1

McGowan votes for the perm---can integrate K’s insights and the 1AC
Daniel Tutt 13, Interviewing Todd McGowan, October 27, “Enjoying What We Don’t Have: Interview
with Philosopher Todd McGowan”, http://danieltutt.com/2013/10/27/enjoying-what-we-dont-have-
interview-with-philosopher-todd-mcgowan/

DT. It seems to me that a frequent critique of psychoanalysis and politics is that in its inability , and perhaps
unwillingness to propose concrete policy reforms or political projects, it falls back on a notion that everyone should

just undergo analysis. Do you think that a political project that is informed by psychoanalytic teachings implies that we should all undergo analysis? You write in your book
for instance that fantasy is a crucial point for facilitating a sort of un-bonding process from the larger capitalist mode of subjectivity. What do you see as the role of

analysis and political emancipatory work ?¶ TM. I will alienate many of my analyst friends with this
response, but I have no political investment at all in psychoanalytic practice. I’ve undergone some analysis myself. However, I
don’t believe that everyone undergoing psychoanalysis would change much at all politically. What is
important about psychoanalysis to me is its theoretical intervention , its discovery of the death drive and
the role that fantasy plays in our psyche . This is the great advance. And political struggle can integrate these
theoretical insights without any help from actual psychoanalysis . What allows one to disinvest in the
capitalist mode of subjectivity is not, in my view, the psychoanalytic session. Instead it is the confrontation
with a mode of enjoyment that ceases to provide the satisfaction that it promises. This prompts one to think about alternatives.
Obviously, not everyone can become a theorist, but in a sense, everyone already is a theorist . We theorize our enjoyment when we

think through our day and plan out where we’re going to do. Even watching a television show requires
an elaborate theoretical exercise. Making this theorizing evident and thus arousing an interest in theory is to me much
more important than having a lot of people undergo psychoanalysis. In response to your question about the universalization of
psychoanalytic practice, I have more faith in a universalization of psychoanalytic theory.

Psycho-analysis is wrong---terrible methodology, every refutable claim has been

disproven, ineffective results
Robert Bud and Mario Bunge 10 {Robert Bud is principal curator of medicine at the Science Museum
in London. 9-29-2010. “Should psychoanalysis be in the Science Museum?”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827806-200-should-psychoanalysis-be-in-the-science-
museum/}//JM (link credit to EM)

WE SHOULD congratulate the Science Museum for setting up an exhibition on psychoanalysis. Exposure
to pseudoscience greatly helps understand genuine science, just as learning about tyranny helps in
understanding democracy. Over the past 30 years, psychoanalysis has quietly been displaced in
academia by scientific psychology. But it persists in popular culture as well as being a lucrative profession. It is the
psychology of those who have not bothered to learn psychology , and the psychotherapy of choice for those who
believe in the power of immaterial mind over body. Psychoanalysis is a bogus science because its practitioners do not
do scientific research. When the field turned 100, a group of psychoanalysts admitted this gap and endeavoured to
fill it. They claimed to have performed the first experiment showing that patients benefited from their treatment.
Regrettably, they did not include a control group and did not entertain the possibility of placebo effects.
Hence, their claim remains untested (The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, vol 81, p 513). More recently, a meta-analysis
published in American Psychologist (vol 65, p 98) purported to support the claim that a form of psychoanalysis called psychodynamic therapy is
effective. However, once again, the original studies did not involve control groups. In 110 years, psychoanalysts have not set up
a single lab. They do not participate in scientific congresses, do not submit their papers to scientific journals and are
foreign to the scientific community - a marginality typical of pseudoscience . This does not mean their hypotheses have
never been put to the test. True, they are so vague that they are hard to test and some of them are, by Freud's own
admission, irrefutable. Still, most of the testable ones have been soundly refuted . For example, most dreams
have no sexual content. The Oedipus complex is a myth ; boys do not hate their fathers because they would like to have sex
with their mothers. The list goes on. As for therapeutic efficacy, little is known because psychoanalysts do not perform double-blind
clinical trials or follow-up studies. Psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. Its concepts are woolly and untestable yet are regarded as unassailable
axioms. As a result of such dogmatism, psychoanalysis
has remained basically stagnant for more than a century, in
contrast with scientific psychology, which is thriving.
 2
The fact that we talk about problems outside of this room we plainly lack the
immediate ability to solve sadly----and obviously----applies to all of debate. But they
don’t solve it, and actually make it far worse by vilifying attempts to engage
compassionately with the world of others
Kim Sawchuk 2, PhD, Social and Political Thought, York University,
prof of comm at Concordia, editor of the Canadian Journal of
Communication, general book review of Distant Suffering by Luc
Boltanski, Canadian journal of Communication Vol 27, No 1 (2002)
Inherent in the politics of pity in the modern period is the problem of dealing with suffering from a
distance and the "massification of a collection of unfortunates who are not there in person" (p. 13). Although contemporary media
may have "dramatized" the spectacle of distant suffering in the past 30 years, they neither invented
nor caused this condition. Historical examples also bolster Boltanski's claim that the media did not inaugurate the politics of pity - rather, its logic
was set out more than 200 years ago. Boltanski carefully examines this logic and the paradoxes it creates in the book's three sections. Part 1 lays out the argument.
Part 2 relies heavily on literary sources to analyze the "topos," a term he borrows from rhetoric, of the idea of pity and suffering. The third section deals with the
question of pity and misfortune, drawing primarily on historical and contemporary examples, such as the work of Doctors Without Borders and the clash in the late
1950s between Sartre and Merleau-Ponty. Each chapter is replete with insight, making this a difficult book to summarize. Every word and every argument is so
intricately intertwined with the next that paraphrasing seems a travesty.¶ The third section should be of interest to those located in the disciplines of communications

