Aff Tribes

Aff
-- Tribes
1AC – TRIBES
1AC – Tribal Crimes
The advantage is Tribal Crimes.
Tribal courts lack criminal jurisdiction to sentence non-Indian defendants for crimes,
including sexual assault and domestic violence.
Douglas 18 [Maura; 2018; Executive Editor, Volume 166, University of Pennsylvania Law Review. J.D.
Candidate, 2018, University of Pennsylvania Law School; B.A. (2011), M.S.E. (2013), University of
Pennsylvania; “SUFFICIENTLY CRIMINAL TIES: EXPANDING VAWA CRIMINAL JURISDICTION FOR INDIAN
TRIBES,” https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=9615&context=penn_law_review]
The relationship between the federal government, states, and Indian tribes is colored by an incredibly complicated history. Criminal
jurisdiction within Indian country has been particularly fractured during this history. It has been concurrently or exclusively
exercised to varying degrees by and between tribal, state, and federal governments depending on the type of crime and the identities of both
the victim and perpetrator. And despite the universal right to be free from bodily harm,19 actions by both
Congress and the federal
courts have systematically damaged the means by which tribes can protect the health, safety and welfare of their
tribal members, which is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty.20 Of course, early European colonization also substantially threatened
tribal sovereignty and established the use of both physical and sexual violence of Indians as a means of conquest and territorial expansion.21
Traditional procedural and legal doctrine provides that a sovereign may exercise criminal jurisdiction over
crimes committed in its own territory .22 Indeed, a “basic attribute of full territorial sovereignty is the power to enforce laws
against all who come within the sovereign’s territory, whether citizens or aliens.”23 This general premise does not, however, apply
to tribal jurisdiction or to claims arising in Indian country . In order for a tribal court to lawfully exercise jurisdiction over a
case, there must be both subject matter jurisdiction, established under federal and tribal law, as well as personal jurisdiction.24 Currently, a
tribe may exercise criminal jurisdiction over actions involving exclusively Indian parties, but not non-
Indians, unless authorized by federal statute .25 Otherwise, any crime—including domestic and sexual
violence—committed by a non-Indian against an Indian on tribal land can only be prosecuted by the federal government
or the state authorized to do so under what is known as Public Law 280 .26
This “jurisdictional maze” of tribal criminal jurisdiction created gaps in the deterrence of criminal behavior and
the protection of vulnerable victims.27 Scholar Angela Riley explains the jurisdictional dilemmas in Indian country:
[T]he remaining gaps

in criminal jurisdiction left exclusively under the authority of the federal government have never been
adequately filled. The bizarre result is that criminal jurisdiction over Indian country crimes is governed by
shifting and sometimes contradictory variables, including where the crime was committed, whether both the defendant and
victims are Indians, and the classification of the alleged crime, among other considerations.28
Instead, criminal jurisdiction is divided between tribal, state, and federal actors.
After Oliphant, criminal jurisdiction in Indian country rests on three key factors, divided or shared among tribal, state,
or federal entities: (i) the nature of the offense ; (ii) whether jurisdiction has been conferred on the state; and
(iii) whether the victim and/or the perpetrator is an Indian.77 Investigators and prosecutors alike must
know where a crime occurred, who the victim was, and who the perpetrator was before determining the appropriate means
of legal redress.78
In sum, since the founding of the United States, Indian tribes have lost much of their land, sovereign rights, and powers, but that reality cannot
conceal the history of tribal jurisdiction in Indian country and tribes’ existence as sovereigns. Gaps in jurisdiction, in particular, left an
already vulnerable population even more susceptible to abuse. Ultimately, the jurisdictional complications in Indian
country, which created a sense of lawlessness, pushed Congress to reconsider the disproportionate impacts of this procedural anomaly on
victims, specifically Indian women.
II. THE JURISDICTIONAL MAZE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT IN INDIAN COUNTRY
The historical erosion of tribal authority illustrated in Part I left Indian women living in Indian country significantly under-protected from
strangers and even from their own bedfellows. After
Oliphant but before VAWA 2013, tribes could not exercise
criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants committing crimes against Indians in Indian country.79 This left the
federal government (and sometimes states) as the sovereign to prosecute and investigate non-Indian
crime against Indians. In practice, the federal government declined to prosecute nearly half of reported cases
of sexual assault in Indian country between 2005 and 2009, due to “weak or insufficient admissible evidence.”80 Further, reports show
that attackers would even call “the tribal police themselves, knowing there would not be a response, arrest, or prosecution.”81 This sense of
lawlessness directly contributed to deeply troubling statistics of sexual and physical violence against Indian victims.
This jurisdictional ambiguity undermines criminal accountability for perpetrators.

Federal investigations create massive delays and hardly ever achieve justice.
Data collected from the federal government, academic institutions, and other advocacy organizations all reflect the glaring
problem that crimes of sexual violence in Indian country occur at much higher rates and are prosecuted
at lower rates than similar crimes in state territory, and even at ower rates than other serious crimes committed in Indian
country.101 For example, federal prosecutors did not file charges in fifty-two percent of the “most serious
crimes” committed on tribal land in 2011, but declined to pursue sixty-five percent of alleged rapes and
sixty-one percent of cases involving sexual abuse of children .102 This data should also be considered with the
background of the jurisdictional history and forced assimilation that took place on federally recognized tribal land. Higher rates of poverty, less
access to law enforcement, and the remoteness of the land are in many ways a direct result of that history of colonization.103
Given the complexity of jurisdiction in Indian country, depending on the nature of the offense, the location of the crime, and the
race and ethnicity of the parties, there can be several different offices involved in the investigation of one crime :
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) officers, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officers, tribal government officials, and state
police officers.104 Given these different players, some reports have found respective agencies could be slower to
investigate crimes in Indian country because they feel another agency should be the primary enforcer.105
Unique questions of enforcement create significant delays, which, while a concern for addressing any crime,
particularly impacts the investigation of sexually violent crimes, where review of evidence such as rape
kits is required as soon as possible following the crime.106 To illustrate how jurisdictional confusion impacts investigation,
Bachman and her colleagues excerpted the Final Report of the Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force which identified:
*Footnotes 104-106 Start*

104 BACHMAN ET AL., supra note 91, at 78-79. Bachman identified in 2006 that there were “over 170 law enforcement agencies operated by
tribal law enforcement, and 37 operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.” Id. at 80. These agencies face significant challenges to enforcing the
law:
Like many rural law enforcement agencies, these officials suffer from departmental and administrative problems in
addition to geographical, social and economic barriers to connect with victims. Although these issues are not unique to American
Indian and Alaska Native women, scholars frequently argue that problems are intensified on tribal lands due to
cultural insensitivity, jurisdictional confusion and the extreme isolation of many reservations.
Id.
105 Id. at 81-82; see also AMNESTY INT’L, supra note 12, at 44-46 (highlighting delays from multiple enforcement agencies in Alaska:
“Because of delays in response by State Troopers, [village police officers] are often the first to respond
to reports of crimes . . . . Although they may be the first or only officers to respond, [ they] cannot serve
arrest warrants or investigate serious crimes such as rape without the approval of State Troopers.”);
STEWART WAKELING ET AL., NAT’L INST. OF JUSTICE, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, POLICING ON AMERICAN INDIAN RESERVATIONS 43-45 (July 2001),
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/188095.pdf [https://perma.cc/K3C9-V7DG] (discussing how jurisdictional complexities and “ multiple
lines of authority decrease accountability and create tribal capacity vacuums”).
Investigations of sexual assault, particularly rape kits, generally require examination of the victim immediately following the alleged attack to
determine the likelihood of an assault and preserve biological materials that could be used as evidence. See Deborah Tuerkheimer, Incredible
Women: Sexual Violence and the Credibility Discount, 166 U. PA. L. REV. 1, 33-34 (2017) (“A rape kit, or forensic sexual assault examination,
collects and preserves evidence obtained through an invasive physical examination of the victim, including hair, fibers, semen, saliva, skin cells,
and blood.”).
*Footnotes 104-106 End*
The first enforcement officials

called to the scene may be tribal police of [sic] BIA . . . officers, and these officers may initiate
investigation and/or detain a suspect. Then a decision has to be made whether the crime is of the type
warranting federal intervention, and then federal law enforcement officials (usually the FBI) need to be
notified. These officers then decide if they will refer the case to the U.S. Attorney’s office. After referral, the
U.S. Attorney may call for further investigation, pursue prosecution, or dismiss the case .107
It also prevents tribal police officers from effectively responding to crime. This
destroys victim trust in law enforcement, which prevents reporting.
Riley 16 [Angela; 2016; Professor of Law, UCLA. Director, Native Nations Law and Policy Center; “Crime
and Governance in Indian Country,” file:///Users/armanomidvar/Downloads/Crime%20&
%20Governance%20UCLALawRev.pdf]
Despite the fact that tribal police officers are peace officers and have the authority to detain an offender and “transport him to the proper
authorities,”343 there is confusion among tribal police officers as to the scope of this power. Diane Millich’s
powerful story highlights the incredibly complex jurisdictional questions that arise in the course of Indian country criminal justice. And, although
the issue should be treated as well settled, confusion remains. There is some evidence that the Bureau of Indian Affairs itself is training tribal
police officers and instructing them that they lack the authority to arrest and detain perpetrators until they can be turned over to the correct
sovereign with jurisdiction.344 This
creates a severe detriment to public safety in Indian country. The testimony from the
legislative history of VAWA itself revealed incidents where abusers flagrantly abused victims, taunting them
that the tribal police could do nothing to intervene.345 And often, they were right.
Tribal police are often the first responders to crimes occurring on Indian reservations. But, as Former Associate Attorney
General Tom Perrelli testified before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs prior to reauthorization of VAWA, tribal police are in an
incredibly difficult position. Imagine, for example, in a pre-VAWA world, where tribal police officers respond to a domestic violence
call on the reservation. Upon arrival, they ascertain the perpetrator is non-Indian, or they are unsure of his
identity. As Perrelli puts it, these officers often mistakenly believe they cannot even make an arrest. Thus,
failing to intervene means that abusers increase and escalate their attacks, which is quite common, particularly in
domestic violence situations. Victims are also then deterred from reaching out to law enforcement in the case
of future incidents.346
Perrelli refers to the beliefs of tribal police as “mistaken,” but the reality is that tribal
officers’ fears are not wholly
unfounded. In recent years, there have been reports of instances in which tribal police have actually faced
intimidation or criminal sanctions themselves for acting as peace officers. Recently, a non-Indian violated a protection
order on a reservation in California. The tribal police arrested the offender and the tribal police were subsequently prosecuted for restraining
and detaining the non-Indian violator. The prosecution still has not been dropped.347 As an attorney for the tribe argued, this
state of
affairs leaves tribal police officers impotent and fearful of doing their jobs when they are at risk of
prosecution.348 There are similar reports that Nevada tribes have been questioned about their authority to
arrest non-member Indians, an issue that already came before the Supreme Court and was definitively
decided in United States v. Lara, 349 upholding tribes’ inherent authority to exercise criminal jurisdiction over allIndians within its
territory, regardless of membership status.35
Leaving arrest authority as an open question has a profoundly negative impact on Indian tribes. First, it disincentivizes
individuals from becoming tribal police officers and creates a culture where tribal police are reluctant to respond to
protect victims, even in exigent circumstances. Self-determination and sovereignty require , at a minimum,
that tribal police officers be empowered to act as peace officers without fear of prosecution or
retaliation, at least until perpetrators can be turned over to the proper authority . The federal government is
simply not available to cover the duties of local policing. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has requested from DOI that the
scope of arrest authority of tribal police officers be definitively clarified, but that has yet to happen.
The murkiness of arrest authority is even more problematic if considered in the context of tribes’ SDVCJ under VAWA. A hypothetical example
posited by NCAI demonstrates why it is so important that the arrest authority of Indian tribes be clarified. When out
on a domestic violence call, tribal police must act quickly. Imagine the following scenario:
[A] tribal police officer arrives at a crime scene potentially involving domestic violence, alcohol, drugs, weapons, and the safety of children and
bystanders. The police officer likely will not be able to rapidly and accurately make a determination if the perpetrator is Indian or nonIndian—
and if non-Indian, then if he is married to the Indian victim, or subject to a protective order, or in a “social relationship of a romantic or intimate
nature . . . as determined by the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the
personsinvolved . . . .”351
Given all the ways in which the federal government has abandoned Indian reservations in terms of providing basic policing services, it is
untenable that tribal police are sent on patrol without clear authority to arrest and detain without fear of prosecution themselves. The
current system creates perverse incentives, and actually encourages tribal police to ignore scenarios in
which they cannot confirm either the race or membership of the perpetrator or where they cannot
assess in a potentially violent and dangerous scenario what the terms of the relationship are between
the perpetrator and the victim(s).
Tribal distrust of state and federal prosecutors deters reporting, and tribal police can’t
quickly respond due to jurisdictional ambiguity.
Treiger 19 [Alex; 2019; J.D., Stanford Law School; “Thickening the Thin Blue Line in Indian Country:
Affirming Tribal Authority to Arrest Non-Indians,”
https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1714&context=ailr]
The criminal jurisdiction maze has led to a “public safety crisis” in Indian Country.90 The statistics are stark.
Historically, Native Americans are more likely than any other ethnic group to be the victims of violence,91 and in a recent survey, four in five
respondents reported having experienced violence in his or her lifetime.92 Native women especially suffer. The murder rate of Indian
women is ten times the national average in some areas,93 and they are more than twice as likely to be raped as Caucasian
women.94 Non-violent crime is also woefully high in Indian Country.95 For example, between 2008 and 2010, tribal officials reported 54,000
property crimes to the FBI.96
Non-Indians are largely to blame. According to the Department of Justice, 86% of reported rapes and sexual
assaults experienced by Native women were perpetrated by non-Native men.97 And a 2016 survey of
approximately 4000 Native Americans found that, of those who had experienced violence during their lifetime, 97% of Indian women and 90%
of Indian men reported having been victimized by a non-Indian.98 In contrast, only 35% of female victims and 33% of male victims reported
having been victimized by an Indian.
Because of Oliphant, Native

victims must rely on state or federal authorities to prosecute non-Indian
offenders. But justice is rarely served. Understaffed and insufficiently funded, law enforcement agencies struggle to
maintain public safety in Indian Country, areas which are often remote and sparsely populated.99
Investigations—if they occur—proceed slowly.100 In the meantime, witnesses disappear, evidence spoils,
and perpetrators escape. As a result, prosecutors often decline to file charges.101 Even when prosecutors bring
charges, the abysmal convictions rate only makes things worse. It turns Indian Country into a safe haven
for non-Indian criminals,102 deters the reporting of crime,103 and breeds distrust among Native
Americans towards federal and state law enforcement.104
2. The Harm to Tribal Law Enforcement Authority
Beyond its toll on tribal members, the status quo hinders the ability of tribal police to maintain public safety on the
reservation. Tribal police may be reluctant to investigate or pursue a suspect unless it is clear that the tribe
has prosecutorial jurisdiction for fear that their action will dissuade federal or state involvement .105 Yet
in many cases, it is impossible for the first responders to the scene to determine whether the offense
occurred in Indian Country and whether the suspect is an Indian, the two prerequisites for tribal
jurisdiction.106 For starters, the line dividing state land and Indian Country can be blurry.107 Tribes and states frequently
dispute not just the precise contours of the reservation,108 but whether huge swathes of land are classified as Indian
Country. 109 Further adding to the complexity, Indian Country is not static. For instance, an Indian could take their allotment out of trust to
sell it or to obtain a mortgage, transforming the property into state land.110 Indianness is even more difficult to discern.111 As
the Ninth Circuit acknowledged, “[a] person can have significant Native American ancestry and nonetheless not be an Indian” under federal
law, while “a person can be an Indian for tribal law enforcement purposes even if that person does not have any of the physical characteristics
associated with Native American heritage.”112 United States v. Keys113 is illustrative of this challenge. There, it took tribal police several days
to determine whether the suspect was an Indian after a search of the National Crime Information Center database revealed four notations
labeling him Caucasian but also two listing him as Indian.114 Worse yet, if
it is clear that the suspect is a non-Indian, many
tribal officers believe that they cannot intervene in an ongoing crime or make an arrest. 115 In fact, as
recently as 2013, the BIA reportedly instructed tribal police that they had no authority over nonIndians.116
The result is the descent of Indian country into crisis.

Notably, Congress’s revision of the ICRA came after the 1978 Supreme Court decision of Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, wherein the Court
held that Indian tribes do not have criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.79 The Court’s decision in Oliphant caused enormous concern for
tribes and Indian law scholars, as Indian country is the only place within the United States where the racial and political status of the
perpetrator and victim bear on the question of which sovereign may exercise jurisdiction in a given instance.80 As this history has shown,
Indian country criminal jurisdiction is bizarrely disaggregated from geography. The standard
understanding is that the sovereign within which the crime was committed has jurisdiction over the
crime, and the sovereign may prosecute the person who commits a crime within its borders.81 By turning this presumption on
its head in Indian country, Indian tribes lost a core prerogative of the sovereign, losing the right to punish the
non-Indian offender, even when he commits a crime against an Indian. Thus, where “[n]o other sovereign has as great an interest in trying
individuals for breaches of the peace as does the sovereign inwhose territory the offense occurred,” Indian tribes are set adrift.82
As a result, after the passage of ICRA, limiting tribal court criminal sentences, and the Supreme Court’s decision in
Oliphant, excluding non-Indians from tribal criminal jurisdiction, stories of injustice have poured out of Indian
country.83 Just in the past few years, testimony given before Congress has revealed countless incidences of inadequate
punishments, failures to prosecute, paltry resources for safety and policing, as well as brazen acts of
violence by savvy criminals actively seeking to commit crimes on reservations where they believe they
are insulated from prosecution.84 In some documented cases, perpetrators even called the tribal police
themselves, knowing there would not be a response, arrest, or prosecution.85 Studies show that
countless Indian women and girls decline to even report violent crime or sexual assault committed by non-
Indians on the reservation because they do not believe there will be justice.86 Thus, the field is replete with accounts of
rapists, serial batterers, and murderers that are either never prosecuted at all for their crimes, or that are only prosecuted by tribal
governments, which for decades could only impose a maximum sentence of one year incarceration per offense, no matter how seriousthe
crime.87
*Begin Footnote 84*

84. See generally Discussion Draft Legislation to Address Law and Order in Indian Country: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Indian Affairs, 110th
Cong. 1 (2008) [hereinafter 2008 Hearing] (statement of Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, U.S. Sen.) (“[There is] established longstanding and life-
threatening public safety crises that exist on some Indian reservations. . . . [S]exual and domestic violence have reached epidemic proportions;
victims have to wait in many cases hours and weeks for a response to law enforcement calls . . . . The
lack of consequences has
created some notion of lawlessness in many communities.”); see also 160 CONG.REC. 26, S942 (discussing the Violence
AgainstWomen Act: “‘Over the years, what happened is that white men, non-native men, would go onto a Native
American reservation and go hunting—rape, abuse and even murder a native woman, and there’s
absolutely nothing anyone could do to them ,’ said Kimberly Norris Guerrero, an actress, tribal advocate and native Oklahoman
who is Cherokee and Colville Indian. ‘They got off scot-free.’”); AMNESTY INT’L, supra note 18, at 33 (alteration in original) (quoting Jodi
Rave, South Dakota Tribal-City Police Department a National Model for Handling Domestic Abuse, THE MISSOULIAN (Sept. 24, 2006),
http://missoulian.com/jodirave/domestic-violence-south-dakota-tribal-citypolice-department-a-national/article_ca9be598-0339-57e0-a042-
a70d0310188c.html [https://perma.cc/NJ46-BXXP]) (“[N]on-Native
perpetrators often seek out a reservation place
because they know they can inflict violence without much happening to them .”); INDIAN LAW & ORDER COMM’N,
supra note 9, at 110 (quoting Indian Law & Order Comm’n, Hearing on Tribal Law and Order Act 3 (Jan. 13, 2012) (testimony of Edward Reina,
Jr., Director of Public Safety, Tohono O’odham Nation), https://www.indianlawandordercommission.com/resources/
documents/ILOCFH_PhxAZ_Testimony_EReina.pdf [https://perma.cc/9WZU-2HNH]) (“Tribal offenders realize that they can travel from one
Tribal community to another to hide, commit crime link [sic] with other offender’s [sic] without being concerned about being identified as a
criminal offender.”)
*End Footnote 84*
The consequences for tribal sovereignty and self-determination have been immense. Of the 4.6 million people living in Indian
country in 2010, 3.5 million were non-Indians who could not be prosecuted by tribal governments.88 The cost of these policies has been seen
and felt throughout all of Indian country for decades, with the most severe shortcomings experienced by Indian women and children.89
Without basic public safety, communities deteriorate: Students cannot focus on learning; tribes and individual
tribal members cannot engage in economic development, attract business, or grow tourism .90 Tribal
members lose faith in tribal governments as well as in the federal system.91 By depriving tribes of the
localized community control that characterizes virtually all law enforcement in the United States,
federal policy itself caused the descent of Indian country into crisis.92
Studies confirm that jurisdictional ambiguity alone deters reporting.

Studies highlight the problem of sexual assault against Indian victims, and, in particular, the high rates of violent
crimes committed against Indians as compared to victims who do not identify as Indian . For example, a 2003
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Research Report presented findings from the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey to better
understand violence against women in the United States, and to review key findings for women of color’s experiences with violence in
particular.83 The NVAW Survey data reported that 34.1 percent of respondents who identified as American Indian/Alaska Native women
reported being raped, compared to 17.7 percent of respondents who identified as white, 18.8 percent who identified as black, and 6.8 percent
who identified as Asian/Pacific Islander.84 In fact, according to the data, American Indian/Alaska Native respondents (both male and
female) had the highest rates across each type of victimizatio n: rape, physical assault, and stalking.85 Another report,
published by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in 1999, found that, while seventy percent of all American Indian
victims described their attacker as white (sixty percent) or black (ten percent), victims of rape or sexual assault “most often reported that the
victimization involved an offender of a different race. About ninety percent of American Indian victims of rape or sexual assault were estimated
to have had assailants who were white or black.”86
The 1999 BJS Report also found that the

rate of violent victimizations for American Indians was more than double
the rate for the U.S. resident population.87 The 2003 NIJ Report on the NVAW findings concluded that American Indian/Alaska
Natives were at high risk of being violently victimized, but “how much of the variance in violent victimization that may be explained by
demographic, social, and environmental factors remains unclear and requires further study.”88
While recent data is not ultimately conclusive on the exact percentage of offenders who are strangers, acquaintances, family members, or
intimate partners, it is evident that Indian victims experience violence at the hands of perpetrators who are not just spouses or dating partners.
For example, the data analyzed in the 1999 BJS Report reflected that forty-six
percent of violent victimizations of American
Indian victims, including but not limited to rape/sexual assault, were committed by a stranger, thirty-eight
percent by an acquaintance, seven percent by a family member, and eight percent by an intimate partner.89 Amnesty International found that
of the reported sexually violent attacks against American Indian or Alaska Native women, only twenty-five percent were
committed by an intimate partner.90 And a study funded in part by the NIJ, which analyzed data collected by the National Crime
Victimization Survey from 1992 to 2005, determined that thirty-eight percent of reported rapes/sexual assaults of American Indian/Alaska
Native women were committed by an intimate partner, and twenty-nine percent by a stranger.91
Data collection for violence within Indian country and against Indian victims can be challenging, and generalizations
regarding Indian country and tribes should be made with extreme caution , given variations in size, demographics, geographic
remoteness, and local and state relations.92 The Ten Tribes Study was a collaborative effort between the University of
Arizona, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, and several tribes to overcome some of these challenges
by gathering data from diverse tribes. The goals of the Ten Tribes Study were,
(a) to determine the prevalence rates of adulthood physical assault and rape among men and women across six tribes, (b) describe victim–
perpetrator relationships, and (c) identify the contributions of demographic characteristics, adverse childhood experiences, lifetime alcohol
dependence, and cultural and regional factors to risks of adult victimization.93
The Study asked respondents to categorize their offender as (i) male and female relatives, (ii) other known persons, (iii) romantic partners, and
(iv) strangers.94 In cases of physical assault, adult female victims reported the most common offender was a romantic partner (eighty
percent).95 In cases of sexual assault, “the most frequently reported perpetrator was a male relative (55%), followed by romantic partner
(46%), other known person (29%), stranger (28%), and female relative (4%).”96 While these categories clearly overlap, the
drop in
reporting perpetrators as a romantic partner from eighty percent in physical assault cases, to forty-six
percent in sexual assault cases, is quite notable.
In addition to methodological challenges in data collection, the

number of assaults are likely underreported.97 Thus,
available statistics likely are a gross underestimate.98 Some victims and advocates of sexual assault in
Indian country report that women growing up among the violence in Indian country normalize it, expecting
it to occur and even preparing for it.99 This may also be due to strained relations between victims of sexual
assault and law enforcement, and in the case of Indian victims, who the appropriate enforcement
agency is.
Recent legislation thumps DAs

ABA 19 [ABA, American Bar Association, Violence Against Women Act Update, 5-16-2019, Accessible
Online at
https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/publications/washingtonletter
/may2019/vawa_update/] DL 9-25-2020
the House of Representatives passed The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 (H.R. 1585) by a vote of 263 – 158, with 33 Republicans
On April 4,
joining Democrats in the affirmative.This bipartisan Act would extend VAWA for five years, and adds several provisions
aimed at expanding the Act’s scope. One of the more controversial provisions includes extending the longstanding prohibition against gun possession for
perpetrators of domestic violence, to include dating violence and stalking. Even though the authorization expired, VAWA programs are funded at their
highest level ever at $559 million through this fiscal year. The House Appropriations Chair released their proposal
for the FY 2020 appropriation which provides over $582 million for VAWA programs. If the House passes the proposal, this provision would still need Senate
action.
But those still impinge on tribal autonomy. Transferring sentencing jurisdiction to

tribal courts is key.
Redlingshafer 17 [Catherine M; 11/2017; Candidate for Juris Doctor, Notre Dame Law School, 2018,
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, Strategic Communications, and History, University of Denver; “An
Avoidable Conundrum: How American Indian Legislation Unnecessarily Forces Tribal Governments to
Choose Between Cultural Preservation and Women 's Vindication,”
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4758&context=ndlr]
The federal government first stripped tribal courts of their criminal justice authority in the nineteenth century and has taken very small steps to
return minimal power to the tribes.12 The most recent attempts to give tribes the authority to combat violence in their
communities are represented in the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) and the 2013 Reauthorization of the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA). TLOA has many facets, but, most importantly, it authorizes tribal courts to impose enhanced sentences on
offenders.13 This necessary authorization, however, is shackled by strict requirements.14 The 2013 VAWA
reauthorization provided a much needed expansion of tribal criminal jurisdiction, however, as with TLOA, many of the provisions in the Act
are only available to tribes that meet rigid qualifications 15—qualifications that could impact the integrity,
autonomy, and traditions of American Indian tribes.
VAWA’s tribal provisions were not implemented until March 2015; therefore, there is very little data available to measure their effectiveness.
VAWA did, however, initiate a one-year pilot project, commencing in February 2014.16 Only three tribes qualified to participate
in the project, and the data on their experiences was recently released.17 This Note analyzes that data and concludes that the three
participating tribes were well suited to implement VAWA because of their preexisting legal
infrastructures and overall demographics. However, this Note argues that, because of its rigid requirements,
VAWA will not impact most tribes as positively as it did the three pilot tribes.
These laws, while an improvement and a necessity, make clear that “sovereignty comes at a price.”18 The federal
government is effectively coercing tribes to either implement a version of the federal criminal adjudication
system (and give up their own, traditional tribal court system), or else deal with the consequences of a
system that cannot prosecute or punish many perpetrators. Moreover, even if the tribes decide to incorporate VAWA’s
requirements in order to expand its jurisdiction, the limitations on TLOA’s enhanced sentencing authority essentially
makes the wider jurisdictional grant toothless. In other words, even if a tribe is authorized to prosecute a perpetrator,
without the power to adequately sentence the individual, the prosecution is futile.
This Note makes two arguments concerning the state of American Indian legislation, and then proposes an alternative. First, this Note argues
that the recently
enacted legislation regarding criminal justice in American Indian societies will work to encourage
cultural assimilation and result in the loss of tribal traditions and autonomy. In effect, the legislation is putting
tribes in an impossible position: it is unfairly coercing them to choose between (1) the preservation of their own culture and customs, and (2)
the ability to prosecute those victimizing their members. Second, this Note argues that even if a tribe decides to risk its culture and tradition in
order to adopt the federal policies needed to protect its members, the legislation does not go far enough. The two prominent legislative
enactments in place— TLOA
and VAWA—are wrought with so many limitations and qualifications that , in practice,
they do not give tribes enough power to protect their members.
Instead, this Note suggests that the federal system of appeals is capable of solving the current dilemma. In reviewing tribal court decisions,
federal courts should give administrative agency–like deference to tribal courts because the tribal courts are better positioned to
interpret their own laws (laws that are often rooted in tradition and culture), just as administrative agencies are better
positioned to interpret ambiguity in their respective fields.19 By inquiring into whether the tribal courts acted reasonably,
the federal government can ensure that basic individual liberties are upheld in tribal proceedings. Simultaneously, the tribal courts
would interpret and implement their own laws, thus preserving tribal autonomy .
Limited grants of jurisdiction still embolden perpetrators and discourage reporting.

and Governance in Indian Country,” file:///Users/armanomidvar /Downloads/Crime%20&
Those working in Indian country criminal justice repeatedly assert that the complete absence of accountability—a system
where perpetrators know the probability of prosecution is incredibly low—actually encourages more
crime by offenders, who know they will not be held accountable for their actions.283 Evidence suggests—in regards to
domestic violence in particular—that absence of accountability for perpetrators only emboldens
them.284 They escalate their crimes against their victims over time.285 Correspondingly, tribal members assert
that, even when they report crimes, and those crimes are prosecuted, they are devastated by a system
that can only give one year per count for even the most heinous of crimes. Thus, when Indian tribes prosecute major
crimes, such as murder, but are only allowed to sentence the defendant to one year in prison under pre-TLOA ICRA limitations, tribal
members lose faith in criminal justice at the tribal as well as the federal level. As a result, victims stop
reporting crimes, refuse to participate in the criminal justice system, and opt out of community policing
or local control altogether. This, in turn, means that more perpetrators commit repeat offenses that are
never reported, thus starting the cycle over again.
Jurisdictional clarity is necessary for all relevant parties.

Mendoza 20 [Emily; 2020; Denver Law Review Editor and 2020 J.D. Candidate at the University of
Denver Sturm College of Law; “Jurisdictional Transparency and Native American Women,”
http://www.californialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Mendoza-33-Firstpages-141-165-
ONLINE.pdf]
Without knowing where jurisdiction lies, there is no meaningful access to the courts. Native American
women are frequently lost in this jurisdictional maze, not because they don’t know how jurisdiction
works but because it seems that everyone is confused about what tribal criminal jurisdiction means. Tribal
judges refuse to issue protection orders fearing the matter is beyond their jurisdiction.163 Federal
prosecutors choose not to prosecute because the lines of communication between tribal and federal
governments are seemingly blurred.164 Tribal courts attempt to assert jurisdiction only to have
ambiguous jurisdictional standards unravel cases.165 Jurisdiction should never be this opaque.
As history would demonstrate, tribal criminal jurisdiction does not align with the Courts’ widespread demand for jurisdictional
transparency.166 Federal,
state, and tribal authorities should be able to parse through jurisdictional
standards so that they know who has jurisdiction and when. A call for a complete return of jurisdiction is likely to result
in a compromise—a compromise that may disparately apply to different regions, impact only certain crimes, or worse, further divest tribes of
their jurisdiction.167 Jurisdictional transparency isn’t a call for complete divestiture or return of jurisdiction. It
is a call for basic
procedural standards that apply in every other facet of the law . This jurisdictional maze must be
disentangled.
1AC – Plan
The United States federal government should enact substantial criminal justice reform
in sentencing and policing of non-Indians committing crimes against Indian victims in
Indian country.
1AC – Solvency
Contention 2 is Solvency
Only Congress has authority to implement the plan.
Proponents of the jurisdictional grant addressed these constitutional concerns with amendments to the original Senate bill. First, they noted
that any participating tribes
who plan to exercise the special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction only can
do so “contingent on the ability to provide non-Indian defendants with the rights required under law .”145
Language to address fears of partial juries and lack of due process was later incorporated into the text of the Act.146 In short, the Senate
Majority responded to concerns that the jurisdictional grant was too expansive by stating that it was “narrowly crafted and satisfies a clearly
identified need.”147
VAWA 2013 further required that all rights guaranteed in the Indian Civil Rights Act must be provided for in
any tribal prosecution brought under special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction .148 These include, but are
not limited to, the right to defense counsel, the right to publicly available criminal laws, and the right to
seek habeas relief in federal court.149
These rights would be equally provided for if Congress recognized tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-
Indians committing all crimes of sexual violence, as well as concurrent crimes of domestic and dating
violence, such as child or elder abuse, against Indian victims in Indian country . By still requiring some ties to the
tribe—through residence or employment or a comparable relationship—these non-Indian defendants are sufficiently on notice that a crime
committed against an Indian in Indian country can be subject to tribal law if Congress authorizes it.150 And other rights—to an impartial jury,
defense counsel, etc.—must still be provided by the participating tribe. Further, no other jurisdictional grants to a sovereign to prosecute
violent crimes require a prosecutor to differentiate based on the relationship between the victim and the offender.151 Common
understandings of criminal jurisdiction in both federal and international law do not normally require a relationship between (i) the perpetrator
and the sovereign in whose territory the offense was committed, and (ii) the perpetrator and the victim.152
*Footnote 150 Begins*
150 Currently, only Congress can expand or retract tribal authority as it pertains to non-Indians. See United
States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978) (“The sovereignty that the Indian tribes retain is of a unique and
limited character. It exists only at the sufferance of Congress and is subject to complete defeasance. But until Congress acts, the
tribes retain their existing sovereign powers.”)
*Footnote 150 Ends*

A potential counterargument here is that by extending the tribal jurisdiction to any non-Indian crime involving sexual violence and all possible
charges pertaining to domestic or dating violence, tribal jurisdiction would slowly extend to all non-Indian crime. But as federal Indian law is
currently understood, Congress has plenary power to recognize or limit tribal powers .153 Thus, it is not a
question of whether Congress can make such an extension in this circumstance, but whether Congress
should. And in this case, there is a clear, identified problem of sexual violence and violent attacks in Indian country against Indian victims,
primarily by non-Indian offenders.154
If Congress passes legislation recognizing tribal jurisdiction to prosecute all non-Indian crimes of sexual,
domestic, and dating violence—including ancillary crimes—under VAWA’s mandate, tribal authorities would
waste less time evaluating any sort of relationship between the parties beyond what is already
necessary (i.e., the identity of the parties as Indian or non-Indian) and thus deciding which sovereign possesses jurisdiction.
The plan resolves jurisdictional clarity.

