D. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness and jurisdiction.
1. It comes before all other arguments in the round because we shouldnt be
forced to develop a strategy against non topical cases.
2. The fairness of the affirmatives advocacy must precede consideration of its
merits or else all contestation is meaningless
The ambiguists must say "no" tothey must reject and limitsome ideas and actions. In
what follows, we will also find that they must say "yes" to some things. In particular, they
must say "yes" to the idea of rational persuasion. This means, first, that they must recognize
the role of agreement in political contest, or the basic accord that is necessary to discord.
The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common one. The mistake is in thinking that
agreement marks the end of contestthat consensus kills debate. But this is true only if the
agreement is perfectif there is nothing at all left to question or contest. In most cases,
however, our agreements are highly imperfect. We agree on some matters but not on others,
on generalities but not on specifics, on principles but not on their applications, and so on.
And this kind of limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate. As
John Courtney Murray writes: We hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about them.
It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that
argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There can be
no argument except on the premise, and within a context, of agreement. In other words, we
cannot argue about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the
topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as
evidence or good argument. At the very least, we must agree about what it is that is being
debated before we can debate it. For instance, one cannot have an argument about
euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. One cannot
successfully stage a sit-in if one's target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those
doing the sitting have no complaints. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one
knows that it is a policy. In other words, contest is meaningless if there is a lack of
agreement or communication about what is being contested. Resisters, demonstrators, and
debaters must have some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of their
disagreements. The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the
complaint at hand. And a demonstrator's audience must know what is being resisted. In short,
the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one
might go about intelligibly contesting it. In other words, contestation rests on some basic
agreement or harmony.

14
CHEATING BAD
FRAMEWORK 2NC
Our framework is that debate should be a site for contest over political proposals.
They must present a policy option that advocates the United States Federal
Government sending public health assistance to Sub-Saharan Africa supported by
arguments why the United States Federal Government acting would be better than
the status quo. This interpretation is the only way to maintain stable and
predictable negative based on refuting the normative statement of the resolution.

15
CHEATING BAD
AT: WE MEET WE AFFIRM THE TOPIC AS X

1. You dont meet our interpretation
A. The plan must be a political proposal about the USFG sending PHA to
Sub-Saharan Africa supported by arguments why the USFG alone acting
would be better than the status quo.
B. We have evidence on this question our lutz evidence sets up a clear
brightline. If their 1ac could form the outline of a proposal for the USAID or
Congress to increase health assistance programs to Africa might be topical.
But clearly
2. Their argument that they affirm the topic as something is exactly our argument.
A ton of teams assert they affirm the topic simply by reading the resolution and then
read advantages unrelated to the USFG acting in the real world. This links to all of
our standards by eliminating predictable negative ground based on literature and
eliminating topical education.
3. Their version of debate inevitably caters to the affirmative.
A. Context they can place their advocacy in the context of their choosing.
For example, they could say that the aff is ironic, that its a metaphor, a
performance, a memory, an affirmation of religion or any number of other
obscure contexts, making arguments about the plan happening in reality all
irrelevant. The potential for this is proven my countless affirmatives run by
Berkeley, Texas, Fullerton, Louisville, Idaho State and GW.
B. Tautologies this allows the affirmative to defend claims as simple as
harming other people is bad or racism is bad which makes going
negative impossible. The potential for this is proven by Fullertons
affirmative last year merely said that guilt over abortions is bad.

16
CHEATING BAD
GROUND 2NC
And they destroy our ground. Although we may have evidence about the general
idea of the USFG it is impossible to develop offense why their specific contextual
endorsement of the resolution is bad we can only debate the merits of their
framework if they defend the specific consequences of political implementation
rather than invoking abstract moral principals. 1nc Ignatiff evidence.
And, ground is good
1. It effects participation nobody wants to go negative against the type of topic you
justify, it will drive people out of the activity, thats why we create balanced topics.
And, people quitting debate is the biggest impact because were all here because we
enjoy it.
2. Without ground debate becomes meaningless and produces a political strategy
that is wedded to violence. Absolutely no productive change can be made through
communication without first developing a basic accord for the terms of contest. It
strait turns their entire affirmative. 1nc Shively evidence.

17
CHEATING BAD
LIMITS GOOD 2NC
And, our interpretation is key to a limited topic. There are an infinite number of
contexts or avenues they could purport to advocate the plan. The entire realm of
philosophy is available to the affirmative if we fail to limit the resolution to a contest
over political proposals. Our interpretation limits debate to promote politically
relevant dialogue and structured communication because the affirmative must
present their plan in the realm of the possible rather than the realm of the logical.
1nc lutz evidence.
This has multiple impacts
1. Limits allow us a predictable way to narrow our focus on issues, preserves
clash, and go in-depth about the details of the plan, maximizing education.
2. Exploding limits neutralizes the benefits to debate and makes their advocacy
meaningless because the most radical skepticism about limits results in radical
conservativism. To have a debate we must be willing to limit out incivility, we
must limit out the terrorist who would stifle dissent and we must set clear
limitations about acceptable behavior. Political contest requires uncontested
rules or its revolutionary potential is negated.

18
CHEATING BAD
GRAMMAR GOOD 2NC

Ours is the only grammatical reading of the resolution. The meaning of the
resolution is determined by the word resolved and the colon which indicates that the
framework for the resolution is to enact a policy into law, and that the USFG, not
the debaters, are the agent of action. Grammar is the only basis for predictability we
have as a community. Its the foundation for how words interact together. Even if it
has flaws its the only system we have for determining meaning ignoring it justifies
throwing out the resolution altogether, destroying all predictability and fairness.
This has multiple impacts
1. Its game over on the question of fairness if we win they moot the whole
resolution all we have to win is that having a topic is better than having no topic.
2. Grammar is key to communication
Allen, Editor and Director of The Chambers Dictionary 1993 (Robert, Does Grammar Matter?)
Grammar matters, then, because it is the accepted way of using language, whatever ones exact
interpretation of the term. Incorrect grammar hampers communication, which is the whole purpose of
language. The grammar of standard English matters because it is a codification of the way using
English that most people will find acceptable.
3. Precise and limited use of language is key to effective communication and is a

prerequisite to the resolution of differences
Kemerling, prof philosophy Newberry College, 97 (Garth,
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e05.htm
We've seen that sloppy or misleading use of ordinary language can seriously limit our ability to create
and communicate correct reasoning. As philosopher John Locke pointed out three centuries ago, the achievement of
human knowledge is often hampered by the use of words without fixed signification. Needless
controversy is sometimes produced and perpetuated by an unacknowledged ambiguity in the application
of key terms. We can distinguish disputes of three sorts: Genuine disputes involve disagreement about
whether or not some specific proposition is true. Since the people engaged in a genuine dispute agree on the meaning of the words by means of
which they convey their respective positions, each of them can propose and assess logical arguments that might eventually lead to a
resolution of their differences. Merely verbal disputes, on the other hand, arise entirely from ambiguities in the language
used to express the positions of the disputants. A verbal dispute disappears entirely once the people involved arrive at an agreement on
the meaning of their terms, since doing so reveals their underlying agreement in belief. Apparently verbal but really genuine disputes
can also occur, of course. In cases of this sort, the resolution of every ambiguity only reveals an underlying genuine dispute. Once
that's been discovered, it can be addressed fruitfully by appropriate methods of reasoning. We can save a lot of time,
sharpen our reasoning abilities, and communicate with each other more effectively if we watch for
disagreements about the meaning of words and try to resolve them whenever we can. Kinds of Definition
The most common way of preventing or eliminating differences in the use of languages is by agreeing
on the definition of our terms. Since these explicit accounts of the meaning of a word or phrase can be offered in distinct
contexts and employed in the service of different goals, it's useful to distinguish definitions of several kinds: A lexical definition
simply reports the way in which a term is already used within a language community. The goal here is to
inform someone else of the accepted meaning of the term, so the definition is more or less correct depending upon the accuracy with
which it captures that usage. In these pages, my definitions of technical terms of logic are lexical because they are intended to inform
you about the way in which these terms are actually employed within the discipline of logic. At the other extreme, a stipulative
definition freely assigns meaning to
a completely new term, creating a usage that had never previously existed. Since the goal in this case is to propose
the adoption of shared use of a novel term, there are no existing standards against which to compare it, and the definition is always correct (though it might fail to win acceptance if
it turns out to be inapt or useless). If I now decree that we will henceforth refer to Presidential speeches delivered in French as "glorsherfs," I have made a (probably pointless)
Combining these two techniques is often an effective way to reduce the vagueness of a
word or phrase. These precising definitions begin with the lexical definition of a term but then
propose to sharpen it by stipulating more narrow limits on its use. Here, the lexical part must be
correct and the stipulative portion should appropriately reduce the troublesome vagueness.
stipulative definition.

19
CHEATING BAD
EXTRATOPICALITY 2NC
Their extra topicality good arguments make no sense in this context we could
never counterplan out of the extra topical portions of their advocacy and the whole
point of our argument is that their extra-resolutional advocacy hurts our ground
since they claim it is of greater importance than their policy itself.
Extra topicality proves the resolution insufficient which is a warrant to vote
negative.
Extra topicality also proves the affirmative has not satisfied their burden of
affirmation which means you cant vote for them.
This form of extra topicality uniquely unlimits since every policy debate affirmative
becomes 30 different kritik affs. This creates anarchic debate without clash or
education the 1nc impacts this as a voting issue

20
CHEATING BAD
EMPIRICISM 2NC
Empiricism is on our side
A. An experiment was done at a tournament where there was no topic the
participants were interviewed and resoundingly said that this he lack of a topic
drastically biases the negative.
Preston 2003. Thomas C. Preston summer 2003. Professor of communications at the University of
Missouri-St. Louis. No-topic debating in Parliamentary Debate: Students and Critic Reactions.
http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/journal/vol9no5.pdf
The study involved forty-three students and nine critics who participated in a parliamentary
debate tournament where no topic was assigned for the fourth round debates. True to the idea
of openness, no rules regarding the topic were announced; no topic, or written instructions
other than time limits and judging instruction, were provided. In this spirit, the participants first
provided anecdotal reactions to the no-topic debate, so that the data from this study could emerge
from discussion. Second, respondents provided demographic data so that patterns could be
compared along three dimensions. These dimensions, the independent variables for the student
portion of the study, involved three items: 1) level of debate experience; 2) whether NPDA was
the only format of parliamentary debate the students had experienced; and 3) whether
students had participated in NDT or CEDA policy debate. Third, the questions were to
determine how students rated the debates based on criteria for good debate-educational value, clash,
and a fair division of ground. Students were also asked two general questions: whether they would
try the no-topic debate again, and whether they liked the no-topic round. These questions constituted
the dependent variables for the student study. Because the sample was small, descriptive statistical
data were gathered from critics. Taking into account the experience of the critics, additional
questions concerning items such as whether no-topic debating deepened discussion. Both students
and critics were asked which side they thought the no-topic approach favored, and the students with
NDT/ CEDA policy debating experience were asked if a no-topic debating season would be good
for policy debate.For the objective items, critics and students were asked to circle a number between
1 and 7 to indicate the strength of reaction to each item (Appendix I and Appendix II). In scoring
responses, the most favorable rating received the highest score of seven and the least favorable
rating a score of one. In some instances, values that were circled on the sheet were reversed such
that the most favorable reaction to that category received the higher score. Frequency distributions
and statistics were then tabulated for each question, and the anecdotal remarks were tabulated. For
the student empirical data, t-tests were conducted to determine whether overall debate experience,
NPDA experience, or policy experience affected how the students reacted to an item. As a test for
significance, p was set to less than or equal to .05. Finally, of the 43 responses, 35, or 81.4 per
cent, felt that the no-topic debate skewed the outcome of the debate toward one side or the
other. Of those responses, 32 (91.4 per cent of those indicating a bias, or 74.4 per cent of all
respondents) indicated that the no-topic debate gave an advantage to the Government. Three
(8.6 per cent of those indicating a bias, or 7.0 per cent of all respondents) indicated that the no-topic
debate gave an advantage to the Opposition.

21
CHEATING BAD
EMPIRICISM 2NC
B. The experiment empirically proves our argument - people do actually quit debate
because of a lack of rules, causing the activity to degenerate into chaos
Preston 2003. Thomas C. Preston summer 2003. Professor of communications at the University of
Missouri-St. Louis. No-topic debating in Parliamentary Debate: Students and Critic Reactions.
http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/journal/vol9no5.pdf
For the overall student data, each the mean of each item was slightly below 4.0, but mostly, the
kurtosis figures were negative, and the standard deviations high, indicating a bipolar response to
each question. The frequency tables bear out strong negative reactions, but a number of positive
reactions which tended to be less strong. On the one hand, a substantial number of students and
critics felt very strongly that the experience was negative, with the mode=l for each item on the
survey; however, on others, a substantial number of respondents rated aspects of the experience at 4
and above. The educational value had the highest central tendencies (mean=3.65, median=4.0, and
mode=1.0), whereas the question over whether the students liked the experience was the lowest
(mean=3.19, median=3.0, mode=1.0). Although there was a weak positive pole to the responses,
those who had NDT/CEDA experience strongly opposed the idea of a no-topic year of debating
in those organizations (mean=2.77, median =1.00, mode=1.00). cont.
Reduced to absurdity, the notion of no rules for a debate tournament would result in chaos,
bringing up an infinite regress into whether or not chaos is a good thing! At least on the surface,
the results of this particular study would seem to discourage repeating this experiment as
conducted for the present study. A number of participants may not want to return to the
tournament because of the confusion and perceived lack of educational value. However, an
exact representation and t-tests between results could help not only assess the validity and reliability
of the instrument, but whether attitudes and perceptions have changed toward no-topic debating.
Therefore, whereas Option III may seem to be out of the questions, benefits can still be gained from
it in terms of studying the evolution of parliamentary debate form
22
File Title
AT: PERSONAL ADVOCACY
Prefer our interpretation

1. This links to our limits standards there are limitless avenues for personal
advocacy that our Lutz evidence could form as a philosophical argument. Only
focusing on what is politically possible and relevant can we limit the debate.
2. Education they allow the aff to claim similar advantages based on their
advocacy from year to year which detracts from education about the topic. Topical
education is the driving force behind creativity and innovation which ensures
participation and education in the activity.
3. Ground all of the evidence about the USFG action assumes the World Bank will
give it the money rather than what actions we take in relation to the real world.
They severely restrict negative ground which our Shivley evidence indicates is key to
preserve the entire structure of communicative dialogue.
4. Grammar only our interpretation evaluates the grammar of the resolution
because the colon indicates resolved is not part of the resolution. The impacts to
grammar are explained above.
23
File Title
AT: CASE OUTWEIGHS

There is no unique impact to voting affirmative they cant win a reason why your ballot
in this debate will have any effect on anything. There have been a ton of big wins and losses
for every major advocacy ever in a debate not a single one has changed the community at
all.
Our argument is a voting issue unless we resolve topicality and framework questions
prior to other arguments debate itself is meaningless. This is the largest impact because it
neutralizes any benefits that can be captured through the clash format of the activity. Our
Shively evidence indicates that you shouldnt even consider the benefits to their project
because our argument operates at a prior level.
Predictability and manageable research burdens outweigh
1. They effect participation nobody wants to debate a topic where slavery is bad value
statements constitute an affirmative case. The interest in competition is proven by the fact
that the NBA is more interesting than the Harlem Globetrotters. The loss of interest in
debate turns their arguments because nobody will take frameworks seriously that succeed
in a rigged game and debate is the platform in which their advocacy precedes.
2. We cant assess the truth value of your claims if we didnt have to research your case
because you made the topic so big. The argument that your case is so important is a ruse
designed to shield your arguments from intellectual rigor. A one sided view of an issue is
actually a less effective tool for political change than one with counter-arguments.
Underwood, Prof of Communication Studies, 2k1 (Psychology of Communication,
http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/psy/hovland3.html)
Whether or not you should include arguments for and against your case depends very much on your
audience. If you know that they already agree with you, a one-sided argument is quite acceptable. If they are
opposed to your point of view, then a one-sided message will actually be less effective, being dismissed as
biased. Even if your audience don't know much about the subject, but do know that there are
counterarguments (even if they don't know what they are) will lead them to reject your views as biased. Hovland's
investigations into mass propaganda used to change soldiers' attitudes also suggests that the intelligence of the
receivers is an important factor, a two-sided argument tending to be more persuasive with the more intelligent
audience.
Theres no benefit to your affirmative that cant be captured by advocating ___________ on the
negative this solves all of your offense because it preserves education but it also avoids our
standards because it preserves switch-sided debate in which the affirmative begins with a policy
advocacy
Debate about the implementation of policies through the government is key to avoid facism.
Distrust of institutional study and pragmatic reform leads to right-wing totalitarianism
because it dismisses traditional leftist concerns that attempt to improve upon the political
process and leaves the government at the whim of republican dictators. 1nc Lewis
evidence.
24
File Title
AT: CASE OUTWEIGHS
And our argument is an independent reason to vote negative

To sum up the argument thus far, the ambiguist cannot support political contest unless they are willing to say
no toor to bring closure tosome activities, and unless they are willing to say yes to the rational rules
of persuasion. Like all other democratic theorists, they must make some foundational assumptions about the
goodness of self-determination, the preferability of all reasons over force, and the evils of tyranny, among other
things. All democratic visions presuppose that politics is about rational persuasion. Thus, talk of resisting all
orders or all rational foundations is incoherent. At the very least, the foundations of rational persuasion must
be rigidly upheld. It will not do, then, to say we simply need more contest or more politics and less
rationality or foundationalism. It will not do to invoke contest as a kind of talisman against the need to make
difficult judgments about good and bad, healthy and unhealthy, political actions. For inasmuch as the
conditions necessary to political contest require constant support and protection and inasmuch as we require
constant education and improvement in upholding and effectively applying them, the conditions necessary to
political contest require these judgments.
25
File Title
AT: STATE FOCUS BAD

1. Endorsing state action on this topic isnt violent you can run an aff that says that the
state is failing in Africa and oppresses people or you could run the gag rule and say the
states imposition of morals onto the rest of the world is violent.
2. Instrumental Policy debate is key to solve totalitarianism
Douglas Torgerson, professor of poli sci, 1999 The promise of Green Politics p. 154-6
One rationale for Arendts emphasis on the intrinsic value of politics is that this value has been so neglected
by modernity that politics itself is threatened. Without a celebration of the intrinsic value of politics,
neither functional nor constitutive political activity has any apparent rationale for continuing once its
ends have been achieved. Functional politics might well be replaced by a technocratic management of
advanced industrial society. A constitutive politics intent on social transformation might well be eclipsed by
the coordinated direction of a cohesive social movement. In neither case would any need be left for what
Arendt takes to be the essence of politics, there would be no need for debate. Green authoritarianism,
following in the footsteps of Hobbes, has been all too ready to reduce politics to governance. Similarly,
proponents of deep ecology, usually vague about politics, at least have been able to recognize totalitarian
dangers in a position that disparages public opinion in favor of objective management? Any attempt to plot a
comprehensive strategy for a cohesive green movement, moreover, ultimately has to adopt a no- nonsense
posture while erecting clear standards by which to identify and excommunicate the enemy that is within.
Green politics from its inception, however, has challenged the officialdom of advanced industrial society by
invoking the cultural idiom of the carnivalesque. Although tempted by visions of tragic heroism, as we saw
in chapter , green politics has also celebrated the irreverence of the comic, of a world turned upside down to
crown the fool. In a context of political the ater, instrumentalism is often attenuated, at least momentarily
displaced by a joy of performance. The comic dimension of political action can also be more than episodic.
The image of the Lilliputians tying up the giant suggests well the strength and flexibility of a decentered
constitutive politics. In a functional context, green politics offers its own technology of foolish ness in
response to the dysfunctions of industrialism, even to the point of exceeding the comfortable limits of a socalled responsible foolishness. Highlighting the comic, these tendencies within green politics begin to
suggest an intrinsic value to politics. To the extent that this value is recognized, politics is inimical to
authoritarianism and offers a poison pill to the totalitarian propensities of an industrialized mass
society. To value political action for its own sake, in other words, at least has the significant extrinsic
value of defending against the antipolitical inclinations of modernity. But what is the intrinsic value of
politics? Arendt would locate this value in the virtuosity of political action, particularly as displayed in
debate. Although political debate surely has extrinsic value, this does not exhaust its value. Debate is a
language game that, to be played well, cannot simply be instrumentalized for the services it can render but
must also be played for its own sake. Any game pressed into the service of external goals tends to lose its
playful quality; it ceases to be fun. It was in reflecting on the social movements of the 1960s that Arendt
proclaimed the discovery that political action was fun. It was fun even though it sprang from moral purposes
and even though political debate also enhanced the rationality of opinion formation. Arendts affirmation of
the apparently frivolous value of fun sharply contrasts with her earlier celebration of glory, even of public
happiness. The affirmation nonetheless suggests a particular promise of politics, a promise especially
contained in the comic dimension of green politics.
3. Debate about the implementation of policies through the government is key to avoid
facism. Distrust of institutional study and pragmatic reform leads to right-wing
totalitarianism because it dismisses traditional leftist concerns that attempt to improve
upon the political process and leaves the government at the whim of republican dictators.
1nc Lewis evidence.
4. Running a kritik of state focus on the negative solves it preserves education but it also
avoids our standards because it preserves switch-sided debate in which the affirmative
begins with a policy advocacy
26
File Title
AT: STATE FOCUS BAD
5. Our intp solveseducation through participation in policy debates is essential to check

manipulations of the govt by powerful private interests
Donald S Lutz, 2k (Political Theory and Partisan Politics, pg 36-7)
The position argued here is that to the extent such a discussion between political theorists and politicians does
not take place we damage the prospects for marrying justice with power. Since the hope of uniting justice
with power was the reason for creating political philosophy in the first place, political theorists need to pursue
the dialogue as part of what justifies their intellectual project. Politics is the realm of power. More specifically,
it is the realm where force and violence are replaced by debates and discussion about how to implement
power. Without the meaningful injection of considerations of justice, politics tends to become discourse by the
most powerful about how to implement their preferred regime. Although constitutionalism tends to be
disparaged by contemporary political science, a constitution is the very place where justice and power are
married. Aristotle first taught us that a constitution must be matched to the realities of the political system the
character, hopes, fears, needs and environment of the people which requires that constitutionalism be addressed by
men and women practiced in the art of the possible. Aristotle also taught us that a constitution the politeia, or plan
for a way of life should address the improvement of people toward the best life possible which requires that
constitutionalism be addressed by political theorists who can hold out a vision of justice and the means for
advancing toward it. The conversation between politician and political theorist stands at the center of their
respective callings, and a constitution, even though it reflects only a part of the reality of a political system,
has a special status in this central conversion.. Although the focus of this chapter is on a direct conversation
between theorist and politician, there is an important, indirect aspect of the conversation that should not be
overlooked classroom teaching. Too often the conversation between politician and political theorist is
described in terms of a direct one between philosophers and those holding power. Overlooked is the central
need to educate as many young people as possible. Since it is difficult to predict who will, in fact, hold power,
and because the various peoples who take seriously the marriage of justice with power are overwhelmingly
committed to a non-elitist, broad involvement of the population, we should not overlook or minimize our
importance as teachers of the many. Political leaders drawn from a people who do not understand what is at stake
are neither inclined nor equipped to join the conversation. As we teach, we converse with future leaders. Perhaps not
everyone who teaches political theory has had the same experience, but of the more than eight thousand students I
have taught, I know of at least forty nine who later held a major elective office, and a least eighty more who have
become important political activists. This comes down to about five students per teaching year , and I could not have
predicted which five it would be. The indeterminate future of any given student is one argument against directing
our efforts at civic education forward the few, best students. A constitutional perspective suggests not only that
those in power rely upon support and direction from a broad segment of the public, but also that reliance
upon the successful civic education of the elite is not very effective, by itself for marrying justice with power
in the long run
27
File Title
AT: STATE FOCUS BAD

Our interpretation promoste a non-exclusionary political ethic that solves your turnthe
whole point of citizen policy debate is that anyone can engage it
William Connolly 2k (Political Theory and Partisan Politics pg 168-9)
This is, then, a political ethic, an ethic in which politics play a constitutive role and a politics in which ethics
plays a constitutive role. It does not, of course, provide an accurate description of the contemporary condition
in America, with its steep inequalities and large classes of people closed out of effective participation in
political life. It is critical ideal. As such, it is perhaps more appropriate to the times in which we live than the
Rawlsian model it rewrites. It is presented not as the standard to which every ethic must appeal but as an
ethical sensibility able to enter into critical dialogue and selective collaboration with a variety of other
perspectives. The very indispensability and contestability of contending onto-theo and onto-non-theistic stances
in the late-modern world supports the case for cultivating relations of agonistic respect and selective
collaboration between multiple, overlapping constituencies, each of which draws pertinent aspects of its
fundamental doctrine into public life when, as so very often happens he occasion demands it. And several of
which also invoke the essential contestability of the ethical sources they honor the most. Out of these diverse
lines of connection across multiple lines of difference, a politics of creative coalitions might even be forge to
enable action in concert through the state to support the economic and cultural preconditions of justice and
pluralism
Citizens who think of themselves as policymakers is key to the sustainability of liberal

democratic systems
John Rawls, bad-ass, The Law of Peoples, 1999, p. 56-57
To answer this question, we say that, ideally, citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators
and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would
think it most reasonable to enact. When firm and widespread, the disposition of citizens to view themselves
as ideal legislators, and to repudiate government officials and candidates for public office who violate public
reason, forms part of the political and social basis of liberal democracy and is vital for its enduring
strength and vigor. Thus in domestic society citizens fulfill their duty of civility and support the idea of
public reason, while doing what they can to hold government officials to it. This duty, like other political
rights and duties, is an intrinsically moral duty. I emphasize that it is not a legal duty, for in that case it would
be incompatible with freedom of speech. Similarly, the ideal of the public reason of free and equal peoples is
realized, or satisfied, whenever chief executives and legislators, and other government officials, as well as
candidates for public office, act from and follow the principles of the Law of Peoples and explain to other
peoples their reasons for pursuing or revising a peoples foreign policy and affairs of state that involve other
societies. As for private citizens, we say, as before, that ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they
were executives and legislators and ask themselves what foreign policy supported by what considerations
they would think it most reasonable to advance. Once again, when firm and widespread, the disposition of
citizens to view themselves as ideal executives and legislators, and to repudiate government officials and
candidates for public office who violate the public reason of free and equal peoples, is part of the political and
social basis of peace and understanding among peoples.
28
File Title
AT: YOUR DEBATE IS BAD

Switch side debate solves
Muir 1993 (Star A. PHILOSOPHY AND RHETORIC, "A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate," v26,
n4, p.288)
The role of switch-side debate is especially important in the oral defense of arguments that foster tolerance
without accruing the moral complications of acting on such beliefs. The forum is therefore unique in
providing debaters with attitudes of tolerance without committing them to active moral irresponsibility. As
Freeley notes, debaters are indeed exposed to a multivalued world both within and between the sides of a
given topic. Yet this exposure hardly commits them to such "mistaken" values. In this view, the divorce of the
game from the "real world" can be seen as a means of gaining perspective without obligating students to
validate their hypothetical value structure through immoral actions. The values of tolerance and fairness
implicit in the metaphor of debate as game, are idealistic in nature. They have a much greater chance of
success, however, in an activity that requires students to examine and understand both sides of an issue. In his
description of debating societies, Robert Louis Stevenson questions the prevalence of unreasoned opinion, and
summarizes the judgment furthered in this work: Now, as the rule stands, you are saddled with the side you
disapprove, and so you are forced, by regard for your own fame, to argue out, to feel with, to elaborate completely,
the case as it stands against yourself; and what a fund of wisdom do you not turn up in this idle digging of the
vineyard! How many new difficulties take form before your eyes! how many superannuated arguments cripple finally
into limbo, under the glance of your enforced eclecticism! ... It is as a means of melting down this museum of premature
petrifactions into living and impressionable soul that we insist on their utility.
Plan focused debate allows reflective analysis

Roger Solt, What is Debate Theory Passed out at the MNDI, 1994
It could be argued that we are a society with too many advocates and too few critics or reflective analysts.
The question fundamentally may be whether debates primary mission should be to teach skills associated
with effective advocacy or skills of rational problem solving. The advocacy view of debate implies that
debating is mainly a tool of persuasion. A contrary view is that debate should be a tool of problem-solving.
The hypothesis testing paradigm asserted that the primary goal of debate should be to find truth. Thus baldly
stated, a truth-seeking view of debate has its difficulties. First, it may be that policy propositions of the type we
debate are neither true nor false, that truth and falsehood are only attributes of propositions of fact. Second, it is
often argued that truth is rarely seen in debate rounds and that it couldnt be found in a ninety minute
discussion anyway. In response to this second point, it does seem unlikely that a single debate among high
school or college students will produce a definitive resolution of a complex policy issue. Even though this is
true, it still seems like a valid ideal that we should be closer to the truth after a ninety minute discussion
than we were before we started. According to this view, intellectual rigor and sound policy analysis are the
ideals which should be stressed. As to whether propositions of policy can be true or false, I think that this
concern is philosophically valid but may not be pragmatically all that important. We may not find truth in
policy debate in a rigorously scientific sense, but we may still be able to find truth in the looser, more
popular sense of finding what policy is best, based on the facts and values arrived at in the round. As
opposed to the view that a policy debate is designed to persuade an audience of your advocacy position, I would
posit the to me intuitive view that the goal of a policy debate should be to find the best policy (or, to be
somewhat more technical, whether the topical action proposed by the affirmative is part of the optimal policy
package.
29
File Title
AT: AGENCY
1. Limits upon agency are inevitable they dont have the agency to have this debate
wherever they want or speak as long as they want.
2. Our Shivley evidence impact turns this we have to be willing to say no to certain
actions in order to preserve a political sphere of communication. All of our standards prove
the agency to be not topical destroys the value of debate as an activity, and thus we must
ratify certain constraints or we allow violence and intimidation to enter the realm of
debate.
3. They destroy negative agency they force us to go negative against an aff that falls
outside the constraints of the resolution, excluding all of our arguments about the political
results of the plan.
30
File Title
AT: FRAMEWORK BAD FOR EDUCATION

This is irrelevant the point of our argument is that your interpretation of debate is not
educational, which is a reason to vote negative. Even if our argument itself is not
productive education you should err our way
A. We control uniqueness Debate is unfair and uneducational in the world of their
interpretation so our interpretation can only increase the benefit of debate
B. They started it even if our argument is bad if we win their affirmative is also bad
you should vote negative on presumption because they havent provided a basis to
affirm
31
File Title
AT: WEIGH T LIKE A DA
Topicality is not a disad our argument is not that their advocacy would uniquely cause
some harm. Our argument is that there are standards that each side has to satisfy before
normative questions are assessed. Since our argument demonstrates that their affirmative
is illegitimate for theoretical reasons that precedes assessment of risk and impact.
Treat the Shively evidence like the Schell card. Any risk of our procedural objection means
the affirmative endangers the basis from which all clash and debate can proceed. The
destruction of debate is an infinite impact and any risk of infinity is still infinity.
And, if they win this argument then our topicality disad outweighs the case
A. Magnitude the loss of competitive fairness and education drains all value and
coherence to the activity which is the largest tangible impact you can assess
B. Timeframe the impacts to their project are all long-term whereas the abuse as a
result of their framework is occurring in this debate
C. Scenario specificity weve outlined the specific ways in which their interpretation
of debate would harm affirmative fairness whereas their impacts are all nebulous
D. Probability well win a huge risk that the affirmative hurts fairness whereas
theyll at best win a small risk of their advantage
E. The disad turns the case collapse of clash and productive debate eliminates any
productive benefit to their project
32
File Title
AT: REAL WORLD

Debate divorced from fairness is meaningless. This is why NBA basketball is more popular
than the Harlem Globetrotters.
Just because your framework is more realistic doesnt mean its more real world while
its true the plan doesnt pass because of the affirmative our argument is that the most
real world model in terms of causing educational debate is to assume it does and defend
that. Claiming advantages off of the act of affirming the plan or 1ac is even less real world
because nobody actually advocates something that absurd.
Specialized frameworks are all good
Michael Roston, almost a Whitman coach, January 30, 2002, www.ndtceda.com
I grew up in West Rogers Park on the north side of Chicago, and up and down California Ave there are
men of all ages going in and out of yeshivas where they study the torah and the talmud. many of their
theological discussions occur (in hebrew) at a rapid pace, employing highly technical and difficult forms
of argumentation, relying on arcane examples and evidence, some of which reaches back into previous
millenia. one could even say that when they are praying, they bob back and forth in a way that many of us
would instantly recognize from many of our debate rounds. I would say that even among the more
conservative wings of my family, few of us can really understand what they do. I never learned Hebrew,
and can't their discussions. Yet I'm certain that if their first priority were always accessibility and
transparency, the whole of Jewish religion and culture would have no soul.
33
File Title
AT: X IS RESPONSIVE
Wipeout is responsive to most affirmatives, but that doesnt mean its fair to read any
affirmative that solves extinction. The point of our argument is that forcing strict
adherence to a predictable topic is the only way to ensure GOOD ground for both sides
based on shared meaning that allows for contestation and debate.
34
File Title
AT: LIGUISTIC VIOLENCE

