1.

Case outweighs
Neoliberalism imposes desperate conditions scarcely supporting life for half the worlds population and literally enslaves
millions, begging the question whether a society founded on exploitation is worth saving, International exploitation is an
immediate tangible reality while women have been oppressed for over 9000 years, neoliberalism is happening now.
And extend the pramono evidence - Neoliberalism is inherently unsustainable, destroying the social fabric of societies
and promoting nationalism, genocidal violence, distrust, instability, and eventually a powder-keg of nuclear catastrophe.
Every historical genocide has been preceded by economic dislocation. Ethnic identities may always exist, but they need a
catalyst to erupt into genocide. This is an example of how neolib is different from cap. Pol Pot mobilized peasants
experiencing starvation and squalor, Hitler rose to power during a deep recession and scapegoated the Jews, after the
Asian Financial crisis, engineered by world bank economists, Indonesia committed a genocide against the Eastern
Maries, The Serbs and Croats had 50 years of peace before they forcefully experienced free market reforms, the Darfur
genocide was immediately preceded by a collapse of coffee, its largest industry. The neg just breaks down the lines
between gender which breaks down the friend-enemy dichotomy and causes perpetuation of neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism cuts jobs in the name of efficiency through outsourcing, outmoding, and reengineering. It then cuts social
protections to compete so these people have nowhere to turn to other than their identity, national, ethnic or otherwise.
This means neoliberalism eats the very working class base that sustains it- a snake eating its tail that can only end in
apocalypse.
Additionally, the disciplinary relationships that are entailed by the current welfare system give the state the ultimate
power over life, the choice to choose if someone can live or die based off of an acceptance or rejection of the
application, this is bad, judge.
Also they dropped case so we win on case automatically vote aff now!!!!!11!!!

2. The fem K is a voting issue for education because my opponent isn’t a woman, therefore we can’t get real education
on feminism.

3. Turn: The neg is just reading fem to get a win - this is using the oppression of women to further masculine
domination.

4. Perm: do both
We can reject power/knowledge constructions and demand the USFG increase welfare as a universal entitlement for the
dispossessed. The Giroux evidence from the 1ac specifically indicates that Neoliberalism connects power and knowledge
to the technologies, strategies, tactics, and pedagogical practices key to the management and ordering of populations
and to controlling consent. The permutation is the best way to solve.

5. Unconditionality is bad

Offense –

1. Education -

a. Breath is better than depth – The more arguments presented the easier it is to achieve education on a variety of
flows.

b. Strategic Thinking – Strategically choosing a 2NR strategy is part of the education gained in debate.

2. Diversity – Debate will stagnate if strategic block choices are limited to unconditional advocacies.

Interpretation –

Dispositionality good –

a. Solves diverse strategies by allowing negative choice.

b. Sets the best limits because the neg can strategically pick dispositional advocacies with the ability to kick from them.

6. no link – we are a demand on the local level for a coalitional politics

7. vote aff – fem isn’t an argument

8. Their jones evidence says nothing even remotely relevant to the aff. We don’t try to endorse the US goals of national
security, nor do we prioritize military issues.

9. Their first piece of enloe ev is a great solvency argument for the aff – wars are not inevitable, but the unstable
foundation of neoliberalism has empirically caused wars because it refuses to tolerate differences. Only in the world of
the aff is there a recognition that difference does not mean we prioritize ourselves over others, first piece of Giroux
evidence in the 1ac indicates that the neoliberal “shift in sovereignty, power, and the political order points to the
importance of biopolitics as an attempt to think through not only how politics uses power to mediate the convergence
of life and death, but also how sovereign power proliferates those conditions in which individuals marginalized by race,
class, and gender configurations are ‘stripped of political significance and exposed to murderous violence.” By
combatting this we solve back.

10. Their second piece of enloe evidence isn’t responsive to the aff – The grammar it talks about would only link to the
aff if we only demanded that “the United States” did this. The specificity of the demand to “the United States federal
government” is aiming the demand at those directly responsible and not a blind eye to those who did not. Additionally
McCluskey states that the debate over economic citizenship in the context of the United States federal government is
key.

11. Their Duncanson and Eschle 8 evidence is about the quality of 90% of the cards westwood cuts – it makes no
argument and the tag tries to extrapolate one. The aff is a decisive action in the form of a demand on the united states
federal government, we focus on the welfare system not a withdrawal of troops. Liberty is only actualized when we can
have a demand – that’s pinkus and giorgi.

12. Reading evidence from warren and cady is a voting issue:

A. They have no authority to talk about how we can solve all problems in the world. This skews education because I
could read evidence from Andrew Barron and it would be just as warranted.
B. The evidence itself says that a framework of conceptualizing patriarchy legitimates impaired thinking – means the
alternative leads to a devolution of society.
C. The empirical examples the neg makes regarding the card were all caused by the expansion of empires and the greed
for conquest – means only the aff solves.