The results and impact of VAWA 2013 are being watched closely by a variety of interested parties. In the Senate, for example, the Committee
on Indian Affairs is reviewing feedback from tribes and introducing legislation to “fix the gaps” identified.185 Moreover, now that the pilot
project is complete, due to its success, “the push for a full and complete Oliphant ‘fix’ has also increased, particularly as evidence
mounts
that tribes can and do protect the constitutional rights of non-Indian defendants in tribal court.”186 Congress
should acknowledge the gaps still present in the legislation, and consider expanding its recognition of jurisdiction.
Given the heated debates surrounding the limited grant of jurisdiction, it is hardly surprising that proponents of the provisions argued that the
safer approach was to “narrowly” construct the jurisdictional grant so as to “win support in Congress.”187 There was no proposed amendment
or discussion— beyond pointing out how limited the grant of jurisdiction was—arguing for legislation that would cover additional crimes.
Legal scholars and organizations are urging Congress to expand the grant after reviewing the success of the current implementation of the
special domestic violence jurisdiction. In an interview, Professor Sarah Deer, a citizen of the Muscogee Creek Nation, pointed out that there is
cause for celebration in VAWA
2013, but also noted that the legislation failed to cover child abuse or the “broader topic
of sexual assault.”188 Amnesty International pressed Congress to reaffirm that tribal authorities have
jurisdiction over “all offenders who commit crimes on tribal land, regardless of . . . identity.” 189
In addition to extending tribal jurisdiction for all non-Indian sexual assault in Indian country, recognizing
jurisdiction over
concurrent crimes to domestic and dating violence acts would promote greater intergovernmental
efficiencies and justice for all Indian victims. Child abuse and endangerment during domestic and dating violence
is perhaps one of the greatest examples to illustrate how VAWA 2013 still perpetuates the jurisdictional
conundrum in Indian country. Deborah Parker, the former Vice Chair of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington, testified in front of Congress
before VAWA 2013 was enacted, describing her own experience being abused as a child and exemplifying how personal stories humanized the
plea for jurisdiction.190 Parker’s case, if it occurred today, could not be investigated and prosecuted by her tribe, because as a child, she was
not in a spousal or dating relationship with her attacker.
This remains true even after the enactment of VAWA 2013. For example, Sharon Jones Hayden, a Tulalip Tribal Prosecutor, described at a 2015
DOJ conference a case where she was able to charge a defendant with domestic violence for beating his wife who was Indian, but could not
bring any charges against him for child abuse when he whipped her child with a lamp cord.191 In another case, Hayden, who is specially
designated to prosecute cases in federal court, successfully brought federal charges against a non-Indian man who had attacked his girlfriend
and her children, including “strangling her, hitting her with a metal pipe, throwing knives and lamps at her, and threatening to kill her and burn
the house down with her small children inside.”192 Because this case was considered so severe, it had been referred to the U.S. Attorney’s
Office, otherwise the tribal government would have been unable to charge the defendant for attacking these children, which included forcing a
two-year-old to sit in a chair and throwing knives at him.193
In fact, multiple bills have been introduced since VAWA 2013 proposing extending (or restoring) tribal jurisdiction over additional crimes. First,
Senators Jon Tester and Al Franken introduced a bill called the Tribal Youth and Community Protection Act of 2016 that would have amended
VAWA 2013 Section 904 to include tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian crimes of child violence.194 Second, the Justice for Native Survivors of
Sexual Violence Act, introduced in October 2017 by Senators Franken, Lisa Murkowski, and Tom Udall would extend tribal jurisdiction to crimes
of “domestic, dating, or sexual violence, sex trafficking, or stalking.”195 Finally, in December 2017, Senators Udall, Murkowski, and Catherine
Cortez Masto introduced legislation to extend tribal jurisdiction to include crimes against children and law enforcement officers.196 No action
has been taken on these bills since they were referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
A commonsense extension of tribal criminal jurisdiction, affirmed by Congress, would be to all non-
Indian crimes of sexual assault occurring in Indian country and involving an Indian victim, and all
ancillary crimes involved in acts of domestic or dating violence , including the child abuse discussed above. Section
904 can be amended to include definitions of sexual assault and rape, and the ancillary crimes committed
during domestic and dating violence. The “ties” requirement to the tribe , through residence or employment in Indian country or
through a spousal or dating relationship to the victim, can remain. Section 904(c)(1), listing the criminal conduct
covered, would be amended to include sexual assault and rape, and “domestic and dating violence and associated
ancillary crimes.” The same constraints currently in Section 904(d) regarding defendant’s rights would remain the same.
While policymakers feared Section 904 would threaten the current jurisdictional balance, their primary
concerns—rights of
non-Indian defendants and limiting “tribal sovereignty” —embody a history of federal control over the
land, culture, and decisions of Indian tribes . The plenary power over all Indian affairs still delineates
Congress’s power to expand, retract, and control tribal authority. In VAWA 2013, Congress has formally recognized
both the problem of non-Indian violence against Indian victims and also the power of Congress to affirm tribal sovereignty over these
perpetrators. A potential solution to federal overreaching is to continue to gradually localize law enforcement in tribal governments while
respecting the constitutional (and international) rights of victims and offenders.197 Congress
should continue to restore tribal
sovereignty over the land and people in Indian country in this instance, for sexual assault and rape,
domestic and dating violence and ancillary crimes, against all Indian victims in Indian country .198
Tribal courts avoid delays in prosecution, dual trials, and racist federal judges.
Crepelle 20 [Adam; 5/1/20; Associate Professor at Southern University Law Center (SULC), Managing
Fellow of SULC’s Native American Law and Policy Institute; “ Tribal Courts, The Violence Against Women
Act, and Supplemental Jurisdiction: Expanding Tribal Court Jurisdiction to Improve Public Safety in Indian
Country,” https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2459&context=mlr]
Tribal courts are currently in the strange predicament of being able to prosecute non-Indians for some but
not all of the crimes they commit. For example, a non-Indian who resides on a reservation and assaults his Indian wife can be
prosecuted by the tribe for domestic violence but not for the substance abuse that fueled the violence, nor the child abuse that occurred during
the event, nor the non-Indian’s assault of the intervening tribal law enforcement officer. These offenses
must be prosecuted
separately, often in a far-off court. Assuming a federal prosecutor even takes the case, some federal
judges express dismay at having to deal with Indian country crimes that should be an exclusively local
matter in federal court.246
Prosecuting an offense in the locality where it occurred and by the jurisdiction where it occurred is the
ideal law enforcement practice. Tribes, like all governments, should be able to protect their citizens from violent criminals.
Prosecuting a crime where it occurred makes obtaining witnesses easier as well. More importantly than which
government prosecutes the crime, having victims undergo cross-examination twice is cruel.247 Dual trials for the
same event serve no purpose other than to further clog already backlogged federal dockets when the
tribal court has—or at least—should have the capacity to prosecute the entire event.248
1AC – Framing
Contention 3 is Framing.
“Existential risks first!” is Pascal’s Wager, which makes decision-making impossible.
Munthe 15 – Christian Munthe, PhD, Practical Philosophy Professor Associate Head of Department for
Research at the University of Gothenburg. [Why Aren't Existential Risk / Ultimate Harm Argument
Advocates All Attending Mass? Philosophical Comment, 2-1-15,
http://philosophicalcomment.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-arent-existential-risk-ultimate.html]//BPS
An increasingly popular genre in the sort of applied philosophy and ethics of technology, which does not so much engage with actual
technological development as more or less wild phantasies about possibly forthcoming ones is the notions of "existential risks" or
"ultimate harms", or similar expressions. The theme is currently inspiring several research environments at world-leading universities,
such as this one and this one (where you can find many links to other sources, articles, blog posts, and so on), and given quite a bit of space in
recent scholarly literature on a topic often referred to as the ethics of emerging technology. Now, personally and academically, as it has actually
proceeded, I have found much of this development being to a large extent a case of the emperor's new clothes . The fact that
there are possible threats to human civilizations, the existence of humanity, life on earth or, at least, extended human well-being, is not exactly
news, is it? Neither is there any kind of new insight that some of these are created by humans themselves. Also, it is not any sort of recent
revelation that established moral ideas, or theories of rational decision making, may provide reason for avoiding or mitigating such threats.
Rather, both these theses follow rather trivially from a great many well-established ethical and philosophical theories, and are well-known to
do so since hundreds of years. Still, piece after piece is being produced in the existential risk genre making this out as some sort of
recent finding, and exposing grand gestures at proving the point against more or less clearly defined straw-men. At the same time, quite a bit of
what is currently written on the topic strikes me as philosophically shallow. For instance, the notion that the eradication of the
human species has to be a bad thing seems to be far from obvious from a philosophical point of view - this would depend on such things as the
source of the value of specifically human existence, the manner of the imagined extinction (it certainly does not have to involve any sort of
carnage or catastrophe), and what might possibly come instead of humanity or currently known life when extinct and how that is to be valued.
Similarly, it is a very common step in the typical existential risk line to jump rather immediately from the proposition of such a risk to the
suggestion that substantial (indeed, massive) resources should be spent on its prevention, mitigation or management. This goes for everything
from imagined large scale geo-engineering solutions to environmental problems, dreams of outer space migration, to so-called human
enhancement to adapt people to be able to handle otherwise massive threats in a better way. At the same time, the advocates of the
existential risk line of thought also urges caution in the application of new hitherto unexplored technology, such as synthetic biology or (if it
ever comes to appear) "real" A.I. and android technology. However, also there, the angle of analysis is often restricted to this very call, typically
ignoring the already since long ongoing debates in the ethics of technology, bioethics, environmental ethics, et cetera, where the issue of how
much of and what sort of such caution may be warranted in light of various good aspects of different the technologies considered. And, to be
frank, this simplification seems to be the only thing that is special with the existential risk argument advocacy: the idea that the mere possibility
of a catastrophic scenario justifies substantial sacrifices, without having to complicate things by pondering alternative uses of resources. Now,
this kind of argument, is (or should be) well-known to anyone with a philosophical education, since it seems to
share the basic form of the philosophical classic known as Pascal's Wager. In this argument, French enlightenment
philosopher and mathematician, Blaise Pascal offered a "proof" of the rationality of believing in God (the sort of God found in abrahamitic
monotheistic religion, that is), based on the possible consequences of belief or non-belief, given the truth or falsity of the belief. You can
explore the details of Pascal's argument, but the basic idea is that in the face of the immense consequences of belief and non-belief if God
exists (eternal salvation vs. eternal damnation), it
is rational to bet on the existence of God, no matter what theoretical or
other evidence for the truth of this belief exists and no matter the probability of this truth. It seems to me that
the typical existential risk argument advocacy subscribes to a very similar logic. For instance, the standard line to
defend that resources should be spent on probing and (maybe) facilitating), e.g., possible extraterrestial migration for humanity, seems to have
the following form: 1) Technology T might possibly prevent/mitigate existential risk, E 2) It would be really, really, very, very bad if E was to be
actualised 3) Therefore: If E was otherwise to be actualised, it would be really, really, very, very good if E was prevented 4) Therefore: If E was
otherwise to be actualised, it would be really, really, very, very good if we had access to a workable T 5) Therefore: there are good reasons to
spend substantial resources on probing and (maybe, if that turns out to be possible) facilitating a workable T That is, what drives the argument
is the (mere) possibility of a massively significant outcome, and the (mere) possibility of a way to prevent that particular outcome, thus doing
masses of good. Now, I'm sure that everyone can see that this argument is far from obviously valid, even if we ignore the question of whether
or not premise 2 is true, and this goes for Pascal's Wager too in parallel ways. For instance, the
existential risk argument above
seems to ignore that there seems to be an innumerable amount of thus (merely) possible existential risk
scenarios, as well as innumerable (merely) possibly workable technologies that might help to prevent
or mitigate each of these, and it is unlikely (to say the least) that we have resources to bet substantially on
them all, unless we spread them so thin that this action becomes meaningless. Similarly, there are innumerable
possible versions of the god that lures you with threats and promises of damnation and salvation, and what that particular god may demand in
return, often implying a ban on meeting a competing deity's demands, so the wager doesn't seem to tell you to try to start believing in any
particular of all these (merely) possible gods. Likewise, the
argument above ignores completely the (rather high)
likelihood that the mobilised resources will be mostly wasted, and that, therefore, there are substantial
opportunity costs attached to not using these resources to use better proven strategies with better
identified threats and problems (say, preventing global poverty) - albeit maybe not as massive as the outcomes in
the existential risk scenarios. Similarly, Pascal's Wager completely ignores all the good things one needs to give up to meet the
demands of the god promising eternal salvation in return (for instance, spending your Sundays working for the allieviation of global poverty).
None of that is worth any consideration, the idea seems to be, in light of the massive stakes of the existential
risk / religious belief or non-belief scenarios. Now, I will not pick any quarrel with the existential risk argument as such on
these grounds, although I do think that more developed ways to analyse risk-scenarios and the ethical implications of these already in existence
and used in the fields I referred above will mean lots of troubles for the simplistic aspects already mentioned. What I do want to point to,
however, is this: If
you're impressed by the existential risk argument, you should be equally impressed by
Pascal's Wager. Thus, in accordance with Pascal's recommendation that authentic religious belief can be gradually installed via the
practice of rituals, you should – as should indeed the existential risk argument advocates themselves – spend your Sundays celebrating mass (or
any other sort ritual demanded by the God you bet on). I
very much doubt, however, that you (or they) in fact do that, or even
accept the conclusion that you (or they) should be doing that.
Especially since smaller contributions with robust solvency have a far better record of
success.
Karnofsky 14 – Holden Karnofsky, chief executive officer of the Open Philanthropy Project, graduate
of Harvard University. [The Moral Value of the Far Future, 7-3-2014,
https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/moral-value-far-future]//BPS
In Astronomical Waste, Nick Bostrom makes a more extreme and more specific claim: that the number
of human lives possible under space colonization is so great that the mere possibility of a hugely
populated future, when considered in an “expected value” framework, dwarfs all other moral considerations. I see no
obvious analytical flaw in this claim, and give it some weight. However, because the argument relies heavily on specific
predictions about a distant future, seemingly (as far as I can tell) backed by little other than speculation, I do not
consider it “robust,” and so I do not consider it rational to let it play an overwhelming role in my belief system and actions. (More on my
epistemology and method for handling non-robust arguments containing massive quantities here.) In addition, if
I did fully accept the
reasoning of “Astronomical Waste” and evaluate all actions by their far future consequences, it isn’t clear what
implications this would have. As discussed below, given our uncertainty about the specifics of the far future and our
reasons to believe that doing good in the present day can have substantial impacts on the future as well, it
seems possible that “seeing a large amount of value in future generations” and “seeing an overwhelming amount of value in future
generations” lead to similar consequences for our actions. Catastrophic risk reduction vs. doing tangible good Many people have cited
“Astronomical Waste” to me as evidence that the greatest opportunities for doing good are in the form of reducing the risks of catastrophes
such as extreme climate change, pandemics, problematic developments related to artificial intelligence, etc. Indeed, “Astronomical
Waste” seems to argue something like this: For standard utilitarians, priority number one, two, three and
four should consequently be to reduce existential risk. The utilitarian imperative “Maximize expected aggregate utility!” can be
simplified to the maxim “Minimize existential risk!”. I have always found this inference flawed, and in my recent discussion with Eliezer
Yudkowsky and Luke Muehlhauser, it was argued to me that the “Astronomical Waste” essay never meant to
make this inference in the first place. The author’s definition of existential risk includes anything that stops
humanity far short of realizing its full potential - including, presumably, stagnation in economic and technological progress leading
to a long-lived but limited civilization. Under that definition, “Minimize existential risk!” would seem to potentially include any
contribution to general human empowerment. I have often been challenged to explain how one could possibly reconcile (a)
caring a great deal about the far future with (b) donating to one of GiveWell’s top charities. My general response is that in the face of sufficient
uncertainty about one’s options, and lack of conviction that there are good (in the sense of high expected value) opportunities to make an
enormous difference, it is rational to try to make a smaller but robustly positive difference, whether or not one
can trace a specific causal pathway from doing this small amount of good to making a large impact on
the far future. A few brief arguments in support of this position: I believe that the track record of “taking robustly strong
opportunities to do ‘something good’ ” is far better than the track record of “taking actions whose value is contingent
on high-uncertainty arguments about where the highest utility lies, and/or arguments about what is likely to happen in
the far future.” This is true even when one evaluates track record only in terms of seeming impact on the far future. The
developments that seem most positive in retrospect - from large ones like the development of the steam engine to
small ones like the many economic contributions that facilitated strong overall growth - seem to have been driven by the
former approach, and I’m not aware of many examples in which the latter approach has yielded great benefits. I see some sense in which
the world’s overall civilizational ecosystem seems to have done a better job optimizing for the far future than any of the world’s individual
minds. It’s often the case that people acting on relatively short-term, tangible considerations (especially when they did so with creativity,
integrity, transparency, consensuality, and pursuit of gain via value creation rather than value transfer) have done good in ways they
themselves wouldn’t have been able to foresee. If this is correct, it seems to imply that one should be focused on “playing one’s
role as well as possible” - on finding opportunities to “beat the broad market” (to do more good than people with similar goals would
be able to) rather than pouring one’s resources into the areas that non-robust estimates have indicated as most
important to the far future. The process of trying to accomplish tangible good can lead to a great deal of learning and unexpected positive
developments, more so (in my view) than the process of putting resources into a low-feedback endeavor based on one’s current best-guess
theory. In my conversation with Luke and Eliezer, the two of them hypothesized that the greatest positive benefit of supporting GiveWell’s top
charities may have been to raise the profile, influence, and learning abilities of GiveWell. If this were true, I don’t believe it would be an
inexplicable stroke of luck for donors to top charities; rather, it would be the sort of development (facilitating feedback loops that lead to
learning, organizational development, growing influence, etc.) that is often associated with “doing something well” as opposed to “doing the
most worthwhile thing poorly.” I see multiple reasons to believe that contributing to general
human empowerment mitigates
global catastrophic risks. I laid some of these out in a blog post and discussed them further in my conversation with Luke and Eliezer.
Existential risk circles ensconce negative ripple effects, encouraging violence in

fraudulent scholarship.
Knutsson 19 – Simon Knutsson, PhD student in philosophy at Stockholm University, master’s degree in
economics at New York University. [Problems in effective altruism and existential risk and what to do
about them, published 10-16-19, republished with updates on 2-1-20,
https://www.simonknutsson.com/problems-in-effective-altruism-and-existential-risk-and-what-to-do-
about-them/]//BPS
Some in the effective altruism (EA) and existential risk circles seem to behave in problematic ways. The pattern that I think I
see is that they want to have influence and therefore act in problematic and unusual ways. I bring up things that I would have wanted to be
aware of if I had not already made the observations. The broad theme is acting in ways that appear one-sided, misleading,
manipulative, opaque or to lack integrity, or doing things behind the scenes that seem troublesome. Not everything I list fits all
these descriptions, but this is the general pattern. I perceive the behaviours as undermining and having a negative effect and corrupting
influence on the research and writing landscape, public debate, and teaching. An important point is that what I see in EA and existential risk
circles look abnormal to me. For example, here are some of the troublesome-looking things that I have not seen outside of EA and existential
risk circles (at least I have not seen them to nearly this extent): First, behind-the-scenes coordination, guidelines and outreach that encourage
writers and researchers to mention some ideas and texts about moral philosophy and values and to keep quiet about some such ideas. This
behind-the-scenes work coincides with a lot of money being granted, and neither the organisation awarding the grant or the recipient will
answer my questions. Second, an organisation (the Centre for Effective Altruism, CEA) whose trustees or board members are mainly
philosophers compiles a syllabus “to provide inspiration for lectures and professors” which amounts to a one-sided promotion of these
philosophers’ (and a closely affiliated philosopher’s) texts and ideas to students. Third, the
citation practices by some in EA and
existential risk circles are
problematic beyond what I have seen elsewhere. The pattern is to mention and cite
ideas one agrees with, avoid mentioning competing ideas and texts, and cite one’s allies’ or colleagues’
work (maybe to promote those ideas, texts, allies and colleagues). Fourth, an Associate Professor in Philosophy at Oxford University who is
also a team member of the Future of Humanity Institute (FHI) at the same university and a trustee of CEA has used at least one ghostwriter.
This can, but need not, be substantially problematic, depending on what was written. Fifth, another philosopher who is Professor at Oxford
University and founding Director of FHI makes a seemingly misleading and perhaps false claim on his CV (it seems no one knows whether it is
false, including the philosopher himself). It may be common to exaggerate on a CV but this is at a level I have not seen before. In general, the
writings I often see in these circles remind me of lobbying and political advocacy but in EA and existential risk circles, it is
done by university faculty and people with PhDs and with a veneer of being scientific and open, while my
impression is that it is not. If someone asked me which people in the whole world with a PhD in philosophy
appear to behave in the most troublesome ways and which philosophers I trust the least, I would rank
some of the philosophers in EA and existential risk circles around the top of my list. My aim is not to attack specific people or
point fingers and say ‘look at what that person did,’ which would be fairly uninteresting. I think people should be aware of what I write in
this essay, be very critical of what they hear and read in EA and existential risk circles, and, importantly,
scrutinise what is going on. My most important point is my call for ongoing investigations and scrutiny. A remedy to the kind of behaviour I
describe is to have more scrutiny so that it is in people’s interest to avoid such behaviour, and so that the public is aware of what is going on. To
be clear, I do not claim to have conclusive evidence for every seemingly problematic behaviour I bring up here. Some of the things I bring up
because they appear problematic and warrant further scrutiny. I hope I provide enough of my observations and impressions to show that there
is a need for ongoing scrutiny. I hope others will scrutinise more, and that some people who are aware of problematic things happening,
especially behind the scenes, will speak up. However, I understand if few in EA and existential risk circles will speak publicly about problems
they have observed because by doing so one may harm one’s chances of being employed or funded in this sector. Also, the philosophy
world is small and, for example, by writing this text I may harm my academic career. Anyway, my key message is that
some things in EA and existential risk circles seem to be highly problematic and abnormal and I hope people will be critical, scrutinise, fact check
and speak in public about what goes on, especially about what goes on behind the scenes. The reactions to what I write in this text have been
mixed. Some find my points weak, that I behave badly by writing as I do, or that I give a bad impression. One philosopher didn’t have an opinion
on the behind-the-scenes activities I describe. Others react with statements such as that some behaviour I describe is ‘totally unacceptable’ or
‘This is very troubling… You (or someone else) should probably post this on the EA forum.’ One philosopher thought the behind-the-scenes
activities I describe sound corrupt, another thought the EA and existential risk circles sound like a sect, a third thought I seem to point to
improper things and that it was good that I wrote. One person found some of the behaviours I describe ‘manipulative.’ My background related
to effective altruism and existential risk Around 2004–2005, I recall thinking about how to have an impact. I thought that instead of becoming a
medical doctor, one should work on a large scale, for example, by training medical doctors to improve a health care system. I gave to a charity
project in Uganda. I was interested in information about charities’ impact, but what I had seen was mainly unhelpful numbers about how much
of expenses goes to administration, fundraising and programs. In the summer of 2008, I interned for the United Nations in Stockholm, and that
summer I attended a lecture by Peter Singer in Stockholm who mentioned a new project called GiveWell. In July 2008, I talked to GiveWell
about volunteering for the organisation, which I started doing soon thereafter. In 2010, I became a Research Analyst at GiveWell. Elie, Holden,
Natalie and I were the four staff members at the time if I recall correctly. I have a good impression of all of them. They seemed nice and
genuine. Most people I have worked with in EA seem nice. A few years later, I became the chair of the board of Animal Charity Evaluators. (I
have donated to GiveWell, Animal Charity Evaluators and other organisations.) I then worked as a Researcher at the Foundational Research
Institute (FRI) and I was the leader of the political party for animals in Sweden. FRI works, at least partly, on risks of astronomical future
suffering (s-risks). There is some but not complete overlap between s-risks and existential risks: some, but not all, s-risks are also existential
risks, and vice versa. I have worked on s-risks at and outside of FRI. Now I am a PhD student in philosophy. Problems Troublesome work
behind the scenes, including censoring research and suppressing ideas and debates A lot seems to happen behind the scenes
in EA and existential risk circles. My perhaps most important example in this essay concerns a $1,000,000 grant by the Open Philanthropy
Project and two non-public communication guidelines. I provide details right below, but here is a summary. Nick Beckstead works at the Open
Philanthropy Project, has a PhD in philosophy, is a trustee of CEA, and is listed as a Research Associate at FHI’s website (FHI is a research
institute at Oxford University led by Nick Bostrom). Beckstead was one of the grant investigators for the $1,000,000 grant and the author of a
non-public document with communication guidelines. The grant recipient was the Effective Altruism Foundation (EAF). Managers at EAF also
wrote non-public communication guidelines meant both for people employed at or funded by EAF and others including university employees
like me. I understand the two documents with guidelines as a pair. For example, the guidelines by Beckstead says, “EAF has written its own set
of guidelines intended for people writing about longtermism from a suffering-focused perspective.” When a manager at EAF presented the two
guidelines to me, he used phrases such as a “coordinated effort” and “it means that we will promote future pessimism … to a lesser extent.” A
manager at EAF also communicated that they worked on this with Beckstead who wrote guidelines in turn. The guidelines by EAF encourage
the reader to not write about or promote the idea that the future will likely contain more disvalue than value. I gather from a conversation that
Beckstead was involved when it comes to this part of the content in the EAF guidelines. Beckstead has defended essentially the opposite idea
that if humanity may survive for many years, the expected value of the future is astronomically great.1 The EAF guidelines also encourage
referencing Beckstead’s PhD dissertation, as well as several texts by his colleagues (at FHI and CEA) who are also philosophers. Around the time
and after the two guidelines were shared with me, management at EAF did non-public outreach to encourage people to follow the guidelines.
One manager at EAF also expressed a disposition to maybe silence online discussion of an argument in my paper The World Destruction
Argument. This argument is, roughly speaking, against the kinds of views Beckstead has written favourably about. I think the public should be
aware of these coordinate efforts behind the scenes that are partly aimed to influence which ideas about ethics and value are written about in
public. That the $1,000,000 grant was made around the time the communication guidelines were shared makes the situation look even worse.
A question is whether the function of the large grant was partly to silence certain pessimistic views on ethics or value. Based on a conversation
with a manager at EAF, I gather the grant might not have been made if EAF did not write their guidelines. Important questions include whether
there are other cases like this in which agreements have been made that include which views on morality or value to mention and not to
mention and which texts to reference and whether money has changed hands in connection with such agreements. I find all this to undermine
research and public intellectual debate, and to be deceptive to those who are unaware of what goes on behind the scenes. I hope future
scrutiny will reveal if there have been other agreements and behaviours like this and prevent future such behaviour. On July 18, 2019, Stefan
Torges, one of the Co-Executive Directors of EAF, shared with me two communication guidelines in Google document format. One of the two
documents says, Written by Nick Beckstead with input and feedback from various community members and several EA organizations. These
guidelines are endorsed by the following organizations and individuals: 80,000 Hours, CEA, CFAR, MIRI, Open Phil, Nick Bostrom, Will MacAskill,
Toby Ord, Carl Shulman…. This document was originally shared with staff members at the above organizations and a handful of other
individuals writing on these topics. The document is intended to be shared with individuals where it seems useful to do so, but was not
intended for publication. To share the document with additional people, please request permission by emailing Bastian Stern
(bastian@openphilanthropy.org). The other document says, Written by the Effective Altruism Foundation (EAF) and the Foundational Research
Institute (Jonas Vollmer, Stefan Torges, Lukas Gloor, and David Althaus) with input and feedback from various community members and several
EA organizations. First written: March 2019; last updated: 10 September 2019. Please ask Stefan (stefan.torges@ea-foundation.org) before
sharing this document further This is, of course, a quote from a later version updated September 10 and not the version I was shown in July,
which I can no longer access and which EAF is not willing to share with me now. To be clear, I do not mean to ascribe any malicious intentions
to anyone at EAF or FRI. In particular, I will mention Torges often in this section, but that is merely because he is the person I was mainly in
touch with regarding these guidelines and the coordination. My impression is that he is a nice guy, wants to help others, especially those who
suffer, and he thinks that this is the best way to do so. I will also mention Beckstead often, but what the Open Philanthropy Project and its
funders do is more important. The guidelines by EAF/FRI have been shared with people who do not work at EAF or FRI like me (I am employed
by Stockholm University). Based on my conversation with Stefan, I understand the guidelines by EAF/FRI to be binding for those employed or
funded by EAF/FRI, but they are also meant for independent researchers and university employees. The scope of the guidelines is wide. The EAF
guidelines from Sep. 2019 say, We encourage you to follow these guidelines for all forms of public communication, including personal blogs,
social media, essays, books, talks, meetups, and scholarly publications. Among other things, the guidelines by EAF/FRI encourage the
reader to not write about or promote the idea that the future will likely contain more disvalue than
value.2 The guidelines by EAF/FRI also lists literature that the reader may want to reference, including Beckstead’s PhD dissertation, and texts
by Carl, William, and Bostrom. The guidelines also encourage the reader to mention and emphasise various ideas. For example, the EAF
guidelines say, For normative questions, you could consider referencing Beckstead: On the Overwhelming Importance of Shaping the Far Future
, Pummer: The Worseness of Nonexistence, or Shulman: Moments of Bliss for alternative views. Consider emphasizing normative uncertainty
(or the anti-realist equivalent of valuing further reflection), e.g. by referencing Bostrom (2009): Moral uncertainty – towards a solution?, EA
Concepts: Moral uncertainty, MacAskill (2014): Normative uncertainty, Greaves & Ord: Moral uncertainty about population axiology. [Links to
texts got lost when pasting.] Several of these authors whose texts the reader is encouraged to reference either wrote or endorsed the other
guidelines (Beckstead, Bostrom, MacAskill, Ord, and Shulman), and almost all of the authors are listed online as colleagues of Beckstead.
Beckstead, Bostrom, Greaves, MacAskill, Ord, and Shulman are listed on the FHI team page. Beckstead, Greaves, MacAskill, and Ord are listed
as trustees or board members of CEA. I spoke with Stefan and wrote to him, David, Jonas and Lukas, and criticised the guidelines and the whole
deal. On July 29, I proposed that I be removed from the FRI website, which I have been now, and I am no longer affiliated with EAF or FRI. The
same month, in July 2019, EAF was awarded $1,000,000 by the Open Philanthropy Project (whose website says , “Our main funders are Cari
Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz, a co-founder of Facebook and Asana”). The grant web page says “Grant investigators: Nick Beckstead and Claire
Zabel.” Claire Zabel is also a trustee of CEA. I am also troubled by what influence those behind the guidelines have had and will have by direct
communication with researchers and others about what to say or publish. A while back, I mentioned to Stefan Torges a seminar with a
philosophy professor. The seminar was titled Pessimism about the Future, and the abstract on the web page says, It is widely believed that one
of the main reasons we should seek to decrease existential risk arising from global warming, bioterrorism, and so on is that it would be very bad
overall were human and other sentient beings to become extinct. In this presentation, I shall argue that it is not unreasonable to believe that
extinction would be good overall. Stefan then reached out to the professor, which may be problematic. I do not know what Stefan said or tried
to say to the professor. It would be fine if he said roughly “beware of how you write so that no extremists try to kill a lot of people.” But I worry
that in this case or future cases, those behind the guidelines will reach out to those who write about pessimism and related
topics in ethics to try to silence them or see to that they edit their work so that it is more in line with what
Beckstead would like to see published or said in public. Another such case relates to a post on the EA forum on September
6, 2019. The post asks ‘How do most utilitarians feel about “replacement” thought experiments?’ The post quotes my paper The World
Destruction Argument. In that paper, I challenge moral views of the kind that Beckstead, MacAskill, Ord and Bostrom seem to hold. Jonas
Vollmer wrote me and said he spoke with the poster one or few days before the post was published, and that Jonas might have discouraged the
poster from making the post if the poster had used a “world destruction” framing. In other words, the
organisation where Jonas is Co-
Executive Director receives 1 million in a grant for which Beckstead is a grant investigator, and then Jonas
may discourage public discussion of my academic work that challenges moral views similar to Beckstead’s.
Similarly, Torges wrote me on July 26, 2019, wondering if I had considered changing the title and/or abstract of
my paper on the world destruction argument, which had recently been accepted for publication in a journal. He said he would be happy to
help with this. I said no and that I react negatively to his question.3 Actually, someone else also suggested that I make a change after the paper
had been accepted, but I didn’t perceive that as especially problematic. When Stefan wrote to me, the circumstances make it seem like it was
not just a friendly improvement suggestion. I mean, Stefan and others had just made an agreement with Beckstead, who was a grant
investigator for a recent large grant to Torges’ organisation. I think Beckstead would like to see my paper not published at all or at least edited
in certain ways. And then it seems like Stefan carried out that work of trying to influence this publication. That’s what I don’t like. It is fine for
people, in general, to give improvement suggestions at any stage of a paper. A problem with the communication guidelines and behaviours just
described is that they go against scientific ideals about freedom to pursue ideas and about pitting ideas against one another. The
situation
in effective altruism and existential risk circles seems to rather be that some people use power, money,
resources and connections in troublesome ways to promote themselves and their ideas and values. On Oct. 31
and Nov. 5, 2019, I wrote questions to the Open Philanthropy Project, including Has the Open Philanthropy Project recommended a grant and,
without saying so in public, conditioned the grant on the following or encouraged the grant recipient to do the following: not publicly endorse
or not publicly write favourably about the ideas that the future will be bad overall or likely contain more disvalue than value? • Was the grant
to EAF explicitly or implicitly conditioned on EAF writing guidelines and/or distributing them? • Did Beckstead or someone else at the Open
Philanthropy Project communicate to anyone at EAF that a grant would be more likely or larger if EAF wrote guidelines? • I wonder whether
Beckstead influenced or tried to influence what Jonas Vollmer, Stefan Torges, Lukas Gloor, and David Althaus wrote in their guidelines, or the
fact that they wrote guidelines at all. If so, was any such activity by Beckstead a part of his work for the Open Philanthropy Project, or was he,
for example, acting only as a private person? I also asked whether I may share the replies in public. A person at the Open Philanthropy Project
replied that they do not have anything to add beyond the grant page, which does not answer my questions. I also wrote similar questions to
Stefan Torges, one of the Co-Executive Directors of EAF, on Nov. 2 and 5, 2019, including the following questions: • Did Nick Beckstead express
a wish that the guidelines encourage referencing his PhD dissertation? • Did he edit the document [with the EAF the guidelines] or make
comments in it? • Did the Open Philanthropy Project condition the grant to EAF on the following or encourage EAF to do the following: not
publicly endorse or not publicly write favourably about the ideas that the future will be bad overall or likely contain more disvalue than value? •
May I share my questions and your replies in public? Stefan Torges replied on Nov. 4 and 7, 2019, with no answers to any of my questions and
essentially saying that they will not reply to my questions (see this page for essentially our entire exchange). I tried to contact Nick Beckstead
but I did not find any contact information online. Later, on 2 Jan. 2020, I wrote Beckstead on Messenger and LinkedIn (we are 1st-degree
connections on LinkedIn), but as of 29 Jan. 2020 I do not see any reply. According to the website of the Open Philanthropy Project, “Openness is
a core value of the Open Philanthropy Project…. We believe philanthropy could have a greater impact by sharing more information. Very often,
key discussions and decisions happen behind closed doors…” EAF writes on its website that “Effective Altruism Foundation (EAF) strives for full
transparency.” These organisations appear to go against their own statements about openness or transparency given their activities and
reluctance to answer questions. I think those who help these organisations with donations, work, or promotion should demand replies to the
kind of questions I have asked and demand that they be open about the activities I describe. The guidelines written by Beckstead say they are
endorsed by 80,000 Hours, CEA, CFAR, MIRI, Open Phil, Nick Bostrom, Will MacAskill, Toby Ord, and Carl Shulman. One may ask about all of
these organisations and individuals how and to what extent they were involved in the deal. For example, why did they endorse the guidelines?
Did they influence the formulation of the EAF guidelines? Were they aware that EAF also wrote and would distribute guidelines (behind the
scenes) that encourage readers to not publicly endorse or not publicly write favourably about the ideas that the future will be bad overall or
likely contain more disvalue than value? Did they know or encourage that the EAF guidelines encourage referencing texts by these authors? For
example, when Torges shared both documents with guidelines with me on July 18, 2019, he wrote the following in the same message right
below the links to two the documents: We’re excited about this coordinated effort. Even though it means that we will promote future
pessimism and s-risks to a lesser extent, we think the discourse about these topics will still be improved due to other more widely-read texts
taking our perspective into account more. We already saw some concrete steps in this direction: For example, we’ve been able to give input on
key 80k content and Toby Ord’s upcoming book on x-risk, which are and will be among the most widely read EA-related resources on long-
termism. There will be more such content in the future, and we’ll continue to give input. Nick also invited a number of people to the research
retreat that we hosted in May. All of that makes us confident that this will be a win-win outcome. And on July 26, 2019, Torges wrote to me, I
also wanted to check back regarding our communication with Nick. Is it okay if I told him that you don’t feel comfortable endorsing the
guidelines because of your current position as an academic, similar to GPI’s reservations? A part of my reply from the same day was, It is okay
that you tell Nick that a part of the reason why I don’t endorse the guidelines is that I don’t feel comfortable endorsing the guidelines because
of my current position as an academic. I had many reasons for not endorsing the guidelines, and one of them was that I do not think a
university employee should do so. I presume the Nick we were talking about is Nick Beckstead. One can wonder why Torges would be telling
Nick about whether I, a PhD student in practical philosophy in Stockholm, endorse the guidelines, which, among other things, essentially
encourage the reader to stay silent about an idea about value that Nick Beckstead seems opposed to, and that encourage referencing texts by
Beckstead and his colleagues? One can guess based on this that Nick had an interest in knowing whether people like me endorse the guidelines
(at least Torges seemed to think so). The official justification for the guidelines and the related cooperation or agreement by some of those
involved would presumably be that they worry that talking about the future being bad or pessimistic ethics may cause some extremist to kill
people. I do not believe this is the whole story for several reasons. First, Beckstead, MacAskill, Ord and Bostrom have done a lot to promote
views like traditional consequentialism and utilitarianism, and Ord has written, “I am very sympathetic towards Utilitarianism, carefully
construed.” Onecan also accuse them of contributing to what one might call far-future fanaticism, according
to which what happens nowadays, even violence and suffering, is essentially negligible as long as the far-future
is very good. So I do not find it credible that they are so worried about talk of ethics or value leading to
killings. More likely they have several other motives including that they are worried about the specific kind of killing that would prevent the
existence of vast numbers of beings and purported value in the far future (killing everyone to replace them might even be morally obligatory,
according to the moral views they promote). The following is some background. A
standard objection to utilitarianism and
consequentialism is that they imply that it would be right to kill if doing so would lead to the best results.
Classical utilitarian Torbjörn Tännsjö thinks that a doctor ought to kill one healthy patient to give her organs to five other patients who need
them to survive if there are no bad side effects. Philosopher Dale Jamieson wrote as early as 1984 that many philosophers have rejected TU
[total utilitarianism] because it seems vulnerable to the Replacement Argument and the Repugnant Conclusion.… The Replacement Argument
purports to show that a utilitarian cannot object to painlessly killing everyone now alive, so long as they are replaced with equally happy people
who would not otherwise have lived. Tännsjö writes (my translation), “Suppose that we really can replace humans with beings who are … I think
that it is clear that this is what in this situation should happen.… Let us rejoice with all those who one day hopefully … will take our place in the
universe.” (For sources, see my web page). Years ago a young effective altruist asked me for career advice. The person self-identified as a
classical utilitarian and the person’s goal was a hedonic shockwave, which I gather would fill the reachable part of the universe with pleasure. I
don’t know if the person pictured that Earth would be destroyed in the process. Themoral advocacy by Beckstead, William,
Toby and Bostrom may already have resulted in violence and killings because people who are very
concerned about ensuring that the far future has much value in it seem to be more prone to eat animals or animal products. A
reason why they seem more prone to eat animal products is plausibly that they think the suffering and death they thereby cause
is negligible compared to the vast value that could be created in the future, so they prioritise trying to
make such a future more likely. Second, if Beckstead had the power to influence the grant to EAF, he may have seen it as an
opportunity to make some people at EAF write and spread communication guidelines to silence people and affect what people say so that
Beckestead’s own ethical views and priorities get more widespread, while suppressing ethical views and values that compete with his own. He
and others behind the guidelines may exaggerate their worry that, for example, what I write will lead to some extremist killing people, in order
to get EAF to write and disseminate their guidelines. This point can also be made about the Open Philanthropy Project as an organisation,
rather than merely Beckstead as an individual. The following is an older, related example of potentially problematic behaviour behind the
scenes. If I recall correctly, some years ago, Lukas Gloor and William MacAskill talked about the ethics of effective altruists. Roughly, speaking
Gloor’s moral view appears pessimistic and MacAskill’s appears optimistic. They discussed a compromise (roughly a middle position), according
to which effective altruists would have a moral view of the kind that suffering is twice as morally important as happiness (or, e.g., three times as
important; I don’t recall exactly). I do not know if any agreement was reached or if they just discussed the idea. In any case, I do not think one
should make such agreements behind the scenes. Systematically problematic syllabi, reading lists, citations, writings, etc. The activities
described in the previous section seem to be just another instance of a pattern that has been going on for years involving to a large extent the
same people and organisations, although not every person or organisation mentioned so far. Historically, a large part of the leadership of the
two closely affiliated organisations CEA and FHI have been philosophy PhDs with a specific group of similar moral views, according to which,
roughly speaking, it is overwhelmingly important to ensure that there will be vast amounts of value in the future. People at and around CEA and
FHI seem to try to present to the public and students the part of the ethics literature that fits their specific view about the importance of
ensuring the existence of very many beings and a lot of value in the future. They tend to avoid
mentioning other views, and to
cite and refer the reader to a small number of authors, often themselves and their colleagues, who essentially all
agree with them. Another method appears to be for a philosopher at Oxford Univesity and CEA with a PhD to write an attack on a
competing view in a way that is so biased and misleading that I do not recall seeing such problematic writing in ethics by an academic
philosopher outside of this cluster of people at and around CEA and FHI. Importantly, many of these texts are not directed at professional
philosophers who know about other views and can immediately tell how one-sided the texts are, but the texts seem to be about convincing
non-philosophers, often students and young people. All this seems to be done in different troublesome ways, which I describe below. It seems
to partly be done through trying to create syllabi with writings by themselves and those who agree with them and trying to establish such
courses at universities. Perhaps the
overall strategy is to influence the values of students, increase the citation count and
prominence of one’s own researchers and allies, while avoid mentioning opposing views. The EA syllabi
I’ve read are so one-sided that I would feel dishonest to teach a course with such a syllabus. For example,
one syllabus which says it is compiled by CEA (quote from Nov. 2, 2019): …this course syllabus, compiled by the Centre for Effective Altruism.
The aim of this syllabus is not to give detailed instructions for how to run a course, but rather to provide inspiration for lectures and professors
with an interest in teaching effective altruism. This syllabus is primarily intended to be used in courses in philosophy or political theory, but
could also be given, in part or wholly, in courses in other subjects. The syllabus includes the following section: 10) The far future and existential
risk Many effective altruists think that the lives of future people are highly ethically significant. A natural conclusion from that view is to focus
one’s efforts on shaping the far future and, in particular, to reduce the risk of human extinction, posed by, e.g. synthetic biology and artificial
intelligence. This module treats a number of themes related to these issues, from population ethics to strategies to reduce existential risk.
Beckstead, Nicholas. On the Overwhelming Importance of Shaping the Far Future. Ph.D Thesis, Rutgers University. (Especially ch. 1.) Bostrom,
Nick (2013). Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority. Global Policy, 4, pp. 15-31. Bostrom, Nick (2002). Astronomical Waste: the
Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development. Utilitas 15, pp. 308-314. Greaves, Hilary. Population Axiology. (Unpublished survey
manuscript.) Matheny, Jason Gaverick (2007). Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction. Risk Analysis, 27, pp. 1335-1344. Ord, Toby (2014). The
Timing of Labour Aimed at Reducing Existential Risk. Blog post at Future of Humanity Institute. Rees, Martin (2015). This Crime Against Future
Generations. The Times, 15 August 2015. All texts listed essentially agree on the ethics. Well, Greaves’ text is as an
introduction to population axiology so it is not about defending a view, but it still excludes pessimistic publications on population
ethics/axiology like works by professors David Benatar, Christoph Fehige and Clark Wolf. Half of the texts are by CEA trustees (Beckstead,
Greaves and Ord). Bostrom leads FHI and Matheny lists FHI as a past affiliation on his CV. According to CEA’s organisation chart in a post from
2017, Pablo Stafforini was one of the people located directly below William MacAskill. In September 2016, Stafforini wrote in an e-mail that Will
asked him to create a list of EA readings for a wealthy philanthropist, and after doing that Stafforini decided to expand it (here is the perhaps
now broken link to the list). Pablo explained kindly that he felt GiveWell was overrepresented and EAF underrepresented so he asked for
feedback before making it public and sharing it in the public Facebook EA group. As usual, the section on the long-term future, which I paste
right below, was one-sided and referred only to people who agree and who are mainly at or around CEA and FHI (Sandberg is also a team
member at FHI). I replied that Pablo should at least add Brian Tomasik’s https://foundational-research.org/risks-of-astronomical-future-
suffering/ in this section. He replied that he added it, but when I checked later and then even later in March 2018 I did not see it. I am not
saying Pablo removed it, but I did not see it so someone may have. The organisation 80,000 Hours, where MacAskill is President, is a part of
CEA. The essay “Presenting the long-term value thesis” from late 2017 by Benjamin Todd, the CEO and co-founder of 80,000 Hours, was shared
in the main Facebook EA group by Robert Wiblin, who works for 80,000 Hours. I
agree with then philosophy PhD student Michael
Plant’s comment, I found this woefully one-sided and uncharitable towards person-affecting views (i.e.
the view we should ‘make people happy, not make happy people’). I would honestly have expected a better quality of argument from effective
altruists…. 1. Your
‘summary of the debate’ was entirely philosophers who all agree with your view. This is
poor academic form. A one-sided part of the essay is that the further reading section at the end only lists texts by
or podcasts with Bostrom, Beckstead and Ord , i.e., two trustees of CEA and Bostrom who leads FHI which 80,000 Hours is
affiliated with. They all agree, and none of the other views out there are mentioned. Another problem is that Benjamin claims to be arguing for
a broad thesis about the importance of the future, but actually argues for a specific version of that view that he and all the people just
mentioned at CEA and FHI seemingly endorse (see my comment). Ord is a trustee at CEA and part of the team at FHI. His 2013 essay against
negative utilitarianism (NU) is a one-sided and misleading attempt to convince lay people away from negative utilitarianism. I try to be polite in
my response to it, but I will try to be blunter here. His text is so bad partly for the following reasons: Toby writes in the role of a university
researcher with a PhD in philosophy, and he writes for non-experts. He spends the whole essay essentially trashing a moral view that is
opposite to his own. He does little to refer the reader to more information, especially information that contradicts what he writes. He describes
the academic literature incorrectly in a way that benefits his case. He writes that “A thorough going Negative Utilitarian would support the
destruction of the world (even by violent means)” without mentioning that for many years, a published objection to his favoured view (classical
utilitarianism) is that it implies that one should kill everyone and replace us, if one could thereby maximize the sum of well-being (see my paper
The World Destruction Argument). Ord’s text fits very well with the overall pattern I describe, and the moral theory NU that Ord attacks is a
typical example of the kind of view that the guidelines from 2019 mentioned above encourage the reader to not advocate or write favourably
about. In CEA’s Effective Altruism Handbook, 2nd ed. (2017), there is a chapter titled “The Long-Term Future” by Jess Whittlestone, who
seemingly has interned for 80,000 Hours, which is a part of CEA. That chapter also contains one-sided framings, citations, objections, etc. (e.g.,
the ethics discussion on p. 76.) The only text besides Whittlestone’s in “The Long-Term Future”-part of the EA handbook is Beckstead’s “A
Proposed Adjustment to the Astronomical Waste Argument.” The decision to make these two texts make up the “The Long-Term Future” part
of the book is one-sided. Let’s turn to the text Farquhar et al. (2017) “Existential Risk Diplomacy and Governance,” by the Global
Priorities Project, which is or was a part of CEA. The FHI logo is also on the publication. It has a section “1.2. The ethics of existential risk,” which
starts with Parfit’s (1984) idea about the importance of a populated future. Then it cites only papers by Bostrom and Beckstead, who are both
affiliated with the same organisations as the authors when it makes the case that “because the value of preventing existential catastrophe is so
vast, even a tiny probability of prevention has huge expected value.67” It then admirably acknowledges that there is disagreement about this:
Of course, there is persisting reasonable disagreement about ethics and there are a number of ways one might resist this conclusion.68
Therefore, it would be unjustified to be overconfident in Parfit and Bostrom’s argument. But where
do they point the reader to in
note 68? Only to Beckstead’s dissertation, which argues, sometimes uncharitably, for the ethical view
Bostrom and Farquhar et al. favour. A 2017 paper by two authors from FHI called “Existential Risk and Cost-Effective Biosecurity”
was published in the journal Health Security. The paper has a section “How Bad Would Human Extinction Be?“ which has a one-sided and
dubious take on the literature: Human extinction would not only end the 7 billion lives in our current generation, but also cause the loss of all
future generations to come. To calculate the humanitarian cost associated with such a catastrophe, one must therefore include the welfare of
these future generations. While some have argued that future generations ought to be excluded or discounted when considering ethical
actions,50 most of the in-depth philosophical work around the topic has concluded that future generations should not be given less inherent
value.51-55 Therefore, for our calculations, we include future lives in our cost-effectiveness estimate. The references in this passage are by
Parfit, an Oxford philosopher who was broadly in line with FHI’s ethics; Ng, a classical utilitarian; Beckstead; Broome, an Oxford philosopher
who seems to have an optimistic moral philosophy; Cowen; and a science paper by Lenton and von Bloh, which does not seem especially
related to the value of future generations. As further reading, the authors point to the text by Matheny mentioned in syllabus above. As
mentioned, Matheny has been affiliated with FHI. No mention of opposing views or the many philosophers who have done in-depth work
arguing against the authors’ view here (see, e.g., Wikipedia entry on the Asymmetry or my essay). By the way, this publication Matheny (2007)
“Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction” that people at CEA and FHI keep pointing to is also one-sided and inaccurate in a biased way. Section 5
is about discounting and touches on population ethics. See, for example, the problematic first paragraph of the section, which gives an
inaccurate picture of the state of the philosophical debate in a way that favours his view. See also the one-sided reasoning and references in
note 6, which include traditional utilitarians Hare and Ng, Holtug who has argued against the Asymmetry in population ethics, and Sikora who
presents an argument for classical utilitarianism. In the end, Matheny acknowledges, among others, Nick Bostrom and Carl Shulman for
comments on an earlier draft. Potentially dishonest self-promotion On MacAskill’s profiles at ted.com and theguardian.com, and on
the cover of his book Doing Good Better it says “cofounder of the effective altruism movement.” But unless I have missed some key
information, he is not a cofounder of effective altruism or the effective altruism movement. When I volunteered for GiveWell in 2008–2009, the
ideas of being altruistic and having an impact effectively were already established and there was a community or movement around GiveWell.
Then Giving What We Can launched in November 2009. From the time I worked for GiveWell in 2010, I recall MacAskill (last name Crouch at the
time) as a student who commented on the GiveWell blog. Then, in 2011, CEA was founded. Perhaps he and others started using the phrase
‘effective altruism’ but it does not really matter because using a potentially new phrase for something that already exists does not make
someone a cofounder. My impression of MacAskill’s role over the years is that he has done a lot to grow the effective altruist community,
movement and brand (and maybe was one of those who created the brand; I don’t know), and has spread related ideas. He has perhaps also
contributed with new ideas. Importantly, he and his colleagues mentioned above, especially at CEA and Oxford University, also seem to have
systematically put in a lot of effort to enter and try to shape this movement or community so that people and organisations in it share their
particular moral views and priorities, and, for example, donate to the kind of activities they want to see funded (to a substantial extent because
of their specific and controversial moral views). Nick
Bostrom’s CV says he set a national record for undergraduate
performance in Sweden, but I doubt he set such a record (I think no one knows, including Bostrom himself), and I think
he presents the situation in a misleading way. His CV says, Imaged omitted for formatting. He also used to bring up the
purported record at the landing page of his website (current link https://nickbostrom.com/old/). I have a bachelor’s and two master’s degrees
from the same university in Gothenburg, Sweden, and I have lived almost all of my life in Sweden. I have never heard of any national record
related to undergraduate performance. I
mentioned his statement ‘Undergraduate performance set national record in Sweden’ to a
few people in Sweden who are familiar with the university system in Sweden. One person laughed out loud, another
found his claim amusing, and a third found it weird. I called the University of Gothenburg on Oct. 21, 2019, but
the person there was not aware of any such records. On Oct. 21, 2019, I wrote Bostrom and asked him about his record. On Oct.
23, 2019, he replied and gave me permission to share his reply in public, the relevant part of which reads as follows: The record in question
refers to the number of courses simultaneously pursued at one point during my undergraduate studies, which – if memory serves, which it
might not since it is more than 25 years ago – was the equivalent of about three and a half programs of full time study, I think 74 ’study points’.
(I also studied briefly at Umea Univ during the same two-year period I was enrolled in Gothenburg.) The basis for thinking this might be a record
is simply that at the time I asked around in some circles of other ambitious students, and the next highest course load anybody had heard of
was sufficiently lower than what I was taking that I thought statistically it looked like it was likely a record. A part of my e-mail reply to Bostrom
on Oct. 24, 2019: My impression is that it may be difficult to confirm that no one else had done what you did. One would need to check what a
vast number of students did at different universities potentially over many years. I don’t even know if that data is accessible before the 1990s,
and to search all that data could be an enormous task. My picture of the situation is as follows: You pursued unusually many courses at some
point in time during your undergraduate studies. You asked some students and the next highest course load anyone of them had heard of was
sufficiently lower. You didn’t and don’t know whether anyone had done what you did before. (I do not know either; we can make guesses about
whether someone else had done what you did, but that would be speculation.) Then you claim on your CV “Undergraduate performance set
national record in Sweden.” I am puzzled by how you can think that is an honest and accurate claim. Will you change your CV so that you no
longer claim that you set a record? Information about university studies seems publicly available in Sweden. When I called the University of
Gothenburg on Oct. 21, 2019, the person there said they have the following information for Niklas Boström, born 10 March 1973: Two degrees
in total (one bachelor’s and one master’s degree). The bachelor’s degree (Swedish: fil. kand.) from University of Gothenburg was awarded in
January 1995. Coursework included theoretical philosophy. The master’s degree (Swedish: magister or fil. mag.) is from Stockholm University,
and, according to my notes from the call, in theoretical philosophy (although I guess coursework in some other subject could perhaps be
included in the degree). He also did some additional coursework. He started to study at university in Lund in fall 1992. I asked Bostrom whether
this is him but he did not reply. More information that I noted from my call with the university include that the person could see information
from different universities in Sweden, and there are in total 367.5 higher education credits in the system (from different Swedish universities)
for Boström, according to the current method for counting credits. 60 credits is a normal academic year (assuming one does not, e.g., take
summer courses). Boström bachelor’s degree corresponds to 180 credits, which is the exact requirement for a
bachelor’s degree. The total number of credits (367.5) corresponds to 6.125 years of full-time study (again, assuming, e.g., no summer courses
or extra evening courses). According to the university, he started studying in 1992 and, according to Bostrom’s CV, he studied at Stockholm
University until 1996. I asked Bostrom and I gather he confirmed that he only has one bachelor’s degree.
The disad begins at a low probability.