1. Debate isnt violent thats like saying youre violence to a 10 year old in a game of
candyland just because you told they cant take gumdrop lane at the beginning of the
game.
2. Rules and constraints are inevitable they cant have this debate wherever they want,
change speech times or tell the tab room who they want to debate. Topicality imposes no
unique exclusionary or violent affirmative burden.
3. Predictable ground is critical to prevent political strategies wedded to violence. 1nc
Shively evidence. And more ev. a normative system of fairness is necessary to avoid
violence and coercion.
Mary Dietz, Professor of Polisci at Minnesota, 2k Political Theory and Partisan Politics p. 123-4
Habermas's distinction between "pure" communicative action and strategic action raises many difficulties,
not the least of which is its adherence to an idealized model of communication that, as Habermas himself
acknowledges, does not fit a great deal of everyday social interaction (McCarthy 1991,132). Machiavelli's
famous riposte to those thinkers who "have imagined republics and principalities which have never been
seen or known to exist in reality" (Machiavelli 1950, 56) seems pertinent here, for the idealized model that
Habermas imagines and the distinction that supports it appear boldly to deny the Machiavellian insight that
"how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what
ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his preservation" (56). I will return to
this point as it relates to politics later. For now, it is important to underscore that Habermas relies upon the
communicative-strategic distinction to do at least two things: first, to show that on the level of linguistics,
communicative action enjoys an "originary" priority over strategic and all other modes of linguistic usage,
which are themselves "parasitic" (Rasmussen 1990, 38) or "derivative" (McCarthy 1991, 133) upon the
former.12 Second, on the level of political theory, Habermas introduces the distinction in order to limit
the exercise of threats and coercion (or strategic action) by enumerating a formal-pragmatic system of
discursive accountability (or communicative action) that is geared toward human agreement and
mutuality. Despite its thoroughly modern accouterments, communicative action aims at something like
the twentieth-century discourse-equivalent of the chivalric codes of the late Middle Ages; as a
normative system it articulates the conventions of fair and honorable engagement between
interlocutors. To be sure, Habermas's concept of communicative action is neither as refined nor as
situationally embedded as were the protocols that governed honorable combat across European cultural and
territorial boundaries and between Christian knights; but it is nonetheless a (cross-cultural) protocol for
all that. The entire framework that Habermas establishes is an attempt to limit human violence by
elaborating a code of communicative conduct that is designed to hold power in check by channeling it
into persuasion, or the "unforced" force of the better argument (Habermas 1993b, 160).
4. Theres no impact to this violence or exclusion voting against them because their
advocacy is unfair doesnt actually hurt them at all nor does it deal a blow to their project
because it will just force them to craft their advocacy in a way that is more fair and thus
more successful
5. Turn - they link worse - we articulate a vision of debate that is open to their arguments:
they can read whatever they want on the neg, and any critical arguments that are solved by
adoption of the affirmative. They exclude any consideration of our arguments against
instrumental adoption of their policy, turning debate into a closed-circuit.
35
File Title
AT: DIRTY WORDS

1. Debate shouldnt be about individual ethics
a. Its not universal censorship, redeployment, and rights Malthus prove these
arguments have no capital T truth.
b. Links to our predictability argument justifies them making the debate about
anthro just because we ate a burger during the debate.
2. Representations are a bad focus for the competitive format. Making the debate about
language requires us to have stability in our speech acts. We are no longer able to take
back words that are hurtful or ineffective. This stability collapses into a juridical model
where our words can be attached to a stable subject.
3. There are multiple other checks communal shunning, apologies, post round discussions
or speaker points can all act as a deterrent the ballot decides the question of the
resolution, not individual ethics.
4. Prosecuting us for our speech destroys effective activism
Judith Butler, Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature, UC Berkeley, Performativity and Performance,
Ed. Parker and Sedgwick, 1995, p. 204
That words wound seems incontestably true, and that hateful, racist, misogynist, homophobic speech
should be vehemently countered seems incontrovertibly right. But does understanding from where speech
derives its power to wound alter our conception of what it might mean to counter that wounding power? Do we
accept the notion that injurious speech is attributable to a singular subject and act? If we accept such a
juridical constraint on thought - the grammatical requirements of accountability - as a point of departure,
what is lost from the political analysis of injury when the discourse of politics becomes fully reduced to
juridical requirements?? Indeed, when political discourse is collapsed into juridical discourse, the
meaning of political opposition runs the risk of being reduced to the act of prosecution. How is the analysis
of the discursive historicity of power unwittingly restricted when the subject is presumed as the point of
departure for such an analysis? A clearly theological construction, the postulation of the subject as the causal
origin of the performative act is understood to generate that which it names; indeed, this divinely empowered
subject is one for whom the name itself is generative.
36
File Title
AT: DIRTY WORDS

5. Censorship backfires
David Campbell, Professor of International Politics at the University of Newcastle in England., 1998
http://calliope.jhu.edu/journals/theory_&_event/v002/2.1r_campbell.html
The collapse into juridical discourse, backed by the power of the state or specific agents of the state, is obvious
in the scenes above, and Butler's anxiety about the minimalization of political opposition - particularly in the first
case, where the dubious nature of the 'offence' diverts attention from racism more generally - appears fully
justified. The question is, however, whether the nonjuridical and nonstate forms of agency and resistance Butler
places her faith in are up to the task set for them. Let's leave that concern to hang for a bit. Let us first ask how it
is that the dominant modes of dealing with hate speech appear universally juridical? In answering that question,
Butler demonstrates well the way in which critically interpretative thought can combine a series of theoretical
assumptions to demonstrate the limitations of prevalent discourses and alternative possibilities. In so doing,
Excitable Speech is a powerful statement in response to those who would maintain that arguments imbued with
the idea of a "modernity without foundations" (161) evacuate ethico-political concerns from our horizon. Those
who argue that hate speech demands juridical responses assert that not only does the speech communicate,
but that it constitutes an injurious act. This presumes that not only does speech act, but that "it acts upon the
addressee in an injurious way" (16). This argumentation is, in Butler's eyes, based upon a "sovereign conceit"
whereby speech wields a sovereign power, acts as an imperative, and embodies a causative understanding of
representation. In this manner, hate speech constitutes its subjects as injured victims unable to respond
themselves and in need of the law's intervention to restrict if not censor the offending words, and punish the
speaker: This idealization of the speech act as a sovereign action (whether positive or negative) appears linked
with the idealization of sovereign state power or, rather, with the imagined and forceful voice of that power. It is
as if the proper power of the state has been expropriated, delegated to its citizens, and the state then rememerges
as a neutral instrument to which we seek recourse to protects as from other citizens, who have become revived
emblems of a (lost) sovereign power (82). Two elements of this are paradoxical. First, the sovereign conceit
embedded in conventional renderings of hate speech comes at a time when understanding power in sovereign
terms is becoming (if at all ever possible) even more difficult. Thus the juridical response to hate speech helps
deal with an onto-political problem: "The constraints of legal language emerge to put an end to this particular
historical anxiety [the problematisation of sovereignty], for the law requires that we resituate power in the
language of injury, that we accord injury the status of an act and trace that act to the specific conduct of a
subject" (78). The second, which stems from this, is that (to use Butler's own admittedly hyperbolic formulation)
"the state produces hate speech." By this she means not that the state is the sovereign subject from which the
various slurs emanate, but that within the frame of the juridical account of hate speech "the category cannot exist
without the state's ratification, and this power of the state's judicial language to establish and maintain the
domain of what will be publicly speakable suggests that the state plays much more than a limiting function in
such decisions; in fact, the state actively produces the domain of publicly acceptable speech, demarcating the
line between the domains of the speakable and the unspeakable, and retaining the power to make and sustain the
line of consequential demarcation" (77). The sovereign conceit of the juridical argument thus linguistically
resurrects the sovereign subject at the very moment it seems most vulnerable, and reaffirms the sovereign state
and its power in relation to that subject at the very moment its phantasmatic condition is most apparent. The
danger is that the resultant extension of state power will be turned against the social movements that
sought legal redress in the first place (24).
37
File Title
AT: DIRTY WORDS
6. Punishing offensive language worsens the effects of that language

Matthew Roskoski and Joe Peabody, A Linguistic and Philosophical Critique of Language Arguments, 1991,
http://debate.uvm.edu/Library/DebateTheoryLibrary/Roskoski&Peabody-LangCritiques,
If language "arguments" become a dominant trend, debaters will not change their attitudes. Rather they will
manifest their attitudes in non-debate contexts. Under these conditions, the debaters will not have the
moderating effects of the critic or the other debaters. Simply put, sexism at home or at lunch is worse than
sexism in a debate round because in the round there is a critic to provide negative though not punitive
feedback. The publicization effects of censorship are well known. "Psychological studies reveal that
whenever the government attempts to censor speech, the censored speech - for that very reason - becomes
more appealing to many people" (Strossen 559). These studies would suggest that language which is critiqued
by language "arguments" becomes more attractive simply because of the critique. Hence language
"arguments" are counterproductive. Conclusion Rodney Smolla offered the following insightful assessment
of the interaction between offensive language and language "arguments": The battle against {offensive speech}
will be fought most effectively through persuasive and creative educational leadership rather than through
punishment and coercion... The sense of a community of scholars, an island of reason and tolerance, is the
pervasive ethos. But that ethos should be advanced with education, not coercion. It should be the dominant voice
of the university within the marketplace of ideas; but it should not preempt that marketplace. (Smolla 224-225).1
We emphatically concur. It is our position that a debater who feels strongly enough about a given language
"argument" ought to actualize that belief through interpersonal conversation rather than through a plea
for censorship and coercion. Each debater in a given round has three minutes of cross-examination time during
which he or she may engage the other team in a dialogue about the ramifications of the language the opposition
has just used. Additionally even given the efficacy of Rich Edwards' efficient tabulation program, there will
inevitably be long periods between rounds during which further dialogue can take place.
38
File Title
AT: NAZIS
Fairness advances civil rights
Julie Fernandes et al., senior policy analyst, 2-10-2004 www.civilrights.org
In a historic year for the civil rights movement, with celebrations commemorating the 40th anniversary of the
landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, and what would have
been the 75th birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., legislators today introduced FAIRNESS: The Civil
Rights Act of 2004. Sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Reps. John Lewis, D-Ga., George
Miller, D-Calif., and John Conyers, D-Mich., in the House, the FAIRNESS Act is an effort to counteract the
potentially devastating impact of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding civil rights protections. The
Court, which recently has ruled against plaintiffs seeking remedies to civil rights violations in schools and
in the work place, has made it more difficult for victims of discrimination to gain redress through the
courts. The bill has the support of a myriad of civil rights and social justice organizations, including the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR). "In America, our individual rights are supposed to be
guaranteed by the Constitution, but in case after case, the courts are taking those rights away and that's just not
right," LCCR Executive Director Henderson said. "The FAIRNESS Act sends a strong and clear message to
the courts trampling on the civil rights of the elderly, workers, women, the disabled, and the poor is not
what America is about." Among other remedies, the FAIRNESS Act guarantees equal access to publicly
funded services, protection for older workers and workers returning from military service, viable
remedies for on-the-job discrimination, and equal pay for women in the workforce. Recently published fact
sheets by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund assess the recent Court rulings mentioned
in the legislation.
39
File Title
AT: LIMITS ARE BIOPOWER
Foucault would vote negeven he recognized that limited theory to practical

implementation was an inevitable and significant consideration
William Connolly, Prof of Polisci at Johns Hopkins, 2005, Pluralism p. 138-9
There is often ambivalence in peoples orientation to the sacred, an ambivalence concealed through fear of
retribution by God or their compatriots. Those demanding punishment of others who defile what they take to be
sacred, familiarly enough, often intensify the demand because of the very ambivalence that they themselves feel.
Spinoza, Nietzsche, and Freud, among others, read the punishment of blasphemy in this way. And each himself was
accuse of blasphemy because of that very analysis. None, however, says that homo sacer is part of the sacred. The
issue is pertinent because in a political culture of deep pluralism a culture in which people honor different
existential faiths and final sources of morality different images of the sacred unavoidably and repeatedly
bump into each other. What is needed today is a caution relaxation of discourse about the sacred, one that
allows us to come to terms affirmatively with the irreducible plurality of sacred objects in late modern life.
With respect to sovereignty it is important to underline the significance of acts by which deep conflicts are settled,
but it is equally important not to elevate them to the level of the sacred. Agamben also contends that biopolitics
has intensified today. That intensification translates the paradox of sovereignty into a potential disaster. It is
well to recall, however, that every way of life involves the infusion of norms, judgments, and standards into the
affective life of participants. Every way of life is biocultural and biopolitical. Lucretius, Augustine, Spinoza,
Rousseau, and Merleau-Ponty, writing at different periods, all appreciate the layering of culture into biological life.
They treat the biological not merely as the genetic or the fixed but also as the introjections of culture into
intertwined layers of corporeality. <continued>Nietzsche and Foucault draw their respective ethics of
reciprocal generosity between diverse constituencies from existential care for the fundamental abundance of being,
an abundance that is never entirely exhausted by any particular organization of cultural life. Neither tries to secure
the epistemological necessity of the care he cultivates. There is no god or transcendental imperative available to
either from which a final command to be moral could be issued. Both are glad of that. Each is moved by an
existential source of ethical inspiration and motivation rather than by a transcendental source of moral love,
authority, or command. So each pursues an ethic of cultivation in which care for the abundance of being
precedes the assumption of obligation and responsibility rather than the other way around. Both, in their different
ways, strive to cultivate more deeply and broadly a care for the diversity of life whichaccording to these faiths
already inhabits almost everyone part of the time to some degree or other. They then try to move that care in
specific directions. Michel Foucault, for instance, first cultivates care "for what exists and might exist" and then
struggles to identify new ways in which diverse constituencies might coexist and interact with less violence in
the same social matrix. He knows that eventually he will bump into the political necessity of delimitation and
exclusion. But he seeks to draw sustenance and inspiration from the rich diversity of being before closing on a
systemic set of limitations. He combats, you might say, the Schmittian aesthetic of unity by affirming the wonder of
the sublime.
40
File Title
AT: LINE-BY-LINE BAD
Education Line by line debating organizes clash such that the depth of arguments can be
explored through contesting competing warrants. Explicit clash is critical otherwise
debaters would just talk over each other. Line by line debating also forces each team to pay
closer attention to their opponents speeches and improves note-taking skills both of which
are educational. Education outweighs their impacts because the point of debate is that its
an educational activity, thats why only schools compete.
Fairness Their interpretation of debate necessitates judge intervention because each team
will concede arguments and its up to the judge to decide which ones are of greater
significance. Line by line debate preserves neutrality which is the most important
component of competitive equity because its the only standard we can objectively
determine.
No risk of their offense
A. Not a rigged game Theres nothing hegemonic or exclusive about saying you have
to answer every argument your opponent makes. Plenty of debaters have learned
line by line debating with little or no previous experience.
B. Learning curves are inevitable debaters improve over time like competitors at any
other activity nobody can just take up poker, darts or basketball and expect to win
on their first try.
C. They can still debate their arguments using line by line clash plenty of teams
including Fort Hays, Harvard LM, and West Georgia have at times advanced their
projects using the line by line format without sacrificing analysis or persuasive
force.
41
File Title
AT: SPEED BAD

First our defense
1. All of your offense is overstated nobody speaks so fast that it hurts education or
communication and if they did they would lose speaker points and probably the
round even the fastest debaters have to remain comprehensible in order to succeed
2. Theres no loss of fairness slow debaters can and have succeeded at policy debate
from Frap to the Wiz
3. The impact is inevitable everyone is naturally capable of different things. A
debater who can write with both hands would have a huge advantage too but thats
not a reason to vote against them. Debate is exclusive like every other competitive
activity in that is has rules regarding speech times and side constraints, if some
people have the advantage of being able to make more arguments in that time then
thats just part of competing in life.
Next our offense
1. Speed increases education it allows us to debate further in depth about arguments
and analyze a multiplicity of warrants and avenues for discussion internal to the
issues about which we debate
2. Quickly delivered evidence becomes a proxy for stories with which were all familiar
this rapid-fire simplification promotes effective communication and
understanding within political debates
Holly Doremus, Professor of law at UC Davis, Winter 2000 [57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11]
A. Telling Political Stories It is not difficult to understand why the complex strands of each of
the three discourses of nature have been reduced in the political context to a handful of
shorthand stories. In the political arena, the most nuanced discourse tends to be simplified in
this way. Political argument is better suited to soundbite-sized stories, brief accounts that
evoke striking images intended to communicate larger points, than to multifaceted discussion.
[*42] It is easy to condemn the tendency of political debate to simplify arguments. Political
rhetoric certainly can camouflage complexity, encourage people to overlook important principles,
and distort issues. n191 Sound-bites can substitute for, or even obscure, principled analysis. But
these brief stories can also serve a valuable, and valid, political function. Stories, particularly
familiar ones, are well suited to quick, effective communication. Every teacher knows the
power of a good rhetorical image to communicate a subtle concept. Stories also can invoke
intuitions that may otherwise be overlooked because they are not readily accessible through reason
alone. n192 Furthermore, the emotional power of stories can spur listeners to action in ways that
abstract rational argument, no matter how logically compelling, typically does not. n193
3. Theres no brightline at which debate becomes too fast you should reject
arguments that arent supported by clear standards because theyre self-serving and
cater to judge bias.
42
File Title
AT: KULYNYCH
Kulynych concludes aff policy oriented debate is a defiant moment of performative

politics
Jessica Kulynych, Asst Professor of Political Science at Winthrop University, Polity, Winter,
1997, n2 p315(32)
When we look at the success of citizen initiatives from a performative perspective, we look precisely at those
moments of defiance and disruption that bring the invisible and unimaginable into view. Although citizens were
minimally successful in influencing or controlling the outcome of the policy debate and experienced a
considerable lack of autonomy in their coercion into the technical debate, the goal-oriented debate within the
energy commissions could be seen as a defiant moment of performative politics. The existence of a goaloriented debate within a technically dominated arena defied the normalizing separation between expert
policymakers and consuming citizens. Citizens momentarily recreated themselves as policymakers in a
system that defined citizens out of the policy process, thereby refusing their construction as passive clients.
43
File Title
AT: MITCHELL
Mitchell changed his mind. Fiat-oriented debate is better than the activist model.
Gordon Mitchell, debate coach at Pittsburgh, Nov 09 2002, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200211/0136.html
Politically I have moved quite a bit since 1998, when I wrote that debate institutions should pay more
attention to argumentative agency, i.e. cultivation of skills that facilitate translation of critical thinking, public
speaking, and research acumen into concrete exemplars of democratic empowerment. Back then I was highly
skeptical of the "laboratory model" of "preparatory pedagogy," where students were kept, by fiat, in the
proverbial pedagogical bullpen. Now I respect much more the value of a protected space where young
people can experiment politically by taking imaginary positions, driving the heuristic process by arguing
against their convictions. In fact, the integrity of this space could be compromised by "activist turn"
initiatives designed to bridge contest round advocacy with political activism. These days I have much
more confidence in the importance and necessity of switch-side debating, and the heuristic value for
debaters of arguing against their convictions. I think fashioning competitive debate contest rounds as
isolated and politically protected safe spaces for communicative experimentation makes sense. However, I
worry that a narrow diet of competitive contest round debating could starve students of opportunities to
experience the rich political valence of their debating activities.
44
File Title
AT: WAR ON TERROR
This analogy is inappropriate

A. Theres nothing violent about losing a debate it happens in every round. They might
be right that our argument is exclusive of them but every argument is exclusive of your
opponent. A more apt analogy would be that our argument is the equivalent of rejecting
the Bush administration decision to invade Iraq because it had nothing to do with the
responding to the terrorist group that attacked the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon.
B. This is just a way of adding moral weight to their impact claim. The War on Terror is
insidious because it is based on racist paranoia. In response this paranoia the Bush
administration calls for the indiscriminate slaughter of innocents. Our argument is that
their model of debate is exclusive and unfair because it is unpredictable and justifies
limitless affirmatives. Our interpretation is based on shared interpretations of the
meanings behind the words of the resolution. We call for you to vote negative which is
nothing like bombing foreign grade schools
45
File Title
AT: HURTS CREATIVITY
1. There are plenty of ways to be creative with this years affirmative. The topic is huge and
allows for a multitude of creative ideas for ways to give public health assistance to Africa.
2. Rules increase creativity. Creativity thrives best when constrained.
Mayer 2006
Marissa Ann Mayer, February 13, 2006, Creativity Loves Constraints, ProQuest, Business Week
When people think about creativity, they think about artistic work--unbridled, unguided effort that
leads to beautiful effect. But look deeper, and you'll find that some of the most inspiring art forms, such as
haikus, sonatas, and religious paintings, are fraught with constraints. They are beautiful because creativity
triumphed over the rules. Constraints shape and focus problems and provide clear challenges to
overcome. Creativity thrives best when constrained. But constraints must be balanced with a healthy
disregard for the impossible. Too many curbs can lead to pessimism and despair. Disregarding the bounds
of what is known or accepted gives rise to ideas that are non-obvious, unconventional, or unexplored. The
creativity realized in this balance between constraint and disregard for the impossible is fueled by
passion and leads to revolutionary change. Innovation is born from the interaction between constraint
and vision.
46
File Title
AT: Nietzsche Ks of Framework

No Link we realize that debate is an artificially created game while simultaneously
affirming the rule of topicality for practical purposes. Were not an appeal to any universal
truth or morality.
Ian Johnston, November 1996, "There's Nothing Nietzsche Couldn't Teach Ya About the Raising of the Wrist",
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/introser/nietzs.htm Research Associate, Malaspina University-College, Nanaimo,
British Columbia, Canada
Hence we arrive at the position of the need to affirm a belief (invent a rule book) which we know to
have been invented, to be divorced from the truth of things. To play the best game is to live by rules
which we invent for ourselves as an assertion of our instinctual drives and to accept that the rules are
fictions: they matter, we accept them as binding, we judge ourselves and others by them, and yet we
know they are artificial. And just as in real life a normal soccer player derives a senzse of meaning during
the game, affirms his or her value in the game, without ever once believing that the universe is organized by
the rules of soccer or that those rules have any universal validity, so we must commit ourselves to
epistemological and moral rules which enable us to live our lives as players, while at the same time
recognizing that these rules have no universal validity. The nihilists have discovered half of this insight,
but, because they are not capable of living the full awareness, they are very limited human beings.
The nature of switch side debate solves - Immersion in the game of debate allows us to
refine our intelligence so that we can rise above the herd in the real world.
Nietzsche claims that the time is right for such a radically individualistic endeavour to create new games,
new metaphors for my life. For, wrongheaded as many of the traditional games may have been, like
Plato's metaphysical soccer or Kant's version of eight ball, or Marx's materialist chess tournament, or
Christianity's stoical snakes and ladders, they have splendidly trained us for the much more difficult
work of creating values in a spirit of radical uncertainty. The exertions have trained our imaginations
and intelligence in useful ways. Hence, although those dogmatists were fundamentally unsound, an
immersion in their systems has done much to refine those capacities we most need to rise above the
nihilists and the herd.
Games must be formed out of the existing materials that we have at our disposal. You have
the power to alter debate by writing a topic paper for example, but not to completely
change our cultural ideas about rules in debate. If we win reasons why your interpretation
is bad for fairness it demonstrates that youve gone beyond the limits of acceptable rule
changes in the game of debate.
It's important to note here that one's freedom to create one's own game is not unlimited. In that sense,
Nietzsche is no existentialist maintaining that we have a duty and an unlimited freedom to be whatever
we want to be. For the resources at our disposal the parts of the field still available and the
recreational material lying around in the club house--are determined by the present state of our
culture. Furthermore, the rules I devise and the language I frame them in will almost certainly owe a
good deal to the present state of the rules of other games and the state of the language in which those
are expressed. Although I am changing the rules for my game, my starting point, or the rules I have
available to change, are given to me by my moment in history. So in moving forward, in creating
something that will transcend the past, I am using the materials of the past. Existing games are the
materials out of which I fashion my new game.
47
File Title
AT: Nietzsche Ks of Framework

Creating new games makes society overall worse off the community will backlash and
shun the new rules or misinterpret them and use them in order to be lazy.
This call to live the selfcreated life, affirming oneself in a game of one's own devising, necessarily
condemns the highest spirits to loneliness, doubt, insecurity, emotional suffering, (because most people
will mock the new game or be actively hostile to it or refuse to notice it, and so on; alternatively, they
will accept the challenge but misinterpret what it means and settle for some marketed easy game, like
floating down the Mississippi smoking a pipe), but a self-generated game also brings with it the most
intense joy, the most playful and creative affirmation of what is most important in our human nature).
We have to set rules for our games as a practical requirement and for convenience
purposes, not for any divine appeal to rationality. Without rules public life and human
rights become impossible.
One group we can quickly identify is those who have embraced Nietzsche's critique, who appeal to his writing to
endorse their view that the search to ground our knowledge and moral claims in Truth are futile, and that we must
therefore recognize the imperative Nietzsche laid before us to self-create our own lives, to come up with new selfdescriptions as a means of affirming the irrational basis of our individual humanity. This position has been loosely
termed Antifoundationalism. Two of its most prominent and popular spokespersons in recent years have been
Richard Rorty and Camille Paglia. Within Humanities departments the Deconstructionists (with Derrida as their
guru) head the Nietzschean charge. Antifoundationalists tend to link Nietzsche closely with Kuhn and with Dewey
(whose essay on Darwin we read) and sometimes with Wittgenstein and take central aim at anyone who would claim
that some form of enquiry, like science, rational ethics, Marxism, or traditional religion has any form of privileged
access to reality or the truth. The political stance of the Antifoundationalists tends to be radically romantic or
pragmatic. Since we cannot ground our faith in any public morality or political creed, politics becomes something
far less important than personal development or else we have to conduct our political life simply on a pragmatic
basis, following the rules we can agree on, without according those rules any universal status or grounding in
eternal principles. If mechanistic science is something we find, for accidental reasons of history, something useful,
then we will believe it for now. Thus, Galileo's system became adopted, not because it was true or closer to the truth
that what it replaced, but simply because the vocabulary he introduced into our descriptions was something we
found agreeable and practically helpful. When it ceases to fulfill our pragmatic requirements, we will
gradually change to some other vocabulary, some other metaphor, some other version of a game. History
indicates that such a change will occur, but how and when it will take place or what the new vocabulary might be-these questions will be determined by the accidents of history. Similarly, human rights are important, not because
there is any rational non-circular proof that we ought to act in accordance with these principles, but simply
because we have agreed, for accidental historical reasons, that these principles are useful. Such pragmatic
agreements are all we have for public life, because, as Nietzsche insists, we cannot justify any moral claims by
appeals to the truth. So we can agree about a schedule for the various games and distributing the budget
among them and we can, as a matter of convenience, set certain rules for our discussions, but only as a
practical requirement of our historical situation; not by any divine or rationally just system of distribution.
48
File Title
AT: Speech Time Cheating

Rules of debate are important to keep the game alive- speech times is one of the only ones
we have
Hartney, debate coach, 02
(Gregg, "Basic Debate Text, Chapter 1" http://www.teachingdebate.com/?q=node/2)
As stated earlier, there are really very few actual rules of debate. The rules that do exist were created to assure that
each side of the debate enters the contest with an equal chance to win. If the rules of debate automatically gave one
side or the other a greater chance to win, there would be very little incentive for either side to try their hardest. If you
think about it, most rules in most games exist for that very same reason. (Some rules in sports exist to protect the
safety of the participants, but most exist to make the game fair.) The rules of debate deal with the length and order of
the speeches of the debate. Both sides in the debate are given the same total amount of time in which to make their
arguments and attack the arguments made by their opponents. In this way, neither side is automatically favored by
having a greater opportunity to present their arguments.
We participate in academic debate that is governed by speaking rules- it is distinct from

other forms of debate
Inoue, Ph.D., Kyushu University, no date
(DEBATE A Process of Inquiry and Advocacy Narahiko INOUE, Ph.D. Kyushu University http://www.rc.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~inouen/debatetext.html)
When you are using this textbook in class, you will have debate as educational exercise. It is called academic or
educational debate. Academic debate is different from debate in the real world like the above debate in the town
meeting. In the real-world debate, the purpose is often to decide the future plan of the participants. In the academic
debate, it is not the case and the purpose is educational training. Suppose we have a debate in this class whether we
should build an atomic plant in our town. Even if the decision is that we should build it, it won't decide the real
future of our town. There are several characteristics of academic debate for maximizing the educational benefit.
There are strict rules of speaking in terms of time, order, use of evidence, etc. Judges often give criticism and advice
of arguments both in contents and skills, as well as giving the decision. Academic debate is offered as one of the
speech courses colleges and high schools in the United States and some other countries, where students are taught
how to debate. It is also popular in extracurricular activities and there are local and national level competitions. In
Japan you also find some classes using debate and tournaments (contests) both in Japanese and English languages.
Debate has been used for a long time in Western societies since the time of Ancient Greek. It is often used in
classrooms and business training. Many leaders in politics, business, and academics learned debate. Many of the
U.S. presidents and British prime ministers used to practice debate in schools and universities. In Japan, debating in
English has an established tradition in extracurricular clubs (mostly called English Speaking Societies). More
recently, the high school curriculum for English includes debate as one of the optional activities. Debate in Japanese
is also increasingly popular.
Speakers should give their own speeches alternating side- exceptions like doing the insides
on the aff are OK
Whitman, Professor at CSU Northridge and former debate coach, 00
(http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/debformats.html)
In general, the members of each team alternate giving speeches, so that the same person gives both the 1AC and the
1AR, the same person gives the 2NC and the 2NR, etc. Occasionally, the rules will allow a change in this format.
For example, affirmative teams will sometimes go "inside-outside" so that one person (usually the weaker member)
gives the 1AC and the 2AR, while the other (stronger) debater gives the 2AC and the 1AR. Usually, there is a 3minute cross-examination period after each of the first four (constructive) speeches. The person who does the crossexamining is the person who will not be giving the next speech for his side. For instance, the person who will give
the 2NC will cross-examine after the 1AC. (An exception to this rule is made when the affirmative team goes
"inside-outside.") When team policy debate is done without cross-examination periods, the speech times are often
extended to 10 minutes for constructives and 5 minutes for rebuttals.
49
File Title
AT: Speech Time Cheating
You cannot speak during someone elses speech

IDEA 06
(IDEA Standards http://www.idebate.org/standards/rulescedebate.php)
In Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate, both sides of the resolution have an equal amount of time to present their
arguments. The format is composed of twelve parts, each of which has a defined purpose and set of rules. Eight of
these sections consist of "speeches" -- uninterrupted presentations by a designated speaker. The remaining four
sections consist of "cross-examination" -- a series of questions and answers involving one speaker from each side.
A. The format of a Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate is as follows:
Section Time Speaker
First Affirmative Constructive 8 minutes Affirmative 1
First Negative Cross-Examination 3 minutes Affirmative 1 answers/Negative 2 asks
First Negative Constructive 8 minutes Negative 1
First Affirmative Cross-Examination 3 minutes Affirmative 1asks/Negative 1 answers
Second Affirmative Constructive 8 minutes Affirmative 2
Second Negative Cross-Examination 3 minutes Affirmative 2 answers/Negative 1 asks
Second Negative Constructive 8 minutes Negative 2
Second Affirmative Cross-Examination 3 minutes Negative 2 answers/Affirmative 2 asks
First Negative Rebuttal 5 minutes Negative 1
First Affirmative Rebuttal 5 minutes Affirmative 1
Second Negative Rebuttal 5 minutes Negative 2
Second Affirmative Rebuttal 5 minutes Affirmative 2
While the order and proportional length of speech time are consistent between different organizations practicing
policy debate, there is variation in exact time limits for constructive speeches, cross-examination, and rebuttal. Each
debate also includes preparation time, typically eight minutes for each team, which is determined by an individual
tournament. This time is not scheduled in any particular place in the sequence of sections, and is instead taken at the
discretion of each team, in whatever amounts the team desires. B. Role of the Speakers The Cross-Examination
(Policy) format embraces debate as a team activity. In the Cross-Examination format, each debate team is composed
of two individuals who stay together through every round of competition. Each team alternatively debates the
negative and affirmative positions in alternating rounds. Although Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate is a team
activity, the only debater allowed to speak during a given moment in the debate is the one assigned by the format to
do so (see above). Team members may not assist their teammates by offering suggestions or by answering questions
on their behalf. During the cross-examination period, it is generally expected that only the examiner may ask
questions, and only the speaker may answer them. Typically, no spoken communication is allowed between either
the examiner or the speaker and their teammates. Some tournaments may have different policies regarding the
method by which cross-examination may be conducted.
Debate formats are prearranged agreements- each person only speaks twice- one
constructive and one rebuttal
Inch, Warnick, and Endres, professors of communication 06
(Inch, Edward S., Warnick, Barbara, and Endres, Danielle (2006) Critical Thinking and Communication: The Use
of Reason in Argument. Fifth Ed. Pearson: Boston.)
In political and parliamentary debates, many types of formats are used. A debate format is a statement of the order in
which participants in a debate will speak and the length of speaking time allocated to each speech or questionanswer period. Debate formats are prearranged before the debateeither because of agreement by participants or
because of conventions or rules governing the practice of debate in a particular forum. For example, the League of
Women Voters sets the format for many presidential debates, whereas parliamentary debates are governed by the
rules of parliamentary practice. In intercollegiate debate, certain formats are standard. Generally, each speaker in a
debate speaks twice, and the sides (affirmative and negative) alternate in speaking turns. Initial (or constructive)
speeches are longer than refutation (or rebuttal) speeches. Parliamentary debate is an exception. In parliamentary
debate, each side presents one rebuttal speech.
50
File Title
AT: Rules Bad