13. We solve for gender inequalities through the elimination of social hierarchies – means we access tickner.

14. Von welhof is a lunatic who refers to capitalism as an object, be very skeptical of this piece of evidence. It just says
patriarchy exists, cool story bro. 5,000 years of patriarchy hasn’t had as much suffering as the last few decades under the
current neoliberal regime.

15. Additionally, the alt can’t solve back for the claims in ANY of the cards they read – they just reject knowledge
production. CX of the 1nc concludes that there is no ending of neoliberalism just a rejection of knowledge production –
OF THE AFF. The aff is a rejection of knowledge production that is perpetuated by neoliberalism per the second piece of
Giroux evidence justifying perm: do the alt. Aff solves back for the entirety of the K. The pinkus and giorgi evidence
indicates that when the Picquateros refused to be forced into the system they eventually brought down the argentine
government and there was a more egalitarian society.
16. We don’t ask questions, we demand what we want. Questions are for people who cede the political.

17. We are a demand at the local level. Solves back for tickner yet again.

18. The state says no to feminist questions.

19. We have a lens of acceptance.

20. We aren’t a knowledge production.

21. Their fem K is just like the current US welfare policy. It is a structure of sin – TANF restrictions limit our communion
with people living in poverty and prevent them from truly experiencing God – instead of placing the onus of
responsibility on people without the means to fulfill it, we should reorient government policy towards complete
acceptance and bask in the glory of God, not trying to advance one gender group
Duncan, ‘08
[Christopher M., Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Dayton, “Catholicism,
Poverty and the Pursuit of Happiness” Journal of Poverty, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p. 67-72]

How we respond both individually and collectively is, of course, another matter altogether. However, the fact that
everyone is called to solidarity and called to respond as a non-negotiable part of one's response to God's offer of
salvation-the offer of final reconciliation -strikes at the very heart of what it means for many to be an American citizen.
Steeped in the language of consent, choice, and individual rights and liberties which are typically interpreted as
protections against authoritarian demands that may unduly hinder our pursuit of individual happiness, Americans as
Americans are ill at ease with positive duties and any notion of a less than fully autonomous self . If the Gospel of Luke
is read as requiring the "death" of the self when it says:
Then to all he said, "If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross everyday
and follow me. For anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake, that man
will save it (Luke 9:24-25).
It will be difficult to reconcile the extreme forms of individualism and negative rights encouraged by American society with
the demands of the faith that the vast majority claims to embrace. Our collective inability to treat this with any sort of
seriousness leads us to compose a system of welfare designed at its core to ask very little of us and society and a
tremendous amount of change and effort on the part of the poor. We are the exemplars of normality and they are the
"deviants" or human aberrations. This, of course is the utter antithesis of solidarity and the notion of the imago Dei
that under girds and animates Catholic social teaching.
To put a finer edge on this point we can simply look at the approach to welfare and poverty in the United States over
the last ten years. The signature piece of legislation tells us in its title what the goal of the new approach is going to be:
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. The legislation contains within it the TANF program (Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families) which replaced the old AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) program that
originated in the War on Poverty in the 1960s. Pushed on by a number of forces beginning with Ronald Reagan's
invocation of "welfare queens" and his desire to dismantle the welfare state (see Piven and Cloward, 1982) along with the widely read accounts of
thinkers like Charles Murray (1984), Lawrence Mead (1986), and George Gilder (1981) who argued that welfare as it existed created long-term dependency and perpetuated the cycle of poverty
generation after generation, the move to devolution and the New Federalism (Conlan, 1988; Nathan, 1997; Walker, 1995), the move toward privatization, the increasing costs of the existing program

the system was ripe for transformation.

(Burke, 1997), and finally by Bill Clinton's promise to "end welfare as we know it" (1996), When Gingrich and the Republicans came to
power in 1994, the deal was finally sealed. Having detailed the historical process and politics of this change elsewhere (Duncan and Moore, 2003, Breaux, Duncan et al., 1997; 1998), I will not rehash it in
detail here except to point out in broad ways the distinguishing characteristics of the two approaches.
Spurred by works like The Affluent Society (Galbraith, 1958) and The Other America (Harrington, 1962), the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations undertook The War on Poverty with the idealistic goal of
eliminating poverty in the United States. The signature piece of legislation here was the Fconomic Opportunity Act. Johnson described the Act's intent his budget message of 1964: to "break that cycle [of
poverty] by raising the educational, skill and health levels of the younger generation, increasing their job opportunities and helping their families provide a better home life" (Johnson, Public Papers, 1963-
1964, Vol. 1, p. 183). To make this a reality he appointed a fierce advocate for the poor to head up the Office of Economic Opportunity, Sargent Shriver. In a 1965 Congressional Hearing, Shriver
for us-for all America-the war on poverty is a movement of conscience-a national act of
explained the goals of the program: Because