Conetta 98 (Carl, Director of the Project on Defense Alternatives, Research Fellow of the Institute for
Defense and Disarmament Studies, researcher and awarded author at the Pentagon, US State
Department, US House Armed Services Committee, Army War College, National Defense University, and
UNIDIR, “Dueling with Uncertainty: The New Logic of American Military Planning,” March 1998,
http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/usdefense/conetta0398.html)
Cards Without doubt, simulations -- including nonstandard ones -- can aid planning. The question is: To what end? And to what effect?
Exploring "wild cards" in order to identify warning signs or to define limits is one thing; using them to establish force structure or modernization
requirements, quite another. Especially suspect would be using scenarios that are detached from declared US interests to define current
requirements; this would put the military "cart" before the political "horse." Another, broader concern is how the
effusion of
improbable conflict scenarios affects public policy discourse overall. Conflict scenarios, both wild and tame, can
gain more credibility in the telling than they deserve. Cognitive researcher Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini calls this the
"Othello effect," referring to the trail of plausible but false suppositions that led Othello to murder his wife,
Desdemona. Even the most farfetched scenarios comprise a number of steps or links each of which may seem
plausible or even probable given the one that came before. Although the likelihood of the scenario
dwindles with each step, the residual impression is one of plausibility. Omitted are the many branches
at each step that would lead to a neutral or even positive outcome. The resulting snapshots, although numerous,
offer a highly-selective view of what the future may hold. And the fact that only the negative outcomes are
articulated and exercised can distort the general public impression of risk. Living with Uncertainty There is no escape from
uncertainty, but there is relief from uncertainty hysteria. It begins with recognizing that instability has boundaries -- just as turbulence in
physical systems has discernable onset points and parameters. The turbulence of a river, for instance, corresponds to flow and to the contours
of the river's bed and banks. It occurs in patches and not randomly. The weather also is a chaotic system that resists precise long-range
forecasting, but allows useful prediction of broader trends and limits. Despite uncertainty, statements
of probability matter. They
indicate the weight of evidence -- or whether there is any evidence at all. The uncertainty hawks would flood our concern with
a horde of dangers that pass their permissive test of "non-zero probability." However, by lowering the
threshold of alarm, they establish an impossible standard of defense sufficiency: absolute and certain military security. Given
finite resources and competing ends, something less will have to do. Strategic wisdom begins with the setting of priorities --
and priorities demand strict attention to what appears likely and what does not.
Which has has a ceiling of 0.2%/year.

Simpson 16 – Fergus Simpson, Mathematician at the University of Barcelona. [Apocalypse Now?
Reviving the Doomsday Argument, https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.03072]//BPS
Whether the fate of our species can be forecast from its past has been the topic of considerable controversy. One
refutation of the so-called Doomsday Argument is based on the premise that we are more likely to exist in a
universe containing a greater number of observers . Here we present a Bayesian reformulation of the
Doomsday Argument which is immune to this effect. By marginalizing over the spatial configuration of observers, we
find that any preference for a larger total number of observers has no impact on the inferred local number. Our results remain
unchanged when we adopt either the Self-Indexing Assumption (SIA) or the Self-Sampling Assumption
(SSA). Furthermore the median value of our posterior distribution is found to be in agreement with the
frequentist forecast. Humanity's prognosis for the coming century is well approximated by a global
catastrophic risk of 0.2% per year.
TRIBAL CRIMES
2AC – OV – Tribal Crimes
Non-Indian crimes are rampant in tribal lands – that’s colonial and violent. The plan
solves for jurisdictional ambiguity by increasing native autonomy in sentencing
2AC – AT: Squo Solves
Our evidence assumes VAWA and concludes overlapping jurisdictions, federal
authorization, and strict requirements in which crimes and circumstances sanctions
violence.
2AC – AT: Funding
The 1AC authors assume the plan and think it’s a good idea – they’ve obviously
accounted for funding.
They can get funding from the TJS.
BIA N.D. [U.S. Department of the Interior Indian Affairs, Tribal Court Systems, no date, Accessible
Online at https://www.bia.gov/CFRCourts/tribal-justice-support-directorate] KL 9-18-2020
Funding Upon request from a tribal court, and based on the Tribal Court Assessment, TJS will provide
appropriated funding to tribal and CFR Courts, which is awarded through each of BIA's 12 Regional
Offices.
1AR – OV – Tribal Crimes
Jurisdictional ambiguity over policing and sentencing of Non-Indians incites crime,
especially sexual violence of Indian women, that throws Indian country into crisis –
that affects up to 5 million American Indians.
1AR – AT: Funding
Tribal courts are key, effective, and fair.
Tribal courts asserting supplemental jurisdiction over VAWA-related claims is a solution to the jurisdictional gap.
Supplemental jurisdiction in federal court sprung from the common law.281 Tribal courts apply common law;282 thus, tribal courts should
consider extending their reach through jurisprudence. Indeed, tribal
courts are in a stronger position to grow their reach
than federal courts. Federal court jurisdiction is constitutionally limited,283 but tribal court jurisdiction is
not limited by the United States Constitution.284 The limits on tribal court jurisdiction are the result of over 200
years of racist federal Indian policy.285 Peel away the racism, and the rationale for limiting tribal court jurisdiction vanishes.286
This alone bodes heavily in favor of tribal courts exercising supplemental jurisdiction over non Indians in VAWA cases.
In Oliphant, the Court acknowledged tribes can prosecute non-Indians “in a manner acceptable to Congress.”287 VAWA authorizes tribes to
prosecute non-Indians for three crimes and establishes certain procedural requirements that tribes must comply with in order to do so.288
When tribes apply the procedural requirements of VAWA during prosecutions of non-Indians, tribes are prosecuting non-Indians “in a manner
acceptable to Congress.”289 VAWA also recognizes “the inherent power” of tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction “over all persons.”290
Furthermore, the Senate opponents of VAWA’s tribal jurisdiction provision admitted, “[w]hile the present bill’s jurisdiction is limited to
domestic-violence offenses, once such an extension of jurisdiction were established, there would be no principled reason not to extend it to
other offenses as well.”291 Supplemental VAWA jurisdiction agrees with VAWA opponents’ argument—logic demands that tribal court
jurisdiction include offenses that stem from a common nucleus of operative facts as VAWA offenses.
The effectiveness of tribal courts is another reason tribal courts should unilaterally expand their jurisdiction
under VAWA. Approximately 150 arrests of non-Indians under VAWA have occurred, and not a single nonIndian
has challenged the fairness of the tribal court.292 Studies of tribal courts have consistently shown that
tribal courts treat non-Indians fairly .293 International law recognizes the legitimacy of indigenous justice
systems as well.294 Hence, the Supreme Court has declared that tribal court convictions in compliance with ICRA are valid convictions.295
On top of ICRA’s requirements, tribes implementing VAWA must include non-Indians in the jury pool and provide all “necessary” constitutional
rights to defendants.296 If ICRA’s procedural safeguards satisfy the Supreme Court’s due process concerns, VAWA’s heightened standards
certainly should.
FRAMING
2AC – OV – Framing
Extinction risk calculus results in paralysis – since every action theoretically has some
risk of causing extinction, and because there are infinite possible internal links and
ways to mitigate those it becomes impossible to act especially because the impact
would be a binary result. That’s Munthe.
When an existential risk is below one percent you should discount it as statistical
noise. When the probability of the disad nears zero, it’s equally likely the aff solves
extinction. That’s Tarsney.
AND, the disads are less likely than you think –

1 – Internal links exponentially decreases risk – magnitude prioritization causes
cognitive bias. That’s Connetta.
2 – Every disad starts at a 0.2% risk. A Bayesian reformulation confirms this, as that’s
the cap for all existential risks which makes this estimate extremely generous. That’s
Simpson.
3 – Their authors are also EA hacks – they actively condone violence, so you should
reject it on face. That’s Knuttson.
Even if they win everything else – we solve existential threats better through well-
backed reforms which is statistically more effective than non-robust policies. That’s
Karnofsky.
2AC – AT: Dropped Args
Dropped args are true, but we didn’t drop any. The framing page has introduced
arguments about holistic risk assessment which answer the disadvantage.
2AC – AT: They Care
Counterplans and turns case beg the question of probability. Intent is inherently
flawed proven by the necessity of a net benefit, which is used to justify the survival of
settler colonialism.
2AC – AT: Cognitive Bias
The availability heuristic flips aff – extinction impacts are more available in debate.
Psychic numbing proves the infinitarian paralysis. Internal links seem plausible enough
but each exponentially reduces risk.
T
DEFINITIONS
2AC – “Substantial”
‘Substantial’ conclusively does not require quantification—Overwhelming legal
consensus, and consistent with dictionary definitions and plain meaning. Cherry-
picking the 5th definition in the dictionary is arbitrary
Van Antwerpen 5 – Judge, US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Interfaith Community Org. v. Honeywell Int’l, 426 F.3d 694 (3d Cir. 2005), available at
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1170899.html
This approach, we believe, is most faithful to the statutory language, especially as to the word
"substantial." See, e.g., United States v. Union Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 356, 399-400 (E.D. Pa. 2003)
(observing that RCRA's "substantial" requirement "'does not require quantification of the
endangerment (e.g., proof that a certain number of persons will be exposed . . . or that a water supply
will be contaminated to a specific degree)'") (quoting United States v. Conservation Chemical Co., 619 F.
Supp. 162, 194 (W.D. Mo. 1985)). For the reasons we discuss infra, we believe that HN17 decisions such
as Parker, [**23] Cox, Union Corp., and Conservation Chemical define "substantial" in a manner
consistent with the statutory language, the legislative history, and the plain meaning of that word. See,
e.g., Cox, 256 F.3d at 300 (stating that "an endangerment is 'substantial' if it is 'serious'"); Union Corp.,
259 F. Supp. 2d at 400 (stating that a RCRA "endangerment is substantial if there is some reasonable
cause for concern that someone or something may be exposed to a risk of harm . . . if remedial action is
not taken.") (internal quotation omitted). We do not disagree that, given RCRA's language and purpose,
Congress must have intended that "if an error is to be made in applying the endangerment standard, the
error must be made in favor of protecting public health, welfare and the environment." Conservation
Chemical, 619 F. Supp. at 194. Here, the District Court added four additional requirements to the
endangerment showing. These held plaintiffs to a higher than needed showing for success on the merits
under § 6972(a)(1)(B). The additional requirements were as follows: [A] site "may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment" [**24] within the meaning of RCRA where: (1) there is a potential
population at risk; (2) the contaminant at issue is a RCRA "solid" or "hazardous waste"; (3) the
contaminant is present at levels above that considered acceptable by the state; and (4) there is a
pathway for current and/or future exposure. Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 263 F. Supp.
2d 796, at 838 (2003). At least two of these requirements are irreconcilable with § 6972(a)(1)(B). 5 The
first requirement requires a "population," but HN18 § 6972(a)(1)(B)'s disjunctive phrasing, "or
environment," means a living population is not required for success on the merits, as we discuss infra.
The third requirement, apparently intended by the District Court to give quantitative meaning to the
word "substantial" in § 6972(a)(1)(B), is similarly without support. The word "substantial" is not defined
by the statute or its legislative history. Turning to a dictionary, we find that "substantial" means "having
substance" and "not imaginary"; only as the last of several definitions does the dictionary offer "of
considerable size or amount." Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary 1817 (2d ed. 1983).
These definitions do not support one particular [**25] type of quantification measurement, such as the
District Court's requirement that there be an exceedence of state standards. Honeywell, tacitly following
Cox, 256 F.3d at 300, equates "substantial" with "serious," which also does not support one particular
type of quantification measurement. As noted, the word "substantial" is not defined by the statute or its
legislative [*260] history, and we have not found any binding authority which stands contrary to this
analysis. It is thus difficult to see how § 6972(a)(1)(B) justifies the kind of hurdle created by the District
Court's third quantitative requirement - let alone the even higher requirements for "substantial" that
Honeywell argues for, without citation. Honeywell's arguments actually [**26] provide an additional
reason why we will not read state standards into the language of this federal law. Honeywell contends
that its conceded discharges into the Hackensack River could not possibly be "substantial" because New
Jersey has not yet established a remedial standard for river sediment chromium. We do not believe that
Congress intended § 6972(a)(1)(B) to be dependent upon the states in such a manner, and the statutory
language provides no support for such dependency. When Congress enacted RCRA in 1976, it sought to
close "the last remaining loophole in environmental law, that of unregulated land disposal of discarded
materials and hazardous wastes." H.R. Rep. No. 1491, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 4, reprinted in 1976
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6238, 6241. As we have noted, there is no definition or explanation of the meaning of
"substantial," but a discussion of RCRA's amendments observes that HN19 § 6972(a)(1)(B) is "'intended to
confer upon the courts the authority to eliminate any risks posed by toxic wastes,'" S. Rep. No. 98-284,
98th Cong., 1st Sess. at 59 (1983) (quoting Price, 688 F.3d at 213-14), and further that courts should
"recogniz[e] that risk may be assessed [**27] from suspected, but not completely substantiated,
relationships between imperfect data, or from probative preliminary data not yet certifiable as fact." Id.
(internal quotations and citations omitted). This supports neither the District Court's particular
quantitative requirement nor the even higher and more narrow quantitative standards that Honeywell
would have us impose. Decisions of the other courts of appeals are not to the contrary. None require a
particular quantitative showing as a sine qua non for liability. See Parker, 386 F.3d at 1015 (considering
evidence of contamination at levels requiring landfill operator to notify state agency but determining
substantialness on totality of the evidence); Cox, 256 F.3d at 299-301 (finding endangerments at two
dumps on totality of the evidence; considering evidence of exceedences as to only one dump); Dague,
935 F.2d at 1356 (affirming endangerment finding without considering any quantitative evidence).
2AC – “Substantially”
“Substantially” means considerable.
Merriam Webster 9 – Merriam Webster Dictionary. [Substantial, carbon-dated 4-22-9,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantially]//BPS
substantial adjective sub·stan·tial | \ səb-ˈstan(t)-shəl \ Definition