Rules in debate necessary for fairness and education
Decker and Morello, professors of communication and debate coaches, 90
(Title: The American Debate Association: Rule-Based Policy Debate., By: Decker, Warren D., Morello, John T.,
Argumentation and Advocacy, 19900101, Vol. 27, Issue 2 Database: ERIC)
As a game, debate has always been unique. Games are ruled-governed, yet debate lacks a definitive rule book. The
absence of a common set of assumptions about playing the debate game has been noted before. One author justified
his attempt to gather together in one place the rules of debate by observing that the rules of debate are "largely
unwritten; they [pass] by word of mouth from debater to debater and from school to school. It is not surprising, then,
to find some disagreement as to what they actually are" (Musgrave 11). Coaches assembled for the founding of the
ADA recognized that not only had such disagreements persisted, but the intrusion of "theory" arguments into debate
rounds indicated that they were intensifying. By setting minimal, uniform expectations of the debate game, the ADA
defines the rules of debate and enables competitors to get on with the task of playing. This avoids some of the
inevitable frustration resulting from learning the conventions of the activity through trial and error, thus addressing
perceived harriers to the entry of students who have not had an opportunity to debate prior to college. Basic rules set
firmly in place also discourage competitors from seeking to extract beneficial "edges" during the course of play. A
clear set of debate rules thus minimizes the aggravating tendency for debate to "rapidly degenerate into a verbal
battle over the rules of the game rather than a contest measuring who is the more skillful player" (Herbeck and
Katsulas 137).
Differing rules across rounds undermines debates educational potential

Suggesting that rounds of debate adhere to a set of rules is hardly revolutionary. We are not suggesting that debate
has never had rules. Rather, our point is that the rules have been fragmented, vague, frequently abused, and often
subject to non-uniform interpretations. The absence of a known set of rules tempted participants to stretch the limits
of permissible behavior and resulted in a highly fragmented educational exercise. In some debates and in front of
certain judges, one set of debate procedures would be in effect while the debate occurring next door might unfold in
an entirely different manner. The result of this lack of consistency about the rules of debate was that debate was a
less than effective laboratory for teaching argument.
They cannot win any offense- the lack of rules in the game fragments and undermines the
activity
Organizations of forensics educators appropriately take the lead in formulating such rules. Any field of argument
changes, and the initiates of a discipline "acting through the media of their professional organizations, publications
and other institutions" are the agents of such change (Wenzel 211). An absence of rules, testimony to our lack of
agreement as to purpose, potentially threatens an already fragile cohesion in the policy debate field. As Rowland
reminds us, "purpose is not the characteristic which defines a field; it is the factor which produces the field's
characteristics" (237). If academic policy debate is to achieve any sense of "field-hood," we will have to reach some
agreement about " . . . the form, subject matter, evaluative criteria, degree of precision, and all other relevant
discourse characteristics which arguers deem appropriate to their purposes" (Rowland 237). A continuing lack of
consensual rules on these matters can only impede efforts to draw the policy debate community together. Burleson
contends that "each language game is a locus of communally shared and tested standards of intelligibility, truth,
sincerity, and correctness--the components of rationality which all good arguments must meet" (147). Without such
consensus, debate is transient and ephemeral, the rules of the game changing from round to round, critic to critic.
Establishing rules for the proferring of argument enables the policy debate activity to free itself from the current
instability that forecloses understanding (except to those most devoted practitioners) of the conventions, processes
and procedures of the game.
51
File Title
AT: Role of the Ballot

Voting against them is not a condemnation of their project
Moulton, professor of communication and coach t Redlands, 66 (Eugene, The Dynamics of Debate, p. 5)
The awarding of a formal decision is an essential part of interscholastic and intercollegiate debate. The decision represents
a judges evaluation of the completed contest and does not imply condemnation of the losing team. Judges are usually exdebaters, or coaches who have been well trained in contest debate. In addition to this training, the judge has several
guidelines to help him in making a valid decision in the major areas of debate: analysis, reasoning and evidence, refutatory
effectiveness, organization of argument, and delivery. The importance of each area upon the final decision is decided by
the judge. Some critics give major importance to analysis, while others may stress reasoning and evidence.
Losing is not an indictment of their stance- it is an essential part of argumentative training

Moulton, prof of comm. and Redlands coach, 66 (Gender Edited) (Eugene, The Dynamics of Debate, p. 10)
Winning and losing are important in debating, as in any form of advocacy. Unquestionably not all decisions go the way
the individual wishes, but this does not minimize the importance of the decision. It is essential to learn how to win and
how to face defeat without losing confidence and a sense of purpose. The debater often takes extended trips, sometimes
covering several thousand miles during one academic year. The obligations and pressures of these trips, and the
competition of debate contests, call for tact and consideration. Scarcely any other college subject or activity affords this
kind of training. Moreover, for the debater to have practiced relentlessly for many weeks only to find the he [or she] is still
behind other debaters is a distinct shock. He [or she] must then swallow his [or her] disappointment and learn to begin again.
Purpose of educational debate is training in argumentation

Freely, professor of communication and director of debate at John Carroll, 66
(Austin J, Argumentation and debate: rational decision making, 2nd edition, p. 16)
Educational debate is that debate conducted under the direction of an educational institution for the purpose of providing
educational opportunities for its students. Most schools and colleges today conduct programs of educational debate; it is
almost inevitable that every educated person at some point will be a participant in some form of debate. Clearly the
question before us is not whether or not we will participate in debate- our participation as decision renderers or advocates
is inevitable. The only question is- will our participation be effective? The purpose of educational debate is to enable us to
become effective in this essential art.
Their interpretation of the ballot assumes that we are engaged in substantive debate and
not an educational debate
Freely, professor of communication and director of debate at John Carroll, 66
(Austin J, Argumentation and debate: rational decision making, 2nd edition, p. 14)
Debate may be classified into two broad categories: substantive and educational. Substantive debate is conducted on
propositions in which the advocates have a special interest; the debate is presented before a judge or audience with power
to render a binding decision on the proposition; and the purpose of debate is to establish a fact, value, or policy.
Educational debate is conducted on propositions in which the advocates usually have an academic interest.; it is presented
before a judge or audience usually without direct power to render a decision on the propositionindeed, in educational
debate the judge is instructed to disregard the merits of the proposition and to render a decision on the merits of the debate;
and the purpose of the debate is to provide educational opportunities for the participants.
All education claims must be viewed through the lens of education in argumentationdebate is a unique form for this that cannot be replicated elsewhere
Freely, professor of communication and director of debate at John Carroll, 66 (Gender Edited)
(Austin J, Argumentation and debate: rational decision making, 2nd edition, p. 20-21)
3. Debate is training in argumentation. From classical times to the present, professors of argumentation have found
that debate is the best method of providing training in this discipline. Debate provides an unexcelled opportunity for
the student to apply the theories of argumentation under conditions to increase his [or her] knowledge and
understanding of these theories and his [or her] proficiency in their use. Debate as an educational method provides
excellent motivation for learning, since the student has both the short-term goal of winning a decision or the award
in a tournament and the long-term goal on increasing knowledge and ability. This combination of short-term and
long-term motivation provides for an optimum learning situation. The constant evaluation of the student
achievement, in the form of decisions rendered on debates, provides for frequent opportunities to encourage growth
and progress and to detect and remedy misunderstandings or misapplications.
52
File Title
AT: Friere: Species Link

-Freires methods re-entrench the productivist thinking and divides the human from the
non-human animal world preventing authentic liberation
Kahn no date given
(Paulo Freire and Eco-Justice: Updating Pedagogy of the Oppressed for the Age of Ecological Calamity by Richard
Kahnhttp://getvegan.com/ecofreire.htm)
Productivism is the philosophy that regards production as our essential activity and as a primary human and social
value. [25] In his Foreword to the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Richard Shaull highlights Freire's productivism
when he notes that Freire operates on one basic assumption: that man's ontological vocation (as he calls it) is to be
a Subject who acts upon and transforms his world:. [26] By demanding Subjectivity for those of the Third World,
Freire was able to defend the oppressed against the charge of being inhuman -- if they could demonstrate the power
to think and act responsibly and to relate to their world, then the poor must be Subjects, and hence human by all
Enlightenment criteria. Further, by placing the seat of empowerment, of conscientizao, within the minds and
bodies of the globally oppressed themselves, and by taking it out of Washington D.C., New York, Paris, and Berlin,
Freire was able to formulate the sort of motivation for education that a revolutionary pedagogy required. In Capital,
Marx himself formulates a similar productivist theme of humanity as that class of being which transcends itself by
realizing itself in the world through the process of its own labor. Clearly inspired and indebted to Marx, the
following could just as well have been taken from Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed:
Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own
accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to
Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in
order to appropriate Nature's productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world
and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them
to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind
us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his
labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first
instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations
that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what
distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination
before he erects it in reality. [27] But, of course, Marx here unapologetically trumpets a form of thought that could
be called fallaciously 1) essentialist: humanity is essentially a producer, 2) rationalist: humanity is that which
possesses a higher-order category of mind, 3) dualist: humanity is ultimately different than mere Nature because it is
humanity's gift to forge this difference, and 4) teleological: in its Promethean emergence from Nature, humanity
must represent something like its apotheosis. Again, all this is not to say, therefore, that Marx's socialism fails as a
critique of capitalist society's inability to effectively employ the forces of production, or that Freire's pedagogy is a
dreamy farce. In fact, I would argue vehemently for the opposite in each case. However, while we might not hold it
against Marx that his theory fails to be adequately informed by the many advances within the theory of the Subject
made during the 20th century, Freire must be held more accountable. In light of his over-reliance upon Marxist
productivism, we must take Freire to task for his problematical discourse on the distinction between humans and
animals. The language in Pedagogy of the Oppressed wherein he codes animals as mindless, timeless and merely
instinctual beings, no different in the forest or the zoo, lost in an overwhelming present, and lacking
individuation is unfortunate and politically regressive in the context of our current situation. [28] All told, it is this
type of language, along with Freire's rather uncritical promotion of Humanism, subjectification and print literacy as
vehicles to authentic liberation, that needs to be more thoroughly historicized and properly contextualized by the
histories of civilization and oppression of which they are a part. [29]
53
File Title
AT: Freire- Consciousness Bad

Freirien consciousness is not a bottom up process that they claim- it is imposed onto the
bottom by others
Berger 74
("Critical views of Paulo Freire's work John Ohliger johliger@facstaff.wisc.edu Basic Choices, Inc. P.O. Box
259598, Madison, WI 53725-9598, USA phone: +1-608-833 4269 Compiled for the 1995 Iowa Community College
Summer Seminar" http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/Facundo/Ohliger1.html#IV)
Berger, Peter L. Pyramids of Sacrifice. Basic Books, 1974. "[Freire] called his method 'concientizacao' literally,
'making conscious.' This name has caught on as 'consciousness raising' in the United States. The concept of
'consciousness raising,' as currently used, implies some highly questionable assumptions. It implies philosophical
error and political irony. 'Consciousness raising' is a project of higher-class individuals directed at a lower-class
population. Coupled with this arrogance is a recurrent irritation with 'those people' who stubbornly refuse the
salvation that is so benevolently offered to them: 'How can they be so blind?' If the hierarchical view of
consciousness simply referred to levels of information on specific topics, there would be no need to quarrel with it.
If one wishes to extend this superiority to information and perspectives in general, plausibility disappears, for
peasants very clearly have far superior information on other topics such as plant and animal life, soil conditions, the
weather, and a multitude of manual skills and material artifacts."
Consciousness raising fails

Gottlieb and LaBelle 90
Gottlieb, Esther E., & Thomas J. La Belle. "Ethnographic Contextualization of Freire's Discourse." Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, Mar 1990. "Most consciousness-raising programs, alone or in combination with skill
transmission programs, have not achieved expected social changes, and it seems that this has led to a growing
disenchantment with these efforts."
54
File Title
AT: Freire- Consciousness Bad

Conscientization hurts the oppressed
Zachariah 86
Zachariah, Matthew. Revolution through Reform. Praeger, 1986. "Conscientization appears to be a movement that
has seen its heyday. Conscientization may be criticized for not proposing concrete measures for improving the
standard of living of the people. Conscientization may also be criticized for being patronizing in its own way. Do
ordinary men and women need to be conscientized before they recognize that they lead desperate, oppressed lives
marked by hunger, disease, and the denial of dignity? They know the score and do not need middle class do-gooders
to tell them. They acquiesce in their oppression because they have no other choice. To offer them hope through
Conscientization is worse than deceitful. What they need is for people to fight on their side, so they can overthrow
the oppressors. Conscientization has been criticized for evading or worse, camouflaging the issue of leadership. No
amount of talk about 'educator-educatees' and 'educatee-educators' can get around the fact that there are teachers and
students in Conscientization. It is a short step from that criticism to characterize the leaders of culture circles not
benevolently as 'teachers' but as meddlesome, outside agitators."
55
File Title
AT: Friere: Your Revolution Fails

Their views on liberation is too simplistic to help people
Schipani 84
Schipani, Daniel S. Conscientization and Creativity. University Press of America, 1984. "A conflict and
contradiction is present between the denunciation of manipulation and maintaining that the goal of education must
be the realization of a certain kind of revolutionary option. Another related area for critical evaluation along these
lines refers to the oversimplification and generalizations inherent in the dichotomizing e.g., oppressed-oppressors
analytical process. We have to underscore a major obstacle for the manifestation of creativity, which requires
appreciation of complexity and tolerance for ambivalence and ambiguity. Freire does not always do justice to the
very conscientization thrust by overlooking the variety and nuances, richness and precariousness, of social reality.
Freire's anthropology does not take consistently into account the diverse sources of limitations to human freedom.
Consequently, it tends to present a too simplistic and optimistic view of the actual possibilities of socio-political
transformation. Further, this radical change is referred to often as if it were merely a matter of perceiving its
necessity and then willing its occurrence. The Marxist influence certainly does not help to correct these
appreciations, which fail to take into account the complexity of the problem of the human predicament and the
pervasive presence of radical evil in particular."
No evidence proves that this type of revolution works

Elias 94
Elias, John L. Paulo Freire. Krieger Publishing, 1994. "Freire is probably the best known educator in the world
today. No educator in recent history has had his books read by as many persons in as many places of the world. No
educator has spoken to as many teachers, activists, and scholars. Freire's faulty view of human nature gives rise to an
overly optimistic and simplistic view of the possibility of social and political change. At times, one gets the
impression from reading Freire that human and societal change can be brought about simply by willing it. At other
times, Freire comes through as the religious preacher, urging people to live better lives without showing them how
to cope with the personal and societal obstacles that make the living of this life very difficult, if not impossible. A
number of criticisms have been made of Freire's social theory. At times his theory is vague, general, and imprecise.
Freire rarely presents evidence of an empirical nature or cites sociological research for his analysis. He is also too
prone to divide societies into good and bad, without offering adequate criteria by which this distinction is made. The
weakest part of Freire's theory is his theory of political revolution. Learning for Freire is subordinated to political
and social purposes. Such a theory is open to the charge of indoctrination and manipulation. The process of
conscientization entails for Freire a radical denunciation of dehumanizing structures, accompanied by the
proclamation of a new reality to be created by humans. Freire is confident that this will come about through free
dialogue in which learners and educators participate as equals. Yet is there not a subtle manipulation built into this
method, given the lack of education in the students and the obvious political purposes of the teachers?"
56
File Title
AT: Friere: Your Revolution Fails

Their method of revolution will fail
Stanley 72
Stanley, Manfred. "Literacy." in Paulo Freire. Stanley Grabowski, ed. Syracuse University Publications in
Continuing Education, 1972. "Utopianism is a problem in Freire's thought. It is evident in an uncritical tendency to
regard his notion of literacy as the key to liberation. He does not apparently take much note of the complexities,
much less the dark side of liberation itself. Freire's views place an extraordinary emphasis upon education as the
instrument of liberation. If Freire were to carry the matter further and admit that social mobilization of large
numbers of unenlightened people is necessary for revolution, Leninism would have to be the next step in his
thinking. Under such conditions of mass mobilization, both church and secular history suggest that the saintly
educators whom Freire depends on to keep his revolution honest, would turn out to be in short supply."
57
File Title
Liberatory Pedagogy Increases Racism and Sexism

Attempts to enact liberatory pedagogies fail and worsen racism and sexism
Attempts to enact liberatory pedagogies fail and worsen racism and sexism
Ellsworth 1994, Elizabeth Why doesnt this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical
pedagogy the education feminism Reader ed. By Lynda store
I want to argue, on the basis of my interpretation of C&I 607, that key assumptions, goals, and pedagogical
practices fundamental to the literature on critical pedagogy namely, empowerment, student voice,
dialogue, and even the term critical are repressive myths that perpetuate relations of domination. By
this I mean that when participants in our class attempted to put into practice prescriptions offered in the
literature concerning empowerment, student voice, and dialogue, we produced results that were not only
unhelpful, but actually exacerbated the very conditions we were trying to work against, including Euro
centrism, racism, sexism, classism, and banking education. To the extent that our efforts to put discourses
of critical pedagogy into practice led us to reproduce relations of domination in our classroom, these
discourses were working through us in repressive ways, and had themselves become vehicles of repression.
To the extent that we disengaged ourselves from those aspects and moved in another direction, we worked
through and out of the literatures highly abstract language (myths) of who we should be and what
should be happening in our classroom; we moved into classroom practices that were context-specific and
seemed to be much more responsive to our own understandings of our social identities and situations.
58
File Title
Rationalism Turn
Critical Pedagogies reliance on rationalism creates new forms of domination
The students enrolled in media and Anti-Racist Pedagogies Included Asian American, Chicano/a, Jewish,
Puerto Rican, and Anglo-European men and women from the United States, as well as Asian, Africa,
Icelandic, and Canadian international students. It was evident after the first class meeting that all of us
agreed, but with different understandings and agendas, that racism was a problem on campus that required
political action. The effects of the diverse social positions and political ideologies of the students enrolled my
own position and experience as a woman and feminist, and the effects of the courses context on the form
and content of our early class discussions quickly threw the rationalist assumptions underlying critical
pedagogy into question. These rationalist assumptions have led to the following goals the teaching of
analytic and critical skills for judging the truth and merit of propositions, and the interrogations and selective
appropriation of potentially transformative moments in the dominate culture. As long as educators define
pedagogy against oppressive formations in these ways, the role of the critical pedagogue will be to guarantee
that the foundation for classroom interaction is reason. In other words, the critical pedagogue is one who
enforces the rules of reason in the classroom a series of rules of thought that any ideal rational person
might adopt if his/her purpose was to achieve propositions of universal validity under these conditions, and
given the coded nature of the political agenda of critical pedagogy only one political gesture appears to be
available to the critical pedagogue. S/he can ensure that students are given the chance to arrive logically at
the universally valid proposition underlying the discourse of critical pedagogy namely, that all people
have a right to freedom from oppression guaranteed by the democratic social contract, and that in the
classroom, this proposition be given equal time vis--vis other sufficiently articulated and reasonably
distinct more positions. Yet educators who have constructed classroom practicies dependent upon analytic
critical judgement can no longer regard the enforcement of rationalism as a self-evident political act against
relations of domination. Literary criticism culturalstudies, post-structuralism, feminist studies, comparative
studies, and media studies have by now amassed overwhelming evidence of the extent to which the myths of
the ideal rational person and the universality of propositions have been oppressive to those who are not
European, White, male, Middle-class, Christian, able bodied, thin, and heterosexual. Writings by many
literary and cultural critics, both women of color and white women who are concerned with explaining the
intersections and interactions among relations of racism, colonialism, sexism, and so forth, are not
employing, either implicitly or explicitly concepts and analytical methods that would be called feminist post
structuralism. While post structuralism, like rationalism, is a tool that ban be used to dominate, it has also
facilitated a devastating critique of the violence of rationalism against its others. It has demonstrated that as a
discursive practice, rationalisms regulated and systematic use of elements of language constitutes rational
competence as a series of exclusions of women, people of color, of nature historical agent, of the true
value of art. In contrast, poststructuralist though not bound to reason, but to to discourse, literally
narratives about the world that are admittedly partial. Indeed, one of the crucial features of discourse is the
intimate tie between knowledge and interest, the latter being understood a standpoint; from which to grasp
reality. The literature on critical pedagogy implies that the claims made by documents demonstrations,
press conferences, and classroom discussions of students of color and white students against racism could
rightfully be taken up in the classroom and subjected to rational deliberation over their truth in light of
competing claims. But this would force students to subject themselves to the logics of rationalism and
scientism which have been predicated on and made possible through the exclusion of socially constructed
irrational others women, people of color nature, aesthetics. As Audrey Lorde writes, the masters tools
will never dismantle the masters house, and to call on students of color to justify and explicate their claims
in terms of the masters tool tools such as rationalism, fashioned precisely to perpetuate their exclusion
colludes with the oppressor in keeping the the oppressed occupied with the masters concerns. As Barbara
Christian describes it: the literature of people who are not in power has always been in danger of extinction
or cooptation, not because we do not theorize, but because what we can even imagine, far less who we can
reach, is constantly limited by societal structures. For me literary criticism is promotion as well as
understanding, a response to the writer to whom there is often no response, to folk who need the writing as
much as they need anything. I know, form literary history that writing disappears unless there is a response to
it. Because I write about writers who are not writing, I hope to help ensure that their tradition has continuity
and survives.
59
File Title
Rationalism Link
Empowerment strategies rooted in rationalist assumptions
As educators who claim to be dedicated to ending oppression, critical pedagogues have acknowledged the
socially constructed the legitimated authority that teachers/professors hold over students. Yet theorists of
critical pedagogy have failed to launch any meaningful analysis of or program for reformulating the
institutionalized power imbalances between themselves and their students, or of the essentially paternalistic
project of education itself. In the absence of such an analysis and program, their efforts are limited to trying
to transform negative effects of power imbalances within the classroom into positive once. Strategies such as
students empowerment and dialogue give the illusion of equality while in fact leaving the authoritarian nature
of the teacher/student relationship intact.
60
File Title
Criticism of Their Project Good

Criticism of their project is necessary other social groups can improve struggles
With Barbra Christian I saw the necessity to take the voices of students and professors of difference at their
word as valid but not without response. Students and my own narratives about experiences of racism,
abelism, elitism fat oppression , sexism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, and so on are partial partial in the
sense that they are unfinished, imperfect, limited; and partial in the sense that they project the interests of
one side over others. Because those voices are partial and partisan, they must be made problematic, but not
because they have broken the rules of thought of the ideal rational person by grounding their knowledge in
immediate emotional, social, and psychic experience of oppression, or are somehow lacking or too narrowly
circumscribed. Rather, they must be critiqued because they hold implications for other social movements and
their struggles for self-definition. This assertion carries importation implications for the goal of classroom
practices against oppressive formations, which I will address later.
61
File Title
Critical pedagogy Fails

Their view of empowerment fails to challenge oppressive structures
A third strategy is to acknowledge the directiveness or authoritarianism of education as ineitabl, and
judge particular power imbalances between teachers and student to be tolerable or intolerable depending
upon towards what and with whom [they are] directive. acceptable imbalances are those in which
authority serves common human interests by sharing the information, promoting open and informed
discussion, and maintaining itself only through the respect and trust of those who grant the authority. In
such cases, authority becomes emancipatory authority, a kind of teaching in which teachers would make
explicit and available for rationalist debate the political and moral referents for authority they assume in
teaching particular forms of knowledge, in taking stands against forms of oppression, and in treating students
as if they ought also to be concerned about social justice and political action. Here the question of
empowerment for what becomes the final arbiter of a teachers use or misuse of authority. But critical
pedagogues consistently answer the question of empowerment for what? in ahistorical and depoliticized
abstractions. These include empowerment for human betterment,: for expanding the range of possible
social identities people may become, and making ones self present as part of a moral and political project
that links production of meaning to the possibility for human agency, democratic community, and
transformative social action. As a result student empowerment has been defined in the broadest possible
humanistic terms, and becomes a capacity to act effectively in a way that fails to challenge any identifiable
social or political position, institution, or group.
62
File Title
AT: Debate Should be about liberation of the oppressed

Vague calls for debate to be about the liberation of the oppressed ultimately fail
Weiler 1991, Kathleen November, Freire and a Feminist pedagogy of Difference a feminist critique that
challenges traditional western knowledge systems. Vol. 61
But in action, the goals of liberation or opposition to oppression have not always been easy to understand or
achieve. As universal goals, these ideals do not address the specificity of peoples lives; they do not directly
analyze the contradictions between conflicting oppressed groups or the ways in which a single individual can
experience oppression in one sphere while being privileged or oppressive in another. Feminist and Freirean
teachers are in many ways engaged in what Teresa deLauretis has called shifting the ground of signs,
challenging accepted meanings and relationships that occur at what she calls political or more often micro
political levels, groupings that produce no texts as such, but by shifting the ground of a given sign . . .
effectively intervene upon codes of perception as well as ideological codes. But in attempting to challenge
dominant values and to shift the ground of signs, feminist and Freirean teachers raise conflicts for
themselves and for their students, who also are historically situated and whose own subjectivities are not
often contradictory and in process. These conflicts have become increasingly clear as both Freirean and
feminist pedagogies are put into practice. Attempting to implement these pedagogies without acknowledging
the conflict not only of divided consciousness what Audre Lorde calls the oppressor within us but also
the conflicts among groups trying to work together to name the struggle against oppression among teachers
and students in classrooms, or among political groups working for change in very specific areas can lead to
anger, frustration, and a retreat to safer or more traditional approaches. The numerous accounts of the
tensions of trying to put liberatory pedagogies into practice demonstrate the need to reexamine the
assumptions of the classic text of liberatory pedagogy and to consider the various issues that have arisen in
attempts at critical and liberatory classroom practice.
63
File Title
AT: Debate Should be about liberation of the oppressed