Boltanski returns to the question

or media studies. Here it is important to recall the subtitle of the book, Morality, the Media and Politics.

of the spectator and the anxieties of those who wish to do something about what they see
unfolding on their screens. He asks: "[H]ow might the contemporary spectators' anxiety be reduced without averting their gaze from misfortune
or by abandoning the project inherent in the modern definition of politics of facing up to unnecessary suffering and relieving it[?]" (p. 159). What could

political action be, given the fact that suffering does occur at a distance and that not every
struggle can be taken on with equal commitment? First, he argues that there is a political, technical,
and moral necessity to open up a discussion of commitment and ideology, although what he
means by ideology is not adequately explained. Second, he contends that witnessing suffering means that morally we are asked to
act. Commitment is commitment to some kind of action . Third, he promotes the idea that speech is

action. "One can commit oneself through speech; by taking a stance, even when alone, of
someone who speaks to somebody else about what they have seen" (p. xv). By speaking - to others
and even to oneself - we recognize and acknowledge that speech must be understood as a form of action
(p. 154).¶ One of the conditions of Boltanski's argument is a clear distinction between the world of representation and the world of action. He writes: "Informed by

He is critical of deconstructionist criticism, primarily

representation, words must really be deployed in the world of action in order to be effective" (p. 154).

meaning the writings of Jean Baudrillard, which blurs this distinction to too great an extreme , thereby "holding

the order of action" at arm's length or making it illusionary (p. 154). He contends that this position makes
the very intention to act nothing but a naïve illusion creating an "empire of suspicion" (p. 158).
Boltanski does not claim that we remain without an emotional commitment to causes, but rather that "to prevent the unacceptable drift of emotions close towards the

we must maintain an orientation towards action, a disposition to act, even if this is only by
fictional

speaking out in support of the unfortunate" (p. 153).¶ What then are the properties of effective speech? Boltanski turns to
phenomenology and semantics, concluding that effective speech involves: (a) intentionality; (b) incorporation in bodily gestures and movements; (c) sacrifice of other
possible actions; (d) the presence of others; and, (e) a commitment (p. 185). Intentionality involves an intention to speak meaningfully, not just engage in idle chatter.
Action and intention are connected to each other in effective action realized in the world. Intention incorporated in action is "expression." This kind of expressive
political speech must involve risk for spectators - they may be chastized, they may be contested, or they may be at physical risk in authoritarian regimes. Boltanski
goes on to classify different types of action as strong and weak, collective and individual. He builds an argument for local chapters of groups supporting humanitarian
movements, such as Amnesty International, for they enable one to avoid the alternative of either on-the-spot involvement or distant spectacle. They are one way to
breach the schism between abstract universalism and communitarian withdrawal: "The humanitarian claim for more or less distant causes can thus avoid the
alternative of abstract universalism - easily accused of being fired up for distant suffering the better to avert its eyes from those close at hand - or of communitarian
withdrawal into itself - which only attends to misfortune when it affects those nearest - by being rooted in groups and thereby linked to preexisting solidarities and
local interests" (p. 190). In other words, expression is most "authentic" for Boltanski when made manifest in actions, like participating in a demonstration or protest,
which incarnates our beliefs and displays our commitments. By incorporating an action, the person communicates an observable tendency.¶ But is this enough?