of substantial 1a: consisting of or relating to
substance b: not imaginary or illusory : REAL, TRUE c: IMPORTANT, ESSENTIAL 2: ample to satisfy and nourish : FULL
a substantial meal 3a: possessed of means : WELL-TO-DO b: considerable in quantity : significantly great earned a substantial
wage 4: firmly constructed : STURDY a substantial house 5: being largely but not wholly that which is specified a substantial
lie Other Words from substantial substantial noun substantiality \ səb-ˌstan(t)-shē-ˈa-lə-tē \ noun substantially \ səb-ˈstan(t)-
sh(ə-)lē \ adverb substantialness \ səb-ˈstan(t)-shəl-nəs \ noun
2AC – “Resolved”
“Resolved” means to deliberate.
“resolve.” MERRIAM WEBSTER 9. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved.
# Main Entry: 1re·solve # Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\ # Function: verb # Inflected Form(s): resolved; re·solv·ing 1 : to
become separated into component parts; also : to become reduced by dissolving or analysis 2 : to form a resolution : determine 3 : consult,
deliberate
2AC – “The”
“The” includes particulars.
Random House 6 (Unabridged Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the)
(used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of
the indefinite article a or an): the book you gave me; Come into the house
2AC – “USFG”
“USFG” means any branch.
Words & Phrases 4 — Words and Phrases, 2004 (Cumulative Supplementary Pamphlet, v. 16A, p. 42)
Action against the Postal Service, although an independent establishment of the executive
N.D.Ga. 1986.
branch of the federal government, is an action against the "Federal Government" for purposes of rule that
plaintiff in action against government has right to jury trial only where right is one of terms of government's consent to be sued; declining to
follow Algernon Blair Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 552 F.Supp. 872 (M.D.Ala.). 39 U.S.C.A. 201; U.S.C.A.
Const.Amend. 7.--Griffin v. U.S. Postal Service, 635 F.Supp. 190.--Jury 12(1.2).
2AC – “Should”
Should doesn’t require immediacy.
Dictionary.com 10 – Copyright © 2010 – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should
should /ʃʊd/ Show Spelled[shood] Show IPA –auxiliary verb 1. pt. of shall. 2. (used to express condition): Were he to
arrive, I should be pleased. 3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. 4. would (used to
make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize. Use should in a Sentence See images of should Search should
on the Web Origin: ME sholde, OE sc ( e ) olde; see shall —Can be confused: could, should, would (see usage note at this entry ). —Synonyms
3. See must1 . —Usage note Rules similar to those for choosing between shall and will have long been advanced for should and would, but
again the rules have had little effect on usage. In most constructions, would is the auxiliary chosen regardless of the person of
the subject: If our allies would support the move, we would abandon any claim to sovereignty . You would be
surprised at the complexity of the directions. Because the main function of should in modern American English is to
express duty, necessity, etc. ( You should get your flu shot before winter comes ), its use for other purposes, as to
form a subjunctive, can produce ambiguity , at least initially: I should get my flu shot if I were you. Furthermore, should
seems an affectation to many Americans when used in certain constructions quite common in British English: Had I been
informed, I should (American would ) have called immediately. I should (American would ) really prefer a different
arrangement. As with shall and will, most educated native speakers of American English do not follow the textbook rule
in making a choice between should and would . See also shall. Shall –auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person shall, 2nd shall or
( Archaic ) shalt, 3rd shall, present plural shall; past singular 1st person should, 2nd should or ( Archaic ) shouldst or should·est, 3rd should, past
plural should; imperative, infinitive, and participles lacking. 1. plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.
Nor certainty.
Summers 94 (Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma, “Kelsey v. Dollarsaver Food Warehouse of Durant”, The Oklahoma State Courts
Network, November 8, http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=20287#marker3fn14)
SUMMERS, Justice. [885 P.2d 1354] 1 Plaintiff (Appellee) was awarded a substantial judgment pursuant
to a jury's verdict in Bryan County. Defendant (Appellant) filed a timely Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment
Notwithstanding the Verdict. On May 18, 1993, the trial judge signed and caused to be filed a handwritten document entitled "Court Minute",
which stated "the Court finds that the motions should be overruled." 2 On June 2, 1993, the judge signed and caused to be filed a typed Order
as follows: "IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED & DECREED by the Court that Defendant's Motion for New Trial and Motion for Judgment
Notwithstanding the verdict be, and they are hereby, overruled." Defendant commenced its appeal here on June 30, 1993. Plaintiff moves to
dismiss for untimeliness, claiming the earlier writing commenced the appellate clock. We deny the motion and allow the appeal to proceed. 3
Our decision does not rest on whether judge-signed "court minutes" prior to the legislative change of October 1, 1993 are or are not appealable
orders.1 That is because the writing of May 18 here under neither view contains language sufficient to make it
an order of the court. A statement that the motions should be overruled is not the same as stating that
the motions are overruled. 4 Webster describes "should" as a word used in an auxiliary function to
express (1) condition (if he should leave his father his father would die); (2) propriety (this is as it should
be); (3) futurity (he realized she should have to do most of her farm work before sunrise); or (4) what is
probable or expected (they should be here before noon.) Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1085
(10th ed. 1993). "Should" as used by the judge here places his statement in the subjunctive mood rather
than in either the indicative (or declarative) mood or the imperative mood. See II G. Curme, A Grammar of the English Language, 391
(1980) and volume I of Dr. Curme's work at 224. 5 The subjunctive mood is a verb form representing an act or state,
not as fact, but as contingent or possible. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, supra at P. 1172. In Jackson v. State of
Indiana, 273 Ind. 49, 402 N.E.2d 947 (1980) the defendant on appeal argued that the trial court erred in overruling
his motion for a mistrial. The appellate court pointed out that the defendant had not made such a
motion: Defendant now contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for mistrial.
However, the record does not reflect that defense counsel made such a motion; rather , he merely
stated, "Your Honor, at this point, I should move for a mistrial." The use of the subjective, "should,"
reflects a mere contingent or hypothetical action. Id. 402 N.E.2d at 951 (emphasis added). The trial judge in
our case, just as the defense counsel in Jackson, chose to set his statement in the subjunctive mood, here a representation
that the motions were going to be, but had not yet been, overruled. 6 We also note that the trial court in its May 18 entry stated that " the
Court finds that the motions should be overruled." (emphasis ours) Our ruling today is consistent with Tillman
v. Tillman, 199 Okla. 130, 184 P.2d 784 (1947). In that case the trial court had stated for the record certain findings which seemed indicative
of the court's opinion as to the extent of his jurisdiction. This Court said: A judgment . . . is distinct from findings of the court, [citation omitted]
Findings and opinion of the court are never the judgment, but only expressions as to what the court considers its judgment should be. Id. 184
P.2d at 785. (emphasis added). 7 The
language used by the court on May 18 falls short of amounting to an order
of the [885 P.2d 1355] court. It announced that the motions should be overruled, but it did not overruled
them. The later language used on June 2 declaring that the motions "be, and they are hereby, overruled",
did not express futurity or probability, but was an indicative, declarative statement of what the judge did with
the motions. It overruled them. It was an order of the court, and it was timely appealed by Defendant's petition in error filed June 30. 8 The
motion to dismiss is denied. 9 HODGES, C.J., LAVENDER, V.C.J., and ALMA WILSON, KAUGER, WATT, JJ., concur. 10 SIMMS, HARGRAVE and
OPALA, JJ., dissent. Footnotes: 1 12 O.S. 1993 Supp. § 696.2 [93-696.2](C), effective October 1, 1993, provides: "The following shall not
constitute a judgment, decree or appealable order: a minute entry. . . ." The issue was resolved in Manning v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public
Safety, 876 P.2d 667 (Okl. 1994), in which we held that such orders could be appealable if they fully disposed of a case, but made the ruling
prospective. OPALA, Justice, with whom SIMMS and HARGRAVE, Justices, join, dissenting. 1 Concluding that
the appellant's petition in error was timely brought, the court holds today that the June 2, 1993 record entry,
and not the May 18, 1993 filed memorial,1 of the trial court's ruling triggers appeal time . The court reasons the
earlier memorial is not an order because (1) it is couched as a "finding" and (2) it stated that Dollarsave Food
Warehouse of Durant's [defendant or Dollarsaver] motion for judgment n.o.v. "should be overruled" rather
than using the customary phrase "should be and the same hereby is overruled ".2 I cannot accede either to the
court's reasoning or to its conclusion. I THE SUBSTANTIVE CONTENT OF THE MAY 18 MEMORIAL DETERMINES
WHETHER IT QUALIFIES AS AN ORDER 2 The meaning and effect of a legal instrument depends on its
substantive content rather than on the form or title provided by its author .3
2AC – “Implement”
“Implement” doesn’t require a set process
US Legal, no date. “Implement Law and Legal Definition,”
https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/implement/
According to 7 USCS § 6991 (Title 7, Agriculture; Chapter 98, Department of Agriculture Reorganization; National Appeals Division), the term
"implement" refers to “those actions necessary to effectuate fully and promptly a final determination of the Division
not later than 30 calendar days after the effective date of the final determination.”
2AC – “Enact”
Enact doesn’t require immediate legal effect. SCOTUS agrees.
Hunter 20. [Mike; 2/24/20; Attorney General of the state of Oklahoma; “A.G. Opinion,”
http://www.oag.ok.gov/Websites/oag/images/AG%20Opinion%202020-1%20(V-15b).pdf; DS]
Under Oklahoma law, “[w]ords used in any statute are to be understood in their ordinary sense, except when a contrary definition plainly
appears[.J” 25 O.S.2011, § 1. “Enact” is ordinarily understood to mean to “make into a law; esp: to perform the last act of legislation upon (a
bill) that gives the validity of law,” while “enactment” is simply “the act or action of enacting .” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 745 (3d ed. 2002) (emphasis added).3 The focus of this definition is the governmental action to pass a bill into
law: the date of enactment is generally the date on which the “last act” necessary to pass legislation is taken. Particularly in Oklahoma, the
enactment date of legislation is distinct from, and often different than, the date such legislation becomes
effective. This distinction is enshrined in our Constitution, which states that, absent an emergency, “[n]o act shall take effect until ninety
days after the adjournment of the session at which it was passed, except enactments . . . relating to the initiative and referendum. or a general
appropriation bill.” OKLA. CONST. art. V. § 5$ (emphasis added). This
distinction also has been recognized by the Oklahoma
Supreme Court.4 the U.S. Supreme Court,3 and other state courts.6
2AC – “Reduction”
Temporary suspensions and more restrictive eligibility criteria are both “reductions”
relative to the hypothetical continuation of the status quo.
Williams ‘2 United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, opinion authored by Judge Anne
Claire Williams of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Heinz v. Cent. Laborers' Pension Fund, 303 F.3d
802, Decided September 13, 2002
We conclude that plaintiffs' loss of the option of working as construction supervisors was a reduction of
their early retirement benefits within the meaning of § 1054(g)(2). HN6 A participant's benefits cannot be understood
without reference to the conditions imposed on receiving those benefits, and an amendment placing
materially greater restrictions on the receipt of the benefit "reduces" the benefit just as surely as a
decrease in the size of the monthly benefit payment. We have not before interpreted the prohibition in the
anti-cutback rule as limited to amendments that reduce the amount of the periodic payment, and we find nothing
in the language of the rule that suggests such an interpretation. In Ahng, [**10] for example, we held that the plaintiffs had
stated a claim for violation of § 1054(g) when they alleged that a [*806] plan amendment changed the deadline by which the employee must
retire in order to receive supplemental early retirement benefits. 96 F.3d at 1036-37; see also Bellas v. CBS, Inc., 221 F.3d 517 (3d Cir. 2000)
(plan amendment that changed eligibility requirements for early retirement benefits violated § 1054(g)). Similarly, in Michael v. Riverside
Cement Co. Pension Plan, 266 F.3d 1023, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth Circuit held that an amendment that eliminated the plan's "no-
offset rule," which had allowed a participant to receive full early retirement benefits without regard to the amount he already received upon
previous retirement, violated § 1054(g) even though the amendment increased the plaintiff's monthly benefit payment. Cf. Hickey, 980 F.2d at
468 (7th Cir. 1992) (plan amendment that eliminated the particiant's right to cost-of-living adjustments violated the anti-cutback rule). The
Fund argues that these cases are distinguishable because a change in the eligibility requirements, as in
Ahng [**11] for example, differs from a change in the conditions triggering suspension of benefit payments in
that the former permanently reduces benefits or eliminates certain participants' rights to benefits, whereas a
suspension is temporary. We find the distinction unconvincing. Although with a suspension the
interruption in benefit payments is temporary, the retiree never recovers the payments lost during the
employment period. The amendment thus "eliminates" monthly benefit payments for participants who take
certain jobs after retirement and "reduces" the participant's total early retirement benefits by an amount
determined by how long the disqualifying work continues. Plaintiffs lost a valuable right they had earned
before the amendment--the right to continue to work in the industry while receiving monthly benefit payments-- and that loss was
permanent. 5Link to the text of the note [**12] In our judgment, this was a reduction of early retirement benefits
within the plain meaning of § 1054(g)(2). 6Link to the text of the note [**13] [*807] B. Spacek v. Maritime Association The Fund
points out, however, that "suspensions" are not identified along with the prohibitions against decreases, reductions, and elimination of benefits
in the anti-cutback rule. The Fund relies on Spacek v. Maritime Ass'n, 134 F.3d 283 (5th Cir. 1998), in which the Fifth Circuit concluded that an
amendment like the one in this case did not violate the anti-cutback rule because it concerned a "suspension" and not a "reduction" in benefits.
7Link to the text of the note The Fifth Circuit supported its conclusion with: (1) an examination of the use of the two terms under the statute
and related regulations; (2) the legislative history of the Retirement Equity Act; and (3) a Treasury regulation concerning the effect of
suspensions on "accrued benefits." We respectfully conclude, however, that the Fifth Circuit's arguments do not support its conclusion. [**14]
1. Suspensions and reductions under ERISA. In Spacek, the court noted that "throughout the statute and corresponding regulations, the
concepts of reduction of benefits and suspension of benefit payments are used in distinct ways, often within a single provision." 134 F.3d at
288-89 (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), 1341a(d) & 1342(d)(1)(A)(v); 29 C.F.R. § 2520.104b-4(a)(1)(iii)). From this the court reasoned that to
interpret the prohibition in the anti-cutback rule against amendments that reduce benefits as applying to suspensions would "make the word
'suspension' redundant in all of these statutory provisions and interpretive regulations." Spacek, 134 F.3d at 289. This redundancy, according to
Spacek, would violate the canon of statutory construction that every word in a statute must be given meaning. Id. We disagree with the
inference that Spacek draws from the various provisions that refer to both reductions and suspensions. Our interpretation of the anti-cutback
rule does not suggest that all suspensions are "reductions" (or vice versa), only that if the suspension is pursuant [**15] to an amendment that
reduces benefits (attributable to service before the amendment), then it is a reduction within the anti-cutback rule. This interpretation does not
render the word "suspension" in the other provisions redundant. For example, Spacek relies on various provisions in Title IV of ERISA (relating
to financially troubled and terminated plans) that refer to both "reduction of benefits" and "suspension of benefit payments"; according to
Spacek, to avoid redundancy, the former phrase must be construed as excluding the latter. Id. But Spacek's identification of the two relevant
phrases is too narrow; to the extent the Title IV provisions identify two separate categories, they are amendments that reduce benefits on the
one hand, and suspension [*808] of benefit payments, on the other. Section 1441, governing plan terminations, is typical: (a) Amendment of
plan by plan sponsor to reduce benefits, and suspension of benefit payments Notwithstanding sections 1053 and 1054 of this title, the plan
sponsor of a terminated multiemployer plan to which section 1341a(d) of this title applies shall amend the plan to reduce benefits, and shall
suspend [**16] benefit payments, as required by this section. 29 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (emphasis added) 8Link to the text of the note [**17] ;see
also 29 U.S.C. § 1425(a)(1) & 26 U.S.C. § 418D(a)(1) (plans in reorganization may amend the plan to reduce benefits); 29 U.S.C. § 1426(a) & 26
U.S.C. § 418E(a) (insolvent plans may suspend benefit payments); 29 U.S.C. § 1053 (a)(3)(E)(ii) & 26 U.S.C. § 411(a)(3)(F) (exception to forfeiture
rule for amendments that reduce benefits under §§ 1441 or 1425, and suspension of benefit payments under §§ 1441 and 1426). Because the
latter category (suspension of benefit payments) includes suspensions not according to any amendment, as in the case of insolvent plans, for
example, it is not rendered superfluous by interpreting the amendment in this case as falling into the former category (amendments that
reduce benefits). 9Link to the text of the note In other words, even crediting the reliability of any inference about the anti-cutback rule that can
be drawn from the use of these phrases in various provisions relating to terminated or troubled plans, the most we can infer is that a
suspension of benefit payments not falling into the first category--amendments that reduce benefits--should be excluded from the anti-cutback
rule. But other than in the case of insolvent or terminated plans, an administrator's authority to suspend benefits must come from the plan.
[**18] And as we noted before, no one is disputing that the suspension in this case would be proper if it were contained in the original plan. It is
the propriety of the amendment to the plan that is at issue in this case, and not the suspension itself, and therefore we cannot infer from the
distinction made in Title IV between suspensions of benefit payments and amendments that reduce benefits that the amendment in this case is
beyond the anti-cutback rule. 10Link to the text of the note [**19] [*809] We do not view the omission of a specific reference to suspensions in
the anti-cutback rule as an oversight, but as unnecessary. Adding a reference to suspensions in § 1054(g)(1) (e.g., "The accrued benefit of a
participant under a plan may not be decreased [or suspended] by an amendment of the plan") or § 1054(g)(2) (e.g., "a plan amendment which
has the effect of …eliminating[,] reducing[, or suspending] an early retirement benefit …"), would be awkward and perhaps overbroad; it is not
the suspension of benefit payments that offends the anti-cutback rule, but the change (to the detriment of the participant) in the conditions
triggering the suspension, and this concept is adequately captured by the prohibition against amendments that reduce benefits. 2. Legislative
history of the Retirement Equity Act. The Fund, again relying on Spacek, also points to the legislative history of the Retirement Equity Act of
1984, which added paragraph (2)--the provision concerning amendments that reduce or eliminate early retirement benefits--to § 1054(g). See
Spacek, 134 F.3d at 289-90. Spacek found instructive the following comment made [**20] by Representative William Clay during the final House
debates on the Retirement Equity Act: Nor do those provisions in any way apply to or affect the provisions of ERISA section 203(a)(3)(B) and
code section 411(a)(3)(B) relating to the suspension of benefits for post-retirement employment, including the authorization for multiemployer
plans to adopt stricter rules for the suspension of subsidized early retirement benefits. Spacek, 134 F.3d at 289 (quoting 130 Cong. Rec. 23,487
(1984)). The Fifth Circuit concluded that Representative Clay's remark means that the anti-cutback rule in § 1054(g) does not limit the power of
the plan to amend the plan to expand the restrictions on post-retirement employment. See Spacek, 134 F.3d at 289-90. We find Representative
Clay's remark ambiguous at best on the question of whether amendments concerning suspensions for disqualifying employment are outside
the coverage of § 1054(g). 11Link to the text of the note [**23] But even if Representative Clay's understanding of the anti-cutback rule were
consistent with the Fifth Circuit's--that suspensions upon disqualifying re-employment represent an additional exception to § 1054(g)--we
[**21] find nothing in the legislative history to indicate that anyone else in Congress shared the understanding attributed to Representative Clay
by the Fifth Circuit. The parties have not identified, [*810] and we have been unable to find, any further reference in the legislative history of
the Retirement Equity Act to the exception for suspensions that the Fifth Circuit infers from Representative Clay's remarks. 12Link to the text of
the note The absence of any additional support in the legislative history suggests to us that the Fifth Circuit gave undue weight to the statement
of Representative Clay, which (as interpreted by the Fifth Circuit) is at odds with the straightforward language of the statute. See Barnhart v.
Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 122 S. Ct. 941, 953-54, 151 L. Ed. 2d 908 (2002) (rejecting interpretation contained in the floor statements of the
statute's sponsors); Monterey Coal Co. v. Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Comm'n, 743 F.2d 589, 596 (7th Cir. 1984) (same); Alex v. City
of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1235, 1239 n.3 (7th Cir. 1994) ("Isolated remarks of individual legislators, …[can] not be used to find ambiguity, or contrary
intent, in statutory [**22] language that, with respect to a case in hand, is clear on its own terms without rendering nugatory the 'plain
meaning' canon of construction."). 13Link to the text of the note Accordingly, we conclude that Representative Clay's remarks cannot be used
to support an exception to the anti-cutback rule for amendments that expand disqualifying employment. 3. Treasury Regulation 26 C.F.R. §
1.411(c)-1(f). The court in Spacek also found support in 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(c)-1(f), a Treasury Department regulation concerning the allocation of
accrued benefits between employer and employee contributions. By way of background, the court first noted that the term "accrued benefit"
means the employees' benefit as accrued under [**24] the plan, expressed in the form of "an annual benefit commencing at normal retirement
age," 29 U.S.C. § 1002(23), 14Link to the text of the note or, for early retirement benefits, the actuarial equivalent of the benefit commencing at
normal retirement age. See Spacek, 134 F.3d at 290 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1054(c)(3); 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(c) -1(e)). 15Link to the text of the note The
Treasury regulation relied upon by Spacek, 26 C.F.R. § 1.411(c)-1(f)(1), states that in calculating the actuarial equivalent of an accrued benefit,
"no adjustment …is required on account of any suspension of benefits" if the suspension is permitted under ERISA § 203(a)(3)(B)--the section
dealing with restrictions on post-retirement employment. 16Link to the text of the note According to the [*811] Fifth Circuit, "because the
reduction in total benefits paid over the lifetime of the plan participant as a result of the suspension
need not be accounted for actuarially in computing the participant's accrued benefit," an amendment "authorizing such a
suspension does not serve to decrease the participant's accrued benefits, and thus cannot violate § 1054(g)." 134 F.3d at 291. [**25]
1AR – “Resolved”
Resolved” isn’t certain
Webster 9 – (Merriam Webster 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved)
# Main Entry: 1re·solve # Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\ # Function: verb # Inflected
Form(s): re·solved; re·solv·ing 1 : to become separated into component parts; also : to become reduced
by dissolving or analysis 2 : to form a resolution : determine 3 : consult, deliberate
Resolved isn’t immediate

PTE 9 –( Online Plain Text English Dictionary 2009, http://www.onelook.com/?
other=web1913&w=Resolve)
Resolve: “To form a purpose; to make a decision; especially, to determine after reflection; as, to resolve
on a better course of life.”
Resolved means to express by formal vote—this is the only definition that’s in the
context of the resolution
Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1998 (dictionary.com)
Resolved:
5. To express, as an opinion or determination, by resolution and vote; to declare or decide by a formal

vote; -- followed by a clause; as, the house resolved (or, it was resolved by the house) that no money
should be apropriated (or, to appropriate no money).
“Resolved” isn’t part of the topic — it just means this is policy debate.
Parcher 1 — Jeff Parcher, Former Director of Debate at Georgetown University, 2001 ("Re: Jeff P--Is
the resolution a question?," Post to the e-Debate List, February 26, Available Online at
http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/ 0790.html, Accessed 09-10-2005)
> Jeff, I don't think debaters' relation to the resolution is nearly as clear as it you make it out to be in your recent posts. 1. The resolution > is
not a question. It is a statement that has "resolved" on one side and a normative statement on the other separated by a colon. What > is the
meaning of "resolved?" I know Bill Shanahan has made the argument that "resolved" means "reserved," in which case the > resolution doesn't
require you to arrive at any certainty about the truth of the normative statement. (1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American
Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3.
To separate something into constiutent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in
original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Frimness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision. (2) The very nature of the
word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statemnt of a
deciion, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconcievable. Why? Context. The
debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The
committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue.
There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the
topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus
on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate
which will be resolved by determining the policy desireablility of that resolution . That's not only what they do, but
it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committtee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end
point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the prelimanary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4)
Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasis the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from
the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative
body. Should this statement be adopted or not. (5) The very terms 'affirmative' and 'negative' support my view. One
affirms a resolution. Affirmative and negative are the equivalents of 'yes' or 'no' - which , of course, are
answers to a question.
1AR – “Should”
“Should” doesn’t imply immediate obligation – it’s flexible.
Dvorsky ’15 (George; 12/14/15; B.A. in History and Political Science from Western University, media specialist and legal analyst;
Gizmodo, “A Single Typo Nearly Killed the Paris Climate Accord,” http://gizmodo.com/a-single-typo-nearly-killed-the-paris-climate-accord-
1747908970)
Hours before the historic Paris climate accord was to be ratified in a final vote, someone noticed that a word had been
changed in the final draft of the text—a single word that threatened to derail the entire deal . As reported in the Washington
Post, someone changed the word “should” to “shall.” Now, it seems like a little thing, but given that the words were in
reference to sweeping new legal and financial obligations, it mattered. A lot. When it comes to legally binding
terminology, there’s a big difference between “should” and “shall.” Whereas “should” is a kind of wishy-
washy call to action, the word “shall” implies an obligation, and this is why Secretary of State John Kerry could not abide
the unexpected change. The New York Times reports: Throughout the process, the longer and less binding “should” was a
deliberate part of the international agreement, put there to establish that the richest countries, including the United States, felt
obligated to pony up money to help poor countries adapt to climate change and make the transition to sustainable energy systems. “Shall”
meant something altogether different, American officials said. When “shall” was spotted in the document on Saturday, Secretary
of State John Kerry called his French counterpart and made it clear that unless a switch was made, France could not count on American support
for the agreement. “I said: ‘We cannot do this and we will not do this. And either it changes, or President Obama and the United States will not
be able to support this agreement,’ ” Mr. Kerry told reporters after delegates had accepted the deal by consensus Saturday night, amid
cheering and the celebratory stamping of feet. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and within hours the wording within the 31-page
text was reverted back to the original “should.” A subsequent vote affirmed the Paris Accord, and all was saved. No one
knows if the typo was an honest mistake, or someone’s deliberate attempt to give the accord an entirely new meaning. But as Kerry said
afterward, “It was a mistake. I am convinced.”
“Should” means desirable – this does not have to be a mandate

AC 99 (Atlas Collaboration, “Use of Shall, Should, May Can,”
http://rd13doc.cern.ch/Atlas/DaqSoft/sde/inspect/shall.html)
shall
'shall' describes something that is mandatory. If a requirement uses 'shall', then that requirement _will_ be satisfied without
fail. Noncompliance is not allowed. Failure to comply with one single 'shall' is sufficient reason to reject the entire product. Indeed, it must be
rejected under these circumstances. Examples: # "Requirements shall make use of the word 'shall' only where compliance is mandatory." This
is a good example. # "C++ code shall have comments every 5th line." This is a bad example. Using 'shall' here is too strong.
should
'should' is weaker. It describes something that might not be satisfied in the final product, but that is
desirable enough that any noncompliance shall be explicitly justified. Any use of 'should' should be examined carefully, as it probably
means that something is not being stated clearly. If a 'should' can be replaced by a 'shall', or can be discarded entirely, so much the better.
Examples: # "C++ code should be ANSI compliant." A good example. It may not be possible to be ANSI compliant on all platforms, but we
should try. # "Code should be tested thoroughly." Bad example. This 'should' shall be replaced with 'shall' if this requirement is to be stated
anywhere (to say nothing of defining what 'thoroughly' means).
“Should” doesn’t require certainty

Black’s Law 79 (Black’s Law Dictionary – Fifth Edition, p. 1237)
Should. The past tense of shall; ordinarily implying duty or obligation; although usually no more than an obligation of propriety or
expediency, or a moral obligation, thereby distinguishing it from “ought.” It is not normally synonymous with “may,” and although often
interchangeable with the word “would,” it does not ordinarily express certainty as “will” sometimes does.
Strong admonition --- not mandatory

Taylor and Howard 5 (Michael, Resources for the Future and Julie, Partnership to Cut Hunger and
Poverty in Africa, “Investing in Africa's future: U.S. Agricultural development assistance for Sub-Saharan
Africa”, 9-12, http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0001784/5-US-agric_Sept2005_Chap2.pdf)
Other legislated DA earmarks in the FY2005 appropriations bill are smaller and more targeted: plant biotechnology research and development
($25 million), the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program ($20 million), women’s leadership capacity ($15 million), the International
Fertilizer Development Center ($2.3 million), and clean water treatment ($2 million). Interestingly, in the wording of the bill, Congress uses the
term shall in connection with only two of these eight earmarks; the others say that USAID should make the prescribed amount available. The
difference between shall and should may have legal significance—one is clearly mandatory while the
other is a strong admonition—but it makes little practical difference in USAID’s need to comply with the
congressional directive to the best of its ability.
Should isn’t binding

Dvorsky 15 – George Dvorsky, Gizmodo, A Single Typo Nearly Killed the Paris Climate Accord,
12/14/15, gizmodo.com/a-single-typo-nearly-killed-the-paris-climate-accord-1747908970
Hours before the historic Paris climate accord was to be ratified in a final vote, someone noticed that a word had been changed in the final
draft of the text—a single word that threatened to derail the entire deal . As reported in the Washington Post, someone
changed the word “should” to “shall.” Now, it seems like a little thing, but given that the words were in reference to
sweeping new legal and financial obligations, it mattered. A lot. When it comes to legally binding terminology,
there’s a big difference between “should” and “shall.” Whereas “should” is a kind of wishy-washy call to
action, the word “shall” implies an obligation , and this is why Secretary of State John Kerry could not abide the unexpected change. The
New York Times reports: Throughout the process, the longer and less binding “should” was a deliberate part of the
international agreement, put there to establish that the richest countries, including the United States, felt obligated to pony up money to help poor
countries adapt to climate change and make the transition to sustainable energy systems. “Shall” meant something altogether different, American officials said.
When “shall” was spotted in the document on Saturday, Secretary of State John Kerry called his French counterpart and made it clear that unless a switch was
made, France could not count on American support for the agreement. “I said: ‘We cannot do this and we will not do this. And either it changes, or President
Obama and the United States will not be able to support this agreement,’ ” Mr. Kerry told reporters after delegates had accepted the deal by consensus Saturday
night, amid cheering and the celebratory stamping of feet. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed, and within hours the wording within the 31-page text was reverted
back to the original “should.” A subsequent vote affirmed the Paris Accord, and all was saved.
1AR – “The”
“The” is a function word that signifies a particular noun.
Merriam-Webster ‘N.D. [Merriam-Webster; No listed date, updated online; Online dictionary;
Merriam-Webster, “the,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the; RP]
a —used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been
previously specified by context or by circumstance put the cat out b —used as a function word to indicate that a
following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class the President the Lord c —used as a
function word before nouns that designate natural phenomena or points of the compass the night is cold d —used as a function word before a
noun denoting time to indicate reference to what is present or immediate or is under consideration in the future
1AR – “USFG”
The “United States federal government” is the three branches.
U.S. Legal ’16 [U.S. Legal; 2016; Organization offering legal assistance and attorney access; U.S. Legal,
“United States Federal Government Law and Legal Definition,” https://definitions.uslegal.com/u/united-
states-federal-government/; RP]
The United States Federal Government is established by the US Constitution. The Federal Government shares
sovereignty over the United Sates with the individual governments of the States of US. The Federal government
has three branches: i) the legislature, which is the US Congress, ii) Executive, comprised of the President and Vice president of the US
and iii) Judiciary. The US Constitution prescribes a system of separation of powers and ‘checks and balances’ for the smooth
functioning of all the three branches of the Federal Government. The US Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government to the
powers assigned to it; all powers not expressly assigned to the Federal Government are reserved to the States
or to the people.
1AR – “Substantial”
Specifically, default to reasonability—The court had made clear that when used as a
modifier the word ‘substantial’ should not be a high threshold. It’s core function is to
require that the reform be real, not that it be large.
Sanders 8 – Law Prof-Houston
Joseph Sanders, Michael D. Green, Law Prof-Wake Forest, and William C. Powers, Jr., Law Prof-UT
Austin, The Insubstantiality of the “Substantial Factor” Test for Causation, Missouri Law Review, Vol. 73,
p. 399, 2008, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1345171
Finally, the court signaled that it did not mean to have the modifier “substantial” constitute a high
threshold. It speaks of insubstantial factors as those which play only an “‘infinitesimal’” or
“‘theoretical’” part in bringing about injury, damage, or loss67 and notes that “[u]ndue emphasis
should not be placed on the term ‘substantial’”68 : For example, the substantial factor standard,
formulated to aid plaintiffs as a broader rule of causality than the “but for” test, has been invoked by
defendants whose conduct is clearly a “but for” cause of plaintiff’s injury but is nevertheless urged as an
insubstantial contribution to the injury. Misused in this way, the substantial factor test “undermines the
principles of comparative negligence, under which a party is responsible for his or her share of
negligence and the harm caused thereby.”69
Throw out definitions of ‘substantially’—‘Substantial’ is distinct, and merely means of

substance or of the moment
Larson 68 – Justice of the Supreme Court of Iowa
Opinion by J. Larson, Unanimous, Smith v. Ft. Dodge, 160 N.W.2d 492, 1968
Apparently this is the first time we have had before us a question as to the meaning of section 373.19.
Specifically, we seek the interpretation of the words "substantial amendment" in that section. A
careful review of our case law reveals that we have never had occasion [**14] to define "substantial",
but have attempted to define "substantially." See Hardin County v. Wells, 108 Iowa 174, 176, 78 N.W.
908, 909. Webster defines "substantial" as follows: "3. That is of moment; essential; material * * *. 6.
That is such in substance or in the main * * *. 10. Of or pertaining to the substance or main part of
anything." [*498] Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition (1957).
It's indeterminate—And, toss out definitions from other contexts—Must evaluate it

contextually
Larson 68 – Justice of the Supreme Court of Iowa
Opinion by J. Larson, Unanimous, Smith v. Ft. Dodge, 160 N.W.2d 492, 1968
It has also been said the word "substantial" is a relative and not exact term subject to a rule of thumb.
It is susceptible of different meanings according to the circumstances of its use. In considering the
word, it must be examined in its relation and context, and its meaning gauged by all the surrounding
circumstances. Busch v. Service Plastics, Inc., D.C., 261 F. Supp. 136, 142; State v. Pahl, 254 Minn. 349,
95 N.W.2d 85, 89. See also 83 C.J.S. Substantial, p. 762; 40 Words and Phrases, p. 493.
At worst, ‘substantial’ means considerable in amount – The courts say that’s still so
broad that it must be read deferentially. Specific thresholds are arbitrary, and there’s
a massive reasonability DA to intervening.
Prost 4 – Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
“Committee For Fairly Traded Venezuelan Cement v. United States”, 18 June 2004,
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1016.html
The URAA and the SAA neither amend nor refine the language of § 1677(4)(C). In fact, they merely
suggest, without disqualifying other alternatives, a “clearly higher/substantial proportion” approach.
Indeed, the SAA specifically mentions that no “precise mathematical formula” or “‘benchmark’
proportion” is to be used for a dumping concentration analysis. SAA at 860 (citations omitted); see also
Venez. Cement, 279 F. Supp. 2d at 1329-30. Furthermore, as the Court of International Trade noted, the
SAA emphasizes that the Commission retains the discretion to determine concentration of imports on a
“case-by-case basis.” SAA at 860. Finally, the definition of the word “substantial” undercuts the
CFTVC’s argument. The word “substantial” generally means “considerable in amount, value or
worth.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2280 (1993). It does not imply a specific number
or cut-off. What may be substantial in one situation may not be in another situation. The very breadth
of the term “substantial” undercuts the CFTVC’s argument that Congress spoke clearly in establishing a
standard for the Commission’s regional antidumping and countervailing duty analyses. It therefore
supports the conclusion that the Commission is owed deference in its interpretation of “substantial
proportion.” The Commission clearly embarked on its analysis having been given considerable leeway
to interpret a particularly broad term.
“Substantial” means considerable.

Merriam Webster 9 – Merriam Webster Dictionary. [Substantial, carbon-dated 4-22-9,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantially]//BPS
substantial adjective sub·stan·tial | \ səb-ˈstan(t)-shəl \ Definition

of substantial 1a: consisting of or relating to
substance b: not imaginary or illusory : REAL, TRUE c: IMPORTANT, ESSENTIAL 2: ample to satisfy and nourish : FULL
a substantial meal 3a: possessed of means : WELL-TO-DO b: considerable in quantity : significantly great earned a substantial
wage 4: firmly constructed : STURDY a substantial house 5: being largely but not wholly that which is specified a substantial
lie Other Words from substantial substantial noun substantiality \ səb-ˌstan(t)-shē-ˈa-lə-tē \ noun substantially \ səb-ˈstan(t)-
sh(ə-)lē \ adverb substantialness \ səb-ˈstan(t)-shəl-nəs \ noun
“Substantial” means with substance

Words & Phrases 2 — Words and Phrases, 2002, Volume 40A, p. 460
“Substantial” means “belonging to substance; actually existing; real; *** not seeming or
Ala. 1909.
imaginary; not elusive; real; solid; true; veritable

ASPEC
2AC – ASPEC – T/L – S
We meet – we specified normal means for disads.
ASPEC is bad –
A) Predictability – not resolution, which is arbitrary and unfair.
B) Agent counterplans are bad – it is anti-educational and moves away from plan
focus.
2AC – ASPEC – T/L – M
We meet – we specified the USFG.
ASPEC is bad –
1 – Regressive – justifies minutia that moots the 1AC and obviates clash.
2 – Predictability – not resolutional, which is arbitrary and unfair.
3 – Agent counterplans are bad – artificial competition is anti-educational and steals
topic-specific offense.
[ ] Counter-interp – the plan is normal means.
[ ] Cross-x, pre-round, and 1AC solvency advocates check – key to flex.
Reasonability – anything else arbitrarily excludes topical affs.
2AC – ASPEC – T/L – L
No rez basis results in agent counterplans which are a voter --- should have asked in
cross-ex --- reasonability --- aspec trades-off with substance.
Counter interpretation: The aff does not have to specify beyond the resolution.
1 – We meet — we say spec USFG which is equivalent to specifying all 3 branches
2 – Process debates bad — they shift the debate to discussion of the minutia, which
encourages prep recycling and kills topic education — that outweighs — we only have
3 months to debate military aid, but AP gov solves their education args
3 – Arbitrary interps cause infinite regress — must spec branch, who votes, etc. — that
turns the AC into a 6 min plan text, which causes substance crowd out.
4 – Cross ex checks — shiftiness isn't tolerated, and you can flag an answer if a judge
isn't paying attention
5 – No abuse – we said in CX that we’d grant links to DA’s, and the onus is on the
negative to establish competition
6 – Reasonability – it less arbitrary since it evaluates abuse on a case-by-case basis and
avoids race to the top
1AR – Agent CPs
Agent CPs are bad—They destroy topic key warrants and just steal the aff.
1 – Court CPs body Congress affs because they can just fiat a ruling that does the aff.
2 – ESR can effectively do the same as Congress affs with executive orders.
But if it’s true they are good—T-Enact can generate competition and functional limits
checks—there are other CPs.
1AR – Predictability
Predictability—ASPEC is not resolutional—that’s arbitrary—affs don’t expect to
specify the actor in the 1AC. Interps will only shift from debate to debate.
1AR – DAs
Cross ex for normal means and solvency advocates check links to DAs.
NEW AFFS BAD

2AC – AT: New Affs Bad
We get to break new affs –
Tests debaters not coaches – key to test skill.
Forces quick thinking – most portable skill and outweighs their offense.
Discourages innovation – disclosure steals the strategic benefit to do new research,
which creates stale debates. Reasonability – good is good enough.
VAGUE PLAN
2AC – AT: Vague Plan
C/I – We only have to defend a topical policy.
Unpredictable – there’s no resolutional basis for specificity.
Most logical – they’re infinitely regressive, which results in half page plan texts.
Specific plans lose to PICs every round.
CX and solvency advocates check.
Reasonability – good is good enough.
PLAN FLAW
2AC – AT: Plan Flaw
C/I – We’ll defend solvency advocates and CX explanation for what the aff does – that
means we do solve.
Unpredictable – there’s no resolutional basis for specificity.
Most logical – they’re infinitely regressive, which results in half page plan texts.
Specific plans lose to PICs every round.
CX and solvency advocates check.
T – ENACT
2AC – T-Enact – All
W/M – the plan text says “enact CJR” – if they’re right, our agent is Congress.
W/M – we’ll defend links to Congress DAs.
C/I – Enact includes Court action.

Adam Wright, 13 - University of Michigan Law School, J.D. candidate, May 2014. Adam Wright is the
Executive Notes Editor for the Michigan Journal of Race & Law, Volume 19 (“Federal Constraints on
States’ Ability to License an Undocumented Immigrant to Practice Law” 19 MICH. J. RACE & L. 177
(2013). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol19/iss1/5 //DH
The text of the savings clause does not limit “enactments of State law” to legislative enactments.85 Opponents, nevertheless, argue
that only a legislature may enact a law .86 However, plain meaning and popular use of the word “enact” is not so
limited. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary does not define “enact” as an action exclusive to legislatures; it is merely defined as “to
establish by legal and authoritative act,” or “to make into law. . . .”87 “Enact” is not defined, nor is it generally
thought of, as an action unique to legislatures. Further, courts commonly refer to court-enacted rules. For
example, the California Supreme Court has discussed the “rules of court enacted in response to [a] constitutional amendment . . . .”,88 the
Delaware Supreme Court has referenced a “statute or rule of court enacted under authority of law”,89 and many other state supreme
courts and federal appellate courts often have pointed to court-enacted rules .90 These cases refer to court-
enacted rules that deal with bearing the cost of printing a transcript record,91 rules setting the requirements for appeal in state court
proceedings,92 and rules prescribing class action requirements.93 The plethora of these examples indicates that courts have not restricted the
ability to “enact” a law to the legislature. The fact that
these cases refer to court-enacted “rules” rather than “laws” is
of little significance. Similar to legislative enactments of law, court rules have “the force of law” and are in this important
way indistinguishable from legislative laws.94 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has stated that “[l]ocal rules have
the force of law, as long as they do not conflict with a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, Congress, or the Constitution.”95 The Committee,
citing Black’s Law Dictionary, notes, “‘[L]aw means more than statutes and includes legislation, judicial precedents, rules, and legal
principles . . .”96 Thus, it follows that a state court may enact a law sufficient to activate § 1621’s savings clause.
Agencies can enact.

House Commitee 53 (United States, Congress, House, Committee on Government Operations,
Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, “Investigation Into Commercial and Industrial-Type
Activities in the Federal Government,” 1953, pages 1201-1202, accessed through google books, gbn-skb)
“An administrative body may be given the power to suspend or repeal prior legislative enactments by administrative regulation within the
standard designated by the statute giving the administrative body the power to act. Despite the fact that the courts have frequently been
unwilling to employ language of such broad connotation, the rules and regulations of administrative bodies promulgated under constitutional
authority have the force and effect of law. If the structure of administrative law is to perform its intended functions, the regulations of an
administrative body must be give the same force and effect as statutes promulgated by the legislature. Therefore, where the legislature intends
by the statute in which the administrative
agency is given its power that the administrative agency regulations
enacted pursuant thereto should supersede prior inconsistent statutes, the administrative regulations
should be give a repealing effect.
First, offense.
1 – Aff ground. Their interp stacks the deck too far in favor of the neg through the:
- Courts CP, which solves every aff because it legally supersedes every other actor
- And the ESR CP, it quasi-legislates through XOs, controls policing and databases,
and solves sentencing through pardons
That skews competitive equity
2 – Functional overlimiting.
- Courts have intrinsic advantages about precedent, treaty incorporation, and strike-
down that other branches can’t solve
- And the executive has pardons and court nomination advantages
But Congress has no unique acting capacity that insulates it from ESR or Courts.
3 – Precision. Gideon and a consensus of current jurisprudence AND XOs like

Obamacare demonstrate courts and agencies now make functional law by enacting
rules.
4 – Neg ground. Packing, progressive opposition, pres powers, and elections are far
better than incoherent agenda DAs during corona.
Functional limits check – States, ESR, sunbursting, and PICing out of a ruling. There’s a
finite number of solvency advocates and all of them overlap.
Limits explosion inevitable – the rez is bidirectional AND infinite Congressional

processes.
Courts counterplans non-unique research.
Reasonability – voting on a marginal difference between our interps incentivizes

substance crowdout, which turns education.
2AC – T-Enact – Courts
C/I – Enact includes Court action.

Delaware Supreme Court has referenced a “statute or rule of court enacted under authority of law”,89 and many other state supreme
First, offense.
1 – Aff ground. Their interp stacks the deck too far in favor in favor of the neg through
the courts CP, which solves every aff because it legally supersedes every other actor –
skews competitive equity.
2 – Functional overlimiting. Courts have intrinsic advantages about precedent, treaty
incorporation, and strike-down that other branches can’t solve – but Congress has no
unique acting capacity that insulates it from ESR or Courts.
3 – Precision. Gideon and a consensus of current jurisprudence demonstrate courts
now make functional law by enacting rules.
4 – Neg ground. Packing and progressive opposition are far better than incoherent
agenda DAs during corona.
Functional limits check – States, sunbursting, and PICing out of a ruling. There’s a finite
number of solvency advocates and all of them overlap.

processes.
Courts counterplans non-unique research.

2AC – T-Enact – Agencies
C/I – Agencies can enact.

So can the Executive.