Vague appeals to the undifferentiated oppressed fail -> cannot produce a strategy for
political change
Weiler 1991, Kathleen November, Freire and a Feminist pedagogy of Difference a feminist critique that
challenges traditional western knowledge systems. Vol. 61
This usage of the oppressed in the abstract also raises difficulties in Freires use of experience as the means of
acquiring a radical literacy, reading the world and the word. At the heart of Freires pedagogy is the insistence that all
people are subjects and knowers of the world. Their political literacy will emerge from their reading of the world that
is, their own experience. This reading will lead to collective knowledge and action. But what if that experience is
divided? What f different truths are discovered in reading the world from different positions? For Freire, education as the
practice of freedom denies that men are abstract, isolated, independent, and unattached to the world . . . . Authentic
reflection considers neither abstract man nor the world without men, but men in their relations with the world. But
implicit in this vision is the assumption that, when the oppressed perceive themselves in relations to the world, they will
act together collectively to transform the world and to move toward their own humanization. The nature of their
perception of the world and their oppression is implicitly assumed to be uniform for all the oppressed. The possibility of a
contradictory experience of oppression among the oppressed is absent. As Freire says: Accordingly, the point of
departure must always be with men in the here and now, which constitutes the situation within which they are
submerged, from which they emerge, and in which they intervene. Only by starting from this situation which
determines their perception of it can they begin to move. The assumption against is that the oppressed, these men, are
submerged in a common situation of oppression, and that their shared knowledge of that oppression will lead them to
collective action. Central to Freires pedagogy is the practice of conscientization; that is, coming to a consciousness of
oppression and commitment to end that oppression. Conscientization is based on this common experience of oppression.
Through this reading of the word, the oppressed will come to knowledge. The role of the teacher in this process is to
instigate a dialogue between teacher and student, based on their common ability to know the world and to act as subjects
in the world but the question of the authority and power of the teacher, particularly those forms of power based on the
teachers subject position as raced, classed, gendered, and so on, is not addressed by Freire. There is, again, the
assumption that the teacher is on the same side as the oppressed, and that as teachers and students engage together in a
dialogue about the world, they will uncover together the same reality, the same oppression, and the same liberation. In
pedagogy of the Oppressed, the teacher is presented as a generic man whose interest will be with the oppressed as they
mutually discover the mechanisms of oppression. The subjectivity of the Feirean teacher is, in this sense, what Gayatri
Chakravorty Spivak refers to as transparent. In fact, of course, teachers are not abstract; they are women or men of
particular races, classes, ages, abilities, and so on. The teachers will be seen and heard by students not as an abstraction,
but as a particular person with a certain defined history and relationship to the world. In a later book, Freire argues that
the teacher has to assume authority, but must do so without becoming authoritarian. In this recognition of the teachers
authority, Freire acknowledges the difference between teacher and students; the educator continues to be different from
the students, but, and now for me this is the central question, the difference between them , if the teacher is democratic, if
his or her political dream is a liberating one, is that he or she cannot permit the necessary difference between the teacher
and the students to become antagonistic. In this passage, Freire acknowledges the power of the teacher by virtue of the
structural role of the teacher within a hierarchical institution and, under the best of circumstances, by virtue of the
teachers greater experience and knowledge. But Freire does not go on to investigate what the other sources of
antagonism in the classroom might be. However much he provides a valuable guide to the use of authority by the
libratory teacher, he never addresses the question of other forms of power held by the teacher by virtue of race gender, or
class that may lead to antagonism. Without naming these sources of tension, it is difficult to address or build upon them
to challenge existing structures of power and subjectivities. Without recognizing more clearly the implicit power and
limitations of the position of teacher, calls for a collective liberation or for opposition to oppression slide over the surface
of the tension that may emerge among teachers and students as subjects with conflicting interests and histories and with
different kinds of knowledge and power. A number of questions are thus left unaddressed in pedagogy of the oppressed:
how are we to situate ourselves in relation to the struggles of others? How are we to address our own contradictory
positions as oppressors and oppressed? Where are we to look for liberation when our collective reading of the world
reveals contradictory and conflicting experiences and struggles? The Freirean vision of the oppressed as undifferentiated
and as the source of unitary political action, the transparency of the subjectivity of the Freirean teacher, and the claims of
universal goals of liberation and social transformation fail to provide the answers to these questions.
64
File Title
Churchill Frontline
1. Churchills scholarship is inaccurate and flawed
Gossett 05 ("Churchill: Ward of the State CampusReportOnline ^ | Sherrie Gossett associate editor of
Accuracy in Media Posted on 02/16/2005 3:17:09 PM PST by PatriotEdition"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1344737/posts)
Churchills little Eichmanns comment alone is clear evidence of a substandard mind and would naturally
lead one to investigate Churchills other writings. It turns out, two respected professors have written
extensively on Churchills copious fraudulent research. Thomas F. Brown, Assistant Professor of Sociology
at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas has produced an important analysis entitled The Genocide That
Wasnt: Ward Churchills Research Fraud. The article shreds Churchills fabrication of a genocide:
namely he invented a story about the US Army deliberately creating a smallpox epidemic among the
Mandan people in 1837 by distributing infected blankets. The article also notes that Mr. Churchill, by
using part of his own research as court testimony, very possibly committed perjury as well which is a
felony under Colorado law. (Colorado Revised Statutes, 18-8-503). The triviality of Churchills
fabrications come into sharper focus Brown says, when you consider that he originally invented his story of
the Mandan genocide in order to evade an indictment that carried a maximum penalty of a $1500 fine and
six months in jail. Professor Brown compares Churchills deliberately falsified versions of events with
the historical record and concludes what is obvious from the little Eichmanns comment: Ward Churchill
has a difficult relationship with the truth. The number of alleged fabrications is stunning. Brown called
the magnitude of Churchills fraud, perhaps the most scandalous abuse of the academys norms and the
ultimate sin among scholars. At the time of Browns onslaught, Churchills credibility had already been
shredded by John P. LaVelle writing in the pages of Wicazo Sa Review. LaVelle is Associate Professor of
Law at the University of New Mexico School of Law. That extensive article The General Allotment Act
Eligibility Hoax" charges Churchill with embracing and propagating false and misleading information
about the field of Indian law and the sovereign rights of Indians. American anarchist Bob Black also
skewered Churchills credibility in a detailed essay, Up Sand Creek Without a Paddle. He assails
Churchills bigoted and bogus scholarship, and asks how this hustler has been able to pass off his
racist fantasies as scholarship and gain tenure at UC. He has no PhD and reportedly cant get published in
even the most mediocre academic journals, so he sticks with leftist or racialist nationalist periodicals.
2. Faulty scholarship turns their project back and leads to us forgetting real genocides
that happened
Brown 05 ("The Genocide That Wasnt: Ward Churchills Research Fraud Lamar University Sociology
Dept ^ | Thomas Brown Posted on 02/08/2005 7:54:20 AM PST http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fnews/1338607/posts)
Is it conceivable that one could become a holocaust denier by denying a holocaust that never happened? Is
it possible in todays political climate to deny a non-existent genocide, and retain your reputation within the
academy? Ward Churchill has carefully framed his smallpox blanket canard in precisely these terms.
Anyone who would speak truth to fraud must be willing to face Churchills trademark firestorm of ad
hominem accusations. Churchill accuses his white interlocutors of being neo-Nazis, his Indian interlocutors
as being hang-around-the-fort sellouts.[23] It is obvious how research fraud harms the academy, which is
why it is the ultimate sin among scholars. But do frauds such as Churchills also do damage to the efficacy
of Indian political activism, especially activism on behalf of historical memory? Ultimately, yes. Ward
Churchill has attained status as the most prominent voice currently articulating Indian political interests to
the broader left. When Churchills credibility is shreddeda process begun in the pages of Wicazo Sa
Review by John LaVelle, one that is being continued in this article, and one that will certainly not end
herewhat will be the result in the way the broader polity views Indian issuesespecially considering that
many interested readers were first introduced to Indian issues through the writings of Ward Churchill? The
fable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf comes to mind here. True historical instances of genocide may well
become delegitimated by the promiscuous promulgation of mythical genocides such as Churchills. The
triviality of Churchills falsifications comes into sharper focus when you consider that he originally
invented his story of the Mandan genocide in order to evade an indictment that carried a maximum penalty
of a $1500 fine and six months in jail.
65
File Title
Churchill Frontline
3. Churchill is wrong about the means question- we have to ask what the world of the
aff project would look like- which would be an authoritarian nightmare
Black 05 (Up Sand Creek without a Paddle, Bob) http://www.pirateballerina.com/images/bobblack.html)
Let me restate the point so simply that even Jon Bekken just might understand it. 21 million non-Indians
now reside within the boundaries of Churchills proposed sovereign Indian State. Even if every Indian in
the rest of the United States relocated there a ridiculous prospect -- less than 10% of the population of the
Indian State would consist of people who now consider themselves Indians. "Some" non-Indians, Churchill
allows, might choose to go native. Since they never chose to do so before and these Westerners tend to be
the most anti-Indian elements in the white population in most cases their self-Indianization would be
opportunistic and in bad faith. If even 10% of the non-Indians faked it, they would outnumber the original
Indians, and, if this Indian State was a democracy, they could and would rejoin the United States, or as
Churchill would say, "the rotting hulk of [Euro]American empire." (Notice that Churchill is content to
leave the rest of us, 240 million people or so, to languish within this rotting hulk. Once that, with their
support, hes plundered the oil, the gold, the silver, the uranium, the timber and the rest of the wealth of the
American West, he has no further use for his fellow whites.) Then again, what if as would surely happen - the overwhelming majority refused to go along with the partition? What if, as would surely happen, most
people refused to become Indians because, after all, theyre not Indians and dont want to be Indians?
Being an Indian is fine if -- unlike Ward Churchill --you are one, but theres nothing anti-Indian about not
wanting to be an Indian, especially if youre not one. These are many millions of real people, individually
innocent of anti-Indian oppression (whatever prejudices some of them hold), with homes, farms, families,
communities, with lives. What about their right to self-determination? Remember, the Indian State is, as
Churchill has grudgingly admitted, a State. It is not an anarchist permanent autonomous zone where
different peoples and cultures coexist by mutual tolerance and without acknowledging a paramount
authority. Therefore it matters (in Lenins phrase) "who governs" and how. Do members of the non-Indian
majority have rights? Can they vote? Can anyone vote? Does anyone have rights? Once again we must
resort to a complex mathematical operation subtraction to figure out what copyright cop Mr. Professor
Churchill is really after. Although Jon Bekken (another copyright cop), unlike Ward Churchill, has a Ph.D.,
I sincerely hope against hope that even he can keep up with my sophisticated argument. The sovereign
Indian State, says Churchill, is not anarchy (an understatement). By definition and by process of
elimination, then, the Indian State has to be one of the following: a monarchy, a dictatorship, an
aristocracy, an oligarchy, a democracy, or some compound of the foregoing. National socialist that he is,
the nutty Professor, true to his Marxist heritage if nothing else, scratches "formally democratic"
government from the list, leaving only the authoritarian varieties, one-man or elite rule. Perhaps Churchill
aspires to be a monarch like Montezuma or Powhatan, or to play grand vizier or shogun to a puppet like
Russell Means. Or maybe hed settle for dominating a small Indian (or self-styled Indian) Central
Committee, a leftist oligarchy. Either way it means authoritarian rule for the non-Indian majority and
probably for the Indian minority too. And either way it means wealth and power beyond the wildest dreams
of Cortez or Pizarro for the new Caucasian conquistador, Ward Churchill. Looking at his map (where did
he get the crazy idea you can copyright a doodle on a poorly traced map of the United States?), I cannot
help but be struck by the fact that centrally located Boulder, Colorado is ideally situated to serve as the seat
of empire.
66
File Title
Churchill Frontline
4. Their project is a reliving of the genocides of the past- the world they seek to create
would undermine the lives of millions
Du Bois 05 (by Jerome du Bois The Tears of Things: To Ward Churchill And John Jota Leaos: You
Gotta Face Your Face When The Race Fad Fades http://www.thetearsofthings.net/archives/000310.html)
"Churchill actually went further in an April 2004 interview with Satya magazine: he wants the United
States as a political system "wiped off the planet." Q: So if it takes eradication of the beast from within, how would you
see that happening? Well, first the withdrawal of consent, people imbued with consciousness to withdraw altogether from an embrace
of the state. If I defined the state as being the problem, just what happens to the state? Ive never fashioned myself to be a
revolutionary, but its part and parcel of what Im talking about. You can create through consciousness a situation of flux, perhaps, in
which something better can replace it. In instability theres potential. Thats about as far as I go with revolutionary consciousness. Im
actually a de-evolutionary. I dont want other people in charge of the apparatus of the state as the outcome of a socially transformative
process that replicates oppression. I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out
of existence altogether. Q: So what does that look like? Theres no U.S. in America anymore. Whats on the map instead? Well lets
just start with territoralities often delineated in treaties of factterritoralities of 500 indigenous nations imbued with an inalienable
right to self-determination, definable territoralities which are jurisdictionally separate. Then youve got things like the internal
diasporic population of African Americans in internal colonies that have been established by the imposition of labor patterns upon
them. Youve got Appalachian whites. Since the U.S. unilaterally violated its treaty obligations, it forfeits its rightsor presumption
of rightsunder international law. Basically, youve got a dismantlement and devolution of the U.S. territorial and
jurisdictional corpus into something that would be more akin to diasporic self-governing entities and a
multiplicity of geographical locations. A-ha, chew on that one for awhile. Theres no overarching authority other than
consensus or agreement between each of these. There has to be a collaborative and cooperative arrangement rather than something
thats centrally organized and arbitrarily imposed. Forget thousands; let's destroy millions. They're just elements of a
mass noun undergoing change. But a person, an individual, a sovereign unique human being? What's that?
Who's that? Fork 'em. In fact, let's kill some: Churchill contends groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front
haven't gone far enough in defending "animal rights." He claims that drawing a "line in the tactical sand" that embraces "property
damage" but excludes murder is "arbitrary" and again invokes Eichmann: "Given the opportunity to do either in, say, 1942, would it
have been more effective/appropriate to have torched the office of Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi bureaucrat whose peculiar expertise
made an orderly implementation of the Final Solution possible, or to have eliminated Eichmann himself? The answer need not be
rendered as an abstraction." The answer need not be rendered as an abstraction. Shh-chock! Is that the sound of a shotgun being
racked? This is a dangerous man, who will lead you right into the ovens and light his cigarette off your
burning flesh, as long as you are a white citizen of the United States. And then this lifelong bully will gloat that the victim is now
the victor. Twelve years ago Camille Paglia exposed these fools in her essay "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders: Academe in the
Hour of the Wolf." (Also "The MIT Lecture," from the same book.) In the first essay she describes the kind of curriculum she would
like to see enacted. For example: Artifacts, monuments, and sacred sites and rituals from European, African, Far and Near Eastern,
Pre-Columbian, Native American and Oceanic cultures would be closely studied. The method would be rigorously old historicist.
There would be no melodramatic victimage scenarios, that drippy amateur soap opera which fuzzy academic liberals, suppressing
recognition of their own innate aggression, aggressively project backwards. The human record is virtually universally one
of cruelty barely overcome and restrained by civilization. Imperialism and slavery are no white male
monopoly but are everywhere, from Egypt, Assyria, and Persia to India, China, and Japan.[Pp.238-9.] This is called
recognizing reality, and it is overdue in academe. One more extended paragraph: Modernization means Westernization. The modern
technological world is the product of the Greco-Roman line of mathematics, science, and analytic thought. The academic poppoliticos, pandering to students, rob them of their future. Education must simultaneously explore and explain the world's
multiculturalism while preparing the young to enter the Apollonian command-system. But ethnic descendants should, as much as
possible, retain their creative duality. I feel Italian but love America. Oprah Winfrey shifts wonderfully back and forth, with jazzlike
improvisation, between her two voices. African-Americans must study the language and structure of Western public power while still
preserving their cultural identity, which has had world impact on the arts. We must expose the absurdity of our literary
ostriches who think we need the death-by-sludge French theorists to tell us about multiple "discourses." The
established scholarship of comparative religion, anthropology, and art history had already prepared us with
a flexible, accurate methodology for negotiating among belief-systems and identifying the inconography
and symbol-schemes of different cultures and periods."
67
File Title
Extension #1- Churchill has bad Scolarship
Churchill is a plagiarist
Frank 05 ("Prof accused of plagiarism Nova Scotia school sends CU a report on Churchill essay By Laura Frank
Rocky Mountain News" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7156384/)
University of Colorado officials investigating embattled professor Ward Churchill received documents this week
purporting to show that he plagiarized another professor's work.Officials at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia
sent CU an internal 1997 report detailing allegations about an article Churchill wrote. "The article . . . is, in the
opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism," Dalhousie spokesman Charles Crosby said in summarizing the report's
findings. Churchill did not return calls to his home or office Thursday seeking comment. Dalhousie began an
investigation after professor Fay G. Cohen complained that Churchill used her research and writing in an essay
without her permission and without giving her credit. Although the investigation substantiated her allegations,
Cohen didn't pursue the matter because she felt threatened by Churchill, Crosby said. Crosby said Cohen told
Dalhousie officials in 1997 that Churchill had called her in the middle of the night and said, "I'll get you for this."
Cohen still declines to talk publicly about her experience with Churchill, but she agreed the Dalhousie report could
be shared with CU officials, Crosby said, because "whatever concerns she may have about her safety are outweighed
by the importance she attaches to this information getting out there." Crosby declined a request for a copy of the
report but said it does not contain information about the alleged threat from Churchill. It is not clear if CU officials
are aware of the alleged threat. A CU spokeswoman said officials there would not comment on any matter related to
an ongoing review of Churchill's work. A three-person panel is reviewing that to determine if he meets the standards
of professional integrity set by CU. The CU Board of Regents ordered the review after the public outcry over an
essay Churchill wrote comparing victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to notorious Nazi bureaucrat Adolf
Eichmann. Since then, Churchill has come under fire for some of his other writings and speeches, his scholarship,
his claim of American Indian ancestry, and even his artwork. The review panel, led by Interim Chancellor Phil
DiStefano, originally was expected to issue its report this week but said it likely won't be released before Monday
and perhaps later. In 1991, Churchill edited a book of essays published in Copenhagen, Denmark, which included a
piece by Cohen on Indian treaty fishing rights in the Northwest and Wisconsin. When publishers wanted to reprint
the essay in the United States, Cohen declined to allow her essay to appear, Crosby said. So, Churchill penned an
essay on the same topic under the name of the Institute for Natural Progress, a research organization he founded
with Winona LaDuke. In the contributors section of the book, Churchill said he took the lead role in preparing the
essay.
Churchill does not do original research- he just finds research that fits his political agenda
Whatever Churchill thinks he is doing in "It Did Happen Here," it can hardly be exposing a cover-up. He himself
cites 19 books and a few articles which cover the event (113-115). Of the modern volumes which focus on Sand
Creek, one he dismisses correctly Im sure, but without substantiation as "lies, distortions and unabashed
polemics on behalf of Sand Creeks perpetrators" (114). Another book, by Donald Svaldi, wins Churchills praise
for toeing his own whites-as-Nazis line, though not quite explicitly enough for a hardened hater like Churchill (119120). A third, by Stan Hoig, he praises as honest and accurate, although Churchill having never engaged in
original research on this (or any other) historical subject he has no apparent reason for thinking so except that its
findings suit his political purposes.
68
File Title
Extension #1- Churchill has bad Scolarship
Churchill made up genocidal acts that never took place- all sources disprove how accounts
of history
Brown 05("The Genocide That Wasnt: Ward Churchills Research Fraud Lamar University Sociology Dept ^ |
Thomas Brown Posted on 02/08/2005 7:54:20 AM PST http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1338607/posts)
Churchills tale of genocide by means of biological warfare is shocking. It is also entirely fraudulent. The only truth
in Churchills version of the pandemic is the fact that a smallpox outbreak did occur in 1837, and that it was
probably carried into the region on board the steamboat St. Peter. Every other detail of Churchills story must have
come from his imagination, because his own sources contradict him on nearly every point.[11] None of the sources
that Churchill cites make any mention of a military infirmaryquarantined for smallpox. None of the sources
Churchill cites make any mention of U.S. Army soldiers even being in the area of the pandemic, much less being
involved with it in any way. Churchills own sources make it clear that Fort Clark was not an Army garrison. It was a remote
trading outpost that was privately owned and built by the American Fur Company, and manned by a handful of white traders.[12] It was not an
Army fort, nor did it contain soldiers. Not being an Army fort, it did not contain a post surgeon who told Indians to scatter and spread the
disease. Churchills own sources make all of this abundantly clear. According to Churchills own sources, the only government employee present
anywhere in the region was the local Indian Agent, who according to eyewitnesses did not distribute blankets or anything else at the time of the
pandemic, as he has nothing to give his red children.[13] The government agent functioned to serve the interests of the trading company, and
had no independent incentive to infect the Indians.[14] Journals and letters written by the fur traders who did man Fort Clark
make it clear that they were appalled by the epidemic, in part because they had Indian wives and children and were thus a part of the
Indian community. The traders also had economic interests in keeping the Indians healthy. The trader Jacob Halseywho
himself contracted the smallpoxlamented that the loss to the company by the introduction of this malady will be immense in fact incalculable
as our most profitable Indians have died.[15] Obviously the traders had no incentive to wage biological warfare on their own families and their
most profitable Indians, much less put their own lives at risk. Churchill claims that vaccine was deliberately withheld by the army, but this is
once again pure fabrication on Churchills part.[16] The very source that Churchill cites in support of this fabrication
contradicts him, describing how great care was exercised in the attempt to eliminate the transfer of the smallpox
by the traders, and how a physician was dispatched for the sole purpose of vaccinating the affected tribes while the
pestilence was at its height.[17] Contrary to Churchills claims, there was no post surgeon to tell the Indians to scatter. The
trader Halsey complained that he: could not prevent [the Indians] from camping round the Fortthey have caught the disease, notwithstanding
I have never allowed an Indian to enter the Fort, or any communication between them & the Sick; but I presume the air was infected with it[18]
What if the U.S. Army had been active in the region? Given the opportunity, would Army officers have had any motive to use biological warfare
against the Mandans? Five years earlier, in 1832, Congress passed an act and appropriated funds to establish a program for vaccinating Indians on
the Missouri River.[19] Given this Congressional mandate to protect Indians from smallpox, given the lack of hostilities between the U.S.
military and the Mandans or any other Plains Indians at that time, and given the militarys lack of presence in the area of the Mandans at the time,
Churchills version of events does not seem at all plausible, even in the context of counterfactual speculation. Churchills sources make it
abundantly clear that the diseases vector was not Churchills mythical smallpox blankets given as gifts. Not a single source mentions any such
blankets. The diseases vector was the trader Jacob Halsey himself, who arrived on the St. Peter already infected. The disease was entirely
accidental, and as unwelcome by the local whites as by the Indians.[20] The Mandans do seem to have developed suspicions about
the traders as the source of the disease. But the contemporary Mandan grievances did not involve the Army or even
mention it. Furthermore, Churchill does not cite Mandan oral history. He cites documentary sources that radically
contradict his version, and that show Churchill to have fabricated all of the crucial details.
69
File Title
Extension #2: This undermines your project
Churchills advocacy fractures the Amerindian movement

In any sense of the word that makes any sense, Ward Churchill is not an Indian. He is not an enrolled member of any tribe. He did not grow up
on, and has never resided on a reservation, the only place where anything like traditional Indian culture persists. He prefers life in the tony, almost
all-white resort town of Boulder ("you dont get older in Boulder," the locals like to say JonBenet sure didnt). He draws a good salary from the
State of Colorado, whose volunteers carried out the Sand Creek massacre; to qualify for it, he took an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the
United States and the State of Colorado. He disparages "the stark, pathetic emptiness" of Western religions, but he nowhere hints in any of his
writings that he practices any Indian religion. Thus he is not an Indian in any political, cultural or lifestyle respect. The only criterion he might
satisfy is a racial one. Except that he doesnt. Tens of millions of whites, blacks and especially Hispanics have more Indian ancestry than
Churchill (I may be one of them) but they do not consider themselves Indians and neither does anybody else. Tom Giago, an enrolled Oglala
Sioux born and raised on the Pine Ridge reservation, the publisher of Indian Country Today, considers Churchill a "white profiteer, a police agent
and a terrorist." The infiltration of New Left/New Age ersatz Indians like Churchill has bitterly divided the American Indian Movement, an
organization which, despite its small size, the U.S. Government once genuinely feared. Churchill was expelled in 1993, but continues to bill
himself as Co-Director of Colorado AIM and as "a member of the governing council of the American Indian Movement." As Carole Standing
Elk, a Dakota and director of the San Francisco Bay Area AIM chapter, says: "Its obvious he has no spiritual base. Hes trying to subvert the
movement." David Bradley, a Chippewa artist, observes that Churchill "is a white man, posing as an Indian" who "is victimizing Indian people,
politically, morally and spiritually." According to Carole Standing Elk, Churchill is out "to exploit the American Indian Movement in order to
further his personal career objectives." AIM should shoulder some responsibility for opening opportunities for interlopers like Churchill. The
Indians who founded AIM in the 1960s were detribalized urban radicals emulating the white New Left and adopting its strategy of staging media
spectacles. One of these, the occupation of Alcatraz Island, came off very well. Another, the occupation of Wounded Knee, turned into a bloody
shambles. These American Indians were much more American than Indian. There were no indigenists in 1492. Indigenism is an ideology
invented in the 20th century by Mexican intellectuals of Spanish descent. Its a form of nationalism, a European invention. As often as not,
national identities even the ones that take root originate in the minds of disgruntled intellectuals, not as an upwelling of solidarity among the
Volk. As Maurray L. Wax relates, "Indians were not entities who were present in pre-Colombian times, . . this social identity emerged in
relationship to the invasions of Europeans." It is precisely the detribalized Indians like Churchill and Means who assert, in their own interest, a
pan-Indian identity alien to how Indians traditionally understood themselves: The American Indian Movement held the most headlines in the late
sixties and seventies, a romantic inversion of racialism, and praise for generic cultures. These urban radicals were tribal simulations with dubious
constituencies, and their stoical poses, tragic and lonesome, were closer to photographic and video images familiar to a commercial culture; these
ersatz warriors were much closer to the invented tragedies of a vanishing race than were the crossbloods who endured the real politics and
weather on reservations. The definition of group identity is at once the crux of identity politics and its fatal flaw. It is necessarily a process of
exclusion. To mention two real-life examples, when Koreans decided to be Korean, they decided not to be Chinese, and when Lithuanians rather
recently decided to be Lithuanian, they decided they were not Polish or Russian. But what if what one group excludes, the group they are
excluding continues to include? Some Russian nationalists consider Ukrainians to be Russian; most Ukrainians disagree . If every groups
membership is determined by the group, than groups can arrive at contradictory determinations about the same people. Identity politics provides
no principle for resolving these jurisdictional disputes. If the identification or rather, the construction of group identity is fundamentally
arbitrary, fortuitous and even manipulable, identifying a groups individual members adds another dimension of confusion and potential
contestation. Politically organized groups like nation-states or hierarchic religions like Roman Catholicism can determine definitively who is a
citizen or a communicant. But no authority can decide with any finality who is a punk, an anarchist, a Wiccan, a homosexual, etc. Identity politics
is especially treacherous for Indians because Indian identity is so confused and complicated. The clearest definition of an Indian is a political one:
enrolled members of Federally recognized tribes, or those eligible for recognition, are Indians. These tribes determine their membership by
criteria of their own choice (and Federal law defers to their decisions). While this standard settles most cases of Indian identity, and most Indians
satisfy it, everybody agrees that it is underinclusive. Some people who rightly regard themselves as Indians are left out. Some tribes are, rightly or
wrongly, unrecognized. Some people with some aboriginal North American ancestry (maybe not much, but maybe as much as some tribally
recognized Indians) have significant cultural, religious and social connections with other Indians, and if they have these ties and identify
themselves as Indians, theyre Indians. But that makes for a gray area available for infiltration by fast-talking, well-funded palefaces like Ward
Churchill whose red racist rhetoric occludes the fact that, though hes a Red, hes not a red man. If Churchills indigenism is the radical threat he
says it is, why does the government pay him to propagate it? When Churchill first surfaces, he is killing indigenous people for the U.S.
Government. Next he is a member of the agent-ridden Weatherman SDS; then a staff writer for Soldier of Fortune; and then a sachem in the
agent-riddled American Indian Movement. Next, notwithstanding this unsavory background, he works as a bureaucrat for a state university, from
which gig he is bootstrapped into a tenure-track faculty position for which he has no qualifications, and soon he is tenured. His noisy presence in
the Amerindian nationalist movement helps to splinter it. For Churchill, the test of indigenist orthodoxy is simple: you pass it if but only for so
long as you promote Churchills career. Thus, as recently as 1992 it was politically incorrect to disagree with the International Indian Treaty
Council (137), but now that these bona fide Indians have had the temerity to criticize Professor Churchill, by 1994 they are "hang-around-theforts, sell-outs and nickel Indians . . . " Is Churchill, as many suspect, a police agent? Nobodys said it better than Churchill himself: "You dont
have to be a cop to do a cops work."
70
File Title
Extension #2: This undermines your project
Churchills scholarship risks undermining all trust in the academy

Brown 05 Assessing Ward Churchills Version of the 1837 Smallpox Epidemic Thomas Brown Assistant
Professor of Sociology Lamar University Assessing Ward Churchills Version of the 1837 Smallpox Epidemic
http://hal.lamar.edu/~BROWNTF/Churchill1.htm)
"Situating Churchills rendition of the epidemic in a broader historiographical analysis, one must reluctantly
conclude that Churchill fabricated the most crucial details of his genocide story. Churchill radically misrepresented
the sources he cites in support of his genocide charges, sources which say essentially the opposite of what Churchill
attributes to them. It is a distressing conclusion. One wants to think the best of fellow scholars. The scholarly
enterprise depends on mutual trust. When one scholar violates that trust, it damages the legitimacy of the entire
academy. Churchill has fabricated a genocide that never happened. It is difficult to conceive of a social scientist
committing a more egregious violation."
71
File Title
AT: These are all Nazi attack against us
Their attacks on us are all a part of a strategy- it is important that we investigate the
methods their authors use
Churchill has enjoyed pretty much a free ride from academics, leftists, anarchists and the disaffected with the
notable exception of his Indian critics. His campus hustle doesnt matter as a hustler, if in no other way, he has
found a natural home in the academy but his access to oppositional currents is troubling, and its hard to see what
to do about it. As Lawrence Jarach says, The trouble with examining any skilled dissimulator (not just Ward
Churchill), trying to contextualize their heaps of lies and insinuations, and actually reading their footnotes is that it
requires at least as much space (usually more) as they use to spread their crap, resulting in a long and detailed
analysis. Two further problems then arise: first is a nearly endless tome which no one would want to publish; second
is that the exposer/analyzer would most likely be accused of being obsessed, or of having a vendetta or a personal
grudge.
72
File Title
No Genocide Now
There is no genocidal project against the Native Americans- their numbers are growing
every year
If non-Indian Americans are engaged in genocide, theyre not very good at it. Although it outnumbers the
vanquished by more than 100-1, the Master Race looks less like the S.S. than the Gang That Couldnt Shoot
Straight. If the "Euro-Americans" are Nazis, the Indians must be Hogans Heroes. The Indian population has grown
in every decade since 1890, with the rate of increase accelerating since 1950. The Indian population is increasing
much more rapidly than the white whites presumably being the most masterful part of the Master Race. "In recent
years," wrote Murray L. Wax in 1971, "a variety of advantages economic, political, and even social have begun
to accrue to those classified as Indian." Among the less undeserving objects of Churchills ire are the "plastic
Indians," whites who make money off imitating Indian religion (215-222). He fails to notice that their very existence
refutes his blood libel. How many Germans under Nazism went around pretending to be rabbis or, as Churchill
would say, "plastic Jews"?
73
File Title
AT: Give Back the Land

Europeans were here first they occupied the land prior to descendents of modern Indians
which negates the moral posturing and mythology of Indian nativity
National Review in 01 (John J. Miller, Roots-Deep Ones: The perils of looking into American prehistory, June 25, L/N)
!it!has!become!increasingly!clear!over!the!last!decade!that!the!history"textbook!version!of!
ancient!American!settlement!no!longer!holds!up.!The!first!Americans,!according!to!the!standard!view,!
arrived!about!12,000!years!ago!by!way!of!a!land!bridge!that!once!connected!Siberia!and!Alaska.!Thanks!to!
a!handful!of!sites!like!Cactus!Hill,!it!is!now!beyond!dispute!that!some!people!got!here!much!earlier.!Asia!
Despite!the!uncertainty,
remains!a!likely!source!for!migrations,!because!of!its!proximity!and!the!fact!that!today#s!Indians!indisputably!have!ancestors!who!lived!there.!But!Asia!may!not!be!the!only!
!This!ought!to!be!thrilling!news!for!the!multiculturalists.!What!better!project!for!them!
!But!it!must!be!remembered!that!
multiculturalism!is!motivated!not!by!sincere!curiosity!about!the!past,!but!by!the!sensitivities!of!modern!
victimology.!An!important!part!of!American!Indian!identity!relies!on!the!belief!that,!in!some!fundamental!way,!they!
were!here!first.!They!are!indigenous,!they!are!Native,!and!they!make!an!important!moral!claim!on!the!national!
conscience!for!this!very!reason.!Yet!if!some!population!came!before!them"perhaps!a!group!their!own!
ancestors!wiped!out!through!war!and!disease,!in!an!eerily!reversed!foreshadowing!of!the!contact!
Columbus!introduced"then!a!vital!piece!of!their!mythologizing!suffers!a!serious!blow.!This!revised!
history!drastically!undercuts!the!posturing!occasioned!by!the!500th!anniversary!of!Columbus#s!1492!voyage.!
The!prime!mover!behind!the!European"migration!theory!is Dennis Stanford, a!jovial!anthropologist!who!has!spent!nearly!three!
source,!and!there#s!good!reason!to!think!it!wasn#t.
than!the!serious!study!of!America#s!prehistory"a!glorious!mosaic!whose!rich!diversity!is!only!now!seeing!daylight?
decades!at!the!Smithsonian!Institution!studying!Stone!Age!technology.!A!big!table!dominates!his!office!in!the!National!Museum!of!Natural!History,!and!it#s!often!cluttered!with!
He!is!an!authority!on!Clovis!Culture,!named!for!the!town!in!New!
Mexico!where!the!first!remnants!of!it!were!found!in!1932. The!Clovis!people!were!said!to!be!big"game!hunters!who!stalked!mammoths,!
primitive!tools!borrowed!from!the!Smithsonian#s!huge!collection.
and!they!left!behind!distinctive!relics.!Researchers!were!so!sure!that!they!were!the!continent#s!original!settlers"about!12,000!years!ago"that!suggesting!otherwise!was!professional
heresy. But by the late 1980s, Stanford and a few of his colleagues, including his former student Bruce Bradley, began to harbor serious doubts about the Clovis theory. For starters, there were a
handful of sites, such as Pennsylvania's Meadowcroft Rockshelter, that seemed older than Clovis. But more important, in Stanford's view, was the complete lack of evidence that Clovis culture
ever existed outside the Americas. He spent years scouring museum collections around the world, but always came away empty. "It was getting pretty discouraging," he says.
!
In!truth,!there!is!a!Stone!Age!technology!that!looks!an!awful!lot!like!Clovis,!and!its!existence!troubled!Stanford!and!Bradley:!
The!culture!that!produced!it!wasn#t!found!in!Siberia,!where!just!about!everybody!would!have!expected!it,!but!at!the!other!end!
of!the!same!landmass"in!modern"day!France!and!Spain.!It#s!called!Solutrean,!and!it!vanished!some!20,000!
years!ago.!Stanford!and!Bradley!were!especially!intrigued!by!the!fact!that!the!greatest!concentration!of!
Clovis!sites!occurs!in!the!southeastern!United!States:!If!the!technology!is!native!to!the!Americas,!it!was!probably!invented!in!this!area.!If!it!wasn#t!
native,!then!this!was!probably!the!site!to!which!it!was!imported"on!the!side!of!the!North!American!continent!
facing!Europe.!But!a!pair!of!insurmountable!obstacles!appeared!to!separate!the!Clovis!and!Solutrean!cultures:!several!thousand!years,!and!a!large!ocean.!
Then!came!the!findings!at!Cactus!Hill.!$As!soon!as!we!started!to!see!some!of!that!stuff!come!out,!we!
thought!about!the!connection!to!Solutrean,$!says!Stanford. Joseph!McAvoy!and his!team!found!Clovis!artifacts!on!
the!site,!as!well!as!irrefutably!older!material!that!Stanford!and!Bradley!think!is!a!developmental!form!of!
Clovis!technology.That's a groundbreaking observation. Experts in ancient technology like to build family trees. Just as a sculptor can hack a limitless number of objects out of a
stone block, there are an infinite number of ways to chip a hand ax or spearpoint from a rock. Over time, cultures develop particular techniques; archaeologists can identify them and create tool
genealogies. If they find tools that look similar and were manufactured in the same way, there's a good chance the people making them shared cultural traits. They may have been blood relatives
or trading partners, but whatever their precise relationship, they almost certainly drew from the same storehouse of knowledge.!Stanford!is!one!of!the!world#s!few!remaining!accomplished!
flintknappers:!Give!him!the!right!type!of!rock!and!he!can!flake!it!into!a!long,!bifacial,!and!fluted!spearpoint!just!like!a!Clovis!hunter!would.!While!other!scholars!have!noted!the!
similarities!between!Clovis!and!Solutrean!technology!as!a!mildly!interesting!example!of!cultural!convergence"in!other!words,!a!coincidence"Stanford#s!expertise!in!flintwork!
made!him!suspect!a!deeper!connection:!$There!are!so!many!matching!steps!in!how!they!made!their!tools:!bifacial!flaking,!heat!treatment,!similar!ceremonial!items,!the!presence!
of!red!ocher.!There!must!be!fifty!or!sixty!points!of!comparison.!It!can#t!be!chance.$!And!yet!nobody!could!figure!out!a!way!to!bridge!the!thousands!of!years!and!miles!dividing!
Then,!in!1994,!a!team!of!Emory!University!scientists!studying!genetic!diversity!made!an!
unexpected!discovery.!They!examined!a!specific!kind!of!DNA!lineage!known!as!mitochondrial!DNA!in!
ethnic!groups!around!the!world.!Their!survey!of!American!Indians!found!four!major!varieties,!which!they!labeled!
haplogroups!A,!B,!C,!and!D.!Each!of!these!has!antecedents!in!Asia,!confirming!that!today#s!Indians!descend!almost!entirely!from!Asian!stock.!But!
there#s!a!fifth!lineage,!too,!called!haplogroup!X.!It!occurs!in!about!a!quarter!of!all!Ojibway!Indians,!and!in!lesser!
amounts!among!members!of!the!Sioux,!Navajo,!and!other!tribes.!A!version!of!the!X!haplogroup!shows!up!
in!only!one!other!place!on!the!planet:!Europe.$That#s!what!pushed!me!over!the!edge,$!says!Stanford.!If!the!
X!haplogroup!had!found!its!way!to!America!through!Siberia,!it!almost!certainly!would!have!left!behind!a!
mark!somewhere!in!Asia;!but!exhaustive!searching!has!turned!up!no!indications!of!any!passage.!The!
simplest!explanation!is!an!Atlantic!crossing.!
the!two!groups.!
74
File Title
AT: Give Back the Land !