concerned by apathy and asks us to consider that we are doomed, inevitably, to imperfection in our politics. Despite this, we must
Boltanski is

make the attempt to be "moral subjects" - that is, committed and engaged subjects. Because he recognizes the difficulties of
 we
negotiating these contradictions, he avoids moralizing. He is no Habermasian trying to outline the conditions for an ideal-speech situation. In Boltanski's book,

live in imperfect worlds and we must contend with this. He asks that we resurrect compassion
into our politics, which he says is always particular and practical, as it is oriented toward doing
something about a situation. Unlike pity, it engages with the person suffering. But pity isn't always a bad thing in this analysis. Pity generalizes in
order to deal with distance, and in so doing one may discover emotion and feeling for others that may translate into speech or action. A spectacle of

suffering may end with a commitment to involvement.¶ Boltanski realizes the challenge, yet remains
optimistic that humans are capable of such a move. There are, as he notes, an "excess of unfortunates" in our world. The
problem remains to whom we extend aid or pity, given their great numbers (p. 155). This is true both in the realm of action, but also in the realm of representation. So
many people are suffering and there is not enough media space for them all (p. 155). Boltanski does not prioritize causes or instances of grief. He does, however,
suggest that the media represent any unfortunate groups taking action to confront and escape their distress. It is unethical to only depict them in the passive act of
suffering (p. 190). He acknowledges that the mediatization of suffering may incite action. For example, it may protect populations against their own rulers, if only

democratic
temporarily, for such depictions do not necessarily change the internal political situation. His analysis assumes that spectators, who are

citizens, have a role to play in lobbying and pressuring their own governments to take action (p.
184). Again, while aware that public opinion may be manipulated, he argues that public-opinion polls are powerful tools. Answering a poll is depicted as a potentially

wavering
effective form of speech and an "adequate response to the call for action" (p. 185).¶ Distant Suffering thus describes, in sometimes painful detail, a

between selfish egoism and altruistic commitment to causes. Boltanski describes how we may, unfortunately,
cultivate ourselves by becoming absorbed in our own pity when looking at the spectacle of someone else's suffering, a phenomenon that has been far too present since

tries to lead us out of this self-absorption into the

the September 11 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. Boltanski

world of effective political action by offering a range of involvement. While advocating commitment and debates
about morality as part of the solution, this is no smug celebration of the "return to kindness" or an easy denunciation of the perverse delight of spectacles of suffering.
In considering distant suffering as the "logical consequence" of the introduction of pity into politics over 200 years ago, we are asked to concern ourselves with the
present.¶ Boltanski ends his fine treatise by exhorting us to quit looking to past injustices, to stop anticipating future injustice, and to stay focused on the present.

"To be concerned with the present is no small matter . For over the past, ever gone by, and over the future, still non-
existent, the present has an overwhelming privilege: that of being real " (p. 192). Naive? Perhaps. Boltanski does not

provide simple or quick answers to the dilemma, but leaves one with the hope that pity might lead to compassion, commitment, and

social change - even if such measures do not end all suffering once and for all. As such, this translation
from the original French text is a welcome addition to contemporary debates in political communication.

Baudrillard’s critique does not generalize to the thesis that all information-production
is pure spectacle
Patrick Wilcken 95 Department of Anthropology, Goldsmiths’ College, University of London “The
Intellectuals, the Media and the Gulf War” Critique of Anthropology 1995 15: 37
There are strong links between the theoretical meanderings described above and intellectuals’ response to an event like the Gulf War. The ’no
comment’ approach was perhaps the most widespread in keeping with an indifferent critical climate, but for those who put their oar in,
agnosticism was the order of the day. Baudrillard, for example, in his infamous article ’The Reality Gulf’ (1991a) written on the eve of
hostilities, claimed
that the war would not in fact take place. By this he meant that the media had created a
’hyper real scenario’ of fallacious commentary , empty predictions and reports of threats and
counterthreats that were staged for the media in the first place. In Baudrillard’s opinion, the only real
’strategic cite is the TV screen from which we are daily bombarded’. There is no other reality; images and their
referents are interchangeable. As a result we have on our hands, under the auspices of the UN as an ’extended contraceptive’, a
’Safe War’ (like safe sex) - ’a form of war which means never having to face up to war’ (1991a: 25).