Rosenberg 81 (Morton Rosenberg, Specialist in American Public Law, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress, B.A. NYU, LL.B. Harvard, “Beyond the Limits of Executive Power: Power: Presidential
Control of Agency Rulemaking Under Executive Order 12,291,” 1981, Michigan Law Review, Volume 80,
Issue 2, accessed through UMich Law, gbn-skb)
Third, there is no assurance that policies enacted via executive order will be accompanied by a sufficiently broad
popular consensus. It is a matter of political reality that an elected candidate does not represent the views of his constituency on every
issue. Voters often elect a candidate because they support his position on issues that they consider fundamental, and they may disagree with
many of his other stances. If
permitted to legislate by executive order, the President can enact his less popular
policies with a simple stroke of his pen. In contrast, a congressman encounters greater difficulty because, unlike the President,
he must persuade a majority of Congress to accept his views. There is thus a much greater guarantee that legislation passed by Congress has
the wide popular support that the framers desired. Ironically, presidential control of the substantive products of the administrative process, a
measure sometimes urged to improve the accountability of the administrative process,83 actually reduces the voters' control over domestic
policy.84 History, precedent, and policy all favor viewing rulemaking as an exclusive legislative function properly controlled by Congress.
Prefer it –
1 – Aff ground. Their interp stacks the deck too far in favor in favor of the neg through
the ESR CP, which solves every aff because it quasi-legislates through XOs, controls
policing and databases, and solves sentencing through pardons – skews competitive
equity
2 – Functional overlimiting. The exec has intrinsic advantages about pardons and court
nominations that other branches can’t solve – Congress has no unique acting capacity
that insulates it from ESR.
3 – Neg ground. Elections and pres power bad are far better than incoherent agenda
DAs during corona.
4 – Predictability. Their authors only have an intent to exclude ESR, not include the
courts –
5 – Precision. XOs like Obamacare demonstrate agencies now enact functional law.

processes.
ESR counterplans non-unique research.

substance crowdout, which turns education
T – UNIDIRECTIONAL
2AC – T-Unidirectional – T/L
W/M – plan text in a vacuum – if their definition is correct it just changes the mandate
of the aff.
W/M – the plan is “soft on crime” – we weaken the state’s criminal justice system and
decrease federal sentencing.
W/M – the plan is “progressive” – we strengthen Indian legal and criminal

sovereignty.
C/I – reform is multi-directional and depends on the ideology of the person advancing
it.
Tonry 5 [Michael Tonry (Michael Tonry, Sonosky Professor of Law and Public Policy and Director,
Institute on Crime and Public Policy, University of Minnesota Law School; Senior Fellow, Netherlands
Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, Leiden), “The Functions of Sentencing and
Sentencing Reform”, Vol. 58 No. 1 Stan. L. Rev. P. 37-66, JSTOR, Accessible Online at
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40040251.pdf]
Sentencing reform is in the eye of the beholder. When most federal district court judges, assistant U.S.
Attorneys, and sentencing policy analysts recently would have said that the Federal Guidelines should be
made less prescriptive, less severe, and less rigid, Congressman Tom Feeney introduced and won
passage of a bill meant to make the Guidelines more prescriptive, more severe, and more rigid.1
"Sentencing reform" means very different things depending on whether the proponent wants
sentencing made softer, tougher, fairer, more consistent, more efficient, more economical, more
transparent, or more effective at preventing crime.2 Whether a proposed change counts in the eyes of
others as a reform depends on what the proponent wants to accomplish and whether others think that
a good thing.
The same observations apply to sentencing. Whether a sentencing system can be said to work well
depends on its purposes, what it is supposed to do, and how well it does that. Generally, when theorists
and lawyers refer to the "purposes" of punishment, they have normative rationales in mind. At a
normative level, some people think the primary purpose of sentencing is to impose deserved
punishments proportioned to offenders' culpability, some that sentences should aim optimally to
prevent crime, and most, probably, that sentencing should try to do both, to take account of crime-
prevention goals while to a significant extent apportioning punishment to blameworthiness.
Examination of normative purposes, however, is only the beginning of analysis of the effectiveness of a
sentencing system. Practitioners and policymakers want sentencing to accomplish other things as well.
These include efficiency, cost-effectiveness, public safety, and public confidence. They also sometimes
want sentencing systems, and legislation affecting them, to advance personal, ideolog
First, offense
1 – Plain meaning – reform means “change” or “incrementally improve” – imprecisely
asserting a limit prevents effective aff prep.
2 – Arbitrariness – no brightline for “progressive” or “soft on crime”. Ad hoc
interpretations kill aff predictability and rig goalposts.
3 – Topic context – history of reforms increased in stringency in policing and
sentencing. Aff uniqueness proves.
4 – Topic education – learning both sides of CJR is important.
Functional limits check – there’s less lit on hard on crime and the affs are worse
without the moral high ground or evidence quality
Limits explosion inevitable – forensic science means nothing AND infinite miniscule
progressive affs
No ground loss – they get base link elections and Dems backlash politics DAs – reverse
generics check research – they’re in aff files

1AR – C/I
C/I – “Sentencing reform” refers to a wholesale change in the sentencing process,
which doesn’t necessitate a certain ideology or action.
Kevin R. Reitz, 11 is the James Annenberg La Vea Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of
Minnesota. Crime and Public Policy, edited by James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersila, google books //DH
In current parlance, sentencing reform means wholesale change in a jurisdiction's sentencing system away from
the traditional model of indeterminacy. Hopefully this
can result in better institutional arrangements, better legal
structures for sentencing decisions, better process, better information, and better policy implementation. The
substantive use to which a new sentencing system will be put , however, is very much a separate question.
"Reformed" sentencing guidelines systems in America have been used to further policies of greater
severity in punishment—in some places at some times—as well as policies of increased lenity (Tonry 1996; American
Law Institute 2007). In this sense, sentencing reform is ideologically neutral. Even so, the pathways toward achieving systemic
reform are highly political. Large institutional changes affect the professional lives of many stakeholders in the
criminal justice system, and the perceived interests of important constituencies vary from place to place. For example, notwithstanding
the wide belief that prosecutors' powers are multiplied in a sentencing guidelines system, prosecutors' organizations have been formidable
opponents of guidelines reform in many states, including Colorado, Texas, Massachusetts, and California. In other states, like Washington and
Oregon, prosecutors have led the call for reform. Judges, too, have staked out different positions across jurisdictions: Judicial leadership was
key to the adoption of guidelines systems in Minnesota, Delaware, North Carolina, Missouri, and the District of Columbia (and ongloing
attempted reforms in Massachusetts). In other places, judges have been unsupportive or hostile to reform efforts, such as Colorado, New York,
Georgia, and the federal system.
T – AREAS
2AC – T-Areas – T/L
C/I – “Criminal justice” refers to police, criminal courts, and correctional institutions –
it’s distinct from criminal law.
Thomas J. Bernard, 8 - Professor, Criminal Justice and Sociology, Pennsylvania State University
(Encyclopedia Britannica, “Criminal justice” date according to Carbon Dating the Web,
https://www.britannica.com/topic/criminal-justice //DH the bold ‘criminal justice’ is in the original to
denote a definition
Criminal justice, interdisciplinary academic study of the police, criminal courts, correctional institutions (e.g.,
prisons), and juvenile justice agencies, as well as of the agents who operate within these institutions. Criminal
justice is distinct from criminal law, which defines the specific behaviours that are prohibited by and
punishable under law, and from criminology, which is the scientific study of the nonlegal aspects of crime and delinquency, including
their causes, correction, and prevention.
T – SENTENCING
2AC – T-Sentencing – T/L
of the aff
W/M – the plan increases constraints on punishment by limiting the ability of federal
judges to sentence non-Indians for crimes committed against Indians in Indian
Country.
W/M – sentencing guidelines change from federal to tribal.
C/I – “Sentencing reform” refers to a wholesale change in the sentencing process –

that’s distinct from the substantive content of sentences.
Kevin R. Reitz, 11 is the James Annenberg La Vea Professor of Criminal Procedure at the University of
Minnesota. Crime and Public Policy, edited by James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersila, google books //DH
In current parlance, sentencing reform means wholesale change in a jurisdiction's sentencing system away from
the traditional model of indeterminacy. Hopefully this
can result in better institutional arrangements, better legal
structures for sentencing decisions, better process, better information, and better policy implementation. The
substantive use to which a new sentencing system will be put, however, is very much a separate question.
"Reformed" sentencing guidelines systems in America have been used to further policies of greater
severity in punishment—in some places at some times—as well as policies of increased lenity (Tonry 1996; American
Law Institute 2007). In this sense, sentencing reform is ideologically neutral. Even so, the pathways toward achieving systemic
reform are highly political. Large institutional changes affect the professional lives of many stakeholders in the
criminal justice system, and the perceived interests of important constituencies vary from place to place. For example, notwithstanding
the wide belief that prosecutors' powers are multiplied in a sentencing guidelines system, prosecutors' organizations have been formidable
opponents of guidelines reform in many states, including Colorado, Texas, Massachusetts, and California. In other states, like Washington and
Oregon, prosecutors have led the call for reform. Judges, too, have staked out different positions across jurisdictions: Judicial leadership was
key to the adoption of guidelines systems in Minnesota, Delaware, North Carolina, Missouri, and the District of Columbia (and ongloing
attempted reforms in Massachusetts). In other places, judges have been unsupportive or hostile to reform efforts, such as Colorado, New York,
Georgia, and the federal system.
Prefer it,
1 – Topic education. Their interp excludes the heart of sentencing reform, which has
empirically been wholesale change.
2 – Predictability. Our interp defines “sentencing reform”, which is distinct from what
a sentence is.
3 – Aff ground. We need affs that enact changes in the sentencing process to beat
States, ESR, and Courts because only Congress has jurisdiction. Anything else skews
competitive equity.
4 – Limits. Our interpretation only allows for a few affs in each area of the topic by
forcing a defense of wholesale change.
5 – Neg ground. Requiring wholesale change produces better links to politics, election,
and packing. Otherwise, the neg will lose to tiny affs that modify specific
announcements that don’t link to anything.
Functional limits – affs that marginally effect wholesale change have no solvency
advocates and lose to circumvention

1AR – W/M
The aff gives tribes authority over sentencing and policing of non-Natives – power to
prosecute logically follows – that’s reform because we change the actors who do the
sentencing or policing.
T-POLICING
2AC – T-Policing – T/L
of the aff
W/M – the plan increases constraints on punishment by limiting the ability of federal
judges to sentence non-Indians for crimes committed against Indians in Indian
Country.
W/M – sentencing guidelines change from federal to tribal.
C/I – “Policing” are the functions, systems, and services involved with law
enforcement and prosecution.
---no civilian policing or behavioral stuff
---no military
---no external usage
Akin Karatay 09, University of Southern Mississippi, “An Assessment of Democratic Policing in the
Turkish National Police: Police: Police Officials' Attitudes Toward Recent Police Reforms,” Aquila Digital
Community, https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2092&context=dissertations
Definitions of Key Terms
It is very important to discuss what the terms policing and police mean. According to Manning (2003, p. 33), there is
no consensus in the definition of policing. As a term, police originates from the ancient Greek and refers
to the regulating, governing, and administering civic and political life (Aydin, 1997; Manning, 1977 & 2003).
Researchers have variously defined police in terms of organizational structure, function, culture, or
political and theoretical orientations (Aydin, 1997). In other words, the definition depends on the
perspective or position from which people assess the construct 'police.'
The terms "police" and "policing" are generally described at three levels: a) state and political level, b)
organizational level and c) street level (Shearing, 1994 cited in Marenin, 1998). Most theories of police and policing seek to
acknowledge the police behavior, nature of the work in policing as an insider perspective and the legal arrangements and power relationships
of policing as an outsider perspective in order to understand the interconnections the concepts of police and policing with civil society, state
and the international system (Marenin, 1998). The functions, law enforcement , order maintenance and the use of force, can
define police and policing in classical terms in some cultures whereas the patterns of power and constraints in policing, protecting rights and
liberties and promoting political development, can address broad, modern and democratic description of policing in liberal democracies.
The term police can be defined as the people who are recruited, trained, and uniformed by government
and given the authority to arrest and use deadly force (Bayley & Shearing, 1996). The term policing can be
described as a body of functions and services, ranging from law enforcement responses to crime in
either the preventive or the prosecutorial aspects, to promoting various quality-of-life aspects of the
community (Forst, 1999, p. 3). Manning (2005a) defines policing in a cross-national context. Policing can involve sacred policing (e.g., Iran),
totalitarian policing (e.g., the former Soviet Union, North Korea), continental policing (e.g., Germany, France), transnational policing (e.g.,
United Nations peacekeeping forces), and private or corporate policing (e.g., privatized military industry) (Manning, 2005a). Skolnick's (1975)
description of the police role is highly profound. He contends that policing is influenced by "police milieu, danger, authority and efficiency" and
that these elements generate distinctive cognitive and behavioral patterns which can be characterized as the "working personality" (p. 42) of
the police.
Bayley (1985, p. 7) describes the police as "authorized by a group to regulate interpersonal relations within the group through the application of
physical force." This definition has three important elements for describing cross-national policing: physical force,
internal usage, and collective authorization. From an international point of view, the police are
generally regarded as having the power, authorized by government, to enforce the law and protect
citizens for certain but limited purposes. This description is appropriate for this study because the police, as Bayley (1985)
describes, have a distinct form that is different from the military, and it represents a state monopoly that enables
the use of force in a legitimate way when authorized by a democratic authority. In the Turkish context, the police
and their duties are described in Act of Police Duties and Powers of 2559 (PVSK, 1934). Article 1 states that
The police maintain order; protect the public, property, and people in their homes; protect moral values, lives of people, and
property of the society; and maintain peace in the society. The police render help by responding to calls and to needy children, the
impaired and vulnerable people. Police carry out duties assigned/designated by the law. (PVSK, 1934, para.l)
Prefer it,
1 – Topic education. Their interp excludes the heart of sentencing reform, which has
empirically been wholesale change.
2 – Aff ground. We need affs that enact changes in the sentencing process to beat
States, ESR, and Courts because only Congress has jurisdiction. Anything else skews
competitive equity.
3 – Limits. Our interpretation differentiates between police and policing. only allows
for a few affs in each area of the topic by forcing a defense of wholesale change.
4 – Neg ground. Requiring wholesale change produces better links to politics, election,
and packing. Otherwise, the neg will lose to tiny affs that modify specific
announcements that don’t link to anything.
Functional limits – affs that marginally effect wholesale change have no solvency
advocates and lose to circumvention

1AR – C/I
Precision—“Policing” and “police” are distinct—The former is a term of art that refers
to the institutional structure—The defining feature of doing criminal justice reform of
policing in the United States specifically is changing the structures INSTEAD of focusing
on individual police.
Davis 16 – former Director for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) in the DOJ &
Executive Director of Obama’s Task Force on 21 st Century Policing
Ronald L. Davis, Director for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) in the
Department of Justice, appointed by United States Attorney General Eric Holder in November 2013, In
December 2014, President Obama appointed Director Davis to serve as the Executive Director of the
newly created President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Police Reform vs. Policing Reform, 2016,
https://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/08-2016/police_reform.asp
Policing in the United States is unique in that it is neither centralized, as is the case in many countries,
nor does it fall under the direct control of the Federal Government. Each of the approximately 18,000
local, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies in the nation falls under the control of a local governing
body, executive, or elected official(s). Local control is arguably one of the key characteristics that makes
the American policing system unique. It is also the characteristic that presents the greatest challenge to
establishing standardized ethical and professional practices within a system few deny is in need of
reform.
Yet the discussion of police reform seems to focus primarily on individual officer behavior and ignores
the operational systems that have an even greater impact on policing outcomes. The great
management guru William Edward Deming captured this notion through his 85/15 rule, which says that
85 percent of the problems in any organization are system-related while only 15 percent are worker-
related.
Rank-and-file officers do not decide organizational policies and practices. Nor do officers establish hiring
standards or have the power to administer discipline. They also do not decide whether an agency
embraces crime-reduction strategies that result in racial disparities. Yet when disparities or other
systemic problems do occur, rank-and-file officers are quickly demonized and blamed for those
outcomes.
There is no question that rank-and-file officers must be held accountable for their actions. However, if
the systems in which they operate are flawed, even good officers can have bad outcomes.
If we are to achieve real and sustainable reform in law enforcement, our focus must shift from the
police (those individuals sworn to uphold the law) to policing systems (the policies, practices, and
culture of police organizations). And through reform, our policing systems must identify not just the
roles and responsibilities of the police but the roles and responsibilities of the community as well.
After all, communities are a vital part of the policing system. In the words of Sir Robert Peel, the
founder of modern law enforcement, “The police are the public and the public are the police; the police
being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent
on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”
To separate the community from the policing system is akin to separating patients from the health care
system or students from the education system. Indeed, even the best teacher cannot help a student
who refuses to study. Nor can a doctor cure a patient who refuses to take prescribed medication or to
follow the doctor’s orders. The same applies to policing. The level of community involvement in the
policing system and the level of personal responsibility each community member assumes by
cooperating or collaborating with the police greatly impact the outcome of the system. Focusing on the
policing system does not ignore or excuse the misconduct of individual police officers. To the contrary,
the stronger the policing system, the more likely bad officers will be identified and removed from
service. The stronger the policing system, the more likely the culture of police organizations will reject
officer misconduct and embrace accountability and transparency. And the stronger the policing system,
the more likely recruitment and hiring practices will focus not only on hiring diverse, qualified
candidates who reflect the communities they serve but also on hiring candidates who see themselves as
members of that community.
As a veteran police officer with almost 30 years of experience serving communities in Oakland and East
Palo Alto, California, I feel optimistic about the future of the American policing system.
The reason I have faith in a positive future for American policing, even amid a growing chasm of distrust
between the police and many communities, is that I see firsthand the outstanding work the vast
majority of dedicated men and women in law enforcement do every day. I see them take great efforts to
identify the best ways to serve their communities. And I see evidence that many communities, even
those that feel the most disenfranchised, yearn for a stronger relationship with the police. People in
neighborhoods all across the country are working diligently and in collaboration with the police to make
sure their communities are treated fairly not only by the law enforcement officials who are sworn to
serve and protect them but also by the policing systems in which those officers operate.
We are at a defining moment in American policing history. Our collective efforts to meet the challenges
we have faced over the past few years have opened a unique but very small window of opportunity—a
window through which both police and the communities they serve see the need for policing reform
and recognize the necessity of working together to achieve success.
The Final Report of the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing provides a roadmap for this
reform. The task force report outlines 59 recommendations that, when implemented, will result in
positive changes in the American policing system and organizational transformation within individual
law enforcement agencies.
It is my hope that law enforcement officials across the country not only will read the task force report
but will also use its insights, information, and recommendations to reform the policing systems in their
own departments.
Let’s not waste this unique opportunity on bickering and finger pointing. Instead, let’s forge ahead
together to reform the American policing system to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Affecting
change is never easy, but as President John F. Kennedy said, “Change is the law of life. And those who
look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.”
T – SUBSETS
2AC – T-Subsets – T/L
W/M – the aff is large and wholesale reform of policing
W/M – changing one part of the CJS changes the whole
C/I – criminal justice reform includes both incremental and large-scale reforms
Blanco et al 4 (Rafael Blanco, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Richard Hutt, Cook County Public
Defender, Hugo Rojas, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Issue 2 Spring/Summer 2004, "Reform to the
Criminal Justice System in Chile: Evaluation and Challenges", Loyola University Chicago International Law
Review, https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=lucilr, JRB)
IV. Evaluation of the Reform Process Theprocess of criminal justice reform, as in the case of all political processes, requires periods of
evaluation which permit modifications and changes in both strategic planning and day-to-day systemic
operation. The idea is to identify advances and successes, as well as challenges, as the process moves
onward. Indeed, all such political processes must pass the test of public scrutiny as well as being tested by political scientists and economists. During this period,
the administration of President Eduardo Frei and the current administration of President Ricardo Lagos have closely followed the reformation of the Code of
Criminal Justice. 3' At the same time, there have been ongoing studies by universities and private organizations that have contributed immensely to both a financial
and political understanding of the entire process. 32 These studies have identified significant successes in this process in the following areas: (a) transparency; (b)
speed; (c) contact; (d) orality; (e) due process; (f) impartiality; (g) protection; and (h) professionalism.
“Policing” cannot be reduced to an essential institution or function. Conceptual clarity

under a unified theory of policing is impossible – imposing one onto the aff fails
Alan Wright (lecturer at the Institute of Criminal Justice Studies at the University of Portsmouth,
Honorary Research Fellow at Keele University, and former police officer) 2002 “Policing: An
introduction to concepts and practice” p. 38 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843924708
In the senses intended by Ryle and Gallie, therefore, it is logically impossible to give a singular
definitional account of the essence of policing. We cannot specify in advance all the kinds of intentions,
actions and outcomes that the concept might entail. The conceptual clarity that would be necessary to
underpin essentialist claims is always lacking . It is always necessary to resort to argumentation about
the nature of the concept in the actual world in which we find ourselves. In this sense, we are right to
regard the meanings of 'policing' as contested. It does not suffice to suggest that such concepts have a
natural meaning and that contestedness is simply a mistake over their true nature. In the words of
Douglas (1992: 9), 'Knowledge always lacks, ambiguity always lurks'. Also, as Gallie shows, to understand
the nature of such concepts, we need not only ask for their use in practice but also for their history.
Understanding such concepts, as this discussion has tried to show, is as much a matter of grasping their
historical development in practice (in dispute and discussion) as it is for empirical criminological science.
Of course, if these claims about the problematic nature of meaning are correct, it should not be
surprising that there are seemingly endless disputes among both criminologists and practitioners about
policing. However, it is precisely the contested nature of policing that should alert us to the fact that no
single function or set of functions can serve to define its essence. Indeed, it is the very diversity and
contested nature of policing that now allows us to break free from the pretence that its meaning is
defined by the functions of 'the police'. When we review the concept of policing, therefore, we should
interpret the whole range of meaning implied by the use of the term in practice. In doing so, we find
that the variety of usage leads us towards comparison of particular kinds of resemblance. For example,
in using the term 'policing', we connote different types of activity that are alike in some ways but
different in others. The danger is that we might persist in the essentialist claim that there is one and only
one thing that is truly policing or that the essence of policing should be defined in some irreducible way.
Even Bittner, who has provided us with perhaps the most illuminating accounts of certain kinds of
policing, has been tempted to take this line (Bittner, 1970). Although he shows that local police often
have the end of peacekeeping in mind more than that of law enforcement, his purview of policing across
a wider range of its contemporary practice remains limited.
Many kinds of policing are possible within the variety of ways in which we can legitimately use the term.
Indeed, it now becomes clear why some of the classical works on policing have not tried to create a
unified theory of policing. They have not done so because their authors have long recognised the futility
of the exercise, given the endemic ambiguity of the subject. In any discussion of police science, serious
conceptual problems will always arise that will confound even the most determined determinist. Given
the conceptual polymorphism and contestability that is endemic in the practice and study of policing, we
should not be surprised at this. Nor should we be surprised at the recourse to historical narrative and
interpretation in much recent criminology, including that in Reiner (1992a, 2000a). But we can certainly
no longer resort to an analysis of the functions of the police to provide us with either a theoretical or
practical understanding of the complexities of policing. To rely on this, given the difficulties outlined
above, is no longer a viable option.
First, offense
1 – Overlimiting. The only topical aff is abolition of each of the 3 areas. Anything else is
a “subset.” That kills innovation, research, and fairness
2 – Predictability. “Reform” implies incrementalism, as does the history of legal
change in criminal justice.
3 – Arbitrariness. There’s no consensus on what is “wholesale”. Ad hoc interpretations
kill aff predictability and rig goalposts.
4 – Aff ground. Requiring wholesale change supercharges PICs, distorts topic
education.
Functional limits check – States and ESR bodies affs. Soft left affs lose to DAs. There’s a
finite number of solvency advocates and all of them overlap

T – SUBSTANTIAL
2AC – T-Subs – Reduce Incarc
W/M – solving jurisdictional ambiguity deters violent offenders which reduces
incarceration rates.
W/M – plan text in a vacuum
First, offense
1 – Predictability – it’s arbitrary to form some random cutoff AND to reduce
incarceration. That kills effective aff prep.
2 – Overlimiting – forcing massive changes kills aff innovation and explodes the link to
DAs
3 – Aff ground – requiring wholesale change supercharges PICs, distorts topic
education.
Functional limits – Generics bodies affs. Soft left affs lose to DAs. There’s a finite
number of solvency advocates and all of them overlap

2AC – T-Subs – Major
C/I – substantial is having substance and does not require quantification—
overwhelming legal consensus, and consistent with dictionary definitions and plain
meaning. Cherry-picking the 5th definition in the dictionary is arbitrary
Van Antwerpen 5 – Judge, US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Interfaith Community Org. v. Honeywell Int’l, 426 F.3d 694 (3d Cir. 2005), available at
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1170899.html
This approach, we believe, is most faithful to the statutory language, especially as to the word
"substantial." See, e.g., United States v. Union Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 356, 399-400 (E.D. Pa. 2003)
(observing that RCRA's "substantial" requirement "'does not require quantification of the
endangerment (e.g., proof that a certain number of persons will be exposed . . . or that a water supply
will be contaminated to a specific degree)'") (quoting United States v. Conservation Chemical Co., 619 F.
Supp. 162, 194 (W.D. Mo. 1985)). For the reasons we discuss infra, we believe that HN17 decisions such
as Parker, [**23] Cox, Union Corp., and Conservation Chemical define "substantial" in a manner
consistent with the statutory language, the legislative history, and the plain meaning of that word. See,
e.g., Cox, 256 F.3d at 300 (stating that "an endangerment is 'substantial' if it is 'serious'"); Union Corp.,
259 F. Supp. 2d at 400 (stating that a RCRA "endangerment is substantial if there is some reasonable
cause for concern that someone or something may be exposed to a risk of harm . . . if remedial action is
not taken.") (internal quotation omitted). We do not disagree that, given RCRA's language and purpose,
Congress must have intended that "if an error is to be made in applying the endangerment standard, the
error must be made in favor of protecting public health, welfare and the environment." Conservation
Chemical, 619 F. Supp. at 194. Here, the District Court added four additional requirements to the
endangerment showing. These held plaintiffs to a higher than needed showing for success on the merits
under § 6972(a)(1)(B). The additional requirements were as follows: [A] site "may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment" [**24] within the meaning of RCRA where: (1) there is a potential
population at risk; (2) the contaminant at issue is a RCRA "solid" or "hazardous waste"; (3) the
contaminant is present at levels above that considered acceptable by the state; and (4) there is a
pathway for current and/or future exposure. Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 263 F. Supp.
2d 796, at 838 (2003). At least two of these requirements are irreconcilable with § 6972(a)(1)(B). 5 The
first requirement requires a "population," but HN18 § 6972(a)(1)(B)'s disjunctive phrasing, "or
environment," means a living population is not required for success on the merits, as we discuss infra.
The third requirement, apparently intended by the District Court to give quantitative meaning to the
word "substantial" in § 6972(a)(1)(B), is similarly without support. The word "substantial" is not defined
by the statute or its legislative history. Turning to a dictionary, we find that "substantial" means "having
substance" and "not imaginary"; only as the last of several definitions does the dictionary offer "of
considerable size or amount." Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary 1817 (2d ed. 1983).
These definitions do not support one particular [**25] type of quantification measurement, such as the
District Court's requirement that there be an exceedence of state standards. Honeywell, tacitly following
Cox, 256 F.3d at 300, equates "substantial" with "serious," which also does not support one particular
type of quantification measurement. As noted, the word "substantial" is not defined by the statute or its
legislative [*260] history, and we have not found any binding authority which stands contrary to this
analysis. It is thus difficult to see how § 6972(a)(1)(B) justifies the kind of hurdle created by the District
Court's third quantitative requirement - let alone the even higher requirements for "substantial" that
Honeywell argues for, without citation. Honeywell's arguments actually [**26] provide an additional
reason why we will not read state standards into the language of this federal law. Honeywell contends
that its conceded discharges into the Hackensack River could not possibly be "substantial" because New
Jersey has not yet established a remedial standard for river sediment chromium. We do not believe that
Congress intended § 6972(a)(1)(B) to be dependent upon the states in such a manner, and the statutory
language provides no support for such dependency. When Congress enacted RCRA in 1976, it sought to
close "the last remaining loophole in environmental law, that of unregulated land disposal of discarded
materials and hazardous wastes." H.R. Rep. No. 1491, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 4, reprinted in 1976
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6238, 6241. As we have noted, there is no definition or explanation of the meaning of
"substantial," but a discussion of RCRA's amendments observes that HN19 § 6972(a)(1)(B) is "'intended to
confer upon the courts the authority to eliminate any risks posed by toxic wastes,'" S. Rep. No. 98-284,
98th Cong., 1st Sess. at 59 (1983) (quoting Price, 688 F.3d at 213-14), and further that courts should
"recogniz[e] that risk may be assessed [**27] from suspected, but not completely substantiated,
relationships between imperfect data, or from probative preliminary data not yet certifiable as fact." Id.
(internal quotations and citations omitted). This supports neither the District Court's particular
quantitative requirement nor the even higher and more narrow quantitative standards that Honeywell
would have us impose. Decisions of the other courts of appeals are not to the contrary. None require a
particular quantitative showing as a sine qua non for liability. See Parker, 386 F.3d at 1015 (considering
evidence of contamination at levels requiring landfill operator to notify state agency but determining
substantialness on totality of the evidence); Cox, 256 F.3d at 299-301 (finding endangerments at two
dumps on totality of the evidence; considering evidence of exceedences as to only one dump); Dague,
935 F.2d at 1356 (affirming endangerment finding without considering any quantitative evidence).
First, offense
1 – Predictability – it’s arbitrary to form some random cutoff AND no one knows what
it means to reform by some percent. That kills effective aff prep
2 – Overlimiting – forcing massive changes kills aff innovation and explodes the link to
DAs
3 – Aff ground – requiring wholesale change supercharges PICs, distorts topic
education.
Functional limits – States and ESR bodies affs. Soft left affs lose to DAs. There’s a finite
number of solvency advocates and all of them overlap

T – IN THE US
2AC – T-In the US – T/L
W/M – we enact criminal justice reform in the US.
“In” means within, not “throughout”.

Cullen 52 – Cullen, Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 52, Commissioner, Court of Appeals of Kentucky,
November 13, 1952 Riehl et al. V. Kentucky unemployment compensation commission; the judgment is
affirmed. Rehearing denied; COMBS, J., and SIMS, C. J., dissenting.
http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19521113_0040095.KY.htm/qx
We do not find any ambiguity in KRS 341.070(1). It is our opinion that the
key word in the statute is the word 'in,' preceding
the words 'each of three calendar quarters', and if the word is accorded its ordinary and common meaning, the statute
does not require simultaneous employment. According to Webster's New International Dictionary, the word
'in,' used with relation to a period of time, means 'during the course of.' The same meaning, expressed in another
way, would be 'within the limits or duration of.' Employing this meaning, the statute says that an employer is subject to the Act if,
during the course of, or within the limits or duration of each of three calendar quarters, he had in covered employment four or more workers,
to each of whom the required amount of wages was paid. This clearly means that the employment need not be simultaneous. Obviously,
the word 'in' does not mean 'throughout' or 'for the entire period of,' because then there would be
no point in adding the requirement of the payment of a minimum of $50 in wages. In these times, no worker
employed for a full calendar quarter would be paid less than $50 in wages. The appellant seeks to read into the statute the words 'at the same
time,' following the words 'had in covered employment'. There is no justification for this, unless the word 'in' means 'during any one period of
time in.' We are not aware of any authority for ascribing such a meaning to the word 'in'.
Indian country is “in the US”.

NCAI ‘ND [oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization
serving the broad interests of tribal governments and communities; No Date; "Tribal Nations and the
United States"; National Congress of American Indians;
http://www.ncai.org/attachments/policypaper_vmqazpeqbvzdmeadvbupwtszlmzyzbkoknqrxnuyovmoy
fkewgh_tribal%20nations%20and%20the%20united%20states_an%20introduction.pdf; Accessed 9-19-
2020; LR]
There are approximately 326 Indian land areas in the United States administered as federal Indian reservations (i.e.,
reservations, pueblos, rancherias, missions, villages, communities, etc.)
CP
CP – ESSENTIALS
2AC – Conditionality
Conditionality is a voter – discourages 2AC straight turns, encourages multiple bad
positions which causes information overload, and allows for contradictory positions
which skews aff time and strategy, results in argument irresponsibility, and destroys
policy analysis – that kills fairness, clash, and research.
2AC – Process CPs
Reject Process CPs – hypergenerics ruin the educational benefits of debate by stealing
the aff and making every debate about normal means instead of CJR while artificially
inflating the strategic value of bad DAs.
Substantial neg disagreement with the plan is vital to clash — they remove incentives
for rigorous research and content mastery by shifting the focus from policy-based DAs
to fiat-based process DAs. Debatability outweighs marginal “real world” gains —
mastering the details of CJR policy teaches interdisciplinary research, trains synthesis
and analysis skills, and rewards grit.
Limited intrinsicness should be the litmus test – if the net benefit isn’t germane to the
aff, you grant perms that do their process over other issues.
2AC – Delay CPs
Reject “delay” counterplans because they create an impossible aff burden and dodge
central topic controversies. Substantial neg disagreement with the plan is vital to clash
— “do it later” removes incentives for rigorous research and content mastery by
shifting the focus from policy-based DAs to fiat-based process DAs. Debatability
outweighs marginal “real world” gains — mastering the details of CJR policy teaches
interdisciplinary research, trains synthesis and analysis skills, and rewards grit.
Overemphasis on “realism” ruins the game and doesn’t make sense because fiat itself
isn’t “real.”
2AC – PICs
PICs are a voting issue – creates vague plan writing that undermines topic education
and steals the 1AC by refocusing the debate unpredictably which obviates the core
topic controversy – disads solve their offense.
2AC – Consult CPs
Reject Consult CPs — they destroy aff ground and distort the topic, hurting depth and
clash over core controversies. DAs are sufficient to “test” the plan, but consult
counterplans artificially inflate the strategic value of bad DAs. Reject the argument
and the team to discourage bad practices and encourage case-specific research and
clash.
2AC – Agent CPs
Agent CP’s are a voter – steals the aff and distracts from the core controversy, which
makes being aff unfair and debates uneducational.
2AC – Word PICs
2AC – Solvency Advocate
Counterplans must have a solvency advocate for every plank – lit guides predictability
and allows us to know the mandate which is key to clash and is the only way to
determine they aren’t just making stuff up.
2AC – International Fiat
International fiat is a voting issue – it justifies object fiat which steals all aff ground
and is illogical since no rational actor an choose between the CP and plan. They get
“request” counterplans.
2AC – Judge Kick
Judge kick is bad –
Skews aff strategy – the neg could extend everything shoddily with judge kick – we
shouldn’t have to give 2 2ARs – that kills clash
Encourages judge intervention – it’s unfair and disincentivizes tactical thinking
2AC – Attitudinal Fiat
Attitudinal fiat is bad – It’s infinitely regressive, lets them fiat through our impacts,
and destroys topic education. Our interp – CPs must defend a governmental body
enacting a policy action
2AC – 2NC CPs
2NC CPs are bad—time skews the 1AR, gets them out of disclosing CPs, and kills aff
flex.
2AC – CP Competition
Counterplans compete functionally and textually –
1 – Functional only CPs justify poorly written CPs and is arbitrary – it’s impossible to
define the function perfectly.
2 – Textual only CPs justify word PICs and synonyms – that centers the debate on
grammatical minutia which is unpredictable and kills aff ground – it’s not logical – the
words “do both” would be textually intrinsic – words have meaning beyond the letters
on the page.
Forcing CPs to be both solves by giving us perms to test either. The only portable skill
is opportunity cost assessment and preserves the same neg ground as long as they
read a different plan
ADVANTAGE CPS
2AC – Advantage CP – T/L
Permutation do both.
1 – It shields the link.
[ ] AT – Politics:
The combination of planks ensure the overall bill is bipartisan. The plan is a drop in
the bucket and wouldn’t be politicized.
[ ] AT – Elections:
The combination of planks means the GOP/Trump wouldn’t isolate CJR. If they take
credit, it wouldn’t make a difference because overall public perception would be
neutral.
2 – We’re permuting every combination of current, new, and modified planks.
Advantage CPs are a voter – they only test intrinsicness and they fiat through ILs.
Reject the team to deter abuse. And give us intrinsic perms to test whether the das
are intrinsic to the aff or if they can be avoided through small fixes.
2AC – Conditional Planks
Conditional multi-plank counterplans are a voter.
1 – Solvency deficits. It is unreasonable to expect the aff to have them because
unlimited planks means the plan would have to be more than perfect.
2 – Offense. Each plank introduced should have a potential cost through 2AC disads,
but because they are conditional the aff has no incentive to research them.
3 – Addons. They become negative time tradeoffs because the 2NC can add planks.
The combination of abuse discourages clash and makes being aff impossible.
Introducing unconditional planks only in the 1NC solves.
Arbitrariness is inevitable. Rules like what constitutes fiat, clipping, disclosure, etc. are
all arbitrary but necessary to preserve competitive equity.
Aff sandbagging is predictable, if they had cut solvency advocates for each plank they
would be able to identify and find answers to offense.
Don’t judgekick. Having to give multiple 2AR’s is an egregious time skew. There’s no
impact to “logic”, and conditionality doesn’t justify it because the neg never decides
whether or not to kick it.
2AC – Opt In CP – T/L
Perm do the CP – opt-in could be the reform the aff does.
Perm do both
Can’t solve – continued jurisdictional ambiguity
Miscut ev – it’s about downward departures NOT the aff – the plan gives Indians full
sentencing authority. Peninsula reads yellow.
BJ 1AC Jones & Christopher J. Ironroad 13, Director, Tribal Judicial Institute, University of North
Dakota School of Law, Chief Judge, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate, Chief Justice, Turtle Mountain Tribal
Court of Appeals; Associate Judge Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Court and Fort Berthold District Court;
*Associate at the Washington, D.C. office of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, J.D.,
University of North Dakota School of Law, member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, where he has
previously served as a law clerk to the Chief Judge, “Addressing Sentencing Disparities for Tribal Citizens
in the Dakotas: A Tribal Sovereignty Approach,” North Dakota Law Review, No. 1, 2013,
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/nordak89&i=57
V. REMEDYING THE DISPARATE SENTENCING OF NATIVE AMERICANS
Federal courts should be granted the authority, upon the exercise of an opt-in by an Indian tribe which
exercises governmental authority over the Indian Country where a particular crime occurs, to depart downward and
impose a sentence upon a Native offender comparable to a typical sentence imposed in a state court for
a similar offense if the disparity in state and federal law is of a certain significance . The degree of
significance is open to debate, as is the issue of whether federal courts should be able to depart upward
in cases where the federal sentence is significantly less than that typically imposed by state law . Arguments
could be made that such an upward departure would be the logical extension of giving Indian tribes some input into federal sentencing
decisions. A federal probation officer could furnish the information pertaining to a comparable state court system, factoring in parole eligibility
and good time computation, in a pre-sentence report, which would then permit a federal judge to determine whether his discretion to depart
downward (or upward) is triggered.
A similar argument could be made for non-Indian offenders who are prosecuted in federal court under the
provisions of the General Crimes Act, 93 but it is politically as well as constitutionally dubious whether an Indian tribe could be given an opt-in
that may determine a non-Indian's sentence. However, Congress may see fit to permit a downward or upward departure in those cases if the
Indian tribe with jurisdiction over the particular territory where the crime occurred has chosen to opt in.
Permitting such tribal authority is not unheard of. Currently, under federal law, if a tribal citizen commits a
crime that is prosecutable under either the Major Crimes Act or the General Crimes Act, and a potential penalty could be
death under federal law, the death penalty is not an option unless the Indian tribe with jurisdiction over the
territory where the crime occurred has opted in to the death penalty by tribal resolution.94 If the imposition of the
death penalty for crimes in Indian Country is contingent upon some tribal input, why not the disparity issue raised by this article? Similarly, the
federal career offender rule-which mandates the imposition of harsher sentences in federal courts upon those persons who have committed
prior crimes-does not apply in Indian Country unless a tribe has opted in.95 Nor does the law permitting a federal court to treat a minor under
sixteen as an adult for purposes of a criminal prosecution in federal court apply to youthful Indian offenders unless there is an opt-in.96
All of these models can be utilized in drafting legislation to permit an opt-in to address the sentencing
disparity issue. Some have suggested that the tribal opt-in should permit a tribe to require state sentencing in all cases involving tribal
citizens prosecuted in that tribe's jurisdiction.97 Although this is certainly an option, the
authors do not believe that the opt-in
should be triggered unless there is a significant disparity in sentences. Indian tribes may be disinclined to
opt in to state sentencing schemes because of the mistrust of state laws and institutions and the law
will therefore never be utilized. Additionally, there is no moral imperative to apply state sentencing law in
cases where the federal sentence imposed is similar to the state sentence, taking parole and early
release into consideration. The problem that this article addresses is not the fact that Indian citizens are sentenced to federal prison
for significant time, but that sometimes the sentences they receive are so far out of proportion to what a person would receive in state court
that an injustice occurs. This problem does not exist with regard to other federal crimes because it is only in Indian Country that the United
States prosecutes certain crimes generally left to state jurisdictions everywhere else in the United States.
Some may suggest that the United States Sentencing Commission can simply add another ground to
downwardly depart from a presumptive sentence under the sentencing guidelines to address these disparities, as opposed to
Congress enacting legislation that includes a tribal opt-in provision. This approach, however, ignores the fact that some tribal
governments may be supportive of the imposition of harsher sentences upon those who commit
crimes within their communities, especially since most victims of those crimes are other tribal citizens.
It would be presumptuous to believe that all tribes would be supportive of the ability of a federal
court to depart downward, or upward for that matter, on a sentence when a disparity issue exists. The tribal
opt-in, in certain cases in which the disparity is substantial, is the friendlier solution to respecting
tribal sovereignty.
Of course, some problems will have to be addressed. Suppose for example, a tribal citizen is operating a
motor vehicle while under the influence and has an accident resulting in the death of a passenger. This
crime is prosecuted as involuntary manslaughter under federal law, while the state may define it as
vehicular homicide. The presumptive sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines is forty-eight
months, while the standard sentence for a first-time offender in the state system is eight months-after
giving good time credit and parole eligibility consideration. This disparity should be significant enough to
trigger the tribal opt-in and the right of the federal sentencing judge to depart downward. The state
sentence, however, is premised upon certain factors that the federal court cannot yet predict, including
the likeliness of the defendant to behave himself in prison in order to become eligible for parole. This
issue will have to be addressed in some manner.
Just as with the remedy for the disparities in sentencing for crack cocaine and powder cocaine,98 resentencing should be an option for those
tribal citizens whom have felt the brunt of the disparities and are currently serving federal sentences. Certainly for Ms. Deegan and Mr.
Boneshirt, if the Three Affiliated Tribes and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe
exercise the opt-in then resentencing may be
available to them under federal law. In short, the sentences imposed upon these defendants and other
Native defendants should be revisited. Absent some legislative fix, their cases certainly cry out for
some clemency or resentencing.
VI. CONCLUSION
It has been more than ten years since the United States Sentencing Commission received the Advisory Group Report detailing the disparate
federal sentencing of Native Americans, an issue the Report notes existed well before its issuance. However, despite the Report's findings and
recommendations, Native Americans continue to be disparately sentenced when compared to others
similarly situated, who are sentenced for similar conduct under state law. Let the United States do justice for Native
Americans by enacting legislation that will allow all Americans in this instance to be treated equally by
permitting a tribal voice in the imposition of criminal sentences upon tribal citizens. Such legislation would be
both just and a demonstration of the United States fulfilling its trust responsibility to Indian nations and their citizens.
No net benefit – Indian tribes could just decide not to sentence anyone if they don’t
want to.
2AC – State Compact CP – T/L
Distrust means say no, cross deputization causes under and over policing, and it
weakens tribal arrest authority.
Cooperative agreements, however, are no panacea. First, crossdeputization agreements may simultaneously
result in over— and under— policing. On the one hand, they expose Indians to racial profiling and the
heavy-handed tactics of non-tribal police forces who are frequently poorly trained and openly hostile to
Native communities.281 On the other, nontribal authorities may give short shrift to crimes occurring in a
jurisdiction not their own.282
Second, deep-seated animosity and the vagaries of politics can make compacting a nonstarter or prompt one
party to unilaterally suspend the agreement.283 Distrust on both sides of the aisle has been cited as the
largest obstacle to forging deputization agreements.284 And even once the agreement is in place, it may not be
durable. For example, in Schmuck, the court observed that the tribal officer who arrested the defendant was not deputized because
Washington’s Kitsap County revoked its agreement with the Suquamish.285 More recently, California’s Humboldt County dissolved a cross-
deputization agreement with the Hoopa Valley Tribe in 2015 after several months of fighting over funding and officer qualification
standards.286
Finally, the piecemeal implementation of these agreements may fail to strengthen tribal arrest authority. In many
cases, deputization is often contingent on the tribal officer obtaining a commission from the non-tribal
government, a costly and burdensome process.287 For example, before a tribal officer can enforce federal
law pursuant to a deputization agreement with the BIA, the officer must receive a Special Law Enforcement
Commission (SLEC).288 This requires a FBI background check, meeting the state’s Peace Officer standards, and attending a
firearms training.289 The SLEC expires every three years, after which the officer must reapply to the BIA and the tribe must
re-certify the officer’s qualifications.290 Worse, the BIA often takes a year or more to process an application.291 The
result is that, despite the tribe having entered into a cooperative agreement with the BIA, only a handful of
officers may be able to enforce federal law.292 At bottom, while cooperative agreements can serve as a localized remedy, they
cannot serve as a sweeping solution to solidify tribal law enforcement authority over non-Indians.
2AC – Tribes Use Federal CP – T/L
Perm do both
Perm do the CP – it’s a way the aff could be done.
Destroys native sovereignty and undermines native justice.