Our argument is a slayer the genocide process is backwards white people from Europe
were victims of Indian aggression Caucasians should own the land
FrontPageMagazine.com in 99 (Lowell Ponte, Tal Radio Host, Politically Incorrect
Genocide, Part Two, Oct5, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2659)
!
COULD!A!FEW!BONES!require!the!re"writing!of!every!American!history!textbook?!Could!they!discredit!the!politically!correct!party!line!that!we!and!our!children!have!been!
!a!DNA!
test!of!these!disputed!relics.!Such!a!test!stands!a!good!chance!of!proving!that!some!of!the!first!$Native!
Americans$!had!white!skin!and!European!ancestry.!No!wonder!the!Clinton!Administration!has!moved!heavenand!500!tons!of!earthto!
prevent!a!thorough!scientific!investigation!of!where!one!very!old!skeleton!came!from.!!
taught!for!generations!about!Indian!origins!and!European!conquest!in!the!New!World?!On!September!21,!a!federal!judge!in!Portland,!Oregon,!all!but!ordered
Two!young!men!found!a!human!skull!while!wading!at!the!edge!of!the!Columbia!River!near!Kennewick,!Washington,!on!July!28,!1996,!and!notified!the!Sheriff.!Asked!to!
investigate!by!the!county!coroners!office,!anthropologist!James!Chatters!found!more!bones!in!the!shallow!water.!That!required!a!permit!from!the!Army!Corps!of!Engineers,!
which!has!legal!jurisdiction!over!navigable!waterways!such!as!the!Columbia,!and!it!promptly!issued!a!retroactive!permit!to!dig!the!site.!
The!bones!seemed!too!old!to!be!from!someone!who!died!recently,!Chatters!thought.!They!were!discolored,!and!soil!adhered!to!them!as!to!bones!buried!for!a!century!or!more.!At!
first!Chatters!guessed!that!they!might!be!of!some!historic!interest.!Perhaps!they!were!those!of!an!Oregon!Trail!pioneer!who!came!west!by!covered!wagon.!
But!two!surprising!findings!soon!turned!these!remains!into!bones!of!contention.!They!are!now!part!of!the!biggest!politicaland!politically!correcttug!of!war!since!kings!of!
Christendom!fought!over!ownership!of!holy!relics.!
When!bone!fragments!were!sent!for!radiocarbon!dating!to!the!University!of!California!at!Riverside,!analyst!R.!Ervin!Taylor!estimated!that!$Kennewick!Man,$!as!the!skeleton!
was!quickly!dubbed,!had!lived!8,410!(plus!or!minus!60)!years!ago.!This!was!$broadly!corroborated$!by!part!of!a!stone!arrowhead!still!imbedded!in!the!510$!mans!pelvis.!The!
arrowhead,!experts!said,!dated!from!the!$Cascade$!phase!of!Indian!history!in!the!Pacific!Northwest!that!happened!9,000!to!4,500!years!ago.!
But!even!more!surprising!was!Dr.!Chatters!analysis!of!the!bones.!The!skull!revealed!that!Kennewick!Man!had!a!long,!narrow!face,!
protruding!nose,!receding!cheek!bones,!a!high!chin,!and!a!square!mandible.!$None!of!these!features!is!
typical!of!modern!American!Indians,$!reported!the!journal!Archeology!in!January/February!1997.!Chatters!analysis,!
wrote!New!York!Times!reporter!Timothy!Egan,!$adds!credence!to!theories!that!some!early!inhabitants!of!North!America!
came!from!European!stock.$!
Some!ancient!paleoindians!on!the!East!Coast!nine!millennia!ago!exhibited!skull!features!resembling!Kennewick!Mans.!University!of!Washington!anthropologist!Donald!K.!
Grayson!objected!to!use!of!the!term!$Caucasoid$!to!describe!the!skeleton,!calling!it!a!$red!flag,!suggesting!that!whites!were!here!earlier!and!Indians!were!here!later,!and!theres!
absolutely!no!reason!to!think!that.$!
But!others!were!taking!no!chances!that!further!analysis!of!Kennewick!Mans!bones!or!DNA!might!provide!evidence!and!reason!to!believe!that!some!of!Americas!earliest!settlers!
had!white!skins!and!European!ancestry.!
Five!Indian!tribes!claimed!ownership!of!the!skeleton!under!the!1990!Native!American!Graves!Protection!and!Repatriation!Act!(NAGPRA),!which!grants!control!of!human!
remains!to!the!tribe!most!likely!to!be!their!descendants!or!relatives.!These!tribes!announced!their!intention!to!return!Kennewick!Man!to!Mother!Earth!by!burial!and!to!prevent!
any!further!religious!or!cultural!affront!such!as!DNA!testing.!
$Some!scientists!say!that!if!this!individual!is!not!studied!further,!we,!as!Indians,!will!be!destroying!evidence!of!our!own!history,$!said!Umatilla!tribal!religious!leader!Armand!
Minthorn.!$We!already!know!our!history.!From!our!oral!histories!we!know!that!our!people!have!been!part!of!this!land!since!the!beginning!of!time.$!(Scientists!theorize!that!
the!Mongoloid!ancestors!of!Amerindians!crossed!the!Bering!Land!Bridge!from!Asia!sometime!between!60,000!and!10,000!years!ago,!with!different!waves!of!migration!bringing!
two!different!blood!types.)!
The!Clinton!Administration!was!also!passionately!interested!in!burying!these!bones!and!the!revision!of!history!they!might!require.!No!sooner!had!public!discussion!begun!
about!whether!Kennewick!Man!was!Caucasian!than!the!Army!Corps!of!Engineers!took!and!locked!away!the!bones!from!scientists.!ACE!officials,!however,!allowed!Indians!
access!to!the!remains!and!indicated!the!governments!intention!to!turn!over!the!skeleton!to!Native!Americans!for!reburial!as!soon!as!possible.!
Dr.!Doug!Owsley,!curator!and!division!head!for!physical!anthropology!at!the!Smithsonian!Institutions!National!Museum,!along!with!seven!other!scientists,!filed!a!lawsuit!to!
prevent!the!government!from!turning!the!skeleton!over!to!Indians!and!to!seek!research!access!to!the!remains.!Available!evidence!suggests!that!Kennewick!Man!had!no!$cultural!
affiliation$!with!Indians,!as!NAGPRA!requires.!The!closest!thing!to!such!an!affiliation!might!have!been!the!Indian!arrowhead!lodged!painfully!in!this!ancient!mans!hip!bone.!
(To!visit!the!Kennewick!Man!Virtual!Interpretative!center!for!links!to!news!stories,!documents,!the!text!of!NAGPRA,!and!much!more,!click!here.)!
The!scientists!lawsuit!has!impeded!the!Clinton"desired!cover"up!of!Kennewick!Man.!It!also!opened!the!way!for!transfer!of!more!than!350!bone!pieces!to!the!University!of!
Washingtons!Burke!Museum!in!Seattle,!where!they!remain!under!lock!and!keyor!most!do.!Of!a!dozen!femur!bone!pieces!collected!and!recorded,!as!of!January!1999,!only!two!
reportedly!could!still!be!accounted!for.!The!rest!have!apparently!been!stolen!in!what!Dr.!Owsley!called!$a!deliberate!act!of!desecration.$!
But!despite!their!loud!protests,!the!scientists!could!not!prevent!another!Clinton!cover"up.!On!April!6,!1998,!responding!to!a!never"before"noticed!urgent!need!to!shore!up!one!
tiny!spot!along!the!banks!of!the!Columbia!River,!the!Army!Corps!of!Engineers!buried!the!site!where!Kennewick!Man!was!found.At!a!cost!to!taxpayers!of!$160,000,!the!
government!dumped!500!tons!of!rock!and!dirt!on!the!fragile!archeological!dig!site!and!imbedded!fiber!blankets!and!other!materials!to!prevent!the!river!from!washing!its!work!
away.!It!then!thickly!planted!the!spot!with!dogwood,!willow,!and!cottonwood!trees!whose!fast"spreading!roots!will!make!future!archeological!work!there!almost!impossible.!
Orders!directly!from!the!Clinton!White!House!apparently!prompted!this!anti"scientific!vandalism.!As!journalist!Mark!Lasswell!reported!in!the!January!8!Wall!Street!Journal,!
even!the!Army!Corps!of!Engineers!in!Walla!Walla,!Washington,!acknowledges!the!$participation!and!interest!at!the!Executive!level$!in!the!Kennewick!Man!controversy.!The!
sudden!decision!to!make!further!research!at!the!Kennewick!archeological!site,!a!Corps!spokesman!said,!was!a!$good!faith$!effort!at!$erosion!control$!to!protect!both!Indian!and!
scientist!$sensitivities$!(over!the!screamed!objections!of!scientists)!about!safeguarding!the!site.!
The!Clinton!Administration!also!opposed!and!defeated!a!bill!by!Congressman!Richard!$Doc$!Hastings!(R.,!WA),!who!represents!Kennewick,!that!would!have!blunted!NAGPRA!
regulation!over!the!remains!and!opened!scientific!access!to!study!them.!
The!Clinton!Administration!opposes!the!most!basic!precepts!of!open!scientific!inquiry!in!this!matter.!Some!of!the!reasons!why!seem!obvious.!Suppose!DNA!analysis!reveals!
!Suppose!excavation!of!the!site!uncovered!artifacts!that!confirmed!a!
cultural!link!to!European!ancestors.!
It!has!been!an!article!of!faith!among!politically!correct!Leftists!that!in!1491,!before!that!white!devil!Columbus!reached!
the!New!World,!this!land!was!a!utopia!peopled!by!peaceful,!sensitive,!nature"worshipping!people!of!
color.!
!
!
that!Kennewick!Mans!skin!was!not!red!or!brown!but!white.
75
File Title
AT: Give Back the Land

!
If!DNA!confirms!what!his!bone!structure!suggeststhat!Kennewick!Man!may!have!European!ancestry,!
or!perhaps!be!related!to!the!oppressed,!ancient!Caucasian"like!Ainu!people!of!Northern!Japanthen!the!
exclusive!historic!claim!of!colored!peoples!priority!in!the!New!World!goes!Poof!!and!vanishes.!
The!long"cherished!victim!status!of!Native!Americans!would!be!weakenedor!worse,!reversed.!Suppose!
an!archeological!dig!at!Kennewick!revealed!a!whole!community!of!people!with!Caucasian!DNA?!
Suppose!it!found!dozens!or!hundreds!of!Euro"American!skeletons,!most!with!Native!American!
arrowheads!in!their!backs,!victims!of!a!pogrom"like!massacre?!
If!a!Caucasoid!Kennewick!Man!and!his!tribe!roamed!the!Cascade!rain"shadow!dry!interior!of!Washington!State!9,000!years!ago,!we!must!then!ask!a!painful!
question:!what!happened!to!them?!Why!did!they!vanish!while!Native!American!tribes!took!over!the!land!that!once!was!theirs?!Did!white"skinned!early!Americans!lack!the!skill!
or!luck!to!survive?!Or!were!they!killed!off!by!darker"skinned!invaders!in!an!act!we!today!would!define!as!racism!and!genocide!(especially!if!its!victims!were!not!of!European!
ancestry)?
Such!are!the!stakes!that!prompted!President!Clinton!to!carry!out!what!could!be!called!the!biggest!cover"up!of!his!scandalous!administration.!If!Kennewick!Man!is!Caucasian,
!
then!white!people,!according!to!the!racial!politics!Clinton!has!promoted,!have!as!legitimate!a!right!to!be!on!American!soil!as!
do!any!people!of!color.!
If!evidence!shows!that!white"skinned!Americans!were!exterminated!by!invading!ancestors!of!todays!
Indians,!then!this!genocide!could!give!Caucasian!Americans!a!claim!to!victim!status!even!stronger!than!
that!of!Native!Americans.!Had!such!genocide!not!taken!place,!the!argument!would!go,!perhaps!most!of!
Americas!population!and!territory!would!have!been!Caucasian.!Columbus!might!have!been!greeted!by!
natives!with!faces!whiter!than!his!own.!
History!is!written!by!the!winners.!Even!the!name!$Kennewick$!comes!from!Indian!words!meaning!$winter!heaven.$!On!todays!university!campuses,!the!fashion!is!to!depict!
Euro"Americans!as!evil!and!Native!Americans!and!most!Hispanics!as!the!virtuous!survivors!of!white!colonial!exploitation,!rape,!and!genocide.!Kennewick!Man!might!prove!
!the!true!Native!Americans!were!white,!victims!of!murderous!genocide!by!the!ancestors!of!
todays!Indians!who!seized!their!land.!The!European!invasion!of!the!past!five!centuries,!in!this!potential!
revisionist!history,!merely!reclaimed!land!stolen!9,000!years!earlier!from!their!murdered!kin.!
!
the!oppositethat
This takes out all your oppression impacts

BBC in 02 (Stone Age Columbus, November 21, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/columbus.shtml)
!
The!impact!of!this!new!prehistory!on!Native!Americans!could!be!grave.!They!usually!consider!
themselves!to!be!Asian!in!origin;!and!to!have!been!subjugated!by!Europeans!after!1492.!If!they!too!were!
partly!Europeans,!the!dividing!lines!would!be!instantly!blurred.!Dr!Joallyn!Archambault!of!the!American!
Indian!Programme!of!the!Smithsonian!Institute!offers!a!positive!interpretation,!however.!Venturing!
across!huge!bodies!of!water,!she!says,!is!a!clear!demonstration!of!the!courage!and!creativity!of!the!Native!
Americans#!ancestors.!Bruce!Bradley!agrees.!He!feels!his!Solutrean!Ice!Age!theory!takes!into!consideration!
the!abilities!of!people!to!embrace!new!places,!adding,!$To!ignore!this!possibility!ignores!the!humanity!of!
people!20,000!years!ago.$!
!
76
File Title
Spark Answers
!
Nuclear war blocks out sunlight, causing earth temperatures to drop at least 20C by
turning off the greenhouse effect
Sagan and Turco, 1990 (Carl and Richard, astrophysicist and astronomer at Cornell University, and founding
director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment, A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of
the Arms Race, pg 23-4)\
<In!a!nuclear!war,!powerful!nuclear!explosions!at!the!ground!would!propel!fine!particles!high!into!the!
stratosphere.!Much!of!the!dust!would!be!carried!up!by!the!fireball!itself.!Some!would!be!sucked!up!the!stem!of!the!mushroom!
cloud.!Even!much!more!modest!explosions!on!or!above!cities!would!produce!massive!fires,!as!occurred!in!Hiroshima!
and!Nagasaki.!These!fires!consume!wood,!petroleum,!plastics,!roofing!tar,!natural!gas,!and!a!wide!variety!of!
other!combustibles.!The!resulting!smoke!is!far!more!dangerous!to!the!climate!than!is!the!dust.!Two!kinds!of!
smoke!are!generated.!Smoldering!combustion!is!a!low"temperature!!!flameless!burning!in!which!fine,!oily,!bluish"white!organic!particles!are!produced.!Cigarette!smoke!is!an!
example.!By!contrast,!in!flaming!combustionwhen!there#s!an!adequate!supply!of!oxygenthe!burning!organic!material!is!converted!in!significant!part!to!elemental!carbon,!
.!Soot!is!one!of!the!blackest!materials!nature!is!able!to!manufacture.!As!in!an!oil!refinery!fire,!
!any!big!city!firegreat!clouds!of!roiling,!ugly,!
dark,!sootv!smoke!would!rise!high!above!the!cities!in!a!nuclear!war,!and!#spread!first!in!longitude,!then!in!latitude.!
The!high"altitude!dust!particles!reflect!additional!sunlight!back!to!space!and!cool!the!Earth!a!little.!More!
important!are!the!dense!palls!of!black!smoke!high!in!the!atmosphere;!they!block!the!sunlight!from!
reaching!the!lower!atmosphere,!where!the!greenhouse!gases!mainly!reside.!These!gases!are!thereby!
deprived!of!their!leverage!on!the!global!climate.!The!greenhouse!effect!is!turned!down!and!the!Earth#s!
surface!is!cooled!much!more.!Because!cities!and!petroleum!repositories!are!so!rich!in!combustible!
materials,!it!doesn#t!require!very!many!nuclear!explosions!over!them!to!make!so!much!smoke!as!to!
obscure!the!entire!Northern!Hemisphere!and!more.!If!the!dark,!sooty!clouds!are!nearly!opaque!and!cover!
an!extensive!area,!then!the!greenhouse!effect!can!be!almost!entirely!turned!off.!In!the!more!likely!case!that!
some!sunlight!trickles!through,!the!temperatures!nevertheless!may!drop!10!or!20C!or!more,!depending!on!season!
and!geographical!locale.!In!many!places,!it!may!at!midday!get!as!dark!as!it!used!to!be!on!a!moonlit!night!before!the!
nuclear!war!began.!The!resulting!environmental!changes!may!last!for!months!or!years.!
If!the!greenhouse!effect!is!a!blanket!in!which!we!wrap!ourselves!to!keep!warm,!nuclear!winter!kicks!the!
blanket!off.!This!darkening!and!cooling!of!the!Earth!following!nuclear!war!along!with!other!ancillary!consequencesis!
what!we!mean!by!nuclear!winter.!(A!more!detailed!discussion!of!the!global!climate!and!how!nuclear!winter!works!is!given!in!Appendix!A.)>!
!
and!the!sooty!smoke!is!very!dark
or!a!burning!pile!of!auto!tires.!or!a!conflagration!in!a!modern!skyscrapermore!generally!in
Even a 10 Celsius change in average Earth temperature risks extinction

Sagan and Turco, 1990 (Carl and Richard, astrophysicist and astronomer at Cornell University, and founding
director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment, A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of
the Arms Race, pg 22)!
<Life!on!Earth!is!exquisitely!dependent!on!the!climate!(see!Appendix!A).!The!average!surface!temperature!of!the!
Earth!averaged,!that!is,!over!day!and!night,!over!the!seasons,!over!latitude,!over!land!and!ocean,!over!coastline!and!continental!interior,!over!mountain!range!and!desert
is!about!13C,!13!Centigrade!degrees!above!the!temperature!at!which!fresh!water!freezes.!(The!corresponding!
temperature!on!the!Fahrenheit!scale!is!55F.)!It#s!harder!to!change!the!temperature!of!the!oceans!than!of!the!continents,!which!is!why!ocean!temperatures!are!much!more!
steadfast!over!the!diurnal!and!seasonal!cycles!than!are!the!temperatures!in!the!middle!of!large!continents.!Any!global!temperature!change!implies!
much!larger!local!temperature!changes,!if!you!don#t!live!near!the!ocean.!A!prolonged!global!temperature!
drop!of!a!few!degrees!C!would!be!a!disaster!for!agriculture;!by!10C,!whole!ecosystems!would!be!
imperiled;!and!by!20C,!almost!all!life!on!Earth!would!be!at!risk.*!The!margin!of!safety!is!thin.>!
!
77
File Title
Spark Answers!
Human extinction likely even if people survive mass inbreeding wipes them out
Bochkov!in!84!
(Academician,!Member!of!the!Medical!Academy!of!Sciences!and!Director!of!the!Institute!of!Genetics!at!
the!USSR!Academy!of!Sciences,!The!Cold!and!the!Dark:!The!World!After!Nuclear!War,!p.!141"142)!
!
Academician!Bochkov:!When!we!talk!about!the!ecological!and!biological!consequences!of!a!nuclear!war,!we!are!of!course!focusing!on!humankind.!Thus,!in!thinking!
about!the!possibilities!of!human!survival!after!a!nuclear!catastrophe,!we!should!not!be!afraid!to!reach!the!conclusion!that!
the!conditions!that!would!prevail!would!not!allow!the!survival!of!human!beings!as!a!species.!We!should!proceed!
from!the!assumption!that!man!has!adapted!to!his!environment!during!a!long!evolutionary!process!and!has!paid!the!price!of!natural!selection.!Only!over!the!past!
few!thousand!years!has!he!adapted!his!environment!to!his!needs!and!has!created,!so!to!speak,!an!artificial!environment!to!provide!
food,!shelter,!and!other!necessities.!Without!this,!modem!man!cannot!survive.!Compared!to!the!dramatic!improvements!made!in!the!technological!
environment,!biological!nature!has!not!changed!in!the!recent!past.!In!the!statements!of!Dr.!Ehrlich!and!Academician!Bayev,!we!have!heard!about!the!many!constraints!there!
would!be!on!the!possibility!of!man#s!survival!after!a!nuclear!catastrophe.!Because!we!also!have!to!look!at!the!more!long"range!future,!I!would!like!to!point!out!that
!most!
long"term!effects!of!a!nuclear!war!will!be!genetic.!If!islands!of!humanityor!as!Dr.!Ehrlich!has!said,!groups!of!people!on!
islands!somewhere!in!the!oceanshould!survive,!what!will!they!face!in!terms!of!genetic!consequences?!If!the!population!drops!sharply,!the!question!
then!arises!of!the!critical!numbers!of!a!population!that!would!be!necessary!to!ensure!its!reproduction.!On!
the!one!hand!there!will!be!minimum!numbers!of!human!beings;!on!the!other!hand,!because!of!the!small!numbers,!there!will!be!isolation.!There!will!definitely!be!
inbreeding,!and!lethal!mutations!will!come!to!the!fore!as!a!result!of!this,!because!of!fetal!and!neonatal!
exposure!to!radiation!and!because!of!exposure!to!fallout.!New!mutations!will!arise!and!genes!and!
chromosomes!will!be!damaged!as!a!result!of!the!radiation,!so!there!will!be!an!additional!genetic!load!to!
bear.!There!will!be!natural!aberrations!and!death!at!birth,!so!that!the!burden!of!hereditary!illnesses!will!be!only!part!of!a!large!load.!This!undoubtedly!will!
be!conducive!to!the!elimination!of!humanity,!because!humankind!will!not!be!able!to!reproduce!itself!as!a!
species.!
!
78
File Title
Spark Answers
Nuclear war would produce aerosol spikes crushes phytoplankton causing extinction
Crutzen and Birks in 83
(Paul, Director of the Air Chemistry Division of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, and John, Associate
Professor of Chemistry and Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, in The
Aftermath: The Human and Ecological Consequences of Nuclear War, ed. Peterson, p.84)
If!the!production!of!aerosol!by!fires!is!large!enough!to!cause!reductions!in!the!penetration!of!sunlight!to!
ground!level!by!a!factor!of!a!hundred,!which!would!be!quite!possible!in!the!event!of!an!all"out!nuclear!war,!most!of!the!
phytoplankton!and!herbivorous!zooplankton!in!more!than!half!of!the!Northern!Hemisphere!oceans!
would!die!(36).!This!effect!is!due!to!the!fast!consumption!rate!of!phytoplankton!by!zooplankton!in!the!
oceans.!The!effects!of!a!darkening!of!such!a!magnitude!have!been!discussed!recently!in!connection!with!the!probable!occurrence!of!such!an!event!as!a!result!of!the!impact!
of!a!large!extraterrestrial!body!with!the!earth!(37).!This!event!is!believed!by!many!to!have!caused!the!widespread!and!massive!
extinctions!which!took!place!at!the!Cretacious"Tertiary!boundary!about!65!million!years!ago.!
!
Phytoplankton depletion collapses the carbon cycle causing extinction

Bryant in 03
(Donald, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Penn State, Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, The beauty in small things revealed, Volume 100, Number 17, August 19,
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/17/9647)
!
Oxygenic!photosynthesis!accounts!for!nearly!all!the!primary!biochemical!production!of!organic!matter!on!
Earth.!The!byproduct!of!this!process,!oxygen,!facilitated!the!evolution!of!complex!eukaryotes!and!supports!their/our!
continuing!existence.!Because!macroscopic!plants!are!responsible!for!most!terrestrial!photosynthesis,!it!is!relatively!easy!to!appreciate!the!importance!of!
photosynthesis!on!land!when!one!views!the!lush!green!diversity!of!grasslands!or!forests.!However,!Earth!is!the!$blue!planet,$!and!oceans!cover!nearly!75%!of!its!surface.!All!
life!on!Earth!equally!depends!on!the!photosynthesis!that!occurs!in!Earth#s!oceans.!!
A!rich!diversity!of!marine!phytoplankton,!found!in!the!upper!100!m!of!oceans,!accounts!only!for!1%!of!the!total!photosynthetic!biomass,!but!this!
virtually!invisible!forest!accounts!for!nearly!50%!of!the!net!primary!productivity!of!the!biosphere!(1).!Moreover,!the!
importance!of!these!organisms!in!the!biological!pump,!which!traps!CO2!from!the!atmosphere!and!stores!it!in!the!deep!sea,!is!
increasingly!recognized!as!a!major!component!of!the!global!geochemical!carbon!cycle!(2).!It!seems!obvious!that!it!is!as!
important!to!understand!marine!photosynthesis!as!terrestrial!photosynthesis,!but!the!contribution!of!marine!photosynthesis!to!the!global!carbon!cycle!was!grossly!
underestimated!until!recently.!Satellite"based!remote!sensing!(e.g.,!NASA!sea"wide!field!sensor)!has!allowed!more!reliable!determinations!of!oceanic!photosynthetic!
productivity!to!be!made!(refs.!1!and!2;!see!Fig.!1).
Nuclear war causes massive ozone depletion

Sagan and Turco in 90
(Carl, David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences at Cornell, and Richard, Professor of Atmospheric
Sciences at UCLA, A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter and the End of the Arms Race, p. 57)
!
But!in!a!nuclear!war,!the!atmosphere!would!be!so!perturbed!that!our!normal!way!of!thinking!about!the!ozone!layer!needs!to!be!modified.!To!help!refocus!our!understanding,!
several!research!groups!have!constructed!models!that!describe!the!ozone!layer!following!nuclear!war.!The!principal!work!has!been!carried!out!by!research!teams!at!the
!
National!Center!for!Atmospheric!Research!and!at!the!Los!Alamos!National!Laboratory!(ref.!4.9).!Both!find!that!
there!is!an!additional!mechanism!by!which!nuclear!war!threatens!the!ozone!layer.!With!massive!
quantities!of!smoke!injected!into!the!lower!atmosphere!by!the!fires!of!nuclear!war,!nuclear!winter!would!grip!not!only!
the!Earth#s!surface,!but!the!high!ozone!layer!as!well.!The!severely!disturbed!wind!currents!caused!by!solar!heating!of!smoke!
would,!in!a!matter!of!weeks,!sweep!most!of!the!ozone!layer!from!the!northern!midlatitudes!deep!into!the!
Southern!Hemisphere.!The!reduction!in!the!ozone!layer!content!in!the!North!could!reach!a!devastating!
50%!or!more!during!this!phase.!As!time!progressed,!the!ozone!depletion!would!be!made!still!worse!by!several!
effects:!injection!of!large!quantities!of!nitrogen!oxides!and!chlorine"bearing!molecules!along!with!the!
smoke!clouds;!heating!of!the!ozone!layer!caused!by!intermingling!of!hot!smoky!air!(as!air!is!heated,!the!amount!of!ozone!
declines);!and!decomposition!of!ozone!directly!on!smoke!particles!(carbon!particles!are!sometimes!used!down!here!near!the!ground!to!
cleanse!air!of!ozone).!
79
File Title
Spark Answers
!
Ozone depletion causes extinction

Greenpeace in 95
(Full of Homes: The Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer,
http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html)
!
When!chemists!Sherwood!Rowland!and!Mario!Molina!first!postulated!a!link!between!chlorofluorocarbons!and!ozone!layer!depletion!in!1974,!the!news!was!greeted!with!
.!The!vast!majority!of!credible!scientists!have!since!confirmed!this!hypothesis.!!
!The!ozone!layer!around!the!Earth!shields!us!all!from!harmful!ultraviolet!radiation!from!the!sun.!Without!the!ozone!layer,!life!on!earth!would!
not!exist.!Exposure!to!increased!levels!of!ultraviolet!radiation!can!cause!cataracts,!skin!cancer,!and!
immune!system!suppression!in!humans!as!well!as!innumerable!effects!on!other!living!systems.!This!is!why!
Rowland#s!and!Molina#s!theory!was!taken!so!seriously,!so!quickly!"!the!stakes!are!literally!the!continuation!of!life!on!earth.!!
scepticism,!but!taken!seriously!nonetheless
80
File Title
Spark Answers
!
Nuclear war leads to a nuclear winter, killing all plant and animal life.
SGR 2003
(Scientists for Global Responsibility, Newsletter, Does anybody remember the Nuclear Winter? July 27,
http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/NuclearWinter_NL27.htm)
<Obviously,!when!a!nuclear!bomb!hits!a!target,!it!causes!a!massive!amount!of!devastation,!with!the!heat,!
blast!and!radiation!killing!tens!or!hundreds!of!thousands!of!people!instantly!and!causing!huge!damage!to!infrastructure.!
But!in!addition!to!this,!a!nuclear!explosion!throws!up!massive!amounts!of!dust!and!smoke.!For!example,!
a!large!nuclear!bomb!bursting!at!ground!level!would!throw!up!about!a!million!tonnes!of!dust.!
As!a!consequence!of!a!nuclear!war,!then,!the!dust!and!the!smoke!produced!would!block!out!a!large!
fraction!of!the!sunlight!and!the!sun#s!heat!from!the!earth#s!surface,!so!it!would!quickly!become!be!dark!
and!cold!"!temperatures!would!drop!by!something!in!the!region!of!10"20C!"!many!places!would!feel!like!
they!were!in!an!arctic!winter.!It!would!take!months!for!the!sunlight!to!get!back!to!near!normal.!The!drop!
in!light!and!temperature!would!quickly!kill!crops!and!other!plant!and!animal!life!while!humans,!already!
suffering!from!the!direct!effects!of!the!war,!would!be!vulnerable!to!malnutrition!and!disease!on!a!massive!
scale.!
In!the!case!of!an!(e.g.)!accidental!nuclear!exchange!between!the!USA!and!Russia,!the!main!effects!would!
be!felt!in!the!northern!hemisphere,!as!the!dust!and!smoke!would!quickly!circulate!across!this!area.!But!even!in!this!case,!it!would!
soon!affect!the!tropics!"!where!crops!and!other!plant/!animal!life!are!especially!sensitive!to!cold.!Hence,!even!in!
these!areas!there!would!be!major!problems.>!
!
!
81
File Title
Spark Answers
Nuclear war destroys the ecosystem and biodiversity though destruction of plant resources
Ehrlich et al, 1983
(Paul R. Ehrlich, Stanford University; Mark A. Harwell, Cornell University; Carl Sagan, Cornell University; Anne
H. Ehrlich, Stanford University; Stephen J. Gould, Harvard University; biologists on the Long-Term Worldwide
Biological Consequences of Nuclear War (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 25 and 26 April 1983)., Science, New Series,
Vol. 22, No. 4630, Dec. 23, 1983, pg 1293-1300, jstor)
<The!2!billion!to!3!billion!survivors!of!the!immediate!effects!of!the!war!would!be!forced!to!turn!to!natural!
ecosystems!as!organized!agriculture!failed.!Just!at!the!time!when!these!natural!ecosystems!would!be!
asked!to!support!a!human!population!well!beyond!their!carrying!capacities,!the!normal!functioning!of!the!
ecosystems!themselves!would!be!severely!curtailed!by!the!effects!of!nuclear!war.!
Subjecting!these!ecosystems!to!low!temperature,!fire,!radiation,!storm,!and!other!physical!stresses!(many!
occurring!simultaneously)!would!result!in!their!increased!vulnerability!to!disease!and!pest!outbreaks,!which!
might!be!prolonged.!Primary!productivity!would!be!dramatically!reduced!at!the!prevailing!low!light!
levels;!and,!because!of!UV"B,!smog,!insects,!radiation,!and!other!damage!to!plants,!it!is!unlikely!that!it!
would!recover!quickly!to!normal!levels,!even!after!light!and!temperature!values!had!recovered.!At!the!same!
time!that!their!plant!foods!were!being!limited!severely,!most,!if!not!all,!of!the!vertebrates!not!killed!outright!by!blast!and!
ionizing!radiation!would!either!freeze!or!face!a!dark!world!where!they!would!starve!or!die!of!thirst!
because!surface!waters!would!be!frozen!and!thus!unavailable.!Many!of!the!survivors!would!be!widely!
scattered!and!often!sick,!leading!to!the!slightly!delayed!extinction!of!many!additional!species.!
Natural!ecosystems!provide!civilization!with!a!variety!of!crucial!services!in!addition!to!food!and!shelter.!These!include!regulation!of!
atmospheric!composition,!moderation!of!climate!and!weather,!regulation!of!the!hydrologic!cycle,!
generation!and!preservation!of!soils,!degradation!of!wastes,!and!recycling!of!nutrients.!From!the!human!perspective,!
among!the!most!important!roles!of!ecosystems!are!their!direct!role!in!providing!food!and!their!
maintenance!of!a!vast!library!of!species!from!which!Homo!sapiens!has!already!drawn!the!basis!of!
civilization!(27).!Accelerated!loss!of!these!genetic!resources!through!extinction!would!be!one!of!the!most!
serious!potential!consequences!of!nuclear!war.!
Wildfires!would!be!an!important!effect!in!north!temperate!ecosystems,!their!scale!and!distribution!depending!on!such!factors!as!the!nuclear!war!scenario!and!the!season.!
Another!major!uncertainty!is!the!extent!of!fire!storms,!which!might!heat!the!lower!levels!of!the!soil!enough!to!damage!or!destroy!seed!banks,!especially!in!vegetation!types!not!
adapted!to!periodic!fires.!Multiple!airbursts!over!seasonally!dry!areas!such!as!California!in!the!late!summer!or!early!fall!could!burn!off!much!of!the!state#s!forest!and!brush!
areas,!leading!to!catastrophic!flooding!and!erosion!during!the!next!rainy!season.!Silting,!toxic!runoff,!and!rainout!of!radio"!nuclides!could!
kill!much!of!the!fauna!of!fresh!and!coastal!waters,!and!concentrated!radioactivity!levels!in!surviving!filter"feeding!shellfish!populations!could!
make!them!dangerous!to!consume!for!long!periods!of!time.!
Other!major!consequences!for!terrestrial!ecosystems!resulting!from!nuclear!war!would!include:!(i)!slower!detoxification!of!air!and!water!as!a!secondary!result!of!damage!to!
plants!that!now!are!important!metabolic!sinks!for!toxins;!(ii)!reduced!evapotranspiration!by!plants!contributing!to!a!lower!rate!of!entry!of!water!into!the!atmosphere,!especially!
over!continental!regions,!and!therefore!a!more!sluggish!hydrologic!cycle;!and!(iii)!great!disturbance!of!the!soil!surface,!leading!to!accelerated!erosion!and,!probably,!major!dust!
storms!(28).!
Revegetation!might!superficially!resemble!that!which!follows!local!fires.!Stresses!from!radiation,!smog,!
erosion,!fugitive!dust,!and!toxic!rains,!however,!would!be!superimposed!on!those!of!cold!and!darkness,!
thus!delaying!and!modifying!postwar!succession!in!ways!that!would!retard!the!restoration!of!ecosystem!
services!(29).!It!is!likely!that!most!ecosystem!changes!would!be!short!term.!Some!structural!and!functional!changes,!however,!could!be!longer!term,!and!perhaps!
irreversible,!as!ecosystems!undergo!qualitative!changes!to!alternative!stable!states!(30).!Soil!losses!from!erosion!would!be!serious!in!areas!
experiencing!widespread!fires,!plant!death,!and!extremes!of!climate.!Much!would!depend!on!the!wind!and!precipitation!patterns!
that!would!develop!during!the!first!postwar!year!(4,!5).!The!diversity!of!many!natural!communities!would!almost!certainly!be!
substantially!reduced,!and!numerous!species!of!plants,!animals,!and!microorganisms!would!become!
extinct.>!
82
File Title
Spark Answers
Environmental collapse causes extinction
Diner Judge Advocate Generals Corps-1994 [Major David N., United States Army Military Law Review
Winter, p. lexis]
!
By!causing!widespread!extinctions,!humans!have!artificially!simplified!many!ecosystems.!!As!biologic!
simplicity!increases,!so!does!the!risk!of!ecosystem!failure.!!The!spreading!Sahara!Desert!in!Africa,!and!the!dustbowl!conditions!of!!the!
1930s!in!the!United!States!are!relatively!mild!examples!of!what!might!be!expected!if!this!trend!continues.!!Theoretically,!each!new!animal!or!plant!
extinction,!with!all!its!dimly!perceived!and!intertwined!affects,!could!cause!total!ecosystem!collapse!and!
human!extinction.!!!Each!new!extinction!increases!the!risk!of!disaster.!!!Like!a!mechanic!removing,!one!by!one,!the!rivets!from!an!
aircraft#s!wings,!!n80!mankind!may!be!edging!closer!to!the!abyss.!
!!
Nuclear war collapses global infrastructure and causes mass disease pandemics
Sagan, Former Professor of Astronomy at Harvard University, 1985, (Carl, The Nuclear Winter,
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter.html)
In!addition,!the!amount!of!radioactive!fallout!is!much!more!than!expected.!Many!previous!calculations!
simply!ignored!the!intermediate!time"scale!fallout.!That!is,!calculations!were!made!for!the!prompt!fallout!
""!the!plumes!of!radioactive!debris!blown!downwind!from!each!target"and!for!the!long"term!fallout,!the!
fine!radioactive!particles!lofted!into!the!stratosphere!that!would!descend!about!a!year!later,!after!most!of!
the!radioactivity!had!decayed.!However,!the!radioactivity!carried!into!the!upper!atmosphere!(but!not!as!
high!as!the!stratosphere)!seems!to!have!been!largely!forgotten.!We!found!for!the!baseline!case!that!
roughly!30!percent!of!the!land!at!northern!midlatitudes!could!receive!a!radioactive!dose!greater!than!250!
rads,!and!that!about!50!percent!of!northern!midlatitudes!could!receive!a!dose!greater!than!100!rads.!A!
100"rad!dose!is!the!equivalent!of!about!1000!medical!X"rays.!A!400"rad!dose!will,!more!likely!than!not,!kill!
you.!!
The!cold,!the!dark!and!the!intense!radioactivity,!together!lasting!for!months,!represent!a!severe!assault!on!
our!civilization!and!our!species.!Civil!and!sanitary!services!would!be!wiped!out.!Medical!facilities,!drugs,!
the!most!rudimentary!means!for!relieving!the!vast!human!suffering,!would!be!unavailable.!Any!but!the!
most!elaborate!shelters!would!be!useless,!quite!apart!from!the!question!of!what!good!it!might!be!to!
emerge!a!few!months!later.!Synthetics!burned!in!the!destruction!of!the!cities!would!produce!a!wide!
variety!of!toxic!gases,!including!carbon!monoxide,!cyanides,!dioxins!and!furans.!After!the!dust!and!soot!
settled!out,!the!solar!ultraviolet!flux!would!be!much!larger!than!its!present!value.!Immunity!to!disease!
would!decline.!Epidemics!and!pandemics!would!be!rampant,!especially!after!the!billion!or!so!unburied!
bodies!began!to!thaw.!Moreover,!the!combined!influence!of!these!severe!and!simultaneous!stresses!on!life!
are!likely!to!produce!even!more!adverse!consequences!""!biologists!call!them!synergisms!""!that!we!are!
not!yet!wise!enough!to!foresee.!!
!
83
File Title
Spark Answers
!
Nuclear war destroys ocean ecosystems