Baudrillard’s piece as a description of the way the media worked during the crisis holds some
validity,&dquo; but to go from there and suggest that taking any position on such an event by attempting
to demystify the media ’simulacrum’ is simply mistaken - in effect just one more illusory exercise - is absurd
to say the least. Baudrillard’s second article published in Liberation (1991b) entitled ’La guerre du Golfe n’a pas eu lieu’ (’The Gulf War Did
Not Take Place’) goes even further in this direction. Baudrillard is willing to concede that in the event mass destruction
did take place, but he goes on to argue that we must not be deceived into taking a moral stand on such
an issue, but must instead engage in a sort of postmodern oneupmanship and reject all evidence so as
to be ’more virtual than the events themselves’ (trans. in Norris, 1992: 194).
Baudrillard’s position is perhaps somewhat extreme, but its controversial avant-garde flavour assured it copy space. But similar sentiments
dressed up differently begin to look disturbingly representative of the intellectual response in the media when one considers Michael Ignatieff’s
article in the Observer (1991). ’The languages of moral concern hardly connect,’ writes Ignatieff. Some people decry the carnage on the road to
Basra, others, like Ignatieff himself, support the war on the grounds that sanctions would have failed. But in the final analysis ’neither side has
the slightest hope of convincing the other’ . What kind of critical commentary is this? Ignatieff’s relativist stance renders informed debate
irrelevant and absolves him from having to defend his pro-war position.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Barbara Ehrenreich (one of Garafola’s new generation public intellectuals) in an article for Time magazine
(1990), ’The Warrior Culture’, attributes the eagerness of the US to confront the Iraqis militarily to America’s culture of aggression. She starts
off with a sort of Victorian anthropological chamber of horrors: dozens of ’pretechnological peoples’ including the Masai of East Africa and the
North American Plains Indians rule that men cannot marry until they have killed in battle; in the Solomon Islands a chief’s status is reckoned by
the number of skulls displayed around his door; Aztec kings use human hearts in religious rituals. America possesses just such a ’warrior culture’
with its unquenchable thirst for violence on television, its willingness to go to war on any pretext, and its warrior elite siphoning off nearly a
third of the federal budget even in peace time. While left-wingers may blame this war on imperialism, Ehrenreich concludes, and right-wingers
’internationalism’ the real villain is in the culture itself.

Ehrenreich’s well-intentioned piece not only fails to convince ethnographically but, reducing international politics to culture, eliminates the
possibility of dissent. Ehrenreich is arguing in effect, that Americans are unable to help themselves: their culture inculcates them with the urge
to fight. Historical precedent, economic considerations and global power relations become irrelevant.

These three public intellectuals, highly visible in their respective countries, are unable to assess critically
a major political event like the Gulf War. Baudrillard wants to live in ’virtual reality’ , Ignatieff concludes that any
adjudication is impossible and Ehrenreich reduces the conflict to specious cultural predispositions. Their lack of conviction, though, owes as
much to the theoretical climate as to the requirements of the media. Baudrillard’s piece satisfies the market for the bizarre - the intellectual
eccentric going over the top; Ignatieff encapsulates the views of the soft liberal readership of the Observer; while Ehrenreich’s article has
obvious exotic appeal.