Many tribes have established methods of imposing criminal justice that vary greatly from the traditional
federal system. For example, “[o]n many reservations, Indian tribal courts use methods such as ‘Peacemaking,’
‘Sentencing Circles,’ or other methods of dispute resolution that more closely resemble the ways disputes
were settled among Native people before the nonIndian society stepped in .”154 The Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa
Indians, for example, utilize Sentencing Circles for many juvenile cases.155 Moreover, the Navajo and Seneca Nations have
established Peacemaker Courts, which typically rule on disputes involving “cultural beliefs and a failure
to comply with custom.”156 Likewise, some tribes may simply resolve disputes through discussions with
families, clans, talking circles, or elder councils.157
While amajority of tribes do not follow these traditional models, their court systems still significantly vary from the
federal system. For example, many tribes appoint (or elect) individuals who are “knowledgeable of the
customs and traditions of a particular tribe” as judges, regardless of whether they have a formal law degree.158 These
arbitrators are better positioned to understand the tribes’ values and customs.159
As opposed to the federal system, these tribal models of criminal justice focus on restitution, not punishment.160 The federal government
should consider these fundamental differences in their legal systems when enacting binding legislation. TLOA
and VAWA failed to do so
and, instead, are forcing tribal courts to conform to the federal system. Pressuring tribes to change their
tribal system, even if the tribal system already incorporates some aspects of the federal system, directly impacts tribal
sovereignty because “tribally operated courts are the vanguard for advancing and protecting the right
of tribal self-government.”161 The legislation, therefore, should not have imposed so many limitations on the grant of power.
Defendants will only trust tribal court.

During the course of the early VAWA prosecutions, tribes and tribal
advocacy groups encouraged defendants to file writs
of habeas corpus to appeal their convictions to federal court, but the defendants declined. Numerous
parties asserted that they preferred tribal court to federal court, stating that the tribal process was less
formal, less intimidating, offered more focus on treatment and showed more respect to defendants.277
Similarly, an attorney for the Pascua Yaqui tribe in Arizona notes that, “[h]istorically, people argued that tribal courts couldn’t treat people fairly
—but that’s not a true snapshot of what tribal courts are now.” He went on to note that “[t]here are a lot of tribes already doing a great job
administering justice in different ways consistent with their community values.”278
277. Leonhard, supra note 86, at 21 (quoting Brent Leonhard from CTUIR’s counsel office, stating that, “[c]riminal
defendants in
tribal courts, as compared to state and federal courts, are often treated less harshly, with more respect,
and with more opportunity to tell their side of things than in other courts”).
*Footnote 277 Ends*
L2nb – [explain]
2AC – Citizens Arrest Law CP – T/L
Exposes tribes to liability, constrains tribal officer authority – the impact is the whole
case.
In an effort to portage the rough waters of Indian law, litigants251 and courts252 have sought to frame a tribal officer’s seizure of a non-Indian
as a citizen’s
arrest. That doctrine permits a private person to use force to apprehend and detain a
wrongdoer under certain circumstances.253 The law varies dramatically from state to state.254 In particular, jurisdictions
differ in what crimes trigger the arrest power and the quantum of probable cause a citizen must possess for a lawful arrest.255 A Californian,
for example, would be remiss to attempt a citizen’s arrest while visiting Massachusetts. California allows citizen’s arrests for a handful of
misdemeanors, in addition to felonies, and it allows arrests for felonies not committed in the citizen’s presence if she acts with “reasonable
cause.”256 In contrast, a citizen’s arrest in Massachusetts is lawful only if the arrestee “in fact has committed a felony.”257 Without diving
deeper into the nuances of citizen’s arrest law, the upshot is that the only arrest authorized by every jurisdiction is one in which the private
person watches the arrestee commit a felony.258
Despite the initial appeal of using this doctrine to escape jurisdictional headaches, the costs outweigh the upside. As
an initial matter, relying on citizen’s arrest law would significantly constrain the authority of tribal officers. A
tribal officer in Massachusetts, for instance, would be unable to arrest drunk drivers because that is a misdemeanor offense.259 And even in
jurisdictions like California, which permit misdemeanor arrests, that power is generally restricted to “breach[es] of
peace,”260 an ill-defined category of offenses.261 Given these limitations, shackling tribal arrest
authority to citizen’s arrest law would only perpetuate the notion that non-Indians are above the law in
Indian Country.
Treating tribal arrests as citizen’s arrests would also strip tribal police of both tribal and official
immunities, potentially exposing them to tort liability in state court. Because a tribe’s sovereign immunity shields it from
suit, a person injured by a tribal officer within Indian Country is generally limited to suing the officer in her individual capacity.262 Further, the
plaintiff is usually limited to seeking relief in tribal court.263 In Williams v. Lee, the Supreme Court held that state courts lack jurisdiction over
civil claims against member-Indians arising from on-reservation conduct.264 The door to federal court is likewise closed: the plaintiff cannot
bring a Bivens or § 1983 action because tribal officers are not bound by the Constitution,265 and ICRA only creates a cause of action for habeas
relief.266 This generally holds true even if the tribal officer has been deputized to enforce state or federal law; that alone is insufficient to
transform a tribal officer into a federal or state actor.267 And even if the officer is amenable to suit in a nontribal court—say because the officer
was non-Indian or the alleged tort occurred outside the reservation—the Supreme Court has advised that tribal actors are entitled to qualified
immunity.268
Swapping Duro for citizen’s arrest law, however, would strip officers of these protections and delay the
administration of justice. For one thing, citizen’s arrests are risky business; if the state’s law does not
authorize the seizure, the arrestee can turn around and sue the arrestor for false imprisonment.269 And
because a person effectuating a citizen’s arrests is, by definition, acting in her private capacity , a tribal police officer who arrests a
non-Indian arguably would not be entitled to tribal immunity. Admittedly, these concerns may seem largely theoretical
given that Williams requires lawsuits against Indians for on-reservation conduct to be brought in tribal court, and those courts are not bound by
state law. But the shield that Williams created is beginning to show cracks; at least one state court has asserted jurisdiction over tort claims
involving Indian defendants for onreservation conduct because it occurred on non-tribal land.270 This raises the possibility that tribal police
could be held to answer in state court for arrests which occur on fee land within the reservation. And in any event, shoehorning tribal arrests
into this confusing common law doctrine will only further incentivize non-Indian defendants to challenge their prosecutions in state or federal
court.
Gets struck down by the courts; if not, destroys tribal sovereignty.
Finally, beyond the practical concerns, reducing

the authority of tribal law enforcement to that of a private citizen
denigrates tribal sovereignty. Tribal police are a “reflection of tribal rights to shape and enforce their own laws”
who convey “the intent of a tribal government to protect and serve its own citizens.”271 Accordingly, turning to
citizen’s arrest law relegates tribal police to private security guards and tribes to private organizations—an
analogy the Supreme Court has expressly rejected.272 Indeed, the Schmuck court refused to turn to
citizen’s arrest law, precisely because this “conflict[ed] with Congress' well-established policy of
promoting tribal self-government.”273 Given these many pitfalls, tribes have wisely refrained from arguing that their officers are
merely active citizens. Instead, tribes have sought to cloak their officers in federal or state authority.
2AC – Federal Jurisdiction CP – T/L
Tribal courts good + key – 1AC Crepelle
Doesn’t clarify jurisdiction, still patchwork of states/fed/tribes – investigations still
botched because native cops are unsure. OR it eliminates the role of tribal police and
courts entirely, massively deters reporting since natives trust those mechanisms more.
Tribal courts are key, effective, and fair – federal jurisdiction is limited.
Tribal courts asserting supplemental jurisdiction over VAWA-related claims is a solution to the jurisdictional gap.
Supplemental jurisdiction in federal court sprung from the common law.281 Tribal courts apply common law;282 thus, tribal courts should
consider extending their reach through jurisprudence. Indeed, tribal
courts are in a stronger position to grow their reach
than federal courts. Federal court jurisdiction is constitutionally limited,283 but tribal court jurisdiction is
not limited by the United States Constitution.284 The limits on tribal court jurisdiction are the result of over 200
years of racist federal Indian policy.285 Peel away the racism, and the rationale for limiting tribal court jurisdiction vanishes.286
This alone bodes heavily in favor of tribal courts exercising supplemental jurisdiction over non Indians in VAWA cases.
In Oliphant, the Court acknowledged tribes can prosecute non-Indians “in a manner acceptable to Congress.”287 VAWA authorizes tribes to
prosecute non-Indians for three crimes and establishes certain procedural requirements that tribes must comply with in order to do so.288
When tribes apply the procedural requirements of VAWA during prosecutions of non-Indians, tribes are prosecuting non-Indians “in a manner
acceptable to Congress.”289 VAWA also recognizes “the inherent power” of tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction “over all persons.”290
Furthermore, the Senate opponents of VAWA’s tribal jurisdiction provision admitted, “[w]hile the present bill’s jurisdiction is limited to
domestic-violence offenses, once such an extension of jurisdiction were established, there would be no principled reason not to extend it to
other offenses as well.”291 Supplemental VAWA jurisdiction agrees with VAWA opponents’ argument—logic demands that tribal court
jurisdiction include offenses that stem from a common nucleus of operative facts as VAWA offenses.
The effectiveness of tribal courts is another reason tribal courts should unilaterally expand their jurisdiction
under VAWA. Approximately 150 arrests of non-Indians under VAWA have occurred, and not a single nonIndian
has challenged the fairness of the tribal court.292 Studies of tribal courts have consistently shown that
tribal courts treat non-Indians fairly .293 International law recognizes the legitimacy of indigenous justice
systems as well.294 Hence, the Supreme Court has declared that tribal court convictions in compliance with ICRA are valid convictions.295
On top of ICRA’s requirements, tribes implementing VAWA must include non-Indians in the jury pool and provide all “necessary” constitutional
rights to defendants.296 If ICRA’s procedural safeguards satisfy the Supreme Court’s due process concerns, VAWA’s heightened standards
certainly should.
CP completes the process of colonization.

At the same time, the laws also present a paradox. With increased authority comes greater federal interference and more oversight into
internal tribal institutions and processes. By
imposing new standards on tribes—standards which closely align with those of
the federal constitution, to which the tribes are not otherwise bound153—the laws draw tribes ever closer to an
American model of criminal justice and, concomitantly, potentially further away from distinct, tribal practices
that are rooted in Indian difference.154 This raises the concern that Indian tribes may only be able to
guarantee their sovereign rights to exercise criminal jurisdiction if they do so on the terms of the very
government that has, for so long, sought to dismantle tribal justice systems. This is the double bind of tribal sovereignty. To achieve
external legitimacy, tribes must often emulate the American system or be considered “too far afield from prevailing notions of American
constitutionalism to be tolerable.”155 At the same time, if
tribes fully transform tribal institutions, rooted in distinct
tribal custom and Indian culture, the process of colonization will be complete. Given this dilemma, it has been
apparent since the debates on the statutes began that increased authority could, ironically, come at the cost ofsovereignty.156
Worsens trust.
Accordingly, throughout debate over both laws, tribes were questioned by the community, the press, and policymakers as to the compatibility
of an American adversarial model of criminal justice with a tribal context. Reminiscent of the tribal response to ICRA,172 Indian
communities viewed with skepticism the introduction of new federal laws that bring tribal courts more
in line with those of American courts.173 In these discussions, tribes interested in implementing the new statutes attempted to
explain some cultural and historical connection between their way of handling crime and contemporary individual rights protections as
mandated by the federal laws. As a tribal leader at Pascua Yaqui emphasized:
For hundreds of years Pascua Yaqui ancestors fought to preserve the territorial integrity of their homeland and to protect their people. The
recent decision to exercise SDVCJ to protect tribal victims is a mission that is consistent with that history. . . . The new program is consistent
with Yaqui tradition and culture, namely protecting our people and providing fairness to the accused.174
The tribal leader went on to explain how tribal criminal jurisdiction is rooted in a Yaqui view of the world in which the tribe has inherent
authority and responsibility to protect and provide for the people.175 Historically, law enforcement functioned largely through ceremonial
societies and clan affiliations.176 Having someone speak on your behalf and ensuring fairness are both “deeply rooted in Yaqui indigenous
tradition and practice,”177 and are based in tribal cultures that “pre-date the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and are rooted in
beliefsthat are arguably as old asEnglish Common Law.”178
Other tribal communities similarly expressed concern that implementation of the two statutes would force tribes
more towards assimilation into the American model, and they would concomitantly “los[e] the features of their own justice
traditions” if they adopted them.179 The Chief Justice of the Tulalip Tribes located this concern, in particular, in some of the
TLOA requirements around defendants’ due process rights, and the fear that those changes in tribal court procedure “will
push Tribal courts to be more like federal courts , and this is not typically a welcomed push.”180 She explained
further: “Tribes may judge the changes in TLOA coming at too high a cost to their sovereignty and independence.”181 The requirement
of a mixed jury pool—mandating inclusion of non-Indians on tribal juries for tribes to exercise special domestic violence jurisdiction
under VAWA—was also an issue of serious concern for tribes wary of allowing more control in tribal
communities by outsiders.182 Some of the Pueblos, including Hopi, emphasized this objection.183
2AC – Tribes CP – T/L
The point of the aff is that tribes don’t have policing and sentencing jurisdiction now.
Any tribal criminal action they fiat is legally useless and will be appealed in state or
federal court by the defendant.
Tribes lack jurisdiction without the aff.

In the latter half of the twentieth century, federal

courts began developing common-law doctrine regarding jurisdiction
that limited the exercise of tribal sovereignty. This was most evident in the Court’s decision in Oliphant v.
Suquamish Indian Tribe.69 Two non-Indians were charged with resisting arrest, assaulting a tribal officer, and recklessly endangering another
person after colliding with a tribal police car during a high-speed chase.70 While the tribe argued they had jurisdiction, stemming from their
retained inherent powers, the Court rejected
inherent tribal sovereignty to exercise criminal jurisdiction over
non-Indians.71 Justice Rehnquist, writing for a majority of the Court, believed that historical evidence suggested
there was no such jurisdiction without an express grant from Congress, but noted that Congress had the
power to enact legislation providing for such jurisdiction.72
Two justices on the Oliphant Court felt the analysis should be flipped: the tribe maintains jurisdiction in Indian country as part of their inherent
sovereignty unless it was affirmatively taken away by Congress.73 The dissent foreshadowed practical problems with the
Court’s decision to reject tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian country, which effectively compounded
enforcement challenges in Indian country.74 Eliminating the inherent sovereign right to exercise
jurisdiction over all crimes committed within their own land stripped tribes of a core sovereign prerogative to protect
their people and promote order within their borders.75 The Oliphant majority revealed the little faith held by the federal government—
through judicial common law-making—in tribes to protect their own citizens. It also emphasized the unique state of
jurisdictional play in Indian country: “the only place within the United States where the racial and political status of the
perpetrator and victim bear on the question of which sovereign may exercise jurisdiction in a given instance.”76
COURTS CP
2AC – Courts CP – T/L
Constitutional law does not apply to Indian country. Tribal courts rights are enforced
by the Congressional ICRA, not the Constitution. The CP lacks legal effect.
The courts cannot alter their own jurisdiction over sentencing because they administer
sentences. Violates basic principles of SOP, gets struck down.
Only Congress has plenary power to regulate tribes, the CP lacks jurisdiction.
However, throughout the nineteenth century, significant shifts in federal–Indian relations altered the landscape of tribal powers and inherent
tribal sovereignty. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, decided in 1831 and the first Supreme Court case involving a tribe as a named party, Chief
Justice Marshall referred to tribes as “domestic dependent nations” rather than wholly sovereign nations.33 He held that the
Supreme Court could not maintain jurisdiction over the tribe as a party because they were neither a
state nor a foreign nation.34 Tribal sovereignty was still recognized, but federal guardianship over tribes was formally acknowledged
and justified by the Court. Only one year later, in Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice Marshall emphasized that the
Cherokee Nation was a distinct community with inherent sovereignty and authority to make and
enforce laws within their own lands, and that the federal government, not states, managed tribal
relationships.35 Worcester stood for the proposition that tribes did have inherent sovereignty, but it became evident that the federal
government was asserting more control than ever before.
The text of the Constitution did not provide express power to the federal government to regulate
“internal Indian affairs” of the (once-considered extremely autonomous) tribes, but the gradual encroachment into such
affairs was quickly affirmed by “plenary congressional power.”36 This power—a new phenomenon in the mid-nineteenth
century, but later deemed a power “from the beginning”37—grew teeth primarily during the so-called Removal Period.38 In 1871, Congress
passed the Indian Appropriations Act, which ended formal treaty-making with Indian tribes.39 Further, the Supreme Court found
Congress possessed the power to unilaterally abrogate treaty provisions .40 While this congressional action ended a
form of external tribal sovereignty, it did not suggest that tribes lost their power of self-government and internal sovereignty.
*Footnote 36 starts*
36 Cleveland, supra note 14, at 25-26; see also id. at 46 (discussing United States v. Rogers and arguing that the
Supreme Court found
that “discovery, and the resulting presence of [an Indian] tribe within U.S. boundaries, gave Congress
plenary authority to legislate a criminal code for the Indians”).
*Footnote 36 Ends*
No legitimate grounds for the ruling, the CP wouldn’t get held up in court and
generates more confusion.
Unfortunately, both paths are a steep climb. The Court retreated from Merrion’s robust vision of the tribal power to exclude in Strate,
characterizing a tribe’s power to exclude as a “land owner’s right” that depends on whether the tribe possesses a “gatekeeping right” over the
property.249 It will be even more difficult to cram the square peg of tribal arrest authority into the round
hole of Montana. For one thing, grounding tribal arrest authority in Montana entails mixing doctrinal apples and oranges,
which, as Bressi illustrates, may generate more confusion than clarity. Moreover, the approach taken in Schmuck may no
longer be viable, as the Supreme Court has narrowed the second Montana exception: The non-Indian’s
activities “must do more than injure the tribe, it must ‘ imperil the subsistence’ of the tribal
community.”250 While violent conduct arguably satisfies that test, the Supreme Court has never upheld an exercise of tribal jurisdiction
under this exception.
In sum, most courts treat tribal arrest authority as an exercise of the tribes’ power to exclude. But because
the exclusion power
has subsequently been limited to a property right, the checkerboard character of Indian Country poses to
transmogrify Duro’s simple rule into an unwieldy mess. Given the considerable obstacles to either
expanding the exclusion power or finding a new doctrinal home for tribal arrest authority,
stakeholders should look outside the courts for a solution.
Permutation do both
Shields, or the counterplan links
AT – Politics: Court ruling either resolves or sparks Congressional infighting.
AT – Elections: Congress can’t take credit when the Courts rule too.
Permutation do the counterplan
2AC – Prosecute CP – T/L
Can’t solve – the courts themselves can’t prosecute – they convict and sentence.
Victims won’t report – don’t trust federal prosecutors – Riley, Douglas

Worsens jurisdictional clarity – makes tribal officers afraid to do their job in fear of
disrupting federal investigation, inefficiencies result in botched investigations and
delayed response for victims – cases get declined bc lack of ev – Riley
Permutation do the aff through the actor of the counterplan
Enact includes Court action.

Delaware Supreme Court has referenced a “statute or rule of court enacted under authority of law”,89 and many other state
supreme
First, offense.
1 – Aff ground. Anything else stacks the deck too far in favor of the neg through the
courts CP, which solves every aff because it legally supersedes every other actor –
skews competitive equity.
2 – Precision. Only our evidence speaks to the nature of the counterplan. Even if
generally the Courts have not historically enacted, recent acts are legally understood
to be enacted.
3 – Neg ground. Packing and progressive opposition are far better than incoherent
agenda DAs during corona.
Functional limits check – States, ESR, sunbursting, and PICing out of a ruling. There’s a
finite number of solvency advocates and all of them overlap.

processes.
2AC – Plenary Powers DA
Plenary power solves existential crises – isolationism, failed states, and transnational
terror.
Fields ’17 [Shawn; 2017; Professor of Legal Writing at the University of San Diego; Tennessee Law
Review, “THE UNREVIEWABLE EXECUTIVE? NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LIMITS OF PLENARY POWER,”
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3008972; RP]
C. Exercising Appropriate Deference in National Security Cases The Fourth Circuit’s decision striking down
Trump’s executive orders as unconstitutional did not require the court to overrule the plenary power doctrine
in its entirety. The court only ruled that the doctrine is not so sweeping as to permit blatant religious
discrimination unsupported by any reasonable security rationale. As discussed supra, courts evaluating the
executive orders have struggled to determine whether national security concerns actually played any significant role
in the challenged immigration actions as opposed to bare religious animus. But assuming that the next case presents the Court with an
immigration action taken clearly for national security reasons, the question then becomes what standard of review should
apply to evaluating these security rationales. In the area of national security specifically, courts should apply a
low level, deferential standard of review to immigration challenges, even if those challenges assert fundamental
constitutional rights. In this sense, this Article advocates for a modified plenary power with a more limited
scope but which walks and talks like traditional plenary power within that scope. In other words, the plenary power
doctrine should only apply to cases implicating true national security concerns, but in those cases plenary
power should still largely operate as a mechanism to grant the political branches broad deference to make
immigration decisions. While the exact phrasing of the standard of review matters little, both the Court in Kleindienst and
Judge Robart in the first executive order litigation have articulated standards that reflect the appropriately deferential
attitude towards cases involve actual cases of national security.186 Two primary justifications exist for this
continued adherence to deference in the field of national security. First, courts have proven themselves well-
equipped over two centuries to appropriately balance individual constitutional rights with the domestic concerns of
a government infringing on those rights. However, the Court has long “harbor[ed] a deep skepticism that lower
courts can be trusted to give sufficient weight to foreign policy concerns in making any such threshold
assessment. . . . Keeping the plenary power doctrine categorical gives the Supreme Court greater assurance that
lower courts will preserve the space needed for government actions to meet real foreign affairs imperatives
(even if this stance inevitably also leaves room for some ill-motivated actions adopted by the political branches).”187 Second, and relatedly,
the changing nature of our global world in the nearly thirty years since the end of the Cold War has been marked less
by increased global cooperation and safety than by increased isolation, nation-state distrust, and
transnational terrorism. As Professor Martin explains: It appeared we were on the cusp of a far more benign world
order — one that might permit the rapid flowering of more protective international legal institutions and thereby
reduce reliance on crude action-and-response in the international arena. Today’s global scene is far more grim. Not
only has the United States experienced the trauma of al Qaeda’s September 11 attacks, which revealed a genuine need for
more vigilant immigration screening, but democratic nations are also facing new global threats from other
nongovernmental actors who actually glorify the use of beheadings, crucifixion, and slavery, in addition to other players using more
old-fashioned forms of terrorism directed at civilians. Failed states are more common, and well-armed insurgencies
have proliferated. The march of democracy has slowed and, in several countries, reversed. Climate change and
even plaguelike diseases presage more complicated foreign policy challenges, many of which will have a
migration dimension. The risks to the United States, if our government’s foreign-policy-linked initiatives are
unsuccessful, now seem far higher than in 1989.188 This bleak geopolitical reality in no way justifies
disregarding the rights of individuals guaranteed under the Constitution. But it does highlight the increasingly
complex, multipolar, interconnected world in which we live, and thus the increasing inability to predict with any certain
the long-term impact of governmental foreign policy actions – including immigration actions. For better or worse, we no
longer live in a pre-internet world with two readily defined nation-state superpowers, where international actions
and reactions were at least moderately more predictable and stable. Today, the proliferation of powerful non-state
foreign aggressors with global cyber-strategic capabilities, combined with the other complicating factors
outlined by Martin above, render the judiciary that much more incapable of precisely weighing the benefits of a
national security objective against the costs of a potential constitutional violation. It is for this reason as much as any
other that this Article advocates for a most searching and exacting threshold judicial inquiry to determine
whether an immigration action truly was motivated by national security concerns: because once that
determination has been made, the prudent course is for the judicial branch to grant wide latitude to the
political branches to act as they see fit in keeping with traditional notions of plenary power. In other words, because the
consequences of categorizing an immigration action as one implicating national security are significant, that
categorization should not be made lightly.
Attacks are likely and spurs global escalation.

Arguello and Buis 18 [Irma Arguello & Emiliano J. Buis 18. Arguello is founder and chair of the
NPSGlobal Foundation, and head of the secretariat of the Latin American and Caribbean Leadership
Network; Buis is researcher and professor at the NPSGlobal Foundation. 03/04/2018. “The Global
Impacts of a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: What Would Happen? What Should We Do?” Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 114–119; DS]
Making matters worse, there

is evidence of an illicit market for nuclear weapons-usable materials. There are
sellers in search of potential buyers, as shown by the dismantlement of a nuclear smuggling network in Moldova in 2015. There
certainly are plenty of sites from which to obtain nuclear material. According to the 2016 Nuclear Security Index by the
Nuclear Threat Initiative, 24 countries still host inventories of nuclear weapons-usable materials, stored in facilities with different degrees of
security. And in terms of risk, it is not necessary for a given country to possess nuclear weapons, weapons-usable
materials, or nuclear facilities for it to be useful to nuclear terrorists: Structural and institutional weaknesses in a
country may make it favorable for the illicit trade of materials. Permeable boundaries, high levels of
corruption, weaknesses in judicial systems, and consequent impunity may give rise to a series of
transactions and other events, which could end in a nuclear attack. The truth is that, at this stage, no country
in possession of nuclear weapons or weapons-usable materials can guarantee their full protection
against nuclear terrorism or nuclear smuggling. Because we live in a world of growing insecurity, where explicit and tacit
agreements between the relevant powers – which upheld global stability during the post- Cold War – are giving way to
increasing mistrust and hostility, a question arises: How would our lives be affected if a current terrorist group such as the Islamic State
(ISIS), or new terrorist groups in the future, succeed in evolving from today’s Manchester style “low-tech” attacks to a “high-tech” one,
involving a nuclear bomb, detonated in a capital city, anywhere in the world? We attempted to answer this question in a report developed by a
high-level multidisciplinary expert group convened by the NPSGlobal Foundation for the Latin American and Caribbean Leadership Network. We
found that there would be multiple harmful effects that would spread promptly around the globe (Arguello and Buis 2016); a more detailed
analysis is below, which highlights the need for the creation of a comprehensive nuclear security system. The consequences of a terrorist
nuclear attack A small and primitive 1-kiloton fission bomb (with a yield of about one-fifteenth of the one dropped on Hiroshima,
and certainly much less sophisticated; cf. Figure 1), detonated in any large capital city of the developed world, would
cause an unprecedented catastrophic scenario. An estimate of direct effects in the attack’s location includes a death toll of
7,300-to-23,000 people and 12,600-to-57,000 people injured, depending on the target’s geography and population density. Total physical
destruction of the city’s infrastructure, due to the blast (shock wave) and thermal radiation, would cover a
radius of about 500 meters from the point of detonation (also known as ground zero), while ionizing radiation greater than
5 Sieverts – compatible with the deadly acute radiation syndrome – would expand within an 850-meter radius. From the environmental point of
view, such an area would be unusable for years. In addition, radioactive
fallout would expand in an area of about 300
square kilometers, depending on meteorological conditions (cf. Figure 2). But the consequences would go far beyond
the effects in the target country, however, and promptly propagate worldwide. Global and national security, economy and
finance, international governance and its framework, national political systems, and the behavior of governments and
individuals would all be put under severe trial. The severity of the effects at a national level, however, would depend on the
countries’ level of development, geopolitical location, and resilience. Global security and regional/national defense schemes would be strongly
affected. An
increase in global distrust would spark rising tensions among countries and blocs, that could
even lead to the brink of nuclear weapons use by states (if, for instance, a sponsor country is identified). The
consequences of such a shocking scenario would include a decrease in states’ self-control, an escalation of
present conflicts and the emergence of new ones, accompanied by an increase in military unilateralism
and military expenditures. Regarding the economic and financial impacts, a severe global economic depression would rise from the
attack, likely lasting for years. Its duration would be strongly dependent on the course of the crisis. The main results of such a crisis would
include a 2 percent fall of growth in global Gross Domestic Product, and a 4 percent decline of international trade in the two years following the
attack (cf. Figure 3). In the case of developing and less-developed countries, the economic impacts would also include a
shortage of high-technology products such as medicines, as well as a fall in foreign direct investment and a severe decline
of international humanitarian aid toward low-income countries. We expect an increase of unemployment and poverty in all
countries. Global poverty would raise about 4 percent after the attack , which implies that at least 30 million more people
would be living in extreme poverty, in addition to the current estimated 767 million. In the area of international relations, we would expect a
breakdown of key doctrines involving politics, security, and relations among states. These international tensions could lead to a collapse of the
nuclear order as we know it today, with a consequent setback of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation commitments. In other words, the
whole system based on the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty would be put under severe trial. After the attack, there would be a reassessment
of existing security doctrines, and a deep review of concepts such as nuclear deterrence, no-firstuse, proportionality, and negative security
assurances. Finally, the behavior of governments and individuals would also change radically. Internal
chaos fueled by the media and
social networks would threaten governance at all levels, with greater impact on those countries with weak
institutional frameworks. Social turbulence would emerge in most countries, with consequent attempts by governments to impose
restrictions on personal freedoms to preserve order – possibly by declaring a state of siege or state of emergency – and legislation would surely
become tougher on human rights. There
would also be a significant increase in social fragmentation – with a
deepening of antagonistic views, mistrust, and intolerance, both within countries and towards others –
and a resurgence of large-scale social movements fostered by ideological interests and easily mobilized
through social media.
ESR CP
2AC – ESR CP – T/L
Exclusively Congressional authority under plenary power doctrine – Douglas on
solvency.
Either way, wouldn’t solve. VAWA and TLOA provisions that restrict tribal jurisdiction
would override the CP’s legal effect, since they’re part Congressional law. Any tribal
court administering a sentence would still defer to that, since the sentence would
otherwise be appealed and overturned in federal courts – Redlingshafer.
Perm do the counterplan.
Perm do both.
Shields, or the counterplan links.
[ ] AT – Politics: Executive approval either resolves or sparks Congressional
infighting.
[ ] AT – Senate: the GOP wouldn’t take credit to distance themselves from Trump
in the polls, or voters inevitably tie them together.
2AC – Prosecute CP T/L
Victims won’t report – don’t trust federal prosecutors – Riley, Douglas
Worsens jurisdictional clarity – makes tribal officers afraid to do their job in fear of
disrupting federal investigation, inefficiencies result in botched investigations and
delayed response for victims – cases get declined bc lack of ev – Riley
Federal prosecution fails – resources, distance from reservations.