Harte in 84 (John, Professor of Energy and Resources at UC Berkeley, The Cold and the Dark: The World
After Nuclear War, p. 112-113)
The!effect!of!a!period!of!prolonged!darkness!on!aquatic!organisms!has!been!estimated!by!
experimentation!in!my!laboratory!and!by!mathematical!modeling!carried!out!by!Drs.!Chris!McKay!and!
Dave!Milne.!Both!types!of!research!produced!similar!results.!Food!chains!composed!of!phytoplankton,!
zooplankton,!and!fish!are!likely!to!suffer!greatly!from!light!extinction.!After!just!a!few!days!of!darkness,!
phytoplanktonthe!base!of!the!food!chainwould!die!off!or!go!into!a!dormant!stage.!Within!roughly!
two!months!in!the!temperate!zone!in!late!spring!or!summer,!and!within!three!to!six!months!in!that!zone!
in!winter,!aquatic!animals!would!show!drastic!population!declines!that!for!many!species!could!be!
irreversible.!These!estimates!(based!on!light!reduction)!probably!underestimate!the!consequences!for!
marine!life!of!postnuclear"war!conditions!because!they!take!no!account!of!thermal!effects,!and!they!do!
not!include!the!effect!of!increased!water!turbidity!arising!from!shoreline!erosion!and!from!soot!and!dust!
deposition.!The!sensitivity!of!marine!life!in!the!tropics!to!prolonged!darkness!is!likely!to!be!greater!than!
that!of!marine!life!in!the!temperate!zone!because!nutrient!reserves!are!lower!and!metabolic!requirements!
are!greater!in!the!tropics.!In!the!polar!regions,!where!adaptation!to!dark!winters!is!a!requirement!for!life,!
the!sensitivity!would!be!lessened.!Freshwater!lakes!would!become!highly!anoxic!after!the!dust!settles!and!
the!temperatures!increase.!Massive!amounts!of!organic!wastes,!including!thawing!corpses,!would!render!
water!supplies!lethal.!There!is!little!reason!to!believe!that!the!major!forms!of!aquatic!life!that!presently!
serve!as!food!sources!for!us!would!survive!a!nuclear!war!occurring!in!spring!or!summer!in!sufficient!
numbers!to!be!of!much!use!to!human!beings,!at!least!in!the!first!few!postwar!years.!
!
All life on earth is dependent upon the oceans-if it dies we die

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1998 (Year of the Ocean Report,
http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/yoto/meeting/mar_env_316.html)
<The!ocean!plays!a!critical!role!in!sustaining!the!life!of!this!planet.!Every!activity,!whether!natural!or!anthropogenic,!
has!far!reaching!impacts!on!the!world!at!large.!For!example,!excessive!emissions!of!greenhouse!gases!may!contribute!to!an!increase!the!sea!level,!
and!cause!potential!flooding!or!an!increase!in!storm!frequency;!this!flooding!can!reduce!wetland!acreage!and!increase!sediment!and!nutrient!flows!into!the!Gulf!of!Mexico,!
causing!adverse!impacts!on!water!quality!and!reducing!habitat!for!commercial!fisheries.!This!in!turn!drives!up!the!cost!of!fish!at!local!markets!nationwide.!
The!environment!and!the!economic!health!of!marine!and!coastal!waters!are!linked!at!the!individual,!
community,!state,!regional,!national!and!international!levels.!The!interdependence!of!the!economy!and!
the!environment!are!widely!recognized.!The!United!States!has!moved!beyond!viewing!health,!safety,!and!pollution!control!as!additional!costs!of!
doing!business!to!an!understanding!of!broader!stewardship,!recognizing!that!economic!and!social!prosperity!would!be!useless!if!the!
coastal!and!marine!environments!are!compromised!or!destroyed!in!the!process!of!development!(Presidents!
Council!on!Sustainable!Development,!1996).!
Much!about!the!ocean,!its!processes,!and!the!interrelationship!between!land!and!sea!is!unknown.!Many!harvested!marine!resources!depend!
upon!a!healthy!marine!environment!to!exist.!Continued!research!is!needed!so!that!sound!management!decisions!can!be!made!when!conflicts!
among!users!of!ocean!resources!arise.!Although!much!progress!has!been!made!over!the!past!30!years!to!enhance!marine!environmental!quality!and!ocean!resources,!much!work!
remains.!The!challenge!is!to!maintain!and!continue!to!improve!marine!water!quality!as!more!people!move!to!the!coasts!and!the!pressures!of!urbanization!increase.!Through!
education,!partnerships,!technological!advances,!research,!and!personal!responsibility,!marine!environmental!quality!should!continue!to!improve,!sustaining!resources!for!
generations!to!come.
!
$It!does!not!matter!where!on!Earth!you!live,!everyone!is!utterly!dependent!on!the!existence!of!that!
lovely,!living!saltwater!soup.!Theres!plenty!of!water!in!the!universe!without!life,!but!nowhere!is!
there!life!without!water.!The!living!ocean!drives!planetary!chemistry,!governs!climate!and!weather,!
and!otherwise!provides!the!cornerstone!of!the!life"support!system!for!all!creatures!on!our!planet,!
from!deep"sea!starfish!to!desert!sagebrush.!Thats!why!the!ocean!matters.!If!the!sea!is!sick,!well!feel!
it.!If!it!dies,!we!die.!Our!future!and!the!state!of!the!oceans!are!one.$!
84
File Title
The War Against You Know Who

Subpoint A: The War Against You Know Who
We have reached a crisis point in the war on terror. Islamic fundamentalists have declared
war upon us and yet the ranks of the faint of heart are growing. A renewed commitment to
fight this aggressive threat is essential. There is no middle way, it is victory or holocaust.
Frum and Perle, 2k3 (Richard and David, An End To Evil, how to win the war on terror)
Taken all in all, it could well be said that we have reached the crisis point in the war on terror. The momentum of our victories
has flagged. The way forward has become uncertain and the challenges ahead of us more complex. The ranks of the faint
hearts are growing, and their voices are echoing ever more loudly in our media and our politics. Yet tomorrow could be
the day that an explosive packed with radioactive material detonates in Los Angeles or that nerve gas is unleashed inside a
tunnel under the Hudson River or that a terrible new disease breaks out in the United Kingdom. If the people responsible for the
9/ 11 attack could have killed thirty thousand Americans or three hundred thousand or three million, they would have done so. The terrorists are
cruel, but they are not aimless. Their actions have a purpose. They are trying to rally the Muslim world to jihad against the planets only
superpower and the principal and most visible obstacle to their ambitions. They commit terror to persuade their potential followers that their
cause is not hopeless, that jihad can destroy American power. Random killings shootings in shopping malls, bombs in trash cans may be
emotionally satisfying to the terrorists, but they are strategically useless: Two kids at Columbine did as much, and the Republic did not totter.
Only truly spectacular acts of mass murder provides the propaganda the terrorists cause requires. They will try again they have to. Throughout
the war, the advocates of a strong policy against terror have had one great advantage over those who prefer the weaker line: We have offered
concrete recommendations equal to the seriousness of the threat, and the softliners have not, because we have wanted to fight, and they
have not. For us, terrorism remains the great evil of our time, and the war against this evil, our generations great cause.
We do not believe that Americans are fighting this evil to minimize it or to manage it. We believe they are fighting to
win to end this evil before it kills again and on a genocidal scale. There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or
holocaust. This book is a manual for victory. Cont. There here is nothing new about terrorism. What is new since 9/ 11 is
the chilling realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained within tolerable boundaries was not contained
at all, menacing our well-being as a people, even our survival as a nation. This realization stems, first, from the scale of 9/ 11, and
beyond that, from the apocalyptic vision of the terrorists themselves. The chill comes from knowing that there are, among the
terrorists, hundreds and perhaps thousands who are ready to die in order to kill. They cannot be deterred. They cannot be
appeased. The terrorists kill and will accept death for a cause with which no accommodation is possible.That cause is
militant Islam. Of the thirty-six organizations the U. S. Department of State designates as foreign terrorist organizations, seventeen purport
to act in the name of Islam, and six more are predominantly Muslim in membership.* Yet for many reasons our leaders, and the leaders of other
nations, have found it difficult to say so. Like the wizards in Harry Potter, they dread pronouncing out loud the enemys name.
We sometimes wonder how the war on terror escaped being called the war against You-know-who. President Bush was
right to insist that the United States has no quarrel with Islam. But while Americans have no proper quarrel with Islam, a
radical strain within Islam has declared war on us. This strain seeks to overthrow our civilization and remake the nations
of the West into Islamic societies, imposing on the whole world its religion and its law. To achieve these cosmic
ambitions, Islamic terrorists wish and are preparing to commit murder on a horrific scale. On 9/ 11, al-Qaeda killed in a
single day more people than the Irish Republican Army has killed in thirty-five years. AlQaeda and other Islamic terrorist groups
feverishly seek chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons to kill on a yet larger scale. If they get them, they
will use them. And though it is comforting to deny it, all the available evidence indicates that militant Islam commands
wide support, and even wider sympathy, among Muslims worldwide, including Muslim minorities in the West. A major opinion
survey of nine Middle Eastern countries in early 2002 found that one-third of the population even more in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia refused
to condemn the 9/ 11 attacks.* In militant Islam, we face an aggressive ideology of world domination. Like communism, this
ideology perverts the language of justice and equality to justify oppression and murder. Like Nazism, it exploits the
injured pride of once-mighty nations. Like both communism and Nazism, militant Islam is opportunistic it works
willingly with all manner of unlikely allies, as the communists and Nazis worked with each other against the democratic
West.
85
File Title

Subpoint B: The Link
Any campaign to solve terrorism that is rooted in a belief that it is the United States who is
hostile to Muslims and not the other way around appeases the extremists, causing more
people to flock to Islamic fundamentalism.
Frum and Perle, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Fomer special assistant to Bush 2k3 (An End to Evil,
how to win the war on terror)
In the first shock of 9/ 11, the Bush administration launched an ambitious campaign to woo the worlds Muslims.
The president went to mosques to stress his deep personal respect for the Muslim faith. Muslim dignitaries were
welcomed to the White House to observe the Ramadan fast. A highpowered advertising executive was hired as
undersecretary of state for public diplomacy to rebrand the United States in the eyes of Muslims worldwide. She
backed the creation of a new Arabic-language radio station that broadcast pop tunes and terse, neutral news
bulletins and helped create a series of advertisements that showcased successful Muslim immigrants to the United
States, including a New York Fire Department paramedic whose family had come from Kashmir and an Indonesian
graduate student at school in Missouri.
This early public relations campaign was founded upon one crucial assumption: The most important reason
extremism flourished in the Muslim world was that Muslims believed we were hostile to them. Some advocates of
the Islamic outreach campaign went further still. They politely suggested that Islamic anti-Americanism, while
unquestionably deplorable, should be regarded as an understandable reaction
to the materialism and hedonism of American life, as refracted through MTV, pornography, and the Internet. At one
point, it was even seriously considered that President Bush should mention in a speech that he was not always proud
of the face America presented to the world. After 9/ 11, the president did right, absolutely right, to warn Americans
against indiscriminate anger and to remind them of the equal rights due to all Americans, regardless of origin or
creed. We can all be proud of the extraordinary rarity of anti-Muslim hate crimes after 9/ 11 and President Bush
deserves credit for his urgent admonitions against bigotry. However, a nation that had exhibited the courage and
self-sacrifice, the national unity and strength of purpose, that Americans showed in New York and Washington on 9/
11 had no reason to apologize to anyone for its culture. And proceeding beyond calls for tolerance to the active
propitiation of Muslim opinion at home and abroad was not merely undignified, but dangerous. Heres why: One of
the most powerful arguments that moderate Muslims deploy against terrorism is that it disgraces the good
name of Muslims and Islam. The extremists claim, on the contrary, that spectacular acts of terrorism strengthen
Islam. Listen to Osama bin Laden exulting over the effects of the 9/ 11 attacks in a videotape aired December 13,
2001: In Holland, at one of the [Islamic] centers, the number of people who accepted Islam during the days that
followed the operations were more than the people who accepted Islam in the last eleven years. Bin Laden said that
he had heard someone on Islamic radio who owns a school in America say, We dont have time to keep up with
the demands of those who are asking about Islamic books to learn about Islam. This event made people think [about
Islam], which benefited Islam greatly.
The administrations solicitude for Muslim sensitivities might well have been interpreted by many Muslims as a
vindication of bin Ladens methods. When before had an American president ever shown such deference to Islam?
When had so many Western writers, journalists, and commentators listened
so assiduously to the grievances and complaints of the Muslim world and then repeated them so credulously to
their audiences? And to the administrations credit, it quickly recognized the folly of its initial approach. When
President Bush visited a Washington-area school to encourage children to write to a pen pal in the Persian Gulf at
the same time anthrax was showing up in the nations mail slots, even the liberal pressscoffed and protested. By then
it was apparent that the courtship of organized Muslim opinion had emboldened the most extreme elements in the
American Muslim community without winning the United States any new friends in the Islamic world.
86
File Title

Subpoint C: The Impact
This clash of civilizations will culminate in terrorists throwing atom bombs at us. Islamic
fundamentalists have no regard for human life and are promised a luxurious afterlife if
they can bring western civilization to its knees.
Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, 2k1(Benjamin, Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat the
International Terrorist Network)
What is at stake today is nothing less than the survival of our civilization. There may be some who would have
thought ten days ago that to talk in these apocalyptic terms about the battle against international terrorism was to
engage in reckless exaggeration. No longer.
Each one of us today understands that we are all targets, that our cities are vulnerable, and that our values are hated with an unmatched fanaticism that seeks to destroy
our societies and our way of life. I am certain that I speak on behalf of my entire nation when I say: Today, we are all Americans. In grief, as in defiance. In grief,
because my people have faced the agonizing horrors of terror for many decades, and we feel an instant kinship both with the victims of this tragedy and with the great
nation that mourns its fallen brothers and sisters. In defiance, because just as my country continues to fight terrorism in our battle for survival, I know that America
will not cower before this challenge. I have absolute confidence that if we, the citizens of the free world, led by President Bush, marshal the enormous reserves of
power at our disposal, harness the steely resolve of a free people, and mobilize our collective will, we shall eradicate this evil from the face of the earth. But to achieve
this goal, we must first answer several questions: Who are the evil forces responsible for this terrorist onslaught? What is their motive? And most important, what
must be done to defeat them? The first and most crucial thing to understand is this: There is no international terrorism without the support of sovereign states.
International terrorism simply cannot be sustained for long without the regimes that aid and abet it. Terrorists are not suspended in midair. They train, arm, and
indoctrinate their killers from within safe havens on territory provided by terrorist states. Often these regimes provide the terrorists with intelligence, money, and
operational assistance, dispatching them to serve as deadly proxies to wage a hidden war against more powerful enemies. These regimes mount a worldwide
propaganda campaign to legitimize terror, besmirching its victims and exculpating its practitioners -- as we witnessed in the farcical spectacle of the UN conference on
racism in Durban last month. Iran, Libya, and Syria call the United States and Israel racist countries that abuse human rights? Even Orwell could not have imagined
such a world. Take away all this state support, and the entire scaffolding of international terrorism will collapse into dust. The international terrorist network is thus
based on regimes -- Iran, Iraq, Syria, Taliban Afghanistan, Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority, and several other Arab regimes, such as the Sudan. These regimes are
the ones that harbor the terrorist groups: Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan; Hizballah and others in Syrian-controlled Lebanon; Hamas, Islamic jihad, and the recently
mobilized Fatah and Tanzim factions in the Palestinian territories; and sundry other terror organizations based in such capitals as Damascus, Baghdad, and Khartoum.
These terrorist states and terror-organizations together form a terror network whose constituent parts support one another operationally as well as politically. For
example, the Palestinian groups cooperate closely with Hizballah, which in turn links them to Syria, Iran, and bin Laden. These offshoots of terror have affiliates in
other states that have not yet uprooted their presence, such as Egypt, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. The growth of this terror network is the result of several developments
in the last two decades. Chief among them is the Khomeini revolution and the establishment of a clerical Islamic state in Iran. This created a sovereign spiritual base
for fomenting a strident Islamic militancy worldwide -- a militancy that was often backed by terror. Equally important was the victory in the Afghan war of the
international Mujahdeen brotherhood. This international band of zealots, whose ranks include Osama bin Laden, saw their victory over the Soviet Union as
providential proof of the innate supremacy of faithful Moslems over the weak infidel powers. They believed that even the superior weapons of a superpower could not
withstand their superior will. To this should be added Saddam Hussein's escape from destruction at the end of the Gulf War, his dismissal of UN monitors, and his
growing confidence that he can soon develop unconventional weapons to match those of the West. Finally, the creation of Yasir Arafat's terror enclave gave a safe
haven to militant Islamic terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Like their Mujahdeen cousins, they drew inspiration from Israel's hasty withdrawal from
Lebanon, glorified as a great Moslem victory by the Syrian-backed Hizballah. Under Arafat's rule, these Palestinian Islamic terrorist groups have made repeated use of
the technique of suicide bombing, going so far as to run summer camps in Gaza that teach Palestinian children how to become suicide martyrs. Here is what Arafat's
government-controlled newspaper, Al-Hayat-Al-Jadida, said on September 11, a few hours before the suicide bombings, of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:
"The suicide bombers of today are the noble successors of the Lebanese suicide bombers, who taught the U.S. Marines a tough lesson in [Lebanon] . . . These suicide
bombers are the salt of the earth, the engines of history . . . They are the most honorable people among us."
A simple rule prevails here: The success of terrorists in one part of the terror network emboldens terrorists
throughout the network. This then is the Who. Now for the Why. Although its separate parts may have local
objectives and take part in local conflicts, the main motivation driving the terror network is an anti-Western hostility
that seeks to achieve nothing less than a reversal of history. It seeks to roll back the West and install an extremist
form of Islam as the dominant power in the world. And it seeks to do this not by means of its own advancement and
progress, but by destroying the enemy. This hatred is the product of a seething resentment that has simmered for
centuries in certain parts of the Arab and Islamic world.
Most Moslems in the world, including the vast majority of the growing Moslem communities in the West, are not
guided by this interpretation of history, nor are they moved by its call for a holy war against the West. But some are.
And though their numbers are small compared to the peaceable majority, they nevertheless constitute a growing
hinterland for this militancy.
87
File Title
Militant Islamists resented the West for pushing back the triumphant march of Islam into the heart of Europe many
centuries ago. Believing in the innate supremacy of Islam, they then suffered a series of shocks when in the last two
centuries that same hated, supposedly inferior West penetrated Islamic realms in North Africa, the Middle East, and
the Persian Gulf. For them the mission was clear: The West had to be pushed out of these areas. Pro-Western Middle
Eastern regimes were toppled in rapid succession, including in Iran. And Israel, the Middle East's only democracy
and its purest manifestation of Western progress and freedom, must be wiped off the face of the earth.
Thus, the soldiers of militant Islam do not hate the West because of Israel, they hate Israel because of the West -because they see it is an island of Western democratic values in a Moslem-Arab sea of despotism. That is why they
call Israel the Little Satan, to distinguish it clearly from the country that has always been and will always be the
Great Satan -- the United States of America. Nothing better illustrates this than Osama bin Laden's call for a jihad,
or holy war, against the United States in 1998. He gave as his primary reason not Israel, not the Palestinians, not the
"peace process," but rather the very presence of the United States "occupying the Land of Islam in the holiest of
places." And where is that? The Arabian peninsula, says bin Laden, where America is "plundering its riches,
dictating to its rulers, and humiliating its people." Israel, by the way, comes a distant third, after "the continuing
aggression against the Iraqi people" (Al-Quds-Al-Arabi, February 23, 1998). For the bin Ladens of the world, Israel
is merely a sideshow. America is the target.
But reestablishing a resurgent Islam requires not just rolling back the West; it requires destroying its main engine,
the United States. And if the United States cannot be destroyed just now, it first can be humiliated -- as in the
Teheran hostage crisis two decades ago -- and then ferociously attacked again and again, until it is brought to its
knees. But the ultimate goal remains the same: Destroy America and win eternity. Some may find it hard to believe
that Islamic militants truly cling to the mad fantasy of destroying America. There should be no mistake about it.
They do. And unless they are stopped now, their attacks will continue, and will become even more lethal in the
future.
To understand the true dangers of Islamic militancy, we can compare it to another ideology which sought world
domination -- communism. Both movements pursued irrational goals, but the communists at least pursued theirs in a
rational way. Any time they had to choose between ideology and their own survival, as in Cuba or Berlin, they
backed off and chose survival. Not so for the Islamic militants. They pursue an irrational ideology irrationally -with no apparent regard for human life, neither their own lives nor the lives of their enemies. The communists
seldom, if ever, produced suicide bombers, while Islamic militancy produces hordes of them, glorifying them and
promising them that their dastardly deeds will earn them a luxurious afterlife. This highly pathological aspect of
Islamic militancy is what makes it so deadly for mankind.
In 1995, when I wrote Fighting Terrorism, I warned about the militant Islamic groups operating in the West with the
support of foreign powers -- serving as a new breed of "domestic-international" terrorists, basing themselves in
America to wage jihad against America: "Such groups," I wrote then, "nullify in large measure the need to have air
power or intercontinental missiles as delivery systems for an Islamic nuclear payload. They will be the delivery
system. In the worst of such scenarios, the consequence could be not a car bomb but a nuclear bomb in the basement
of the World Trade Center." Well, they did not use a nuclear bomb. They used two 150-ton fully fueled jetliners to
wipe out the Twin Towers. But does anyone doubt that, given the chance, they will throw atom bombs at America
and its allies? And perhaps, long before that, chemical and biological weapons?
This is the greatest danger facing our common future. Some states of the terror network already possess chemical
and biological capabilities, and some are feverishly developing nuclear weapons. Can one rule out the possibility
that they will be tempted to use such weapons, openly or through terror proxies, or that their weapons might fall into
the hands of the terrorist groups they harbor?
88
File Title
Subpoint D: The Way Forward

This crisis of understanding within Islam must be overcome by explaining discrediting and
condemning Islamic fundamentalism or else moderates will lose the global struggle for the
soul of Islam and modern civilization will be destroyed.
Wahid, former president of Indonesia, 12-30-2k5 [Abdurrahman Right Islam vs. Wrong Islam, Wall Street
Journals OpinionJournal, http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007743]
An extreme and perverse ideology in the minds of fanatics is what directly threatens us (specifically, Wahhabi/Salafi
ideology--a minority fundamentalist religious cult fueled by petrodollars). Yet underlying, enabling and
exacerbating this threat of religious extremism is a global crisis of misunderstanding.
All too many Muslims fail to grasp Islam, which teaches one to be lenient towards others and to understand their
value systems, knowing that these are tolerated by Islam as a religion. The essence of Islam is encapsulated in the
words of the Quran, "For you, your religion; for me, my religion." That is the essence of tolerance. Religious
fanatics--either purposely or out of ignorance--pervert Islam into a dogma of intolerance, hatred and bloodshed.
They justify their brutality with slogans such as "Islam is above everything else." They seek to intimidate and
subdue anyone who does not share their extremist views, regardless of nationality or religion. While a few are quick
to shed blood themselves, countless millions of others sympathize with their violent actions, or join in the complicity
of silence.
This crisis of misunderstanding--of Islam by Muslims themselves--is compounded by the failure of governments,
people of other faiths, and the majority of well-intentioned Muslims to resist, isolate and discredit this dangerous
ideology. The crisis thus afflicts Muslims and non-Muslims alike, with tragic consequences. Failure to understand
the true nature of Islam permits the continued radicalization of Muslims world-wide, while blinding the rest of
humanity to a solution which hides in plain sight.
The most effective way to overcome Islamist extremism is to explain what Islam truly is to Muslims and nonMuslims alike. Without that explanation, people will tend to accept the unrefuted extremist view--further
radicalizing Muslims, and turning the rest of the world against Islam itself.
Accomplishing this task will be neither quick nor easy. In recent decades, Wahhabi/Salafi ideology has made
substantial inroads throughout the Muslim world. Islamic fundamentalism has become a well-financed, multifaceted
global movement that operates like a juggernaut in much of the developing world, and even among immigrant
Muslim communities in the West. To neutralize the virulent ideology that underlies fundamentalist terrorism and
threatens the very foundations of modern civilization, we must identify its advocates, understand their goals and
strategies, evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, and effectively counter their every move. What we are talking
about is nothing less than a global struggle for the soul of Islam.
89
File Title
Appeasement Bad
Appeasement in the war on terror causes evil to grow
Hannity, Journalist, 2k4 (Sean, Deliver us from Evil p 2-6)
I decided to write this book because I believe it is our responsibility to recognize and confront evil in the world
and because Im convinced that if we fail in that mission it will lead us to disaster. Evil exists. It is real and it means
to harm us. Cont.
The trouble with tolerating evil, of course, is while were averting our eyes, the evil itself only grows and
festers around the world. This has been true thought history. Neville Chamberlain assured a wary England that an
appeasement pact with Adolf Hitler would lead to peace in our time. Cold War liberal elitists ignored or
downplayed the atrocities of communinism, from the gulag of Uncle joe Stalin to the killing fields of Cambodia.
Bill Clinton stood idly by while Islamic terrorists attacked American targets throughout the 1990s, in a long prelude
that should have averted us to their burgeoning war on America.
The primary evil we face today is terrorism But we will never triumph over the terrorists until we realize
that groups like al Qaeda are not working alone. Without the deep pockets of terrorist-friendly dictatorships like
Saddam Husseins Iraq to support them, the loose networks of Islamic terrorism would pose only a fraction of the
danger to civilization they currently do. And those dictatorships, we must realize, are the same brutal regimes that
have oppressed their own people for generations.
As President Bush has declared, we can no longer wait around for terrorists to attack us. We must take the
war to them, rooting them out of their swamps and destroying the despotic regimes that furnish their lifeblood. Cont.
One challenge of a long and drawn-out war is that public commitment to the war effort can flag
especially in an unpredictable situation like the War on Terror, where a few weeks of dramatic battle can be
followed by months, of difficult activity behind the scenes. And if the public should lose its resolve to win, if its
attention should wander from the evil that confront us and the necessity of defeating it victory will only stray further
from our reach.
Under such circumstances, some of the most dangerous attacks our nation faces can come from those on
the home front. America has faced evil before, from Nazi Germany to Soviet Russia in the twentieth century alone.
Each time, we have had to overcome opposition from the within as part of our battle against these enemies. For
when it comes to confronting evil, the fact is that there are essentially two types of people: those who are willing to
fight it, and those who try to excuse it- or worse, deny it even exists. Throughout history, the appeasers have refused
to recognize evil, let alone confront it. They make excuse for it, ignore it and coddle it. And by refusing to fight,
they nourish and encourage it. Every great champion of freedom in the modern era has had to overcome a prominent
voice of appeasement.
The lessons of history are clear: You cannot negotiate with evil. You cant sweet-talk it. You cant
compromise with it. You cant give ground to it. You can only defeat it, or it will defeat you. Ever since September
11th, the voices of the left have been treating the terrorists as though they were merely another player in the same
old political game. They have tried to play both ends against the middle, aligning themselves with the war effort
when it suite their political needs, but shifting their allegiances as soon as an election loomed on the horizon. But the
terrorists are no mere political sideshow. Though it manifests itself differently, the threat they represent is every bit
as grave as the one we experienced during World War II or the Cold War. There is no appeasing this enemy, they
will stop at nothing in their quest to destroy the United States, and they will lay waste to every human life they can
in the process.
As you read these words, the evildoers are plotting the disruption of our lives, the destruction of our
property, the murder of our families. Today or tomorrow, fanatical extremists could come into possession of suitcase
nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, whether through rogue nations or via black market thugs
from the former Soviet Union. We face the possibility of our civilization being destroyed, as surely as we did during
the Cuban Missile Crisis; indeed, with recent advances in technology and the ongoing instability in the Middle East
and around the world, the danger may be worse than ever. We rose to the challenge then; we cannot afford to fall
short now.
90
File Title
Appeasement Bad
Every attempt to appease anti-American Muslim sensitivity emboldens them. Only

discrediting their ideology can we stop people from becoming terrorists.
EPSTEIN, Junior Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, 2K6 (Alex, Muslim Opinion Be Damned, Feb 6,
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11771&news_iv_ctrl=1021)
This is the latest example of the apologies and hand-wringing that occur anytime there is any widespread display of
Muslim anger. To listen to most of our foreign-policy commentators, the biggest problem facing America today is
the fact that many Muslims are mad at us.We face, these commentators say, a crisis of "Muslim opinion." We
must, they say, win the "hearts and minds" of angry Muslims by heaping public affection on Islam, by shutting
down Guantanamo, by being more "evenhanded" between free Israel and the terrorist Palestinian Authority--and
certainly by avoiding any new military action in the Muslim world. If we fail to win over "Muslim opinion," we are
told, we will drive even more to become terrorists.
All of this evades one blatant truth: the hatred being heaped on America is irrational and undeserved. Consider the
issue of treatment of POWs. Many Muslims are up in arms about the treatment of prisoners of war in Iraq and at
Guantanamo--many of whom were captured on battlefields, trying to kill Americans. Yet these same Muslims are
silent about the summary convictions and torture--real torture, with electric drills and vats of acid--that are official
policy and daily practice throughout the Middle East.
Or consider "Muslim opinion" over the United States' handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which the
United States is accused of not being "hard enough" on Israel--a free nation with laws that protect all citizens, Jew
and Arab alike--for Israel's supposed mistreatment of Palestinians. Yet "Muslim opinion" reveres the Palestinian
Authority, a brutal dictatorship that deprives Palestinians of every basic freedom, keeps them in unspeakable
poverty, and routinely tortures and executes peaceful dissenters.
So-called Muslim opinion is not the unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. It is the irrational and
unjust opinion of the world's worst Muslims: Islamists and their legions of "moderate" supporters and sympathizers.
These people oppose us not because of any legitimate grievances against America, but because they are steeped in a
fundamentalist interpretation of their religion--one that views America's freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly
pleasures as the height of depravity. They do not seek respect for the rights of the individual (Muslim or nonMuslim), they seek a world in which the rights of all are sacrificed to the dictates of Islam.
The proper response to Islamists and their supporters is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies-and dispense justice accordingly. In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill or demoralize them--especially
those regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for the rest, we must politically ignore them
and intellectually discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism. Such a policy would
make us safe, expose Islamic anti-Americanism as irrational and immoral, and embolden the better Muslims to
support our ideals and emulate our ways.
President Bush, like most politicians and intellectuals, has taken the opposite approach to "Muslim opinion":
appeasement. Instead of identifying anti-American Muslims as ideological enemies to be discredited, he has
appealed to their sensibilities and met their demands--e.g., sacrificing American soldiers to save Iraqi civilians and
mosques. Instead of seeking to crush the Islamists by defeating the causes they fight for--such as Islamic world
domination and the destruction of Israel--he has appeased those causes, declaring Islam a "great religion" and
rewarding the Palestinian terrorist Jihad with a promised Palestinian state. Instead of destroying terrorist regimes
that wage war against the West--including, most notably, Iran--he has sought their "cooperation" and even cast some
as "coalition partners"
Every attempt to appease "Muslim opinion" preserves, promotes, and emboldens our enemies. Every concession to
angry Muslim mobs gives hope to the Islamist cause. Every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives their
minions time to execute the next Sept. 11. America needs honest leadership with the courage to identify and defeat
our enemies--"Muslim opinion" be damned. They should begin by declaring that militant groups and states that
threaten anti-Western violence in response to free speech will be met, not with appeasement, but with destruction.
91
File Title
Appeasement Bad
Your strategy foreign policy strategy has historically failed