But even outside the requirements of the media, the Gulf War highlighted the general paralysis of the
intellectual community worldwide. In the USA, Edward Said argues that intellectuals failed to join the debate
because of their lack of ’affiliation with the public sphere’ , provinciality and impotence (1991: 15). Even the editorial board
of Dissent was divided over the issue, producing a wide spectrum of opinion. Todd Gitlin described the war as a ’catastrophe’ which was
’avoidable’, the late Irving Howe felt compelled to take a pro-war position but felt that the stance was ’uncomfortable’ for the Left, while
Dennis Wrong concluded that because of the UN’s role this was a ’legal and just war’ (Morton et al., 1991:153-60). In France ex-radical ’soixante
huitard’ Alaine Touraine gave the war his unequivocal support, while Pierre Bourdieu denounced it as ’drunken war-mongering’ (Zamiti, 1992 :
53 ; author’s trans.). In Britain, Christopher Norris comments that few intellectuals were able to resist the ’pressures of ideological recruitment’
(1992: 25) and The Times, in an article written during the conflict, described the ’old constituency of intellectual protest’ as ’in confusion’ (27
January 1991). But perhaps the most striking example of intellectual disarray was in Germany, where the issue of the war was the first event to
break up decisively one of the most politically cohesive left-wing groups in Europe. Veterans of 1968 Enzensberger and Brumlik came out in
support of the Allies as other intellectuals appeared to flounder in self-contradiction: Jurgen Habermas commented that the war was ’justified’
(as opposed to ’just’); Cohn-Bendit supported the war while at the same time condemned the hypocrisy of the intellectuals for ignoring the
suffering of the Iraqi people (Rabinbach, 1991 : 462).

Bush could have escalated the war further absent significant anti-war activism ---
proves that information with clear goals works sometimes
Heaney 12, Assistant Professor of Organizational Studies and Political Science @ Umich (Michael, “The
Policy, Political, and Social Effects of the Antiwar Movement after 9/11,”
https://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/the-policy-political-and-social-effects-of-the-
antiwar-movement-after-911/)

Of course, it
is impossible to establish definitely the nonimpact of the antiwar movement on policy. Doing so
requires the evaluation of counterfactual scenarios that cannot be tested empirically. For example, if there
had been no antiwar movement at all – if nobody had protested the war policies of the Bush Administration – it is plausible to
believe that the administration would have been emboldened to take more aggressive military actions,
possibly invading Syria or Iran. Or, perhaps the Bush Administration would have had the confidence to pursue more ambitious conservative
domestic policies. Personally, I am inclined to believe that the movement did have these types of restraining effects but, as a social scientist, it is impossible to
demonstrate them convincingly. To claim that the policy and political effects of the antiwar movement were limited
is not to say that the movement was unimportant. Indeed, the social effects of the movement may have
been its most lasting contribution. The antiwar movement exposed millions of people to their first
experiences with activism, which will likely shape the way that many of them think of, and participate
in, politics for the remainder of their lives.[7]

The movement provided critical opportunities for activists to learn about new tactics and to implement
them on unfamiliar terrain.[8] Alliances and conflicts within coalitions shaped the structure of the social networks of movement participants.[9]
The movement provided activists with opportunities to explore their identities[10] and to create new
organizations by hybridizing elements of intersecting social movements.[11] In many ways, we have only
begun to see the long-term consequences of a generation shaped by the antiwar movement.
 3
F] It ensures a reciprocal division of ground and is most intuitive
Nelson 08 “Towards a Comprehensive Theory of LD - Adam Nelson” by Adam F. Nelson, J.D. [Director
of Lincoln-Douglas Debate and Mock Trial at The Harker School, San Jose, CA] TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008
http://ldtheoryjournal.blogspot.com/2008/04/towards-comprehensive-theory-of-ld-adam.html // OHS-
AT