As a consequence of these restrictions, the

federal government—except for the relatively minor legal modifications discussed in this
Article15—has exclusive jurisdiction over most crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians or Indian property in Indian
country,16 as well as exclusive jurisdiction over major crimes.17 But the federal government’s limited
resources combined with an array of disincentives to investigate and prosecute Indian country crimes
means that remarkably few are ever even superficially pursued.18
18. This is particularly true of misdemeanor offenses. Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Sovereign Comity: Factors Recognizing Tribal Court Criminal
Convictions in State and Federal Courts, 45 CT. REV. 12, 15 (2009) (discussing the absence of federal prosecutions of misdemeanor crimes
committed by non-Indians against Indians or Indian property); see also Letter from Ronald Weich, Assistant Attorney General, to Vice President
Joseph Biden (July 21, 2011), https://www.justice.gov/ sites/default/files/tribal/legacy/2014/02/06/legislative-proposal-violence-against-
nativewomen.pdf [https://perma.cc/PEZ5-YN55] (noting that “[f]ederal
resources, which are often the only ones that can
investigate and prosecute these crimes, are often far away and stretched thin”). Even as to felonies,
however, recent statistics show that federal declination rates of Indian country crimes are incredibly high.
See AMNESTY INT’L, MAZE OF INJUSTICE: THE FAILURE TO PROTECT INDIGENOUS WOMEN FROM SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN THE USA 27–39 (2007);
Timothy Williams, Higher Crime, Fewer Charges on Indian Land, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 20, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/us/on-
indian-reservations-higher-crime-and-fewerprosecutions.html [https://perma.cc/HW79-GT6W] ( noting
that “federal prosecutors
in 2011 declined to file charges in 52 percent of cases involving the most serious crimes committed on
Indian reservations”); see also U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-11-167R, DECLINATIONS OF INDIAN COUNTRY CRIMINAL
MATTERS 9 (2010), http://www.gao.gov assets/100/97229.pdf [https://perma.cc/WZH4-C6J4](noting that federal prosecutors declined to
prosecute over two-thirds of sexual assault cases referred from Indian country). According to critics, however, sexual assault and rape are
generally under-prosecuted. See generally Tyler Kingkade, Prosecutors Rarely Bring Charges in College Rape Cases, HUFFINGTON POST (June 17,
2014, 7:31 AM) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/17/college-rape-prosecutors-presscharges_n_5500432.html [https://perma.cc/43S3-
2T3R] (citing research funded by the Department of Justice stating that “[o]nly between 8 percent and 37 percent of rapes ever lead to
prosecution” and “just 3 percent to 18 percent of sexual assaults lead to a conviction”). Between 1997 and 2006, federal
prosecutors
rejected nearly two-thirds of the reservation cases brought to them by FBI and Bureau of Indian Affairs
investigators, more than twice the rejection rate for all federally prosecuted crimes. 3 TRIBAL LAW AND ORDER
ACT OF 2010: A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OFPUBLIC LAW111-211 33, 19–20 (2012) (prepared statement of Hon. Joe A. Garcia, President, National
Congress of American Indians).
*Footnote 18 Ends*
Can’t solve trust.
The second feature of TLOA—the requirement that the government collect and disclose data regarding the declination of prosecutions—was
meant to increase political accountability and transparency between tribes and the federal government.112 As discussed previously, when a
non-Indian commits a crime against an Indian in Indian country—absent a unique statutory modification—the only sovereign with jurisdictional
authority is the federal government.113 This means, for example, that every crime—even misdemeanors—committed by non-Indians against
Indians orIndian property in Indian country can only be prosecuted by the federal government.114 But the
federal government
simply does not have the time, money, or incentives to investigate and prosecute most Indian country
crimes.115 Testimony around TLOA even revealed that federal prosecutors have been “punished” internally for
focusing too much on Indian country crimes.116 This has led to astonishingly high declination rates, even
of serious crimes,117 leaving tribal communities frustrated and without faith in the criminal justice
system.118
*Footnotes 117 and 118 Begin*
117. Testimony leading up to passage of TLOA revealed that, despite the federal government having exclusive jurisdiction over felony
crimes on most reservations, federal prosecutors declined to file charges in 52 percent of cases involving the most serious crimes committed in
Indian country. Williams, supra note 18 (“Federal prosecutors
in 2011 declined to file charges in 52 percent of cases
involving the most serious crimes committed on Indian reservations , according to figures compiled by the
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, which uses the Freedom of Information Act to recover and examine federal
data.”). The “Justice Department . . . file[d] charges in only about half of Indian Country murder investigations and turn[ed] down nearly two-
thirds of sexual assault cases” in the years leading up to 2010. Id. In fiscal years
2005 to 2009, federal prosecutors declined
to prosecute 67 percent of sexual abuse and related matters and declined to prosecute 46 percent of assault matters. AMNESTY
INT’L, supra note 18, at 27–39; see also U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, supra note 18, at 9 (noting that federal prosecutors declined to
prosecute over two-thirds ofsexual assault cases referred from Indian country). 118. See Michael Riley, Justice: Inaction’s Fatal Price, DENVER
POST (Nov. 12, 2007, 1:00 AM), http://www.denverpost.com;ci_7437278 [https://perma.cc/FP7V-4ALL] (noting the Montana U.S. Attorney’s
view that the “lack of investigation of low-priority felonies erodes faith in justice on reservations”).
*Footnotes 117 and 118 End*
Communication issues cause inadmissible evidence, cases won’t be prosecuted.

Furthermore, state and federal prosecutors seldom prioritize Indian country law enforcement. A 2010 Government
Accountability Office report found that federal prosecutors declined to prosecute sixty-seven percent of Indian
country sex crimes,119 though steps have been taken to remedy the high federal declination rate.120 State prosecutors also decline to
prosecute crimes in Indian country at high rates.121 The vast distance between non Indian courthouses and Indian country certainly make
Indian country prosecutions less appealing to non-Indian prosecutors because these prosecutors could solve a crime that occurred across the
street from their office by the time they drive to Indian country.122 Additionally, cultural
differences between Indians and
non-Indian law enforcement lead to trust and communication issues, making prosecutions more
difficult.123 Communication problems make evidence collection more challenging, leading to a lack-of-
evidence being the number one reason why federal prosecutors decline to prosecute cases in Indian
country.124
Feds don’t have resources, are too far away, and witnesses and victims distrust federal
authorities.
The ILOC’s Roadmap, as well as a host of other sources, concluded definitively that tribes have to be at the center of efforts to protect
reservation communities.297 The federal government has proven that it simply cannot or will not provide the resources
and expertise necessary to keep reservations safe. Some of these barriers are straightforward and logistical. As
Kevin Washburn has demonstrated, many reservations span large swaths of remote territory , sometimes even traversing
several states and time zones.298 Federal prosecutors’ offices and courts can be hundreds of miles away.
Communicating with witnesses, as well as convincing them to travel those distances to testify in what
are often seen as “foreign” courts, is exceedingly difficult. A history of racism, abuse, and mistrust work
against active participation in the criminal justice system by Indians, who often are wary of outsiders,
suspicious of federal authorities they do not know, and additionally burdened by poverty and unemployment.299
Moreover, there are significant cultural gaps between tribal communities and federal policing . As Washburn
refers to it, the “cavalry effect” is observed when tribal communities are largely left alone, isolated, with very little guarantee of safety, security,
or justice.300 Then, when
the federal government does come in to investigate a crime, it does so by
descending on a reservation community to which it has no political, cultural, or social relationship . Given
the complex history between tribes and the United States, tribal members are understandably wary of
the federal government, even when community members are in need of law enforcement
assistance.301
Perm do the aff through the actor of the counterplan.
Agencies can enact.

Prefer it –
1 – Aff ground. The ESR CP solves every aff, it quasi-legislates through XOs, controls
policing and databases, and solves sentencing through pardons – skews competitive
equity
2 – Functional overlimiting. The exec has intrinsic advantages about pardons and court
nominations that other branches can’t solve – Congress has no unique acting capacity
that insulates it from ESR.
3 – Predictability. Their authors only have an intent to exclude ESR, not include the
courts

processes.
ESR counterplans non-unique research.
STATES CP
2AC – States CP – T/L
Exclusively Congressional authority under plenary power doctrine – Douglas on
solvency.
Either way, wouldn’t solve. VAWA and TLOA provisions that restrict tribal jurisdiction
would override the CP’s legal effect, since they’re part Congressional law. Any tribal
court administering a sentence would still defer to that, since the sentence would
otherwise be appealed and overturned in federal courts – Redlingshafer.
[ ] AT – Politics: State action either resolves or sparks Congressional infighting.
[ ] AT – Elections: Trump can’t take credit for state action. Or, he takes credit for
anything not tied to him.
[ ] AT – Senate: The GOP can’t take credit for state action. Or, they take credit for
anything not tied to them.
2AC – Prosecute CP – T/L
Native trust deficit – they prefer tribal courts to state ones. Victims actively don’t
report and witnesses refuse to cooperate with outsiders because cases are declined
and response times are terrible. Host of 1AC ev.
Creates more jurisdictional confusion – guts effective tribal law enforcement, they’re
hesitant to act or investigate under fear of state criminal liability. That’s Riley.
State prosecutors can’t communicate or establish trust effectively – means cases get
declined.
Furthermore, state and federal prosecutors seldom prioritize Indian country law enforcement. A 2010 Government
Accountability Office report found that federal prosecutors declined to prosecute sixty-seven percent of Indian country sex crimes,119 though
steps have been taken to remedy the high federal declination rate.120 State prosecutors also decline to prosecute crimes in
Indian country at high rates.121 The vast distance between non Indian courthouses and Indian country certainly make Indian country
prosecutions less appealing to non-Indian prosecutors because these prosecutors could solve a crime that occurred across the street from their
office by the time they drive to Indian country.122 Additionally, cultural
differences between Indians and non-Indian law
enforcement lead to trust and communication issues, making prosecutions more difficult.123
Communication problems make evidence collection more challenging, leading to a lack-of-evidence
being the number one reason why federal prosecutors decline to prosecute cases in Indian country .124
Trust key to effective criminal enforcement.

%20Governance%20UCLALawRev.pdf; DS]
Despite all the possible assimilationist costs, the pilot project tribes
saw the implementation of special domestic violence criminal
jurisdiction as an absolute necessity for sovereignty. This had both a practical and theoretical justification. The absence
of jurisdiction was destroying the tribes’ ability to govern and protect people, to engage in economic development, and to
prosper. Crime was high. People had begun to lose faith in the criminal justice system altogether , and this was
true of both tribal and federal systems. This lack of law enforcement, as was well documented in the testimony
leading up to VAWA’s reauthorization, contributed to a sense of lawlessness on the reservation . Tribal members
experienced the criminal justice system as futile and ineffective, and, in many cases, even stopped
calling law enforcement for help. Tribal members also begin to detach from the criminal justice system
altogether, refusing to participate as witnesses or in other ways. Offenders also have this view of tribal
justice as ineffectual. As a case in point, when one defendant was arrested for domestic violence, he stated
to tribal police,“[y]ou can’t do anything to me anyway.” 194
Pilot projects prove Congressional action solves trust.
Similarly, the pilotproject tribes point to the sharp increase in reporting of domestic violence as another sign
that the laws are having a positive impact. Of course, one possibility for an increase in reporting could be an increase in domestic
violence cases generally, and the reported numbers may merely reflect that trend. But tribal officials have an alternate
explanation. Tulalip states, for example, that since VAWA was reauthorized, reporting of domestic violence has gone up steadily.215 CTUIR
similarly acknowledges increases in reporting during the same period. Those working in tribal criminal justice posit that this
is because victims believe they are safer than before, and that their abusers will not automatically walk
free due to jurisdictional loopholes.216
Jurisdiction deficit.
This arrangement excluded the states entirely, as it has historically been—and largely still is today—the baseline presumption that states have
no jurisdiction in Indian country. This arrangement of shared federal-tribal jurisdiction—at the exclusion of the state—remained for one
hundred years until the
Supreme Court decided United States v. McBratney50 in 1881, holding that the state had
exclusive jurisdiction over a crime committed by a non-Indian against a non-Indian in Indian country .51
McBratney introduced a rare and unusual premise—that states could have a role in Indian country jurisdiction—but maintained the
ever-important rule that states had no jurisdiction in any situation involving an Indian (as perpetrator
or victim).52
Shortly following McBratney, Congress again passed legislation dealing with Indian country criminal jurisdiction. The resulting statute, the Major
Crimes Act,53 was enacted in response to a murder by one Indian (Crow Dog) of another (Spotted Tail) within Indian country. The tribe imposed
a restorative punishment, requiring that Crow Dog’s family offer an apology, money, blankets, and horses to the family of Spotted Tail. The
exchange was made, and the dispute was settled internally.54 The Supreme Court agreed that the matter was best left to the tribe to
resolve.55 But Indian agents working for the federal government purportedly used the case as an opportunity to stir up sentiment regarding
“savage” Indians who had let Crow Dog murder without real punishment.56 Within two years, Congress responded. In a move expressly
intended to break up traditional tribal justice systems and further the assimilation of Indians into White society, Congress passed the 1885
Major Crimes Act. It extended federal jurisdiction to enumerated major crimes committed by an Indian in Indian country, whether the victim is
Indian or non-Indian.57
The history briefly recounted leads to a few baseline presumptions about the role of federal and state law, respectively, in Indian country.
Except for selectively applied federal laws,58 Indian country is free from state criminal jurisdiction
when an Indian is involved in the crime as either the victim or the perpetrator .59 Accordingly, the federal
government maintains its historic and continued role as a significant player in ensuring criminal justice in
Indian country. Absent treaty provisions to the contrary, federal criminal laws of general applicability apply in Indian country to all people
just as they apply elsewhere.60 The federal government also has jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian
country by a non Indian against an Indian61 and over major crimes committed by an Indian, whether the victim is Indian or
non-Indian.62
1AR – Theory
50 states fiat is a voter –
Object fiat – it fiats through the compliance debate, which jettisons fed key args –
can’t test regulation – state enforcement is the only internal link – ruins fairness
No solvency advocate – no one writes about uniform policy across all 50 states –
centers debate on strategic mediocrity over thought-out proposals – subverts
education
Can’t find authors that argue against something that doesn’t exist – turns
debateability
Fed key is a bad debate – it isn’t a real nuance – they have to cooperate with states to
deploy reforms – competitive grants prove
Functional limits don’t matter – congress, courts, neolib are sufficient checks on aff
ground
Makes neg ground worse – results in a race to the fringes toward frivolous federal
intersections – trades off with education-centric debates – turns clash and
predictability
Aff ground outweighs – forces creativity and topic innovation – turns education, which
is the terminal impact to predictability
Isn’t reciprocal – USFG is one actor – even if – agent CP’s check
Err aff – neg chooses the block, 2AC is reactive, and condo
Voting issue for deterrence – prevents teams from running it – we’ve invested
valuable time in the 1AR – make it offense
2AR – Theory
Vote aff for fairness and education – we short circuit their internal links – content
outweighs form – we both have internal links to debateability – lit base should be the
tiebreaker
50 States is object fiat – the CP fiats that the states deploy criminal justice reform,
which sidesteps an enforcement debate- that’s a core controversy – The COPS Office,
OJP, JAG grants, and a litany of other government regulation policies prove that
incentives behind the criminal justice system are a huge consideration in policy
deployment.
It ruins aff spec – forces teams to hide solvency mechanisms and to fish out
deployment tricks instead of writing real internal links – ruins clash, since debates are
decided by tiny legislative loopholes instead of the nuances of the regulation
good/bad controversy – turns debateability
Forces us to run perception-based advantages – detracts from debates centered on
the intricacies of reform – the controlling internal link – we’re directly affected by it as
high school students – portable education outweighs frivolous debates – rounds are
one in a million, but they undermine the unique educational benefit of this topic.
We turn predictability – they generate affs that find intersections with areas of
exclusive fed policy – debates become less about reform and more about federal
agencies, US territories, and Indians since it’s now imperative for the fed to
monopolize internal links – creates an incentive to recycle old topics, which turns their
education claims
Incentive debates outweigh perception debates – compliance can be ascertained, but
there’s no brightline for signaling – forces polemical arguments about federal
overreach instead of warranted nuances about concrete regulation proposals
Fed key debates are intellectually bankrupt – there’s no solvency adv for the CP, which
jettisons debate – we can’t find authors that support our position, since the
counterplan artificially creates a debate that doesn’t exist within the literature – turns
fairness
Err aff – condo, neg chooses the block, 2AC is reactive
Voting issue – drop the team – sets a precedent – competition is a sufficient incentive
– we’re only here to win
Theory destroyed consult CP’s – states should be no different
STATE BARGAINING CP
2AC – State Bargaining CP – T/L
Perm do the plan and the NGA should condition compliance on reforming sentencing
and policing.
The United States federal government should enact substantial criminal justice reform in sentencing and
policing of non-Indians committing crimes against Indian victims in Indian country.
The National Governors’ Association should inform the White House that state cooperation with federal
initiatives, including relevant criminal justice policies, will be contingent upon the United States
substantially reforming sentencing and policing.
Perm do both
[ ] AT – Fism: it’s seen as immediate acquiescence.
[ ] AT – Politics: State action either resolves or sparks Congressional infighting.
[ ] AT – Elections: Trump can’t take credit for state action. Or, he takes credit for
anything not tied to him.
[ ] AT – Senate: The GOP can’t take credit for state action. Or, they take credit for
anything not tied to them.
Consult USFG CPs are bad – kills non or bipartisan affs – say no warrants get cross
applied to politics – skews competitive equity. Shifts the debate to hypergenerics that
kill clash and topic education.
Feds say no –
1 – The feds won’t want to be coerced and bullied by the states.
2 – Racist and sexist Trump hates the plan.
3 – The fed can backlash or condition funding.
Gardner 19 [Trevor George Gardner, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Washington School of
Law. Right at Home: Modelling Sub-Federal Resistance as Criminal Justice Reform. Florida State
University Law Review, Vol. 46: 527, 2019]
It is important to note the model’s deficiencies. First, the

start of the process does not ensure its completion. That is to
say, the decision by a sub-federal government to abstain from participation in the enforcement of a federal
criminal initiative will not necessarily result in the abolition of the federal initiative, in mimicry by other
sub-federal governments, or in nullification of the federal initiative within abstaining jurisdictions. Second, a state
government may block a local government’s enforcement-abstinence policy given the supremacy of state law over municipal law.48 Third, the
federal government may be able to quash sub-federal opposition by conditioning federal funding to
states and municipalities on participation in the federal criminal initiative in question.49
4 – The CP is an unprecedented action – that gives them all the more reason to say no.
Perm do the CP – the USFG is made up of the 50 states.
Uniform 50 state fiat is a voter – it’s not educational because it’s never been done
before and makes it impossible to be aff because all states acting together solves any
potential fed key warrant.
Perm do the aff and condition compliance over another issue.

India, China, and developing countries are alt causes.
States can’t solve warming – red and purple states prevent any attempts at reform.
2AC – Foreign Affairs DA
Uncooperative federalism fails – destroys alliances, provokes hostile regimes, and
causes conflict with China – nuclear war.
Prakash ’16, - James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia. ( Saikrishna
Bangalore Prakash and Ryan Baasch, “CONGRESS AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
FEDERALISM” Michigan Law Review, October 2016, Vol. 115, No. 1, pages 51-57) //AL
The states are incompetent actors on the international stage and often act in ways that sabotage those
more fluent in foreign affairs. First, the states lack the tools—the information, expertise, and infrastructure—to effectively
formulate and pursue foreign policies. Second, and relatedly, because state and local actors are ignorant they are prone to offend and
embarrass foreign nations, including valued allies. Third, their episodic interventions undermine the actions of more competent actors—
Congress and the president— because they sow confusion internationally. Finally, state participation in foreign affairs contradicts a
foundational premise of our national system, namely that the parts of the union ought not to be able to take actions that undermine the entire
union.1 Our first concern—state incompetence —has a long historical pedigree. One founder referred to the states as "dumb"
and "deaf' in the international arena due to their inability to communicate with foreign nations.17 We doubt that such claims rested solely on a
supposed lack of constitutional authority in foreign affairs; rather, we think the claims also reflected the sense that the states were
handicapped on the international stage. States are no less disadvantaged today. They continue to lack the capacity to partici
pate in international affairs in meaningful ways. Compare the competencies of federal and state institutions. No State
maintains anything resembling the State Department that might help con duct or manage its foreign affairs. The
closest analogs are a handful of "international trade offices."18 But these single-issue, tiny offices pale in
comparison to the institutional expertise, experience, and resources of the State Department. Indeed, the
size and expertise of foreign policy personnel in other federal departments (like the Departments of Commerce,
Defense, and Homeland Security) vastly outstrips the scope and knowledge of these undersized state trade
offices. Consider California: The Golden State is a regular interloper in foreign affairs.19 As the world's eighth largest economy as of
2013,20 it has the re sources and, one would suppose, an acute need for extensive information as a means of fostering foreign trade. Yet if
foreign trade expertise was truly vital, California's resource allocation ill reflects that need. To date, California has
established a trade
office in China and granted it a $700,000 budget .21 That is its only international trade office.22 By contrast, the fiscal
year 2015 appropriation for the State Department was just short of $50 billion. 23 Money earmarked for
our nation's spy agencies—the CIA, for example—is classified, but reputable insiders have indicated the sum nearly equals the State
Department's allocation.24 And this summary omits the massive re sources expended on foreign affairs in the Departments of Defense, Home
land Security, Commerce, Treasury, and elsewhere. Even if we were to concede that states somehow gather adequate trade intelligence
through their tiny trade offices, statesenact laws with serious ramifications outside the commercial realm. For
instance, few would suppose that an Idaho trade office could possibly supply the state with the requisite
knowledge necessary to gauge whether the state ought to aid in Libya's quest for military jets during the
el-Qaddafi era. To have a meaningful opin ion on the latter requires knowledge about Libya's neighbors, their potential reaction, and, of
course, Libya's intentions. Similarly, a trade office cannot generate useful information about how foreign
nations will react to economic sanctions meant to curb human rights violations , especially when those sanctions
attach to companies that are from nations that have unblemished records. How Germany will react when its companies are sanctioned by
Massachusetts for doing business in Burma is hardly obvious. The gulf between the foreign experience and knowledge of the federal
government as compared to the states cannot be overstated. Whatever
else one might say about the sprawling federal
bureaucracy, its superior information and familiarity in foreign affairs is beyond question. Our second
concern is related to the first. Because the states are ignorant, they are prone to offend and inflame foreign
nations. States can provoke already hostile or unfriendly regimes, making fraught relations worse. Recall
Rudolph Giuliani's ouster of Yasser Arafat from the Lincoln Center, a decision that, to us at least, reflects a certain naïveté, namely a failure to
appreciate the need to sometimes treat parties that have American blood on their hands with respect.26 Enemies
can, through time and a
convergence of interests, become
partners, as happened with Germany and Japan . States also can embarrass
allies, damaging relationships the federal government has nurtured over time. For example, dozens of
states have denounced the genocide of Armenians .27 In contrast, the federal government has refused to use
that precise word in order to avoid upsetting Turkey.28 President Obama's decision to refer to "atrocities" instead of
"genocide" in a speech commemo rating the victims reflects longstanding federal policy and a concern for Turkish sensitivities.29 Or
consider the state legislation at the heart of Arizona v. United States.30 Arizona made it a crime for unauthorized
aliens to work in the state, and it empowered police to arrest persons who they had probable cause to believe were in the country
illegally.31 The law prompted Mexico to take the unusual step of filing an amicus brief in the Supreme
Court.32 In that brief, our southern neighbor explained that the law " caused long-term harm to Mexico-U.S.
relations."33 Suggesting that the federal government agreed with that assessment, an American diplomat conceded to the Chinese that
the Arizona statute was a human rights debacle.34 Our third concern arises from the proclivity of states to undermine our national
government's conduct of foreign affairs. When the states adopt their own foreign policies, they may sow confusion
in the international arena as to our nation's stances . This problem can manifest in numerous ways. The federal government
may adopt a foreign policy and assure the international community of its commitment to it. But dissenting states may act at cross-
purposes to that federal policy. For instance, the United States policy towards Taiwan (the Republic of China) is a
study in nuance and opacity.35 The idea is to say the minimum that satisfies the P eople's Republic of China
(namely, that there is one China and that we recognize the People's Republic), while not wholly abandoning our longtime ally,
Taiwan.36 But suppose that individual states, including California, New York and Texas, decided to
recognize Taiwan and its preten sions to sovereignty over the mainland .37 And imagine further that such
states sought to favor Taiwan, adopting policies that enraged the People's Republic. Can anyone doubt that
these states could hazard our nation's rela tions with China, leading to heated rhetoric, trade wars, or—
more troub ling—real ones? Even when states and the federal government have the same general
stance toward some foreign matter, seemingly minute differences can generate significant problems .
Consider the events leading up to Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council.38 In response to Burma's suppression of
dissenters, Massachusetts barred state agencies from making purchases from almost any company doing business in
Burma, a rather sweeping law.39 Congress subsequently enacted a more restrained federal response to the sup
pression, creating some bars on foreign aid and delegating authority to the president.40 Using that authority, the president barred U.S. persons
The state law
from investing in Burma.41 The resultant mess left members of the international community annoyed and flummoxed.
threatened to derail effective multilateral diplomacy because, by penalizing foreign companies for doing
business with Burma, it effectively punished other nations as well as Burma .42 Many of our allies formally
expressed their displeasure—some even filed com plaints with the World Trade Organization alleging that the state act violated
international trade agreements.43 As the European Union (EU) complained in its Supreme Court amicus brief, the state
law "creatfed] confusion about which entity speaks for and acts on behalf of American interests ."44 Moreo
ver, the EU explained, such laws "greatly increase the difficulty of the U.S. Government to speak consistently and with one voice [in] foreign
affairs."45
2AC – Waste DA
Uncooperative federalism gridlocks effective toxic waste cleanup.
Rocco 14 – (Philip Rocco, associate @ Marquette University; “THE POLITICAL ROOTS OF
UNCOOPERATIVE FEDERALISM”; Scholars; D.A. August 24 th 2020, [Published February 19th 2014];
https://scholars.org/contribution/political-roots-uncooperative-federalism) //LFS—JCM
[TITLE]: THE POLITICAL ROOTS OF UNCOOPERATIVE FEDERALISM Divisions of responsibility between state and
federal governments can bring some benefits. States can serve as “laboratories of democracy” for experimenting with and
strengthening public-interest reforms. Under the Affordable Care Act, for example, states that have established their own health-insurance
exchanges are currently testing novel strategies for making health-insurance prices more transparent to consumers, and some are also testing
policies like affordable housing and access to food to improve health outcomes. Yet
greater say for states in national policy
implementation isnot usually proposed to promote innovation or effective cooperation. Rather, groups with
unpopular policy preferences push fragmentation in order to extend policy struggles past the point of a
law’s enactment. Early anti-pollution laws thus allowed regulated industries to re-fight battles at the state
level, with decades passing before successful cleanups could be done. Citizens were left wondering which level of
government to blame for delays. Indeed, laws written to permit state and local interests to dispute and delay
implementation frustrate democratic accountability and leave citizens thinking that government cannot
accomplish what it sets out to do. Too often, as the West Virginia water crisis shows, government cannot cope with
pressing threats and crises at all. Toxic waste does not wait for disputes to be resolved before it wreaks
harm on people and the environment.
Extinction.
Cribb 17 - (Julian Cribb, Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering,
former Director, National Awareness, CSIRO, “The Poisoner,” Surviving the 21st Century Chapter 6)
There are two essential points about the Earthwide chemical flood. First it is quite new. It began with the industrial revolution
of the late nineteenth century, but expanded dramatically in the wake of the two world wars—where chemicals were extensively used in
munitions—and has exploded in deadly earnest in the past 50 years, attaining a new crescendo in the early
twenty-first century. It is something our ancestors never faced—and to which we, in consequence, lack any protective
adaptations which might otherwise have evolved due to constant exposure to poisons . Second, the toxic
flood is, for the most part, preventable. It is not compulsory—but is an unwanted by-product of economic
growth. Though driven by powerful industries and interests, it still lies within the powers and rights of citizens, consumers and their
governments to demand it be curtailed or ended and to encourage industry to safer, healthier products and production systems. The issue is
whether, or not, a wise humanity would choose to continue poisoning our children, ourselves and our world. Regulatory Failure Despite the fact
that around 2000 new chemicals are released onto world markets annually, most have not received proper health, safety or environmental
screening—especially in terms of their impact on babies and small children. Regulation has so far failed to make any serious
curtailment of this flood: only 21 out of 144,000 known chemicals have been banned internationally,
and this has not eliminated their use . At such a rate of progress it will take us more than 50,000 years to
identify and prohibit or restrict all the chemicals which do us harm. Even then, bans will only apply in a
handful of well-regulated countries, and will not protect the Earth system nor humanity at large. Clearly,
national regulation holds few answers to what is now an out-of-control global problem. Furthermore, the chemical industry is
relocating from the developed world (where it is quite well regulated and observes its own ethical standards) and into
developing countries, mainly in Asia, where it is largely beyond the reach of either ethics or the law . However,
its toxic emissions return to citizens in well-regulated countries via wind, water, food, wildlife,
consumer goods, industrial products and people. The bottom line is that it doesn’t matter how good your country’s
regulations are: you and your family are still exposed to a growing global flood of toxins from which even a careful diet and sensible consumer
choices cannot fully protect you. The wake-up call to the world about the risks of chemical contamination was issued by American biologist
Rachel Carson when she published Silent Spring in 1962, in which she warned specifically about the impact of certain persistent pesticides used
in agriculture. Since her book came out, the volume of pesticide use worldwide has increased 30-fold, to around four million tonnes a year in
the mid-2010s. Since the modern chemical age began there has been a string of high-profile chemical disasters: Minamata, the Love Canal,
Seveso, Bhopal, Flixborough, Oppau, Toulouse, Hinkley, Texas City, Jilin, Tianjin. Most of these display a familiar pattern of unproductive
confrontation between angry citizens, industry and regulators, involving drawn-out legal battles that deliver justice to nobody. By their
spectacular and local nature, such events serve to distract from the far larger, more insidious and ubiquitous, universal toxic flood. Chemists
and chemical makers often claim that their products are ‘safe’ because individual exposure (e.g. in a given product, like a serve of food) is too
low to result in a toxic dose, a theory first put forward by the mediaeval scholar Paracelsus in the sixteenth century. This ‘dose related’
argument is disingenuous, if not dishonest—as modern chemists well know—for the following reasons: Most chemicals target a receptor or
receptors on certain of your body cells, to cause harm. There may be not one, but hundreds or even thousands of different chemicals all
targeting the same receptor, so a particular substance may contribute an unknowable fraction to an overall toxic dose. That does not make it
‘safe’. Chemicals not known to be poisonous in small doses on their own can combine with other substances in water, air, food or your body to
create a toxin. No manufacturer can truthfully assert this will not happen to their products. Chemical toxicity is a function of both dose and the
length of time you are exposed to it. In the case of persistent chemicals and heavy metals, this exposure may occur over days, months, years,
even a lifetime in some cases. Tiny doses may thus accumulate into toxic ones. Most chemical toxicity is still measured on the basis of an
exposed adult male. Babies and children being smaller and using much more water, food and air for their bodyweight, are therefore more at
risk of receiving a poisonous dose than are adults. Chemicals and minerals are valuable and extremely useful. They do great good, save many
lives and much money. No-one is suggesting they should all be banned. But their value may be for nothing if the current uncontrolled,
unmonitored, unregulated and unconscionable mass release and planetary saturation continues. Chemical Extinction Two billion years ago,
excessive production of one particular poisonous chemical by the inhabitants of Earth caused a colossal die-off and threatened the
extermination of all life. That chemical was oxygen and it was excreted by the blue-green algae which then dominated the planet, as part of
their photosynthetic processes. After several hundred million of years, the planet’s physical ability to soak up the surplus O2 in iron formations,
oceans and sediments had reached saturation and the gas began to poison the existing life. This event was known as the
‘oxygen
holocaust’, and is probably the nearest life on Earth has ever come to complete disaster before the present
(Margulis and Sagan 1986). Since it developed slowly, over tens of millions of years, the poisonous atmosphere permitted some of these
primitive organisms to evolve a tolerance to O2—and this in time led to the rise of oxygen-dependent species such as fish, mammals and
eventually, us. The takehome learning from this brush with total annihilation is that it
is possible for living creatures to pollute
themselves into oblivion, if they don’t take care to avoid it or rapidly adapt to the new, toxic environment .
It’s a message that humans, with our colossal planetary chemical impact, would do well to ponder. While it is unlikely that human
chemical emissions alone could reach such a volume and toxic state as to directly threaten our entire species with extinction (other than
through carbon emissions in a runaway global warming event) or even the collapse of civilisation, it is likely they will emerge as a
serious contributing factor during the twenty-first century in combination with other factors such as war, climate change, pandemic
disease and ecosystem breakdown. Credible ways in which man-made chemicals might imperil the human future include:
Undermining the immune systems, physical and mental health of the population through growing exposure to
toxins Reducing the intelligence of current and future generations through the action of nerve poisons on the developing
brains and central nervous systems of children, rendering humanity less able to solve its problems and adapt to
major changes; and by increasing the level of violent crime and conflict in society, which is closely linked to
lower IQ. Bringing down the economy through the massive healthcare costs of having to nurse, treat and maintain a
growing proportion of the population disabled by lifelong chronic chemical exposure. By poisoning the ecosystem services—clean
air, water, soil, plants, insects and wildlife—on which humanity depends for its own survival and thereby
contributing to potential global ecosystem breakdown By augmenting the global arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction and hence the risk of their use by nations or uncontrollable fanatics.
2AC – Democracy DA
The counterplan shreds democracy.
Yackle 14 – (Larry Yackle, Professor of Law and Basil Yanakakis Faculty Research Scholar, Boston
University; “COMPETITIVE FEDERALISM: FIVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS”; Boston University Press; D.A.
August 24th 2020, [Published 2014]; Boston University Law Review, Vol. 94;
http://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2014/08/YACKLE.pdf) //LFS—JCM
My third question is whether competitive federalism comports with democracy. On one level, of course, it
plainly does not, cannot, and need not. Anything that exists by virtue of a judicially enforced Constitution is, to
that extent, antidemocratic in the obvious sense that a higher law that trumps majoritarian choices necessarily
must be. Professor Greve, however, seems affirmatively to celebrate overrides of democratic choices. One might
say, indeed, that democracy is the villain of his piece. In the abstract, Greve allows that democracy is the “safest form of government.”67 I take
this to mean not that democracy is genuinely good, but rather (with Churchill) that democracy is actually bad, only better than the alternatives.
In the next breath, Greve decries democratic government as “dangerous” inasmuch as it enables “rapacious majorit[ies].”68 The
“constant challenge” to the competitive federalism he champions is “populist passion,”69 which, in his view,
entails “interest group politics.”70 The federalism we actually have, in Greve’s view to our misfortune, has come in
response to “democratic demands.”71 This “cartel” federalism emerged with the New Deal, which itself was the product of an
“unusually high political consensus” during the Great Depression.72 Back then, according to Greve, the idea was to achieve a “more
‘democratic’ Constitution.”73 The federalism that followed was “more open to the demands of distributional coalitions and progressive social
movements.”74 The result, in Greve’s telling, has been “opportunistic interest group bargains”75 congealing in
social policies having a “very social-democratic feel.”76
Extinction.
Kasparov 17 – Garry Kasparov, Chairman of the Human Rights Foundation. [Democracy and Human
Rights: The Case for U.S. Leadership Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime,
Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, and Global Women's Issues Thursday, February 16, 2017,
https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/021617_Kasparov_ Testimony.pdf]//BPS
American leadership begins at home, right here. America cannot lead the world on democracy and human
rights if there is no unity on the meaning and importance of these things. Leadership is required to make that case clearly and
powerfully. Right now, Americans are engaged in politics at a level not seen in decades. It is an opportunity for them to rediscover that making
America great begins with believing America can be great. The Cold War was won on American values that were shared by
both parties and nearly every American. Institutions that were created by a Democrat, Truman, were triumphant forty years later thanks to the
courage of a Republican, Reagan. This bipartisan consistency created the decades of strategic stability that is the great strength of democracies.
Strong institutions that outlast politicians allow for long-range planning. In contrast, dictators can operate only
tactically, not strategically, because they are not constrained by the balance of powers, but cannot afford to think
beyond their own survival. This is why a dictator like Putin has an advantage in chaos, the ability to move quickly. This can only be
met by strategy, by long-term goals that are based on shared values, not on polls and cable news. The fear of making things worse has
paralyzed the United States from trying to make things better. There will always be setbacks, but the United States cannot quit. The
spread
of democracy is the only proven remedy for nearly every crisis that plagues the world today. War, famine,
poverty, terrorism–all are generated and exacerbated by authoritarian regimes. A policy of America First inevitably
puts American security last. American leadership is required because there is no one else, and because it is good for
America. There is no weapon or wall that is more powerful for security than America being envied,
imitated, and admired around the world. Admired not for being perfect, but for having the exceptional courage to always try to
be better. Thank you.
2AC – AT: Warming
States can’t solve warming – laundry list.
Livermore ‘17 (Michael; 8/8/17; J.D. from New York University, B.A. in English from the State
University of New York, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Virginia; Climate Home, “Why
state action is no answer to bonfire of US climate rules,”
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/08/08/state-action-no-answer-bonfire-us-climate-rules/;
RP)
Some liberal-leaning states have responded by adopting more aggressive regulations. California has
positioned itself as a leader in the fight to curb climate change. New York is restructuring its electricity market to facilitate
clean energy. And Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe, has ordered state environmental regulators to design a rule to cap carbon
emissions from power plants. State experimentation may be the only way to break the gridlock on environmental issues that now overwhelms
our national political institutions. However, without a broad mandate from the federal government to address urgent
environmental problems, few red and purple states will follow California’s lead. In my view, giving too much power to
the states will likely result in many states doing less, not more. What’s so great about the states? Politicians are happy to
praise states’ rights, but they rarely say much about what federalism is supposed to accomplish. Granting more power to the states
should not be an end unto itself . Rather, it’s a way to promote goals such as political responsiveness, experimentation and policy
diversity. Many US environmental laws include roles for states and the federal government to work cooperatively to achieve shared
objectives. Often, this involves the federal government setting strict goals, with states taking the lead on
implementation and enforcement. This careful balance of federal and state power has been implemented by Republican and Democratic
administrations alike. In recent years, scholars have expanded on Justice Brandeis’ famous “laboratories of democracy” model of federalism
with the notion of “democratic experimentation.” Brandeis’ core insight, updated for contemporary society, is that decentralization lets state
and local governments experiment with different policies to generate information about what works and what doesn’t. Other states and the
national government can use those insights to generate better policy outcomes. California Governor Jerry Brown announces that his state will
host an international climate change action summit in September 2018 – the first such meeting to be held in the United States. But as I have
shown in recent work, there is no guarantee that state experimentation will produce neutral technical
information. It also can generate political information that can be put to good or bad uses. For example, state experimentation with
pollution controls may allow regulators to identify cheap ways to reduce emissions. On the other hand, big polluters may use the
opportunity to figure out clever ways to avoid their obligations. This happened in the 1970s and ‘80’s after the
Clean Air Act was enacted. State experimentation allowed polluters to learn that by building very tall smokestacks
at electric power plants, they could send pollution downwind while keeping local officials happy.
Experimentation resulted in information on how to push pollution around instead of cleaning it up, and
utilities in midwest states used this knowledge to shift pollutants to states downwind in the Northeast. An elusive
balance It makes rhetorical sense for the Trump administration to wrap its environmental agenda in federalism. Air and water pollution are
unpopular, and conservation groups have called out Trump’s policies and budget for undoing “environmental safeguards.” Reframing
deregulation as federalism turns the issue into a debate about how to allocate power between the national government and the states. But
striking the right balance between federal and state power requires careful attention to context and the
costs and benefits of decentralization. For example, Pruitt has formally proposed to rescind the Clean Water Rule , an
Obama administration regulation that clarifies the jurisdiction of EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to regulate smaller water bodies and
wetlands under the Clean Water Act. One might think that without EPA on the beat, states will take a more central role in water pollution
control. But in fact, many states have passed laws banning any clean water regulation that is more stringent than
federal standards. Shifting responsibility in this area back to states will create a policy vacuum instead of space
for experimentation. Less creativity, not more There is even more need for a federal role in addressing problems
that have global impacts, such as climate change. Once greenhouse gases are emitted, they do not just cause
warming in the place where they were released. Instead, they mix in the atmosphere and contribute to climate change
around the world. This means that no given jurisdiction pays the full cost of its emissions. Instead, in the
language of economics, these impacts are externalities that are felt elsewhere. This is why a global agreement
is needed to effectively slow climate change. The United States has already withdrawn from the Paris climate accord. If we
pull back on regulating greenhouse gases nationally as well, many states will have little incentive to take
action. Under the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, which Pruitt is reviewing and has told states to ignore,
every state was required to figure out how to meet a carbon reduction goal. However, it did not dictate how they should do
it. This approach would have produced valuable political information from red and purple states, which tend to rely more heavily than blue
states on fossil fuels. By forcing Republican leaders to craft state climate policies and sell them to their constituents, the Clean Power
Plan promoted what I consider truly useful experimentation that could have helped break the national gridlock on climate policy.
Now, without a prod from the federal government, those experiments are unlikely to occur . EPA’s retreat
will mean that we have less, not more, insight into smart and politically viable ways of cutting carbon emissions. Any
regulation can be improved on, and the Trump administration could have risen to that challenge. Instead, the leadership at EPA is
abdicating the agency’s traditional leadership role. In doing so, it is promoting stagnation and backsliding rather than
innovation.
Warming doesn’t cause extinction – new studies.