expiation, of humbling and prostrating ourselves before our Creator. And when all is said and done, what they war on
poverty will have achieved-is to have gained for an entire people an appreciation of those words attributed to St. Vincent
De Paul: before you go out and help the poor, you must first beg their pardon (Gettleman and Mermelstien, 1967, pp. 208-
209). TANF, on the other hand emphasized an immediate attachment to the work force as its primary goal. Its rhetoric
shifted away from an emphasis on the obligations of the haves toward to the have nots and the eradication of
poverty to the idea of personal responsibility and behavior modification on behalf of the poor themselves . Among its
provisions were stringent work requirements, a 2-year time limit on benefits and a 5 year lifetime limit for same.
Additional benefits were denied to women who bore other children while receiving aid and there were a number of
sanctions for other familial compliance violations in areas of childhood immunizations and school attendance. All
participants were required to sign an individual responsibility plan and the ultimate goal was not the eradication of poverty per se, but the eradication of dependence and welfare itself by just about
whatever means necessary. A well placed policy analyst in Republican circles named Marvin Olasky claimed in his testimony before House Ways and Means Committee subcommittee on Human

"Justice meant punishment for wrong-doing, so it was right for

Resources that he wanted a welfare system that was hard-headed and warm-hearted where:

the slothful to suffer. Mercy meant rapid response when people turned away from past practice . . . (Olansky, 1995).
Despite large-scale opposition and lobbying for important changes to the legislation on the part of numerous religious
leaders and especially the U.S. Catholic Bishops, the Act became law and has been extended to the present day where it
continues to await reauthorization by Congress. Most of the talk currently has to do with toughening the legislation's
work requirements and behavioral provisions rather than modifying or
easing such items. This is in part driven by the current distribution of political power, but also because in some ways the
program appears to have been a
success at greatly reducing the number of people on welfare. Poverty, strangely, remains a continuing problem in the
United States. However, neither political party nor any large scale movements seem interested in rethinking the approach
now in place. Given the contours of the American political mind, this would require an admission of sorts that we are not
ideologically sound, wrong or even sinful; tautological logic is, after all, still a kind of logic.
To return finally to the arguments at the start of the paper, I want to suggest that American liberalism as theoretically
conceived and implemented in the area of poverty and welfare policy as it exists is not only at odds with Catholic social
teaching, but at its core is an integral part of what is best called a structure of sin . In simplified form, a "structure of sin"
would be any social or political arrangement that makes it more difficult for people to move closer to God. By focusing
on the short term goal of decreasing the welfare rolls (rather than reducing poverty ) at almost any price and enshrining
an austere form of independence and attachment to the market place as it is as the ideal, the current approach to welfare
in the United States increases the precarity of individuals and families unnecessarily (Nathan & Gais, 1998; Breaux,
Duncan et al, 1998). In turn, it makes it less likely that many of our fellow citizens will find it possible to participate fully
in communal life. If this is indeed born out by the evidence, and the ontological and teleological imperatives of Catholicism
are embraced, then it is possible to claim that the most fundamental human right of the poor is being violated as well as
a series of other rights that are readily derived from Catholic social teaching on the nature of property and the goods of
the earth. To clarify this point and conclude the argument, I turn briefly to the work of Michael and Kenneth Himes on the Trinity and its public significance.
In their work Fullness of Faith: The Public Significance of Theology, Himes and Himes demonstrate in a very thoughtful and authoritative manner how the Church's teachings on human rights
as found in documents like Pacem in Terris can be "derived from its understanding of reality and the human person" (1993, p. 55). Beginning from John's assertion that God is agape or pure
self-gift and thinking through the command to "Love one another; just as I have loved you, you must love one another" (John 3:34) and the injunction to "be perfect as your heavenly Father
"'God' is the
is perfect," the authors develop a view of the Trinity that simultaneously requires that God be seen as the "giver and receiver and gift" such that they can claim that
name of the relationship of an endless perfect mutual self-gift: in our traditional imagery, the Father gives himself totally
to the Son, the Son gives himself totally to the Father, and the Spirit, proceeding from both, is the bond of that pure
agapic love" (1993, p. 57). As the argument is extended the authors come to a conclusion that holds: " Thus the doctrine
of the Trinity is an essentially radical political statement: it maintains that not only is human existence social but that the
grounds of all being is relationship" (1993, p. 59). Combining this understanding of the Triune God with the understanding
of human beings as created in the image and likeness of God (imago Dei) and the call for perfection on our part leads the
authors to the assertion that ". . . to maintain that the human being is created in the image of God is to proclaim the
human being capable of self-gift" (1993, p. 59). The logic of that claim allows them then to conclude that: "The human
person is the point at which creation is able to respond by giving oneself in return. The fundamental human right is the
right to give oneself away to another and ultimately to the Other" (1993, p. 59). The rest of the argument is now fairly
straightforward if the position elaborated is theologically sound. Whoever refuses to give themselves to the Other is
choosing to distance him or her self from God and God's call to perfection. Any structural elements that we create
socially or politically that make it more difficult or less likely that others will be able to perform the act of self-gift, or that
we refuse to create that would make it more likely and less difficult for others to give themselves away in agapic
relationship are by definition sinful. Finally, this leads us to the conclusion that all public policy must ultimately confront
the rather amorphous question of whether it is intended to and likely to make self-gift more likely and less cumbersome
or not. If we assume that poverty makes the gift of self more difficult and less reasonable to expect of a given person,
then our approach to it must be one that intends to alleviate the condition in a way that demonstrates our commitment
to helping support and ensure the fundamental human right is respected and allowed to flourish. To do this is not easy
and numerous consequences-both intended and unintended must be considered before taking action. It is also not
something that is simply a problem for the state or government. However, neither is it something that is only up to
individuals and nonstate institutions. All are responsible-individually and collectively-to the extent that they are able to
do what they can so that others can do what they must.
22. Patriarchy is irrelevant if we can achieve salvation.