HANSON, Professor of Classical Studies at CSU Fresno, 2K4 (Victor, City Journal, Spring, http://www.cityjournal.org/html/14_2_the_fruits.html)
The twentieth century should have taught the citizens of liberal democracies the catastrophic consequences of
placating tyrants. British and French restraint over the occupation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, the absorption of
the Czech Sudetenland, and the incorporation of Bohemia and Moravia did not win gratitude but rather Hitlers
contempt for their weakness. Fifty million dead, the Holocaust, and the near destruction of European civilization
were the wages of appeasementa term that early-1930s liberals proudly embraced as far more enlightened than
the old idea of deterrence and military readiness.
So too did Western excuses for the Russians violation of guarantees of free elections in postwar Eastern Europe,
China, and Southeast Asia only embolden the Soviet Union. What eventually contained Stalinism was the Truman
Doctrine, NATO, and nuclear deterrencenot the United Nationsand what destroyed its legacy was Ronald
Reagans assertiveness, not Jimmy Carters accommodation or Richard Nixons dtente.
As long ago as the fourth century b.c., Demosthenes warned how complacency and self-delusion among an affluent
and free Athenian people allowed a Macedonian thug like Philip II to end some four centuries of Greek libertyand
in a mere 20 years of creeping aggrandizement down the Greek peninsula. Thereafter, these historical lessons should
have been clear to citizens of any liberal society: we must neither presume that comfort and security are our
birthrights and are guaranteed without constant sacrifice and vigilance, nor expect that peoples outside the purview
of bourgeois liberalism share our commitment to reason, tolerance, and enlightened self-interest.
Most important, military deterrence and the willingness to use force against evil in its infancy usually end up, in the
terrible arithmetic of war, saving more lives than they cost. All this can be a hard lesson to relearn each generation,
especially now that we contend with the sirens of the mall, Oprah, and latte. Our affluence and leisure are as
antithetical to the use of force as rural life and relative poverty once were catalysts for muscular action. The age-old
lure of appeasementperhaps they will cease with this latest concession, perhaps we provoked our enemies,
perhaps demonstrations of our future good intentions will win their approvalwas never more evident than in the
recent Spanish elections, when an affluent European electorate, reeling from the horrific terrorist attack of 3/11,
swept from power the pro-U.S. center-right government on the grounds that the mass murders were more the fault of
the United States for dragging Spain into the effort to remove fascists and implant democracy in Iraq than of the
primordial al-Qaidist culprits, who long ago promised the Western and Christian Iberians ruin for the Crusades and
the Reconquista.
92
File Title
Cosmopolitanism Bad
Ideas of a common humanity are utopian and will never be realized. They merely increase
the likelihood of conflict.
Lu, Professor of Political Science, University of Toronto 2k (Catherine The One and Many Faces of
Cosmopolitanism The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 8 Number 2 p244)
!
International realists have characterized the defining divide in twentieth-century international relations as an
antithesis between idealism and realism. EH Carr focuses on this dichotomy in this classic work, The Twenty Years
Crises, asserting that the contest between idealism and realism represents the enduring and intractable conflicts
between free will and determinism, theory and practice, and ethics and politics. According to Robert Gilpin,
realism is founded on a pessimism regarding moral progress and human possibilities, in contrast, idealism is
sustained by a nave optimism that involves undue faith in the inevitability of moral progress and human
perfectibility. Realist critiques of cosmopolitanism have consistently been bound up in this posited dichotomy. They
consistently portray cosmopolitan ideas as belonging in the realm of idealism, from political visions of world
government, collective security and global distributive justice to the ethical argument appealing to a notion of
common humanity that underlies them. The universalist implications of the idea of common humanity, expressed in
such phrases as all men are brothers, seem utopian in a world marked by fragmentation, discord and conflict. Far
from a unity or community of humankind, realists like Gilpin see a world of scare resources and conflict over the
distribution of those resources, where human beings confront one another ultimately as members of [nonuniversal] groups. The moral community of humankind, posited by Nussbaum and other cosmopolitan theorists,
does not accord with the reality of the human condition. Because we live in a broken rather than united world,
amongst self-interested rather than altruistic groups, no harmony or reconciliation of universal and particular, public
and private, or international and national, interests can be assumed or perhaps, even attained. Realists have targeted
idealism not only because of its intellectual failings, but also because, as Gilpin has stated, a moral commitment
lies at the heart of realism. Realists believe that idealizing humanity and the human condition, resulting in utopian
views of the nature of politics and the possibility of its transcendence with a more harmonious ethic, will only
undermine international and human security. The realist in Hedly Bull asserts that in positing a community of
humankind that is destined to sweep the system of states into limbo, cosmopolitan ideals threaten international
order and stability, in their aim at united and integrating the gamily of nations such as ideals in practice divide it
more deeply than ever before. Idealistic cosmopolitanism thus produces no ideal but its antithesis. Its denial of the
facts of human existence makes cosmopolitan ethical orientation would lead many individuals and states, to ruin.
93
File Title
Clash of Civilization
Terrorists hatred is rooted in the truths of Islam. The United States identity directly
challenges these truths no accommodation is possible.
how to win the war on terror)
Nobody denies the reality of the religious, ideological, and ethnic divisions of the Middle East. But the willingness
of terrorist groups and terror states to cooperate with one another despite these divisions is also a reality. And why
should that be surprising? Each faction has its own utopia to offer but each is appealing to the same grievances
and competing for the same constituency. The radicals may detest one
other, but their murderous hatred of the United States pushes all lesser animosities aside.
Where does this hatred come from? In the first shock after the terrorist attack, many journalists took it on themselves
to repeat the long list of Middle Eastern and Islamic grievances against the United States and repeated them in a
way that implied that these grievances were understandable, even legitimate. The United States surely has made
mistakes in the Middle East, as it has elsewhere in the world. But a hatred as allconsuming and self-destructive as
the hatred encountered in radical Islam tells us much more about those who hate than about the one who is hated.
Middle Eastern terrorism may have seized on the United States as its target, but the roots of Muslim rage are to be
found in Islam itself.
Unlike Christianity, Islam offers its believers rewards on earth as well as in heaven. Adherents of the true faith are
assured of victory on the battlefield and economic and cultural supremacy in the world: Allah has promised to
those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them rulers in the earth as He made rulers
those before them. . . .* For more than two centuries, these triumphant promises have proven false. The Islamic
world has lagged further and further behind the Christian West; since 1948, it has
repeatedly been humiliated even by the once disdained Jews. These defeats and disasters have been more than a
wound to Muslims: They directly challenge the truth of Islam itself. And no nation poses a more comprehensive
challenge to the vision and ambition of radical Islam than the United States, a secular, democratic, Judeo-Christian,
sexually egalitarian superpower.
94
File Title
US Power Good
This is a war of defense. Only American might can liberate us from the unquestioning
horror and slavery of Islamic fundamentalism.
how to win the war on terror) p 278)
And as long as the Islamic extremists subjects repeat such things, for so long will the United States be militant
Islams target. If ever there were a war of self-defense, the war on terror is that war.
This is a scenario for a long war, but it is not a scenario for endless war. No lie lasts forever, and militant Islam is a
lie. It proposes to restore the vanished glory of a great civilization through crimes that horrify the conscience of the
world. It invokes the language of liberation but it intends to fasten unthinking, unquestioning slavery on the minds
of the people of one-fifth of the world. It claims the authority of God for its own cruelty and evil.
The United States has been reproached even by many who should know better for inserting itself into Iraq rather than letting the Iraqis
rule themselves. But it is only because we did insert ourselves into Iraq that the Iraqis have any hope of ruling themselves and the same will be
true in Iran and everywhere else in the Islamic world where we must fight. Kofi Annan complained in July 2003 that democracy cannot be
imposed by force. Really? Men from Annans Ghana fought and died in the Burmese jungles to defeat the Japanese army and thereby to
impose democracy by force on Japan. Democracy seems to have made quite a success of itself there, too. We do not show our respect for human
difference by shrugging indifferently when people somehow different from ourselves are brutalized in body and spirit. If a foreign people lack
liberty, it is not because of some misguided act of cultural choice. It is because they have been seized and oppressed and tyrannized. To say that
we are engaged in imposing American values when we liberate people is to imply that there are peoples on this earth who value their own
subjugation.
It is the terrorists, rather, who intend to impose their values, upon Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They inflict
misery and death upon Muslims but promise to compensate by inflicting still greater misery and death upon
nonMuslims. The terrorists espouse an ideology of conquest,just as the Nazis and the Soviets did; and as we
defeated the Nazis and communists by championing freedom not only for ourselves but also for Germans and
Russians, so we must now do the same for the Islamic people who are both
terrorisms prime constituency and its principal victims. Annan is wrong. Much more often than not, democracy will
not have a chance unless it is aided from outside and by force if necessary. As those Iraqis, Afghans, and Iranians
told us, people all over the world want the benefits of American democracy but they do not always possess the
skills to launch a representative government by only their unaided
strength. We can help, as we helped in Western Europe and Japan. Democracy is most apt to survive and flourish
when the local economy is strong and creating the conditions for a successful economy can again require outside
help, like the help we provided when we encouraged the democratization
of Central America in the 1980s. Sometimes a small democracy is threatened by powerful external enemies and
the United States has historically always stood ready to protect small free countries against powerful unfree
neighbors, as we now stand ready to protect Taiwan against China.
To call this empire as do some opponents of the war and some rash supporters, too is to wrong
ourselves. To call it empire belittles the many small countries that have turned to the United States for protection,
rightly confident that our assistance would not impair their independence and sovereignty. The American record on
this score is not perfect. But it is a record to be proud of all the same.
We mentioned before the strange feeling of the UN headquarters on a quiet weekend afternoon. A visitor can sink
into one of the quaint futuristic chairs in the corridors, close his or her eyes, and dream for a minute the dream that
built the place. The authors of this book are not immune to that dream even as we recognize that the UN has
traduced and betrayed it. A world at peace; a world governed by law; a
world in which all peoples are free to find their own destinies: That dream has not yet come true, it will not come
true soon, but if it ever does come true, it will be brought into being by American armed might and defended by
American might, too. Americas vocation is not an imperial vocation. Our vocation
is to support justice with power. It is a vocation that has earned us terrible enemies. It is a vocation that has made us,
at our best moments, the hope of the world.
95
File Title
Terrorism Impact Cards
Terrorist attack will result in extinction

SID-AHMED, internationally renowned reporter and columnist in Al Ahram, 2K4
Mohamed, Extinction! Al-Ahram Weekly, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the
negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on
themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and
religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the
awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive.
But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one
will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be
without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
More ev.
Patrick F. Speice, Jr. J.D. Candidate 2k6, Marshall-Wythe School of Law. William & Mary Law Review. February
A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49
Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate
with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear
conflict
96
File Title
AT: Violence Bad
Ruling out violence condemns us to pacifism, allowing terrorists to use civilians as human
shields.
Netanyahu, Prime Minster of Isreal, 86 (Terrorism: How the West can win p. last chapter)
The second platitude blurring the true nature of terrorism is the cycle of violence argument, raised whenever
governments contemplate action against the terrorists. It is proffered not only to war of a possible practical
consequence an ensuing spiral of violence (an argument I will address later) but as a moral injunction as well,
i.e, responding to the terrorists with force lowers one to their level. As if military strikes aimed at the terrorists and
terrorist attacks on civilians belong on the same moral plane. They do not. Safeguarding that distinction is central to
prosecuting and winning the war on terrorism. For the terrorists ultimate victory is to control our thinking and to
assign the term terrorists to those of his victims who fight back.
Terrorists have been successful at propagating this false symmetry because of the sloppiness of the Wests
thinking about the use of force. Americas loss of clarity in the wake of Vietnam has become a general Western
malaise. The rules of engagement have become so ridged that governments have often straitjacketed themselves in
the face of unambiguous aggression. Cont.
These questions, however, should not obscure a fundamental principle: Under no circumstances should governments
categorically rule out a military response simply because of the risk of civilian causalities. There is a practical and
moral basis for this position. In practical terms an inflexible rule against risking civilian causalities would make any
military action virtually impossible,. Knowing our inhibition, the terrorists would go to even greater lengths to put
civilians at maximum risk. In moral terms, an absolute prohibition on civilian casualties today condemns to death or
injury many future victims of a terrorism that, undeterred, will inevitably increase.
Responsible governments seek to minimize civilian casualties. But they do not grant immunity to an
aggressor simply because their response might endanger civilians. If this is true in normal combat, it is truer still in
the case of terrorism An absolute prohibition on civilian casualties affords the terrorists an invincible shield.
97
File Title
AT: Violence Bad

The war on terror is a just war. To accept the moral reasoning of pacifism opens us up to
more grevious attacks. We must remember this is a war between good and evil, and some
things are worth fighting and dying for.
Bennett, Former Head of National Endowment for the Humanities, Former Secretary of Education and Former
Director of the Office of NDCP, Ph.D in Philosophy from UT and Law Degree from Harvard, 2002
(William J. Why We Fight: Moral Clarity in the War on Terror p. Chapters 1, 2, and 5)
A great deal, Augustine wrote in Contra Faustum, depends on the causes for which men undertake wars, and on
the authority they have for doing so. Aquinas, specifying, named three main criteria for determining if one could
initiate war. (This part of the just-war doctrine was called by the medieval scholastics jus ad bellum, the right to go
to war, as distinct from jus in bello, the proper conduct of war.) The three were: whether war is declared by a
legitimate sovereign; whether it is for a just causethat is, a cause that avenges wrongs or rights an injustice; and
whether the belligerents intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. To those who argued that
Chiristains should always seek peace, Aquinas responded that those who wage war justly do, in face, aim at true
peace, being opposed only to an evil peace. Indeed, Christians would be shirking their religious duty were they not
to struggle against an unjust peace, including by taking up arms.
Did American military action in the wake of September 11 satisfy these three criteria? That it was waged by a
legitimate authority is patent: that authority being the duly elected and sworn president, acting with virtually
unanimous approval of the elected representatives of the American people. Likewise, it was clearly waged in a just
cause, against terrorists who sought and still seek to destroy us, as well as to avoid future evil. True, even when a
war is waged by a legitimate authority, for a legitimate reason, and for a legitimate end, other factors must weigh
heavily. Implicitly referring to the tradition of jus in bello, the letter of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to the
president warned: Any military response must be in accord with sound moral principles,such as probability of
success, civilian immunity, and proportionality. Although war is certainly hell (in the pithy observation of General
William Sherman), our conduct of it must nevertheless be appropriate. We may be unable to avoid injuring innocent
civilians in the course of fighting, but we must not target them. Likewise, we must not kill or mistreat prisoners of
war. And we must always be wary of producing, even unintentionally, evils commensurate with those we are
seeking to eliminate.
Obviously there is a fine moral line here, As the scholar Jean Bethke Elstain has pointed out, Augustine, in
developing the idea of the just war, struggled with the fact that the weight of Scripture challenges the use of force.
But he recognized, as most Christians have, that there are times when not resorting to force leads to evils far
greater than the one we oppose. And as for whether we have fought a war justly (in contrast to fighting a just war),
any proper assessment requires careful analysis based on specific factsand often on the outcome of the hostilities
themselves. To quote the Anglican theologian Patrick Comeford, It is only long after a war is over that we have the
time and the luxury to determine whether all conditions [of a just war] have been met.
By all these standards, both the military campaign in Afghanistan and our conduct of that campaign qualify
unreservedly as just. In light of its aims and its achievements, in consideration of our extraordinary sensitivity to the
avoidance of civilian causalities, and in light of our vast efforts of humanitarian relief for the suffering people of
Afghanistan, I would not be surprised if, in historical retrospect, the Afghanistan campaign were to qualify as one of
the most just wars ever fought.
For still others, the pacifist response hinged on a secular variant of the jus in bello argument: the certain
knowledge that American military action would result in the death of innocents. Killing people wont prove
anything, said that mother in Maine. Its just more of the same. Andrew Greeley, a catholic priest and writer,
added that America was organizing its own jihad.
98
File Title
AT: Violence Bad
More of the same? Terrorists target innocent civilians by definition; they seek the destruction of innocent life.
Military action to combat terrorism seeks to avoid noncombatant causalities. It is not more of the same; it is
the opposite of the same. It was ludicrous to suggest that morally we would be as culpable for civilian casualties
resulting from our use of force in Afghanistan as were the terrorist for the deaths of those on the planes, at the
Pentagon, and in the World Trade Center. Besides, although it was unfortunately true that innocent people would die
as a consequence of our actionin Afghanistan, to say it again, such casualties never approached a fraction of what
was being foretold without that action many more innocent people would certainly die. Moral delicacy
untethered from the recognition of facts and circumstances is a form of moral idiocy.
What do we owe to our country, and can we allow our moral delicacy to decide that? One often overlooked
element in the pacifist stance is its moral luxurythe face that it is made possible, and protected only by the
willingness of others to use force. As George Orwell put it, speaking of pacifists in World War II, Those who
abjure violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
This point can be extended: In the democratic societies of the West, the critique of violence depends
entirely on the continued vigilance of those who are often the prime targets of that critique, notably the armed
forces. It also depends on the maintenance of a common set of expectations, too often taken for granted, regarding
the norms of civilized life. In the words of the novelist and Nobel laureate V.S. Naipaul, writing about the lyrics of
Joan Baez, You couldnt listen to the sweet songs about injustice unless you expected justice and received it much
of the time. You couldnt sing about the end of the world unless you felt that the world was going on and on and you
were safe in it.
The same point is also relevant to the few cases in which nonviolence has actually succeeded: The obvious
examples are Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. For Gandhi was appealing, shrewdly, to the British devotion to law
and fair play, as well as to British humanitarian sentiment; were he to have adopted a similar tactic in Nazi
Germany, his movement would have been brutally extinguished and his own fate would have been death. King
also based his entire campaign on the well-founded certainty that most Americans were not only appalled by
segregation but were unalterably committed to the universal extension of the rights and guarantees enshrined in the
constitution. In countries that respect human rights, in countries that exhibit a conscience, nonviolent protest can
succeed. The idea of it succeeding with our enemies today is laughable.
It goes without saying that Islamic extremism of the kind practiced by the Taliban and espoused or
nourished by others around the world leaves no room for the dissent that our democracy affords, let alone for
pacifism. It also goes without saying that pacifists would not wish to live under such regimes. But their arguments,
taken seriously, would prevent themor anyone elsefrom doing what might be necessary to stop such regimes
from arising, and would certainly save no oneincluding pacifistsfrom becoming their victims. Is that moral, or
is it actually immoral? I agree with the late philosopher Sidney Hook, who wrote that absolute adherence to pacifism
makes the pacifist morally responsible for the evils that an intelligent use of force may sometimes prevent.
Todays pacifists owe their very lives to the America that stopped Hitlernonpacifically. Were we to
have accepted their moral reasoning now, we would have laid ourselves open to more grievous attack and,
quite possibly, to the prospect of a world in which people holding nonviolent beliefs would be exterminated. In
this sense, as C.S. Lewis prophesied, pacifism means taking the straight road to a world in which there will be no
pacifists.
You should never be violent. In this world, a world in which, to the best of my knowledge, the lion has
yet to lie down with the lamb, teaching children this lesson does an unforgivable injury both to them and to the adult
community of which they are about to become a part. It renders them vulnerable to abuse and injury, and leaves
them without moral or intellectual recourse when abuse and injury are inflicted upon them. If no distinction is made
among kinds of peace, children are deprived of the tools they require to distinguish a just from an unjust peace,
peace with honor from the peace of the grave. They are robbed of the oldest and most necessary wisdom of the race,
which is that some things are worth fighting and dying for.
99
File Title
AT: Violence Bad
Are we to tell our children that, because you should always find a peaceful way to solve your problems, the brave
men who faught in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the two World Wars, and every other conflict in our
history were acting immorally? That way lies a generation prepared only for accommodation, appeasement, and
surrender. If, heaven forbid, they should ever be faced in their turn with the need to respond to aggression and evil,
better by far for them to have learned, understood, and taken to heart the words of John Stuart Mill:
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to
fightnothing he cares about more than his own safetyis a miserable creature who has no chance of being free,
unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
What term shall we reserve for those who in the current instance have preached to us that, given who we
are, and what we have done in the world, nothing of ours is worth fighting for? Much of what is passing for
pacifism, wrote the characteristically blunt columnist Michael Kelly, is not pacifism at all but only the latest
manifestation of a well-known pre-existing condition. That condition, that plague, is anti-Americanism.
It took Bush, a cowboy president like Ronald Reagan, to revive the language of good and evil. Like
Reagan before him, the president did so with precision and justification. For the aggression that was committed
against us on September 11 had itself been undertaken not for any of the traditional aims of warfarenot to settle
some quarrel over a disputed border, or to protest some element of policy, or to pursue some specific geopolitical
advantage. No, when the advance troops of al-Qaeda set out to incinerate our innocent civilians it was not any of our
deeds but the very legitimacy of our existence that for them lay under questionand it was our existence that
they were seeking quite consciously, quite explicitly, to cancel. The war we were being invited to join was a
war over ultimate and uncompromisable purposes, a war to the finish. Like World War II, like our war with
Soviet communism, this is a war about good and evil.
Of course, the fact that President Bush was right in his choice of words did not insulate him, any more than
it insulated President Reagan, from a response of disbelief and horror among the sophisticated. His statement, meant
to place our response on an unassailable moral footing, had also drawn a line in the cultural sand, and our resident
custodians of what is culturally permissible were quick to step up to it. Such apocalyptic rhetoric, shot back one
renowned professor of history, was scarcely less frightening than the acts of the terrorists themselves. When Bush
vilifies bin Laden, said another professor, hes presenting a mirror image of bin Ladens rhetoric. Its namecalling. The word evil, instructed still another whose views we shall be inspecting, told us nothing true about the
world, and certainly nothing rational. Even the word terrorist, according to the head of Reuters, a worldwide news
agency, lacked objective meaning: We all know that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
100
File Title
AT: Value to Life

The foremost ethical question of out time is to have the courage to fight terrorism. We are
all soldiers in a common battle and must be prepared to endure sacrifice in order to
overcome greed and political cowardice. Without this courage all other ethical values are
worthless and the world will devolve into rampant barbarism
Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, 1986 (Terrorism: how the west can win p. last chapter)
What, then, has inhibited the widespread adoption of this policy by the West? I believe it is the persistent effects of
three vices. One is greed, or a heedless promotion of economic self-interest, whatever the political or moral
consequences. A second is political cowardice, which means sitting it out while your ally is attacked, or responds to
an attack, so as not to invoke the wrath of the terrorists. Both factors played a part in the immediate rejection by
several governments of the American initiative for sanctions against Libya following the attacks on the Rome and
Vienna airports. Neither cowardice nor greed will easily disappear. If, however, the U.S. persists in its firm stance, I
believe that it will eventually succeed in pressuring, even shaming, other Westrern states into compliance.
But there is a third, even more pernicious impediment that needs to be overcome: a confusion that is both moral and
intellectual. We in the West believe in the capacity of politics to mitigate, and resolve, all conflict. We automatically
tend to endow an adversary with the same assumptions. These could not be more misplaced than in the case of
terrorists, who use political language to de-stroy the concept of politics altogether. And even when we catch a
glimpse of this truth, we fail to grasp its essence. For the West is in awe of fanaticism. It is confused before a
supposed willingness to die for a cause, believing that such readiness must be based on a cause that is at least
partially just. Even a cursory reading of history tells us how dangerous a notion that is. No people were more
prepared to sacrifice their lives for a cause than the Hitler Youth.
But our present notions of terrorism are informed not by history but in large measure by the media. This is why
terrorists, in their war against the West, devote so much of their strategy and their effort to capturing the Western
press and using it for their own purposes. But this need not succeed. Terrorism's reliance on the press and television
of the democracies gives the media tremendous power not only to amplify terrorism's message but also to snuff it
out. They can and should refuse to broadcast indiscriminately interviews with terrorists. They can and should expose
the sham of terrorists' claims. They can and should expose their grisly acts for what they are.
What the public has a right to demand of journalists is the same scrupulousness and professionalism, no more and no
less, that they would show in the case of covering organized crime and its bosses. The proven power of a thorough
press investigation to expose and to repudiate such corruption--indeed, to galvanize public opposition against it--is
exactly the power that can be harnessed against terrorism. A thoughtful press can turn terrorism's greatest weapon
against the terrorists themselves.
This is the responsibility of the West's press. It is second only to the responsibility of its political leadership. For
only a determined leadership can make the West overcome the impediments of greed, cowardice and moral
confusion.
Which leadership? It can come only from the U.S., which alone has the capacity to align the West's resistance, alone
can credibly threaten the offenders and alone can impel the neutrals to shed their neutrality. The U.S. appears to be
moving in this direction, albeit sometimes at an uncertain pace. The more the U.S. resorts to action, like punishing
terrorists and their backers, the greater the number of states that will join the American effort to combat terrorism.
Allies and adversaries alike, the entire world is waiting to see the depth of the American resolve.
101
File Title
AT: Value To Life
The West can win the war against terrorism, and fairly rapidly. But it must first win the war against its own inner
weakness. That will require courage. First, government leaders must have the political courage to present the truth,
however unpleasant, to their people. They must be prepared to make difficult decisions, to take measures that may
involve great risks, that may even end in failure and subject them to public criticism.
Second, the soldiers who may actually be called upon to combat terrorists will need to show military courage. It will
be up to them to decide whether they can or cannot undertake a particular operation that a government is
considering. In the special units of the Israeli army, for example, no one has ever simply been told by the political
leadership that he must accept a perilous assignment. The commanders are always asked: Is it possible? Do you
think you can do it? And if they ever said it could not be done, or even if they expressed doubts, that would have
been the end of the matter.
But there is also a third kind of courage: the civic valor that must be shown by an entire people. All citizens in a
democracy threatened by terrorism must see themselves, in a certain sense, as soldiers in a common battle. They
must not pressure their government to capitulate or to surrender to terrorism. This is especially true of public
pressure on government by families of hostages. Such pressure can only be called a dereliction of civic duty. If we
seriously want to win the war against terrorism, we must be prepared to endure sacrifice and even, should there be
the loss of loved ones, immeasurable pain.
Terrorism is a phenomenon that tries to evoke one feeling: fear.It is understandable that the one virtue most
necessary to defeat terrorism is therefore the antithesis of fear: courage.
Courage, said the Romans, is not the only virtue, but it is the single virtue without which all the others are
meaningless. The terrorist challenge must be answered. The choice is between a free society based on law and
compassion and a rampant barbarism in the service of brute force and tyranny. Confusion and vacillation facilitated
the rise of terrorism. Clarity and courage will ensure its defeat.
102
File Title
AT: Cycle of Violence
Cycle of violence is wrong a sustained and resolute policy will be successful. Backing
down causes dangerous vigilantism and political extremism.
Netanyahu, Prime Minster of Isreal, 86 (Terrorism: How the West can win p. last chapter)
Deterrence works on terrorists just as it does on anyone else. The cycle-of violence argument is not only wrong; it
flies in the face of actual experience. The terrorists may at first respond to a governments policy of firmness with an
acceleration of terrorism, but they usually cannot withstand a sustained and resolute policy of resistance and active
pursuit. Retaliation and preemption against terrorism are thus acts of self-defense. Denying the necessity for such
self-defense, and blurring the moral basis for it, is dangerous. It undermines a basic principle on which government
authority is based. When a government shows weakness towards terrorists, citizens will demand action. If the
government does not provide it, segments of the population might well turn to vigilantism and political extremism.
Again, a governments first obligation is to protect its citizens. Confusion or vacillation, offered either glibly or
high-mindedly, fool no one, least of all the terrorists.
Their argument is sophomoric nonsense success in the war on terror breeds more success
anything less than relentless pursuit will encourage more the terrorists.
PETERS, Former Military Officer and Author, 2K4 (Ralph, Parameters, Summer)
And we shall hear that killing terrorists only creates more terrorists. This is sophomoric nonsense. The surest way to
swell the ranks of terror is to follow the approach we did in the decade before 9/11 and do nothing of substance.
Success breeds success. Everybody loves a winner. The clichs exist because theyre true. Al Qaeda and related
terrorist groups metastasized because they were viewed in the Muslim world as standing up to the West successfully
and handing the Great Satan America embarrassing defeats with impunity. Some fanatics will flock to the standard
of terror, no matter what we do. But its far easier for Islamic societies to purge themselves of terrorists if the
terrorists are on the losing end of the global struggle than if theyre al-lowed to become triumphant heroes to every
jobless, unstable teenager in the Middle East and beyond. Far worse than fighting such a war of attrition
aggressively is to pretend youre not in one while your enemy keeps on killing you. Even the occupation of Iraq is a
war of attrition. Were doing remarkably well, given the restrictions under which our forces operate. But no grand
maneuvers, no gestures of humanity, no offers of conciliation, and no compromises will persuade the terrorists to
halt their efforts to disrupt the development of a democratic, rule-of-law Iraq. On the contrary, anything less than
relentless pursuit, with both preemptive and retaliatory action, only encourages the terrorists and remaining Baathist
gangsters.
103
File Title
AT: State of Exception
Terrorism lies outside the civil order and extinguishes the possibility of peaceful
deliberation. The US is the justified in any measures it takes which practically advance our
goals in the war on terror because terrorism must be fought symmetrically. Only
surrendering ourselves to the power of the Untied States can bring world peace and
eliminate the state of war.
Noorani, Prof U of Arizona, 2k5 (The Rhetoric of Security, CR: The New Centennial Review 5.1 )
The Bush administration perpetually affirms that the war against terrorism declared in response to the attacks of
September 2001 is "different from any other war in our history" and will continue "for the foreseeable future."1 This
affirmation, and indeed the very declaration of such a war, belongs to a rhetoric of security that predates the Bush
administration and which this administration has intensified but not fundamentally altered. Rhetorically speaking,
terrorism is the ideal enemy of the United States, more so than any alien civilization and perhaps even more so than
the tyrannies of communism and fascism, terrorism's defeated sisters. This is because terrorism is depicted in U.S.
rhetoric not as an immoral tactic employed in political struggle, but as an immoral condition that extinguishes the
possibility of peaceful political deliberation. This condition is the state of war, in absolute moral opposition to the
peaceful condition of civil society. As a state of war, terrorism portends the dissolution of the civil relations
obtaining within and among nations, particularly liberal nations, and thus portends the dissolution of civilization
itself. [End Page 13] Terrorism is therefore outside the world order, in the sense that it cannot be managed within
this order since it is the very absence of civil order. For there to be a world order at all, terrorism must be eradicated.
In prosecuting a world war against the state of war, the United States puts itself outside the world order as well. The
Bush administration affirms, like the Clinton administration before it, that because the identity of the United States
lies in the values that engender peace (freedom and democracy), the national interests of the United States always
coincide with the interests of the world order. The United States is the animus of the world order and the power that
sustains it. For this reason, any threat to the existence of the United States is a threat to world peace itself, and
anything that the United States does to secure its existence is justified as necessary for the preservation of world
peace. In this way, the existence of the United States stands at the center of world peace and liberal values, yet
remains outside the purview of these values, since when under threat it is subject only to the extra-moral necessity of
self-preservation. I will argue that the symmetrical externality of the United States and terrorism to the world order
lies at the foundation of the rhetoric of security by which the U.S. government justifies its hegemonic actions and
policies. This rhetoric depicts a world in which helpless, vulnerable citizens can achieve agency only through the
U.S. government, while terrorist individuals and organizations command magnitudes of destructive power
previously held only by states. The moral-psychological discourse of agency and fear, freedom and enslavement
invoked by this rhetoric is rooted in both classical liberalism and postwar U.S. foreign policy. The war of "freedom"
against "fear" is a psychic struggle with no specific military enemies or objectives. It arises from the portrayal of the
United States as an autarkic, ideally impermeable collective agent that reshapes the external world in its own image.
The war of freedom against fear thereby justifies measures said to increase the defenses and internal security of the
United States as well as measures said to spread freedom and democracy over the world. Now that the destructive
capacity of warlike individuals can threaten the world order, the power of the United States must be deployed in
equal measure to neutralize this threat throughout the world. The world as a [End Page 14] whole now comes within
the purview of U.S. disciplinary action. Any manifestation of the state of war, terrorist activity, anywhere in the
world, is now a threat to the existence of the United States and to world peace. There is no "clash of civilizations,"
but the Middle East, as the current site of the state of war, is the primary danger to the world and must be contained,
controlled, and reshaped. The symmetrical externality of the United States and terrorism to the world order, then,
allows its rhetoric to envision a historic opportunity for mankindthe final elimination of the state of war from
human existence, and fear from the political psyche. This will be achieved, however, only by incorporating the
world order into the United States for the foreseeable future.
104
File Title
AT: Biopower
Control and surveillance over individuals world wide is key to save the world from
terrorism
Noorani, Prof U of Arizona, 2k5 (The Rhetoric of Security, CR: The New Centennial Review 5.1 )
Reshaping the world order means above all the exertion of greater control and surveillance over individuals
worldwide. For the rhetoric of security is at bottom a discourse of our own redemption from the irrational tendencies
that threaten collective existence, which is the whole purpose of creating civil authority in the first place. Now that
individuals who have succumbed to irrationality are capable of destroying civilization, national existence must be
organized not just to fend off the threat of other nations but the threat of any individual. This means that the internal
moral struggle of all individuals all over the world comes under the purview of U.S. national security. As we have
seen, the ultimate threat "lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology" (National Security 2002, ii).
"Radicalism" here simply means the irrational desire for violence, and "technology" is the dangerous power that can
free us or enslave us. The United States has superior technology. This technology enables the United States to wage
wars against tyranny with minimal injury to the innocent and to its own forces, and to neutralize the desire for
violence and the fear that inhabit everyone. So long as morally disordered individuals may possess inordinate power,
we all come under their thrall due to the fear that we feel. But the world authority that we have erected has the
capacity to remove violence and irrationality from the political realm and restore to us our agency, without which
we are as good as dead
105
File Title
AT: Moral Relativism
Moral relativism functions as an excuse for gross moral irresponsibility and is the road to
suicide. If after understanding the threat Islamic fundamentalism poses we arent prepared
to condemn it as evil we might as well give up. It is because of our commitment to moral
ideals and pride in American identity that has allowed us to successfully overcome
historical mistakes and made our society the envy of the ages.
Bennett, Former Head of National Endowment for the Humanities, Former Secretary of Education and Former
Director of the Office of NDCP, Ph.D in Philosophy from UT and Law Degree from Harvard, 2002
(William J. Why We Fight: Moral Clarity in the War on Terror p. Chapters 1, 2, and 5)
We all know. The last time I looked, there was a crystal clear distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter,
and it had to do with the morality of means: A freedom fighter does not massacre innocent civilians in pursuit of his
ends. As for the grotesque idea that bin Laden was fighting for freedom, try telling that to the people of
Afghanistan, then groaning under the heel of his friends the Taliban. So, no, we didnt all know. There is a formal
name for the view that what is true for me is not necessarily true for youand that name is relativism. Extended
outward, from the meanings of words to the values of a whole society, it implies that we have no basis for judging
other peoples and other cultures, and certainly no basis for declaring some better than others, let alone good or
evil. (The quotation marks themselves are intended to signify skepticism about the objective reality of these
concepts.)
In one form or another, an easy-going relativism, both moral and cultural, is our common wisdom today. But things did not used to be that way. It used to
be the case that a child in this country was brought up to revere its institutions and values, to identify with its customs and traditions, to take pride in its extraordinary
achievements, to venerate its national symbols. What was taught along these lines in the home was reinforced in the community and the schools; what may have been
wanting in the home was supplied by the community and the schools, and reinforced by public authority. The superior goodness of the American way of life, of
American culture in the broad sense, was the spoken and the unspoken message of this ongoing instruction in citizenship. If the message was sometimes overdone, or
sometimes sugarcoated, it was a message backed by the record of history and by the evidence of even a childs senses. This was the common experience, the common
wisdom: In the long saga of misery and inhumanity that is history (as law professor Lino Graglia has put it), the American achievement is high and unique. True, even
in the past, a few of our more advanced mentalities, whose attitudes towards their native land had been shaped by travel abroad or association with intellectually
alienated circles, claimed to see through our self-promoting cant to the less pleasant realities beneath. Some of them based their critique on a disdain for the thinness
or the materialism or the boosterism of American lifeits Babbitrry, to use Sinclair Lewiss termand a partiality for the refinements of older, preferably
European, civilizations. (This is an old theme in our literature.) Then there were those whose taste ran to the revolutionary and the utopian; or the still smaller number
who liked to think they had pierced the veneer of civilization altogether and for whom nothing would really do bout the authenticy of the primitive, unspoiled by the
hypocrisies of polite society or the crassness of commercial arrangements.
But all that is now gone. Today the pyramid is inverted, the shoe is on the other foot. Whatever may or may
not be instilled at home, little schoolchildren in our country are routinely taught to believe that America represents
but one of many cultures and in principle deserves no automatic preference, that there is no such thing as a better or
worse society, that cultural values different from our own need to be understood and accepted in a spirit of
sympathetic tolerance, and that, all things considered, we ourselves have at least as much to answer for as to be
proud of. Today, it takes a considerably more nuanced mentality to see all thisthe common educational wisdom of
our own time for the cant that it is, and to arrive at the reasoned conclusion that ours is, in truth, a good system, a
superior way of life, a beacon and an emblem for others. Actually saying so can get you into trouble. It can be a
risky business for a politician, and positively foolhardy for a professor or intellectual. Even ordinary citizens have
been forced to think twice before daring to venture an opinion on the subject.
How much more tolerant are we expected to be? Both of these anecdotes end, thankfully, with a victory for common sense and
sound majority values, but both took place after, not before, September 11 and in the face of a galvanized citizenry. That they should have happened at all testifies to
the power of the religion of nonjudgementalism that has permeated our culture, encouraging a paralysis of the moral faculty and leading, in the case of those school
boards, to a new tyranny of the minority. We have already seen this paralysis at work in the neutral and morally illiterate pronouncement of the Reuters executive
defending his news agencys decision not to call bin Laden a terrorist. The same posture was taken to even greater extremes by the Society of Professional Journalists,
a national organization ostensibly devoted to the perpetuation of a free press. In early October, it issued a serious of guidelines under the rubric Countering Racial,
Ethnic, and religious Profiling. in it, the nations journalists, who had not exactly been outdoing each other in displays of unchecked jingoism, were catechized
afresh in the canons of sensitivity when it came to the values of others. Thus, they were adjured never to write about the Muslims terrorists of September 11 alone, as
if they were a category unto themselves, but always to include a reference to white supremacists, radical antiabortionists, and other groups with a history of such
activity; to use spellings preferred by the American Muslim Council when citing Islamic names or sources and, most breathtaking of all, to ask men and women
from within targeted [i.e., Arab or Muslim] communities to review your coverage and make suggestions.Leave aside the telltale omission of the Weatherman, the
Black Panthers, or any other gang with leftist rather than rightist credentials from the societys list of groups with a history of [terrorist] activity. Leave aside the
fastidious distancing even from conventional Western spellings of Muslim terms lest they smack of ethnocentrism. Leave aside the appeal to the American Muslim
Council, a political organization with a documented history of support for terrorist groups, as if it were some objective arbiter of orthographic purity.
106
File Title