And the truth-statement model of the resolution imposes an absolute burden of proof on the aff irmative: if the
resolution is a truth-claim, and the affirmative has the burden of proving that claim, in so far as intuitively we tend to disbelieve truth-claims
until we are persuaded otherwise, the affirmative has the burden to prove that statement absolutely true. Indeed, one of the most common
theory arguments in LD is conditionality, which argues it is inappropriate for the affirmative to claim only proving the truth of part of the
resolution is sufficient to earn the ballot. Such a model of the resolution also givesthe negative access to a range of strategies
that many students, coaches, and judges find ridiculous or even irrelevant to evaluation of the resolution . If the negative need
only prevent the affirmative from proving the truth of the resolution, it is logically sufficient to negate to deny our ability to
make truth-statements or to prove normative morality does not exist or to deny the reliability of human
senses or reason. Yet, even though most coaches appear to endorse the truth-statement model of the resolution, they complain about
the use of such negative strategies, even though they are a necessary consequence of that model. And, moreover, such strategies seem
fundamentally unfair, as they
provide the negative with functionally infinite ground, as there are a nearly infinite
variety of such skeptical objections to normative claims, while continuing to bind the affirmative to a much
smaller range of options: advocacy of the resolution as a whole. Instead, it seems much more reasonable to treat the resolution as a
way to equitably divide ground: the affirmative advocating the desirability of a world in which people adhere to the value judgment implied by
the resolution and the negative advocating the desirability of a world in which people adhere to a value judgment mutually exclusive to that
implied by the resolution. By making the issue one of desirability of competing world-views rather than of truth, the
affirmative gains access to increased flexibility regarding how he or she chooses to defend that world, while the negative retains equal
flexibility while being denied access to those skeptical arguments indicted above. Our ability to make normative claims is
irrelevant to a discussion of the desirability of making two such claims. Unless there is some significant harm in making such statements, some
offensive reason to reject making them that can be avoided by an advocacy mutually exclusive with that of the affirmative such objections are
not a reason the negative world is more desirable, and therefore not a reason to negate. Note this is precisely how things have been done in
policy debate for some time: a team that runs a kritik is expected to offer some impact of the mindset they are indicting and some alternative
that would solve for that impact. A team that simply argued some universal, unavoidable, problem was bad and therefore a reason to negate
would not be very successful. It is about time LD started treating such arguments the same way. Such a model of the resolution has
additional benefits as well. First, it forces both debaters to offer offensive reasons to prefer their worldview, thereby further enforcing a
parallel burden structure. This means debaters can no longer get away with arguing the resolution is by definition true of false. The
“truth” of the particular vocabulary of the resolution is irrelevant to its desirability. Second, it is intuitive. When people
evaluate the truth of ethical claims, they consider their implications in the real world . They ask themselves
whether a world in which people live by that ethical rule is better than one in which they don’t. Such
debates don’t happen solely in the abstract. We want to know how the various options affect us and the world we
live in.

Debate has no constitutive rules- every debate is functionally a new version of the
activity.
Enoch 11 Enoch, David (2011). Shmagency revisited in Michael Brady (ed.), New Waves in Metaethics,
Palgrave-Macmillan. JW

But one may want to reject this initial claim, even with regard to chess. For it may be suggested that playing chess does after all
suffice for having a reason – some reason, at least, perhaps a weak one, perhaps one that is outweighed by others – for
checkmating your opponent. Perhaps there is no need after all for another reason, namely, a reason to be playing chess (or perhaps
to play this specific game of chess)? If so, we may proceed to conclude that our merely playing the agency-game suffices for us having a reason
to aim at its constitutive aims. As a general thesis, though, this
cannot be true. We can define many cooked-up variations of
chess, with slightly different rules, or perhaps slightly different ways of winning (say, you only win if you checkmate your
opponent in an even number of moves; or when she still has her queen; or when she looks away; or cases in which you win if you move your
castle diagonally three times when your opponent looks away; etc.). Whenever you find yourself playing chess, you also find yourself
(in sufficiently early stages of the game ) playing these cooked-up games chess*, chess**, chess***, and so on. But it
doesn't seem you have reasons to win at chess*, or at chess**, or at chess***. This is so, presumably, because you don't have a
reason to play chess*, or chess**, or chess***. So this little example suffices to show that it's not in general true that engaging in
some activity – satisfying some relevant descriptive criteria – suffices for having reason to aim at its constitutive aim .
So if you think that the game of agency is different – if you think, in other words, that playing it suffices for having a reason to play it well, or to
achieve its constitutive aims, or some such – then you must be able to come up with an answer to the question: What's so special about
agency? Why is this true of agency, even though it's not true in general? I can’t think of an answer to this question (except perhaps in terms of
inescapability, to which we will return shortly).
 4
1] no holographic – A] says it might be – any risk it’s not means affirm bc extinction
kills all possibility B] pain matters even if it is under our standard
2] deliberation solves --- we can include ideas thru the 2nr and 2ar responses
3] A] wash – we can’t determine if either is a bad idea if decisions are impossible B]
creates a contradiction which affirms bc you read the paradox so it’s your fault for
creating it
4] A] res is should not ought B] reasonable risk USfg located in Washington – no ev to
the contrary C] inf place and time impossible – universe would’ve collapsed
5] Linguistics work – they concede it by understanding my questions and answering
them –
6] A] drop them – blames black people for racism – cross app inclusion weighing – only
losing the round checks back B] aff doesn’t eliminate something it creates new laws
we’re saying the aff is needed