23. It’s try or go to hell for the aff:

We can only experience God’s love through an unqualified communion with the Other – the choice is between total
acceptance and total damnation
Duncan, ‘08
[Christopher M., Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Dayton, “Catholicism,
Poverty and the Pursuit of Happiness” Journal of Poverty, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p. 51-52]

Contra Sartre who once proclaimed that "hell is other people," Berry suggests that the cure for a broken world and the
path to salvation itself is communion and relationship with others. We are "healed" by joining together and in that
health we experience with greater intensity God's grace or self-giving love. By implication, the "scattering" itself
represents both a separation pr rupture in that communion and a distancing of the self from God's love. When we
turn away from the Other or prevent him or her from joining with us, we have on some level rejected God and the
offer of love by our own free choice. As Aquinas himself so aptly claims, God is even in Hell. Doing what? Loving the
damned, of course. The ultimate difference between those who are damned and those who are saved is not the
extent of God's love, but rather the acceptance or rejection of the universal and unqualified offer by the individual . To
be in Hell, then, is to be alone.
The Catholic Church holds that human beings are by nature social creatures. As affirmed in Gaudium et Spes: But God
did not create man as a solitary, for from the beginning "male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27). Their
companionship produces the primary form of interpersonal communion. For by his innermost nature man is a social
being, and unless he relates himself to others he can neither live nor develop his potential (1994, p. 13). Just a few
pages later this same point is amplified still further: Since this social life is not something added on to man, through his
dealings with others, through reciprocal duties, and through fraternal dialogue he develops all his gifts and is able to rise
to his destiny (1994, p. 24).
The point is quite simple yet quite radical, namely that only through relationships with others can we enter full
communion with God and reach our full potential as individuals. Human beings need to be in community with others
in order to become more fully who they are meant to be. Without others we are incomplete.

24. the independence emphasized by feminism is at the core against Christian ideals – the act of sexual giving is key to
Christian relationship and community and endorsing the alt leads to eternal damnation
Duncan, ‘08
[Christopher M., Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Dayton, “Catholicism,
Poverty and the Pursuit of Happiness” Journal of Poverty, Vol. 12 Issue 1, p. 52]

However, this is not meant to imply that we are dependent on others in such a way that they might be seen to exist in a
vertical relationship with us, serving either as our lord or bondsman, to borrow from Hegel (1977, pp. 111-19). Instead,
the more suitable term is interdependent; the Other is there for us and we are there for the Other. This, however, still
remains imprecise insofar as there is still a strong hint of a utilitarian calculation surrounding this on its face as in the
phrase "there is strength in numbers" or some such thing. While no doubt true and important when we think of work,
labor, or even defense, it misses the essential theological import when depicted this way. A more precise sense of the
ideal can be formed in an analogical manner by thinking through the case of appropriate sexual union and procreation
whereby the man and the woman give themselves literally to one another. Consummation of the act of sexual giving
requires the presence of the Other not for the sake of gratification of the individual-though certainly this is an important
byproduct of the union but because all gifts require a recipient. In the case of nonsexual relationships between
individuals, the same holds true; human beings require others so that they can give themselves away in gift. In turn, they
must also be willing to accept the gift of self offered by others. This, as I understand it, is the essence of Christian
relationship and community.