Leave aside all that. What must be unprecedented is the spectacle of professional journalists actively soliciting supervision, even censorship, from the very objects of
their journalistic investigations. Imagine the outcry, wrote Stephen Hayes in reporting on the Societys guidelines in the Weekly Standard, if a newspaper editor
permitted a Catholic priest to revise-before publicationa reporters story about a pro-life rally. Or if a columnist called in a tobacco executive to edit an article about
the hazards of smoking.
Yes, imagine; and then imagine this open transgression of professional ethics being codified, industry-wide. And then imagine all this being done under
the name of perpetuating a free press.
The nonjudgmentalism with which some of us have allowed ourselves to become

infected, and which we wear as a badge of tolerance, functions as an excuse for a gross moral irresponsibility.
Pretending to raise us above the common view, it robs us of the ability to recognize and call things by their proper
names.
Of course I dislike the Nazis, a college professor recalled a student saying to him a couple of years ago,
but who is to say they are morally wrong? Commentators on popular culture used to help us understand the
lessons contained in rap songs celebrating rape and the killing of policemen; multiculturalists would tell us we had
no right to judge cultures practicing the genital mutilation of females; Hollywood producers would defend to my face the glorification of
gratuitous violence in their movies as merely reflecting the tastes of society at large, as if they themselves had no responsibility for forming those tastes or for helping
to legitimate them in their shameless pursuit of adolescent entertainment. Under the aegis of nonjudgmentalism, some Americans have
ended up tolerating, protecting, or apologizing for evillike those rap songs or those movies or those barbarous
sexual customs.
But even that is not the whole of it. Subtly or crudely, nonjudgmentalism often serves as a mask for what
can only be called judgmentalism of another and much worse kind. Summoning us to some all-embracing
indulgence of the views of others, however wrong or evil, it encourages us, subtly or crudely, to deprecate the good
when it happens to be oursour own values, our own instincts, our convictions, our own civilization. To put it
another way, the refusal to distinguish good from evil is often joined with the doctrine that one society-namely the
United States, or the Westis evil, or at the very least that it is presumed evil until proved otherwise. In his article,
Fish repudiated false universals abstract ideas like justice and truthas an aid to thinking about the attacks or
justifying our response to them. Such ideas, he wrote, are not persuasive to everyone, and they are not even
effective, because our adversaries lay claim to the same language of truth and justice we do. Better, Fish suggested, to put
yourself in your adversarys shoes, not in order to wear them as your own but in order to have some understanding (far short of approval) why someone else might
want to wear them. True, putting one self in anothers shoes does facilitate an understanding of that persons point of view. But so what? In the first place, such an
effort will only be partial at best. We can never fully exchange our moral and intellectual universe for another, for in so doing we would have to abandon our own
beliefs and values. But in the second place,
understanding others hardly requires us to sacrifice the appeal to abstract standards of

justice. Nor does it throw us back only on our particular and oh-so relative vision. Of course terrorists often claim
to be fighting for justice and to have truth on their side. Again, so what? We need hardly claim that our
justice is perfect in order to claim, and to show, that theirs is criminal and vile. We need hardly claim that
ours is the only truth in order to claim, and to show, that theirs is false and diabolical. Is the deliberate murder
of innocent civilians the same thing, morally, as the deliberate not-killing of innocent civilians? Is a crying baby the
same thing as a ringing telephone? That is the specious sort of question we are dealing with here, and everybody
knows the answer. To pretend otherwise is not sophisticated, it is sophistry. There is, for many Americans, a
seductive quality to the relativist style of thought. I freely admit it, and I think I understand why. The doctrine that just as all men are created
equal, so every idea, every opinion, every point of view is as good as every other sounds very democratic and broadmindedin short, very American. In a country
that worships equality, nobody wants to seem intolerant, nobody wants to seem close-minded. For all the reasons Ive cited above, however,
radical open-mindedness is also a trap. Where does an admirable respect for the views of others end and a truly
crippling self-hatred begin? And at what point do we call a halt to this mindless process, lest we become complicit in
our own undoing? The British journalist Robert Fist, a sympathizer of radical anti-Western and anti-Israel causes, was covering the Afghan war when he was
set upon by a violent mob of refugees who punched and kicked him and smashed his head and face with stones. I couldnt blame them, he wrote afterward, as if
they were so many little children who knew not what they did. If I were the Afghan refugees,I would have done just the same to Robert Fisk. Or any other
Westerner I could find. Projecting this attitude onto society at large is the road to suicide. It May help to remember that our
Founding Fathers were themselves very open and attentive to the views of others around the world. The Declaration of Independence speaks of a decent respect to
But the Founders did not mean by this that everyone elses opinions were as valid as theirs. That
would have been to abdicate serious thought. Their respect for the views of others was, rather, a spur to argument, a reason to declare and defend
the opinions of mankind.
their own causes before the tribunal of world opinion, and to show why those causes were universally true.
The comparative study of cultures and civilizations is a quintessential product of Western curiosity. It
ought to fill us with complex but securely founded confidence in our own culture and civilizationin its particular
values, and in its universal values. If anything can be said to be a settled question in history, it is that, wherever
those values have taken root, they have brought economic well-
107
File Title

being and civil felicity in measure undreamed of. But the terrible effect of contemporary relativisma debased and
decadent product of that same admirable Western impulse of curiosityis that, instead of imbuing us with
confidence, it fills us with self-doubt and debilitates us instead. For many of its proponents, that is what it is
designed to do. In that respect it is not relativism at all but a new and exceptionally pernicious form of absolutism.
We are under attack, and have been for some time. Not only our values are under attack, but our every
existence is under attack. If, having understood the beliefs and the ideas of those attacking us, we are still not
prepared to condemn them but instead find ourselves either accommodating them or throwing over them the
mantle of our protection, then we might as well give up. Are the Fonders of the United States in facet doing a very poor job of
indoctrinating students with anti-Americanism? Polls have seemed to suggest they are, and so does much anecdotal evidence of the kind I have presented here. That is
a very good sign. But it is not enough for the Foners to fail. Others have to succeed. To put it another way: It is not enough (though it certainly helps) for our students
to have the right instincts. They have to have the knowledge too.
A vast relearning has to take place. The burden of this relearning falls upon all of uspublic officials and
private individuals, clergymen, politicians, military personnel, civilian authorities of every kind, mothers and
fathers. But most especially it falls on educators, and at every level. The defect can only be redressed by the
reinstatement of a thorough and honest study of our history, undistorted by the lens of political correctness and
pseudo-sophisticated relativism. This is not jingoism; it is a call to repudiate the mind-set that has encased the
teaching of our history in relativist and anti-American myth and to replace it with a genuine inquiry into fact and a
genuine openness to debate. I, for one, am hardly in doubt as to the outcome. We learn history, said the philosopher Leszek
Kolakowski of the University of Chicago in his Jefferson Lecture in 1986, to know who we are, to learn why, and for what we are responsible, and to
acquire a historically defined sense of belonging. This is especially important in the United States, a nation created to realize a
specific political vision. For it is our collective memory of that visionthe American ideathat defines us as
Americans and ineluctably exerts its pull on our patriotic emotions. (Lincoln in his soaring language referred to this when he invoked the
mystic cords of memory that, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heartswell into a mighty chorus of remembrance, gratitude, and
rededication.
By studying our history, by learning about its heroes, by examining and understanding its failures as well
as its incomparable achievements, we grasp the value of our political tradition and what distinguishes it from others.
Our country is something to be proud of, something to celebrate. Why should we shrink from saying so? A
sober, a sophisticated, study of our history demonstrates beyond cavil that we have provided more freedom to more
people than any nation in the history of mankind; that we have provided a greater degree of equality to more people
than any nation in the history of mankind; that we have created more prosperity, and spread it more widely, than any
nation in the history of mankind; that we have brought more justice to more people than any nation in the history of
mankind; that our open, tolerant, prosperous, peaceable society is the marvel and envy of the ages.
This is demonstrably true within our borders. And outside our borders? We have been a beacon of freedom
and opportunity to people throughout the world since the day of our creation. America is the place people run to when, in hope or hopelessness,
they are running from somewhere else. As for our record of alleged imperialism so richly documented by our nations critics, an English columnist has answered all
such charges by inviting us to ponder exactly what the Americans did in that most awful of centuries, the 20th. They saved Europe from barbarism in two world wars.
After the second world war they rebuilt the Continent from the ashes. They confronted and peacefully defeated Soviet Communism, the most murderous system ever
devised by manAmerica, primarily, ejected Iraq from Kuwait andstopped the slaughter in the Balkans while the Europeans dithered A positive
assessment of American history is not the same thing as an uncritical assessment. If we were created by a political vision,
our story is the story of a struggle to realize that vision. A struggle has its ups and downs, its advances and setbacks; it is subject not only to changing circumstance
and to the shifting quality of leadership in any generation but to the vicissitudes of human character and the enduring waywardness of the human heart. We have
certainly had our failures, some of them shameful. But never once, I think, have we lost sight of our moral
ideals, which is why, time and again, we have succeeded in confronting, overcoming, and transcending the
stains on our record, the stain of slavery foremost among them. Who among the nations can enter a similar claim? As the war winds on, especially if the
fighting becomes more difficult and if patriot graves should, God forbid, multiply, such voices will only strengthen. The military battle is one thing. The battle of
public opinion, over our airwaves and in our newspapers and journals, in our schools and churches, in our families, in our hearts, is another. We have to understand
that not only our strength of arms but our character is being tested, and so is our mettle, our staying power. The temptation will be great to
call it a day while we are still in nightdisregarding what lies in wait for us if we should falter, belittling how very
much depends on us, demeaning the incomparable blessing that will be ours, and our posteritys, if we prevail. We
cannot allow this. We can never allow ourselves to forget why it is that we fight; why we must fight.
108
File Title
AT: Social Construction
Just because sometimes truth claims are wrong doesnt mean we should reject truth. Doing
so inhibits our ability to make coherent assertions about the world. Make the negative
prove why our specific claims about Islamic fundamentalism are socially constructed and
not objective.
!
Sokal, Department of Physics at NYU, 1997
(Alan, Truth Reason, Objectivity, and the Left New Politics 6(2) p 126 August 20)
!
But claiming something doesnt make it true, and the fact that people including scientists sometimes make false
claims doesnt mean we should reject or revise the concept of truth. Quite the contrary: it means that we should
examine with the utmost care the evidence underlying peoples truth claims, and we should reject assertions that in
our best rational judgment are false. This error is, unfortunately, repeated throughout Robbins essay: he
systematically confuses truth with claims of truth, fact with assertions of fact, and knowledge with pretensions to
knowledge. These elisions underlie much of the sloppy thinking about social constructions that is prevalent
nowadays in the academy, and its something that progressives ought to resist. Sure, lets show which economic,
political and ideological interests are served by our opponents accounts of reality, but first lets demonstrate, by
marshalling evidence and logic why those accounts are objectively false (or in some cases true but incomplete).
Now let me clear: Im not saying that its easy to determine, in any specific case, which claims of truth are in fact
truths. Trying to make that distinction is, after all, what all of our intellectual work is about; and if it were so easy,
then wed be out of a job. (Of course, we may be out of a job anyway, but thats another story.) What Im saying is
that its crucial to distinguish between the concept of truth and the concept of claim of truth; if we dont do that,
we give away the game before it starts. Unfortunately, some people, starting from the undoubted fact that its
difficult to determine the truth especially in the social sciences have leapt to the conclusion that there is no
objective truth at all. The result is an extreme epistemological skepticism: so that even when postmodernists and
their friends concede the existence of an external world as they pretty much have to they hobble themselves with
a self-imposed inability to make any coherent assertions about that world.
109
File Title
AT: Youre the Terrorist

Terrorism is violent coercion that takes place outside the liberal order because it is violence
for the sake of violence itself. The war on terror may occasionally cause causalities but its
goal is still to fight tyranny, overcome fear, and preserve the possibility of a political world.
Violence for the sake of anything beside global peace is murder.
Noorani, Prof U of Arizona, 2k5 (The Rhetoric of Security, CR: The New Centennial Review 5.1 p 17-21)
A key element of the U.S. rhetoric of security is the notion that terrorism is the state of war and thereby outside the
world order understood as the civil relations among nations. Terrorism is depicted as violent coercion that aims at
turning the whole world into a realm of violent coercion. The war against terrorism supposedly provides a historic
opportunity to eradicate violence from human political relations once and for all and establish the primacy of a
peaceful world order. Liberal thought allows that violence may be used to combat political injustice and oppression,
especially tyranny. Such injustice is already a state of war initiated by an aggressor and can therefore be legitimately
resisted. Liberal thought also allows for criminal violence committed within civil society, which is to be quickly
recontained and punished by the civil authority. This is precisely the purpose of civil authority, to guarantee that
unjustified violence will be ineffectual in its coercive end and thus never initiate a state of war. Normativity is in no
way suspended in the punishment of criminals, who retain many of their natural rights. Terrorism, however, is
regarded by the U.S. government and many political commentators as belonging to neither of these categories of
violence. It is conceived, rather, as a form of violence that aims at, or results in, the overthrow of civil societya
war on peace itself. In the words of The National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (NSCT), for example, terrorism
seeks "to threaten the very notion of civilized society" (2003, 29). It is an "evil that is intent on threatening and
destroying our basic freedoms and way of life" (1). Michael Ignatieff (2004) has fleshed out this notion in a
classically liberal fashion. He argues that
[t]errorism is a form of politics that aims at the death of politics itself. For this reason, it must be combated by all
societies that wish to remain [End Page 25] political: otherwise both we and the people terrorists purport to represent
are condemned to live, not in a political world of deliberation, but in a prepolitical state of combat, a state of war.
For Ignatieff, terrorism is distinguished from legitimate forms of violence not by the justice or injustice of its cause,
but by the fact that terrorist groups turn to violence as their first resort, as their desired form of political action
(2004, 110). Violence is the mode of being of such groups even among their own constituents, because they could
not achieve power otherwise. "Terrorist campaigns seek to take hostage the population in whose name they purport
to act. Instead of using properly political means to achieve hegemony within their own population, terrorists use
violence to do so" (104). The inherent violent orientation of terrorist groups means that even if they succeed in their
declared political end, violence will have become the political norm and will not come to an end. Ignatieff's criteria
for distinguishing terrorists from militants with whom political negotiation is possible suffer from the same
ambiguities as all definitions of terrorism. Are armed resistance groups that form after a long period of political
oppression guilty of adopting violence as their first resort? And as for his second criterion, "targeting unarmed
civilians and punishing them for their allegiance or their ethnicity" (110), how otherwise would one characterize the
bombing of cities in World War II? The point is that Ignatieff's aim in positing these criteria is to establish that there
are people who simply desire violence instead of peace and with whom no normative relations are possible. These
people are inherently outside of civil order, and against them we must collectively struggle to preserve our existence
or else each one of us will be condemned to struggle alone for his life in a condition of enslavement. We have seen
that for Locke, to be enslaved is to be as good as dead and it is therefore permitted to do whatever is necessary to
protect one's liberty. Terrorism, as a spreading state of war, is linked to enslavement in the rhetoric of security
through tyranny and fear. Tyranny, in liberal thought, is itself a state of war because the authority of the tyrant is
established through coercion, through enslavement of the population. In the rhetoric [End Page 26] of
110
File Title
AT: Youre the Terrorist
security, tyranny and terrorism go hand in hand as the twin threats to world peace. "We will defend the peace by
fighting terrorists and tyrants" (National Security 2002, i). In fact, tyranny and terrorism are regarded as the same
thing. A terrorist is merely a tyrant-in-waiting or a tyrant's henchman. "Terrorists and their allies believe the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights, and every charter of liberty ever written,
are lies, to be burned and destroyed and forgotten. They believe that dictators should control every mind and tongue
in the Middle East and beyond" (Bush 2004b). Similarly, "rogue states," i.e., tyrannies, "sponsor terrorism around
the globe" and "reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands" (National
Security 2002, 14). Terrorism, therefore, is not violence perpetrated for the private, limited ends of criminals, but
violence that seeks to tyrannize, to rob people of their liberty, and thus to destroy "the peace." Terrorist violence
does not simply violate the social contract but rejects it entirely. This violence, having entered the domain of the
political, can no longer be contained by the political.
Unlike tyranny as we knew it during the brief interregnum between the fall of the Soviet Union and September 11, 2001, however, terrorism is like communism and
fascism in that it threatens the world order as a whole. Any tyranny is, as a state of war, outside the world order. Normal relations cannot be established with it
because it relates politically only in terms of violence. But petty tyrannies could be contained by the world order within the bounds of their own countries. They were
local states of war that posed little threat to the peaceful relations within and among civilized nations, even if they created a great deal of nuisance and remained
morally repugnant. According to the Bush administration, all of this changed with the attacks of 2001 on the United States. In those attacks, terrorists showed
that they could threaten the existence of the United States. "Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to
endanger the American people and our nation. The attacks of September 11th required a few hundred thousand dollars in the hands of a few dozen evil and deluded
men" (Bush 2002b). The difference after those attacks is that we realize that there are people intent upon using advanced technology and weapons [End Page 27] of
mass destruction to destroy America from within. "The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology" (National Security 2002,
ii). Terrorists can move about the world freely to realize their aims. They constitute a state of war that is not bound to a specific locality, like a tyrannical state, and
enable tyranny to extend its effects around the globe. And it is for this purpose, spreading the state of war into regions of peace, that terrorist groups are designed.
"Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us" (National Security 2002, i). The threat of terrorism,
therefore, is of the same nature as that formerly posed by communist and fascist totalitarianism. "Now, as then, our enemies are totalitarians, holding a creed of power
with no place for human dignity. Now, as then, they seek to impose a joyless conformity, to control every life and all of life" (Bush 2002b). Totalitarianism is not
simply a political dispensation but is ultimately a moral-psychological condition. This condition is a desire for violence arising from a fear and hatred of freedom.
Terrorists have "hateful ambitions" (Bush 2003c)they seek to control others by spreading their fear to everyone. The idea that the state of war arises from a moral
disorder in the psyche of the aggressor is necessary to liberal thought. If people are rational and desire peace, why should the state of war ever arise? The only answer
can be that people are subject to irrationality, to moral disorder, and so must create, in order for rationality to prevail, a civil authority that ensures the maintenance of
peace. Locke, for example, tells us that tyrannies did not arise among men until "vain Ambition, and amor sceleratus habendi, evil Concupiscence, had corrupted
Mens minds into a Mistake of true Power and Honour" (1988, par.111). The identification of terrorism with totalitarianism as a moral psychic disorder has been
developed at length by the journalist Paul Berman (2003). He argues that modern totalitarianism consists in "murder and suicide for their own sake," rooted in a
"rebellion against all moral values" (30) that has culminated in an "irrationalist cult of death and murder" (40). After its first glimmerings in the French Revolution,
this rebellion reached cultural prominence in the "Romantic literary fashion for murder and suicide" (V.Hugo and Baudelaire) but did not attain full flower in the form
of mass [End Page 28] movements until 1914, most notably in fascism and communism. The "cult of death" is always established in the name of an ideal opposed to
liberalism. [T]he ideal was always the same, though each movement gave it a different name. It was not skepticism and doubt. It was the ideal of submission. It was
submission to the kind of authority that liberal civilization had slowly undermined, and which the new movements wished to reestablish on a novel basis. It was the
ideal of the one, instead of the many. The ideal of something godlike. The total state, the total doctrine, the total movement. "Totalitarian" was Mussolini's word; and
Mussolini spoke for all.13 (Berman 2003, 46)
What Berman is saying, then, is that violence conducted for the sake of any ideal other than peace itselfwhich in
liberal thought is not an "ideal" but simply the condition of human existenceis suicide-murder.14 People who
fight for such ideals fear liberal freedom. They do not seek peace or justice, but a vision of death in the form of an
impossible future utopia that means death for its own sake in the meantime. The reason for this, in Berman's view, is that
human beings have deep irrational inclinations, strong psychic yearnings for violence and death. It is precisely the failure of the
self-satisfied beneficiaries of liberal society to see this that led to American unpreparedness for the attacks of 2001. Americans
refused to recognize that "from time to time, mass political movements do get drunk on the idea of slaughter. It was a belief that,
around the world, people are bound to behave in more or less reasonable ways in pursuit of normal and identifiable interests"
(Berman 2003, 153). Terrorism/totalitarianism, then, is the irrational, violent dimension of the human psyche embodied in
specific groups of people and turned into a principle of life and politics. The corollary of this is the fear that we feel as long as
terrorists are out there. This fear is their hold over us, our lack of agency, which is at bottom due to our struggle with our own
irrational impulses, a struggle that terrorists are able to aggravate even though we live under the umbrella of a civil authority
created precisely to neutralize these impulses. To defeat terrorism/totalitarianism would be to defeat the danger within
all of us, to deliver us from fear, [End Page 29] to restore to us our agency. Therefore, "freedom and fear are at war"
(Bush 2001). Berman identifies "Armageddon" as the "ur-myth" of all totalitarianisms (4749). But what is the war
on terror if not a liberal Armageddon?
111
File Title
AT: The Word is Bad
Terrorism accurately describes someone who uses violence against innocent people. Not
using the word excuses their actions and causes people to sympathize with their cause.
OSULLIVAN, Editor-in-chief of United Press International, 2K1
John, National Review Online, Sept 25, http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/josprint092501.html
It is terrorists hijacking planes who put themselves on a different and lower level to other people not the
journalists who report their actions with attempted objectivity. Terrorism is a part of contemporary reality. To gloss
over it is to paint a false picture. And insofar as that false picture erases the real distinction between, say, a politician
whose power derives from votes and one whose power derives from bombs, then a serious distortion enters into
reporting. Nor is this a hypothetical criticism. Much reporting of the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Colombia, and the
Basque country has blurred exactly that distinction. Finally, let us look at Mr. Jukes's underlying justification that
"one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." By a nice coincidence this argument was justly characterized
on Saturday in Canada's National Post as "an adolescent sophistry" by the Canadian poet and journalist, George
Jonas. Simply put, the sophistry consists of confusing a terrorist's cause with his methods. A terrorist is a man who
murders indiscriminately, distinguishing neither between innocent and guilty nor between soldier and civilian. He
may employ terrorism planting bombs in restaurants, or hijacking planes and aiming them at office towers-in a
bad cause or in a good one. He may be a Nazi terrorist, or an anti-Nazi terrorist, a Communist or an anti-Communist,
pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel. We may want to defeat his political cause or see it triumph. For his methods, however,
the terrorist is always to be condemned. Indeed, to describe him objectively is to condemn him even if his cause
is genuinely a fight for freedom with which we sympathize. Therein lies Mr. Jukes's trial and temptation. Those who
sympathize with the terrorist's cause whether they are Islamic fundamentalists seeking America's withdrawal
from Saudi Arabia, or Spanish citizens in the Basque country who want an independent Basque state, or Irish
Americans seeking Britain's withdrawal from Northern Ireland are tempted to overlook or deny his methods.
They do not want to acknowledge that someone is killing innocent people in the name of a cause they passionately
support. They wish to banish such an uncomfortable truth from their minds. So they do not like to see him
accurately described as a terrorist. It makes them feel guilty about the support and sympathy they give him; it may
even make them reconsider that support. When Reuters decided not to call the perpetrators of the World Trade
Center attack "terrorists," it took a step towards making people feel less guilty about aiding or sympathizing with
such evil. It was a small step, but an unnecessary one. And it should be retraced.

Debate Evidence K Sucks

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Debate Evidence K Sucks

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

FRAMEWORK GOOD (AND OTHER ANSWERS TO DIRTY HIPPIES)

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

Rationalism Turn ...................................................................................................................................................58

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

FRAMEWORK 2AC (LONG)

B. Ground accessing our advantages is predicated upon enacting the plan. A

We agree on some matters but not on others, on generalities

the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

FRAMEWORK 2AC (SHORT)

B. Ground accessing our advantages is predicated upon enacting the plan.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

articulating nonrevocable, nonderogable moral standards is relatively easy. The problem is

Without predictable ground debate becomes meaningless and produces a political

continuing ground, for contest. If we are to successfully communicate our disagreements, we

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

2. Resolved proves the framework for the resolution is to enact a policy.

3. Should denotes an expectation the aff will be enacted.

4. The USFG is the government in Washington D.C.

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

And, without predictable ground debate becomes meaningless and produces

continuing ground, for contest. If we are to successfully communicate our disagreements, we

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

Exploding predictable limits neutralizes the discursive benefits to debate and

3. Topical Educationby manipulating the topic to access their political project

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

AT: WE MEET WE AFFIRM THE TOPIC AS X

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

LIMITS GOOD 2NC

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

GRAMMAR GOOD 2NC

3. Precise and limited use of language is key to effective communication and is a

definition freely assigns meaning to

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

AT: PERSONAL ADVOCACY

Prefer our interpretation

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

AT: CASE OUTWEIGHS

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

AT: CASE OUTWEIGHS

And our argument is an independent reason to vote negative

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

AT: STATE FOCUS BAD

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

AT: STATE FOCUS BAD

5. Our intp solveseducation through participation in policy debates is essential to check

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

AT: STATE FOCUS BAD

Citizens who think of themselves as policymakers is key to the sustainability of liberal

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007

AT: YOUR DEBATE IS BAD

Plan focused debate allows reflective analysis

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2007