Nordhaus 20 Ted Nordhaus, an American author, environmental policy expert, and the director of
research at The Breakthrough Institute, citing new climate change forecasts. [Ignore the Fake Climate
Debate, 1-23-2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/ignore-the-fake-climate-debate-11579795816]//BPS
Beyond the headlines and social media, where Greta Thunberg, Donald Trump and the online armies of climate “alarmists”
and “deniers” do battle, there is a real climate debate bubbling along in scientific journals, conferences and,
occasionally, even in the halls of Congress. It gets a lot less attention than the boisterous and fake debate that dominates our public
discourse, but it is much more relevant to how the world might actually address the problem. In the real climate debate, no one denies the
relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and a warming climate. Instead, the disagreement comes down to different views
of climate risk in the face of multiple, cascading uncertainties. On one side of the debate are optimists, who believe that, with improving
technology and greater affluence, our societies will prove quite adaptable to a changing climate. On the other side are pessimists, who are
more concerned about the risks associated with rapid, large-scale and poorly understood transformations of the climate system. But most
pessimists do not believe that runaway climate change or a hothouse earth are plausible scenarios,
much less that human extinction is imminent. And most optimists recognize a need for policies to address climate change,
even if they don’t support the radical measures that Ms. Thunberg and others have demanded. In the fake climate debate, both sides agree
that economic growth and reduced emissions vary inversely; it’s a zero-sum game. In the real debate, the relationship is much more
complicated. Long-term economic growth is associated with both rising per capita energy consumption and slower population growth. For this
reason, as the world continues to get richer, higher per capita energy consumption is likely to be offset by a lower population. A
richer
world will also likely be more technologically advanced, which means that energy consumption should be less
carbon-intensive than it would be in a poorer, less technologically advanced future. In fact, a number of the high-emissions scenarios
produced by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change involve futures in which the world is relatively poor and populous
and less technologically advanced. Affluent, developed societies are also much better equipped to respond to climate extremes and natural
disasters. That’s why natural disasters kill and displace many more people in poor societies than in rich ones. It’s not just seawalls and flood
channels that make us resilient; it’s air conditioning and refrigeration, modern transportation and communications networks, early warning
systems, first responders and public health bureaucracies. New
research published in the journal Global Environmental Change finds that
global economic growth over the last decade has reduced climate mortality by a factor of five, with the greatest
benefits documented in the poorest nations. In low-lying Bangladesh, 300,000 people died in Cyclone Bhola in 1970, when 80% of the
population lived in extreme poverty. In 2019, with less than 20% of the population living in extreme poverty, Cyclone Fani killed just five people.
“Poor nations are most vulnerable to a changing climate. The fastest way to reduce that vulnerability is through economic development.” So
while it is true that poor nations are most vulnerable to a changing climate, it is also true that the fastest way to reduce that vulnerability is
through economic development, which requires infrastructure and industrialization. Those activities, in turn, require cement, steel, process
heat and chemical inputs, all of which are impossible to produce today without fossil fuels. For this and other reasons, the world is unlikely to
cut emissions fast enough to stabilize global temperatures at less than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the long-standing international
target, much less 1.5 degrees, as many activists now demand. But recent
forecasts also suggest that many of the worst-case
climate scenarios produced in the last decade, which assumed unbounded economic growth and fossil-fuel development, are also
very unlikely. There is still substantial uncertainty about how sensitive global temperatures will be to higher
emissions over the long-term. But the best estimates now suggest that the world is on track for 3 degrees of
warming by the end of this century, not 4 or 5 degrees as was once feared. That is due in part to slower economic growth in the wake of the
global financial crisis, but also to decades of technology policy and energy-modernization efforts. “We have better and cleaner technologies
available today because policy-makers in the U.S. and elsewhere set out to develop those technologies.” The energy
intensity of the
global economy continues to fall. Lower-carbon natural gas has displaced coal as the primary source of new fossil energy.
The falling cost of wind and solar energy has begun to have an effect on the growth of fossil fuels. Even nuclear
energy has made a modest comeback in Asia.
1AR – Perm – PIC
Extend the PIC perm – the perm does the entire plan and excludes “of non-Indians
committing crimes against Indian victims in Indian country” from the counterplan text,
functionally creates a fight over the entire criminal sentencing and policing reform.
The perm isn’t textually intrinsic – it includes all the words of the plan and words of
the CP.
Or functionally intrinsic – the plan is policing and sentencing reform which means
more broad leverage is not intrinsic.
Counterplans compete functionally and textually –

1 – Functional only CPs justify poorly written CPs and is arbitrary – it’s impossible to
define the function perfectly.
2 – Textual only CPs justify word PICs and synonyms – that centers the debate on
grammatical minutia which is unpredictable and kills aff ground – it’s not logical – the
words “do both” would be textually intrinsic – words have meaning beyond the letters
on the page.
Forcing CPs to be both solves by giving us perms to test either. The only portable skill
is opportunity cost assessment and preserves the same neg ground as long as they
read a different plan
1AR – Funding Deficit
Forces state compliance – link turns federalism
CBPP 18 [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Federal Aid to State and Local Governments, 4-19-
2018, Accessible Online at https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/federal-aid-to-state-
and-local-governments] KL 9-17-2020
Federal grants to state and local governments help finance critical programs and services across the
country. These grants provide roughly 31 percent of state budgets and 23 percent of state and local
budgets combined, according to the most recent data. They support health care, public education,
housing, community development, child care, job training, transportation, and clean water, among
other programs, which are vital to residents of every state — particularly those with low or moderate
incomes. Many states are experiencing revenue shortfalls and struggle in most years to find adequate
revenues to support services; without federal aid, they would likely cut or eliminate many of these
programs.
1AR – Federalization Deficit
No follow-on – partisanship, GOP skepticism of federalization, and insufficient state
budgets.
Chatterji 15, (associate professor at the Fuqua School of Business at Duke and a visiting associate
professor at Harvard Business School, was a senior economist with the White House Council of
Economic Advisers from 2010 to 2011, Don't Look to States for New Ideas,
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/12/opinion/dont-look-to-states-for-new-ideas.html)
What has changed? First, state politics have become much more partisan. After the 2014 elections, 60 percent of the states
are completely controlled by a single party. The power of state policy innovations is that they traditionally had bipartisan fingerprints, allowing
an enterprising national politician from either party to lay claim to them. In the new world of single-party states, very little bipartisan
legislation will emerge. We will see no Democrat willing to adopt the radical tax reforms of Gov. Sam Brownback, Republican of
Kansas, and surely no Republican could champion the Safe Act that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, got passed in New York — one of the
strictest gun control bills in the nation. Of course, these ideas may diffuse to other like-minded states. But more likely, these new
initiatives will be at one end of the political spectrum or the other, limiting the potential for federal adoption.
Second, it has become clear that “scaling” successful state policies is harder than it appears, because of
both political forces and policy realities. Every technocrat in Washington dreams of finding a successful
policy at the state level, an early childhood education program in North Carolina or a creative prison reform
initiative in Texas, and using it as a model for federal legislation. The logic is that once a state “laboratory” has
tested and approved a particular policy innovation, it will have the same “treatment” effect in the other 49
states. But that hasn’t been the case. Increasingly, efforts to “federalize” state innovations have been
hobbled by political backlash. The Obama administration’s Race to the Top program used billions of dollars of
prize money to persuade states to adopt several education policy reforms that had been proven to work
around the nation. Part of the package was Common Core, which, in part because of President Obama’s imprimatur, is now toxic on the
right (and, because of opposition from some teachers, is just as toxic on the left). Of course, despite their zeal for federalism , many
conservatives never really agreed with Justice Brandeis’s nostrum to begin with. They worry that successful state policies
might not translate well to the federal level, even under ideal conditions — witness the skepticism with
which Congressional Republicans greeted President Obama’s announcement last week of a new initiative to
help students attend community college, based on a program in Tennessee. And they have a point: It turns out
scaling a successful state program often ends up with a one-size-fits-all policy that might work well in Ohio but fall flat in Arizona. An economic
development program centered on promoting entrepreneurship might work in Silicon Valley, Boston or Austin, Tex., but fail miserably in an
area without leading universities and a highly educated work force. Moreover, federal mandates, in which Washington sets up rules and the
states run with them, hopefully innovating along the way, have not fared much better. The Medicaid expansion was intended to be a core pillar
of the Affordable Care Act, but following a 5-to-4 Supreme Court decision, many states chose to opt out. Finally, all politics aside, while tax
revenues have been increasing recently, manystates remain cash-strapped since the Great Recession, limiting their ability
to initiate significant economic or social programs of any kind. Taken together, these forces mean that while
states might experiment with numerous policies over the coming years, very few will ever go national. For
those of us frustrated with federal gridlock, the states will provide little comfort going forward. The 50
laboratories of democracy will produce many so-called cures, but none of them will go down very well in
our nation’s capital.
1AR – Warming – India/China A/C
India and China wreck solvency
Shania 15 (Amir Shania, Boaz Aradb, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Hotel and
Tourism Management, “There is always time for rational skepticism: Reply to Hall et al”, Tourism
Management, Volume 47, April 2015, Pages 348–351)
Furthermore, the analyses of Galiana and Green (2009) exemplify that in the current state of energy
technologies, the suggested plans for ambitious emission reductions will likely severely clobber the
global economy, especially in view of present economic conditions. In order to stabilize atmospheric
CO2 at accepted levels, there is a need for enormous advances in efficient energy technology, which is
currently missing (Pielke, Wigley & Green, 2008). In any case, even if every industrialized nation meets
the most ambitious emissions targets set by the Kyoto Protocol, such efforts are likely to have little
effect, particularly in the light of the considerable increases in greenhouse gas emissions by rising
economic superpowers as China and India, as well as the remaining developing world (Wigley, 1998).
2AR – PIC Perm
Punish them for bad CP texts. It’s key to predictable offense – the text determines the
function of the CP – and anything else creates a race to vacuous plan writing that
replaces words in the res with meaningless synonyms – straight turns their education
standards.
Even if – no offense – at best, they rely on an absurdly narrow interpretation of the

words in our plan, so it cuts both ways.
CON CON CP
2AC – Con Con CP – TL
Can’t solve – Indian tribes never subscribed to the Constitution – amendments fail.
Endless enforcement litigation guts solvency.
Sullivan 96 [Kathleen Sullivan 96, Prof of Law at Stanford, Jan 1996, “Address: CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSTANCY: WHY CONGRESS SHOULD CURE ITSELF OF AMENDMENT FEVER,” 17 Cardozo L. Rev. 691,
lexis]
The Constitution is drafted in general terms. Both powers and rights are set forth in broad and open-ended language. To quote Marshall in
McCulloch again, the Constitution by its nature "requires, that only its great outlines should be marked," and its "minor ingredients"
determined later through judicial interpretation. Hence the dilemma of drafting a constitutional amendment. It is ineffective to draft too
specifically. As Marshall wrote in favor of his expansive reading of enumerated congressional powers, "It would have been an unwise attempt to
provide, by immutable rules, for exigencies which, if foreseen at all, must have been seen dimly, and which can be best provided for as they
occur." Trying to write constitutional amendments that anticipate all later interp retation problems is
surely folly. Picture the Senators trying to find some exquisite phrase that will keep all those mustard-spattered flag napkins outside the
reach of the flag-desecration amendment.¶ On the other hand, drafting amendments in general terms is fraught
with dangers of its own. A generally worded amendment may contain hidden threats to the overall constitutional structure [*701] just
as grave as the overt conflicts discussed above, if not more so, because they are less likely to be openly debated. ¶ Again, recall the failed
balanced-budget amendment. The amendment provided in general terms that "total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts"
without supermajority authorization. The amendment appeared by its terms to be self-enforcing in the Congress: "The Congress shall enforce
and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts." Invisible from the face of the
amendment was its serious potential to involve the other two branches in fiscal controversies that Congress could not itself resolve. ¶
Specifically, if Congress failed to balance a budget, the President could have deemed himself authorized under the amendment to impound
funds that Congress had authorized and appropriated to specific programs, or to freeze federal wages and salaries - even though the
amendment did not specifically confer such authority. This would have resurrected a power struggle between the President and Congress that
was put to rest by statute during the Nixon administration. And even the potential for impoundment would have given the President greater
leverage for arm-twisting in the Congress.¶ And although the proposed amendment was similarly silent on the
question of judicial review, it had the clear potential to unleash a torrent of enforcement litigation in
the courts. Taxpayers might have claimed that their right to a balanced budget was violated by a projection that outlays would exceed
receipts. Employees whose wages were frozen by the President might have sued for back pay. Criminal defendants might have sought to excuse
themselves on the ground that outlays on law enforcement would exceed receipts, rendering the law under which they were charged
unconstitutional. Any
of these lawsuits would entangle the judicial branch in questions of economic
measurement and prediction for which it is surely ill-equipped.
[ ] AT – Politics: State ratification either resolves or sparks Congressional
infighting.
[ ] AT – Elections: Trump can’t take credit for state ratification. Or, he takes credit
for anything not tied to him.
[ ] AT – Senate: The GOP can’t take credit for state ratification. Or, they take
credit for anything not tied to them.
Permutation do the aff when the counterplan’s amendment is ratified.

It avoids by permuting the delay aspect of the counterplan and attaching it to the
plan.
Chism 5 [Chism, National Archives education specialist, 2005, The constitutional amendment process.
(teaching content). Kahlil Social Education 69.7 (Nov-Dec 2005): p373(9)]
Even though the steps can be described briefly, actual ratification can take much longer. Some amendments,
such as the 27th (Congressional pay increases), took many years to complete the ratification process. It was proposed by James
Madison in 1789, but not ratified until 203 years later. This amendment required that any change in the salary of members of
Congress only take effect after the next general election (so lawmakers were not voting to increase their own salaries). Congress ratified other
amendments in short order, such as the 18th (Prohibition), which took little more than a year. The
length of time depends upon
the gravity of the issue the amendment is intended to address, the intensity of public sentiment
concerning the issue, and whether or not a time limit for ratification was written into the amendment
during the proposal stage.
Con Con CP’s are a voter – unrealistic, “limited” allows the neg to spike out of all 2AC
offense, and “amendment” makes it impossible to win solvency deficits. You get
States but no “limited” conventions or “amendments”. Reject the team for
deterrence. At the very least we get delay permutations.
Perm do the CP.
Perm – the USFG should call a limited convention and states should ratify the plan.
Permutation -- Pursuant to Article V of the Constitution, the United States federal government should
call a limited constitutional convention and at least three-fourths of the States should ratify a
constitutional amendment that the United States federal government should substantially reform.
Links to the net-benefit.

Schlafly 18 Andy Schlafly, Esq. & attorney who practices before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd
Circuit in Philadelphia, on behalf of Pennsylvania Eagle Forum Testimony Against a “Convention of
States” (SR133 and SR134) Pennsylvania Senate State Government Committee (Oct. 17, 2018)
http://stategovernment.pasenategop.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2018/10/schlafly.pdf
7. The Name “Convention of States” Is Itself Misleading.
Their name itself is misleading. An Article V convention is not a “convention of states.” States can merely
apply to Congress, and it is Congress alone that calls an Article V convention. California will have the
most influence over a Convention of States because the Supreme Court requires that all representative
bodies, other than the U.S. Senate, be based on population: “one man, one vote.”
Their real name should be a “Convention called by Congress,” because that is what it would be. This is
the only one type of national constitutional convention authorized by the Constitution, and it is an
Article V convention called by Congress. Euphemistic semantics cannot change the fact that Congress
alone makes the call, and any amendments could then be proposed at a constitutional convention.
2AC – S – Enforcement
CP is circumvented and ignored
David A. Strauss, JD Magna Cum Laude Harvard Law School, Special Counsel to the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Member of the Board of Governors of the Chicago Council of Lawyers and is currently Chair
of the Board of Trustees of the Laboratory Schools, “The Irrelevance Of Constitutional Amendments, 114
Harv. L. Rev. 1457, 2001
In this respect, a mature society might be compared to a long-term contractual agreement. n10 The parties to such contracts often do not rely
solely, or even substantially, on the text of the contract to govern their day-to-day relationship; they have developed extratextual
understandings. Similarly, in a mature society, people accept the acts of legislatures, courts , and executive agencies - and the
political and nonpolitical acts of their fellow citizens - even when those acts augment or arguably conflict with the
foundational text . In a newly formed political society, any apparent deviation from the words of a
constitution might be seen as revolutionary and might cause the society to break apart; in a mature society,
relationships and patterns of trust are so well developed that that does not happen. As a result, by the time an
Article V supermajority is galvanized into action, chances are good that much of society has already changed by one of these other means. And
if a formal amendment process were unavailable, society would find another way to enforce the change it has determined to make - by
legislation and judicial interpretation, or by alterations in social understandings and private sector behavior. The change might not be
accomplished as neatly or as decisively; outliers might not be brought into line as quickly, for example. But relatively speaking, that is a detail.
Those other institutions - not supermajoritarian constitutional amendments - will be the truly important means of constitutional change. This
explains why, when [*1463] society has changed enough to produce a supermajority in favor of a formal amendment, the amendment is
probably unnecessary. One cannot, however, just say simplistically that any set of political forces strong enough to bring about a constitutional
amendment is strong enough to change society in some other way, because that is not always true. A
supermajority might act, and
adopt an amendment, even if society has not fundamentally changed. An amendment might represent a
momentary high-water mark of popular sentiment on a question, or an effective effort by an interest group at the height of its
power to secure its position. n11 At a later time, many people, even a majority, might decide that the
amendment was a mistake - but there it is, entrenched in the Constitution. On these occasions the
formal amendment will be relatively insignificant for a different reason. When there is no lasting social
consensus behind a textual amendment, the change in the text of the Constitution is unlikely to make a
lasting difference - at least if it seeks to affect society in an important way - unless society changes in the way that the amendment
envisions. Until that happens, the amendment is likely to be evaded, or interpreted in a way that blunts its
effectiveness . This is, in a sense, the other side of the fact that a mature society has a variety of institutions, in
addition to the text of the Constitution, that can affect how the society operates. Those institutions can
change society without changing the Constitution; but they can also keep society basically the same - perhaps with some
struggle, but still basically the same - even if the text of the Constitution changes. This was, most notoriously, the story of the Fourteenth and,
especially, the Fifteenth Amendment. The Fifteenth Amendment was somewhat effective in the short run, but within a generation it had been
reduced to a nullity in the South. n12
it’s toothless at the judicial level without the attitudinal shift fiated by the plan
Strauss 1 [David, Harry N. Wyatt Professor of Law at University of Chicago, Harvard Law Review, “THE
IRRELEVANCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS”, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 1457, lexis]
There are also more concrete implications that follow from the relative insignificance of the
[*1466]
formal amendment process. It is sometimes said that the Constitution should be interpreted "as a
whole." The amendments and the original provisions should, according to this view, all be read together, roughly as if the document were all
written at one time by one author. n20 For example, many of the amendments concern the franchise and elections; few of the post-Bill of
Therefore (the argument runs), constitutional law should be concerned
Rights amendments establish new substantive rights.
primarily with maintaining a well-functioning representative government rather than with establishing
substantive rights. n21 Others have invoked the Nineteenth Amendment, which guarantees women's suffrage, as a reason for
interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to forbid gender discrimination across the board (an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment
that appears inconsistent with the original understanding of that provision). n22 Still others have suggested that the Sixteenth, Seventeenth,
and Nineteenth Amendments (authorizing an income tax, providing for the direct election [*1467] of Senators, and enfranchising women,
respectively) implicitly authorized the federal welfare and regulatory state. n23 These
arguments presuppose that amending
the Constitution - and, by implication, failing to amend the Constitution - is a significant event. If this
supposition is true, a formal, textual amendment might legitimately be read back into other provisions
of the Constitution to produce a result that would not be warranted without the formal amendmen t. n24
But if the amendments carry no special significance - if they are not the principal means (or even an important means) by
which the People change our constitutional order - then these interpretive approaches lose their foundation . It may be
correct to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment to forbid gender discrimination, and the movement toward greater equality for women,
including women's suffrage, may be a legitimate reason to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment this way. But the fact that women's suffrage
was formally recognized by the Nineteenth Amendment - instead of coming about through, for example, state legislation or judicial
interpretation - should not carry great weight. One final implication is the most practical of all. If amendments are in
fact a sidelight, then it will usually be a mistake for people concerned about an issue to try to address it
by amending the Constitution. Their resources are generally better spent on legislation, litigation, or private-
sector activities. It is true that the effort to obtain a constitutional amendment may serve very effectively as
a rallying point for political activity. A constitutional amendment may be an especially powerful symbol, and it may be worthwhile
for a group to seek an amendment for just that reason. But in this respect constitutional amendments are comparable
to congressional resolutions, presidential proclamations, or declarations of national holidays. If they
bring about change, they do so because of their symbolic value, not because of their operative legal
effect.
2AC – L2 Politics
links to NBs AND fails for modeling
John A. Eidsmoe 92. 1992 Prof of Law @ Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, United States Air Force
Academy Journal of Legal Studies, “A New Constitutional Convention? Critical Look at Questions
Answered, and Not Answered, by Article Five of the United States Constitution”, Lexis.
It is no wonder, then, that Lawrence tribe, Professor of constitutional Law at Harvard, warns that a
new constitutional convention could
lead to domestic political confrontations of “nightmarish dimension” between Congress and the
Convention, between Congress and the Supreme Court, and between Congress and the states-not to
mention between the Supreme Court and the Convention . Tribe continues, Particularly in a period of recovery form a decade
ruptured by war, political assassination, near impeachment and economic upheaval, and particularly in a time when such recovery has already been interrupted by
new domestic and international crises, it is vital that the means we choose fro amending the Constitution be generally understood and, above all, widely understood
as legitimate. An
Article V convention, however, would today provoke controversy and debate unparalleled in
recent constitutional history. For the device is shrouded in legal mysteries of the most fundamental sort,
mysteries yielding to no ready mechanism of solution. Given the significance of the U nited States
Constitution both for our nation and for others, it would not be surprising if a convention of this
magnitude were to result in serious economic instability at home and abroad, as well as substantial
disruption of America’s relations abroad.
CP links to politics – Congressional approval of logistics results in debate over the plan
– ALSO ensures delay solvency deficit
Schlam 94 [Lawrence Schlam, Professor of Law, Northern Illinois University College of Law, State
Constitutional Amending, Independent Interpretation, and Political Culture: A Case Study in
Constitutional Stagnation, Winter 1994, 43 DePaul L. Rev. 269]
Bills have been proposed in Congress setting out procedures that Congress must follow when calling and conducting a convention upon general application of the
states. See, for example, S. 817, introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch, and S. 600, introduced by Senator Jesse Helms in 1981. A similar bill was proposed by Senator
Sam Ervin in 1967. It passed the Senate in 1971, but died in the House Judiciary Committee. Most commentators believe such a law would be helpful in resolving
conflicts in advance. See Article V and the Proposed Federal Constitutional Convention Procedures Bill, Report and Recommendation to the New York State Bar
Association by the Committee on Federal Constitution, 3 CARDOZO L. REV. 529 (1982) [hereinafter N.Y. Bar Report]; Note, Proposed Legislation on the Convention
Method of Amending the United States Constitution, 85 HARV. L. REV. 1612, 1615-29 (1972). Such "legislation would . . . help avoid the
chaos and
substantial delay which might result if Congress had to make, on an ad hoc basis following receipt of
thirty-four applications, all decisions concerning the sufficiency of applications, the convening of the
convention, and the procedures to be followed by it ." Id. at 1617. As Senator Sam Ervin said in support of his bill: "The
Constitution made the amendment process difficult, and properly so. It certainly was not the intention
of the original Convention to make it impossible . . . . My bill seeks to preserve the symmetry of article V by implementing the
convention alternative so as to make it a practicable but not easy method of constitutional amendment." Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Proposed Legislation to Implement the
Convention Method of Amending the Constitution, 66 MICH. L. REV. 875, 895 (1968). But cf. Charles L. Black, Jr., Amending the Constitution: A Letter to a
Congressman, 82 YALE L.J. 189, 193 (1972) (stating that the Ervin bill is unconstitutional, unwise, and could not bind Congress in the future).
That assures delays and political debate

Rotunda & Safranek 96 - Professor of Law @ University of Illinois & Professor of Law @ University
of Detroit Mercy [Ronald D. Rotunda & Stephen J. Safranek “ESSAY: AN ESSAY ON TERM LIMITS AND A
CALL FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION,” Marquette Law Review, Fall 1996, 80 Marq. L. Rev. 227
If Congress chooses to have the proposed amendment ratified by convention in each of the states, the
procedures for the election of these delegates to the conventions will have to be decided. n77 Article V
does not specify how or when delegates to a convention would be chosen. n78 Congress, which is given
the responsibility to call the convention, n79 should also have the final power to specify the election
procedures. Congress might decide to defer to state procedures, or enact its own procedures. Thus,
while Congress has no choice but to call a convention once the requisite number of valid state
applications has been received, n80 the power to "call" should give it an opportunity to craft the process
by which delegates will be selected. n81
Using this power, Congress could create an election process that would maximize the public debate on
the issue and ensure the accountability of the delegates. Congress could also provide for adequate
debate by establishing a longer campaign period. The campaign would probably generate intense
media and public interest because it would be the first convention that has ever been held to ratify an
amendment. n82 The increased media exposure would draw political parties and interest groups into
the campaign and ensure a spirited discussion of the issues.
2AC – Econ DA
CP causes economic collapse
Eidsmoe 92 [John A. Eidsmoe 1992, Prof of Law @ Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, United States
Air Force Academy Journal of Legal Studies, “A New Constitutional Convention? Critical Look at
Questions Answered, and Not Answered, by Article Five of the United States Constitution,” lexis]
It is no wonder, then, that Lawrence tribe, Professor of constitutional Law at Harvard, warns that a
new constitutional convention could
lead to domestic political confrontations of “nightmarish dimension” between Congress and the
Convention, between Congress and the Supreme Court, and between Congress and the states-not to
mention between the Supreme Court and the Convention. Tribe continues, Particularly in a period of recovery form a decade
ruptured by war, political assassination, near impeachment and economic upheaval, and particularly in a time when such recovery has already been interrupted by
new domestic and international crises, it is vital that the means we choose fro amending the Constitution be generally understood and, above all, widely understood
as legitimate. An
Article V convention, however, would today provoke controversy and debate unparalleled in
recent constitutional history. For the device is shrouded in legal mysteries of the most fundamental sort,
mysteries yielding to no ready mechanism of solution. Given the significance of the U nited States
Constitution both for our nation and for others, it would not be surprising if a convention of this
magnitude were to result in serious economic instability at home and abroad, as well as substantial
disruption of America’s relations abroad.
Even if unsuccessful, perceived as a window of opportunity for foreign aggression –

escalates to war
Howell & Pevehouse 11 [William G. Howell and Jon C. Pevehouse, both associate professors at the
University of Chicago's Irving B. Harris School of Public Policy, “Chapter 1: Possibilities of Congressional
Influence,” in While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential War Powers, Princeton
University Press, 6-27-2011, p.27-29]
The Importance of Congressional Appeals/Dissent Because they are legally binding, legislation and appropriations passed by Congress directly impinge on a
president’s discretion to wage war. Not surprisingly, then, opponents of a president’s war typically call on Congress to pass laws and cut appropriations. But the
public debates that precede military actions also have important consequences for presidential power. Two stand out. By
expressing dissent,
members of Congress can weaken the presidents ability to credibly convey resolve to foreign allies and
adversaries, and they can turn public opinion against him.73 Here, we briefly summarize both of these avenues of congressional influence.
SIGNALING RESOLVE To the extent that congressional discontent signals domestic irresolution to other nations,
the job of resolving a foreign crisis is made all the more difficult. As Kenneth Schultz shows, an “opposition party can under-
mine the credibility of some challenges by publicly opposing them. Since this strategy threatens to increase the probability of
resistance from the rival state, it forces the government to be more selective about making threats”—and, concomitantly, more cautious about
actually using military force.74 When members of Congress openly object to a planned military operation, would-be adversaries
of the United States may feel emboldened, believing that the president lacks the domestic support required
to see a military venture through. Such nations, it stands to reason, will be more willing to enter conflict,
and if convinced that the United States will back down once the costs of conflict are revealed, they may fight
longer and make fewer concessions. Domestic political strife, as it were, weakens the ability of
presidents to bargain effectively with foreign states, while increasing the chances that military
entanglements abroad will become protracted and unwieldy . A large body of work within the field of
international relations supports the contention that a nation’s ability to achieve strategic military objec-
tives in short order depends, in part, on the head of states credibility in conveying political resolve . Indeed,
a substantial game theoretic literature underscores the importance of domestic political institutions and
public opinion as state leaders attempt to credibly commit to war .75 Confront- ing widespread and vocal domestic opposition,
the president may have a difficult time signaling his willingness to see a military campaign to its end. While congressional opposition may embolden foreign
enemies, the perception on the part of allies that the president lacks support may make them wary of committing any troops at all. The dangers of domestic political
dissent are not lost on presidents and members of Congress. Indeed, for Bush (43) it constituted an important reason for seeking congressional authorization to use
force against Iraq in the fall of 2002. In a Rose Garden ceremony on October 2, the president noted, “The statement of support from the Congress will show to
friend and enemy alike the resolve of the United States. In Baghdad, the regime will know that full compliance with all U.N. security demands is the only choice and
that time remaining for that choice is limited.”76 Then, in remarks eight days later on the House’s vote to authorize the use of force, the president proclaimed, “The
House of Representatives has spoken clearly to the world and to the United Nations Security Council: The gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and
finally. Today’s vote also sends a clear message to the Iraqi regime: It must disarm and comply with all existing U.N. resolutions, or it will be forced to comply. There
By securing
are no other options for the Iraqi regime. There can be no negotiations. The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end.”77
congressional authorization, it was supposed, the president could communicate his views and intentions
more effectively to the international community that Iraq’s defiance of United Nations resolutions would no longer pass unnoticed.'8 In
doing so, it was hoped, Saddam Hussein would finally relent to Bush's demands. Imagine what might have happened during the lead-up to and execution of the
Iraq War had Congress not authorized the use of force. Two outcomes seem plausible, even likely. First, the president would have had an even more difficult time
assembling an international coalition in support of military action. Recall, after all, that the president expressly sought congressional authorization in the hopes
that it would improve the chances of later securing a UN Resolution in support of military action. Second, and in a more speculative vein, had Congress not
authorized the use of force, the military operation itself might not have gone so smoothly. Dur- ing the early stages of the Iraq War, the U.S. military took pains to
persuade the enemy to lay down its arms and surrender, rather than fight and face certain death. Accompanying these claims were regular assurances that the
United States would see this war through to the end, that it would not stop until the entire Hussein regime was dismantled. To substantiate these claims, Congress’s
authorization was critical. For a moment, put yourself in the place of an Iraqi field officer in the spring of 2003 . On
the one hand, the United States military is bearing down upon you, threatening to kill you and every one of your comrades unless you abandon the fight. On the
other hand, should you surrender prematurely, and should the United States fail to depose the Hussein regime, then you can expect to face the wrath of a spurned
and spiteful ruler—as the southern Shi’a did a decade prior, after they had risen up in defiance of the Hussein regime only to be persecuted the moment that U.S.
troops withdrew. Which option seems preferable critically depends on the likelihood that the United States will see the campaign to its end. For if
you have
reason to doubt the nation’s resolve, and Congress's refusal to authorize the use of force would buoy
this concern, then the latter option might be the right one—producing a longer, bloodier military
conflict and raising the cost to an invading army . Similar concerns arose in subsequent years when the
United States contemplated troop withdrawals from Iraq . Though the insurgency continued to take its toll on U.S. forces, the
president’s popularity waned, and calls for the Iraqi government to police its own state intensified. Bush nonetheless refused to set a firm timetable for troops to
leave. And his reasons for doing so were plain enough. The president insisted that insurgents were watching U.S. politics closely and that a timetable would
encourage the insurgents to “just go ahead and wait us out." Setting a fixed withdrawal date, Bush concluded, simply “concedes too much to the enemy.”79
Whether this prediction was accurate or not, its logic relied on the realization that others monitor U.S.
politics generally, and Congress in particular, to gauge the nation’s resolve.
2AC – SOP DA
Amendments destroy SOP
Joan Schaffner 5, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School. 54 Am. U.L.
Rev. 1487. Lexis)
[*1525] Through amendment, the legislative branch has the power to enact laws that establish societal
standards only so long as the laws enacted do not violate the constitutional rights of individuals. 222 The
legislature is not empowered to draft laws to enshrine illegitimate prejudices of the majority. Allowing
the legislature, with the endorsement of the executive, to amend the Constitution to expressly overrule
a decision of the judiciary, which acted consistently with democratic principles by protecting the rights
of a minority of the people, destroys the delicate balance of power among the branches.
SOP prevents nuke war

Ray Forrester 89, Professor, Hastings College of the Law, University of California. 57 Geo. Wash. L.
Rev. 1636. Lexis)
On the basis of this report, the startling fact is that one [man] [person] alone has the ability to start a
nuclear war.
A basic theory--if not the basic theory of our Constitution--is that concentration
of power in any one person, or one group, is
dangerous to mankind. The Constitution, therefore, contains a strong system of checks and balances, starting
with the separation of powers between the President, Congress, and the Supreme Court. The message is that no one of them is safe
with unchecked power. Yet, in what is probably the most dangerous governmental power ever possessed, we find the potential for
world destruction lodged in the discretion of one person.
2AC – Politicization DA
They destroy the rule of law through excessive politicization (that means both the CP
triggers a larger link to their courts DA and they can’t establish a clear precedent that
will be interpreted)
Farley 97 [Ryan, Articles Editor at the Emory International Law Review, “IRELAND AND DIVORCE: IS A
LITTLE REBELLION NOW AND THEN A GOOD THING?” 11 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 515, lexis]
Excessive constitutional amendment implicates reverence and confidence in the rule of law. n73 Arguably,
frequent constitutional amendments trivialize or politicize constitutions in that they [*534] diminish the
constitution's fundamental status. n74 For example, amendments politicize a constitution by embedding in it a controversial
substantive choice, usually a product of interest group politics, exemplified by the amendment on divorce. n75 Moreover, these substantive
choices are binding upon subsequent generations. Therefore, transformative amendments that reflect a substantive social or economic policy
permit the present generation to bind a subsequent generation, entrenching values not revisable by ordinary politics. n76 Another argument
advanced for limiting the frequency of constitutional amendments is the idea of constitutional coherence. n77 A
constitution is drafted
as a coherent whole and as a product of compromise and consent while amendments are generally
limited to a single proposition. The introduction of an amendment might result in an inconsistency or
tension between the amendment and the basic structure of the constitution . n78 Furthermore, "such
inconsistencies might have the unintended consequence of undermining the unity and coherence of the
document as a whole, destabilizing structures or rights we had taken for granted." n79 While most
commentators agree that an amendment enacted pursuant to proper procedures cannot be unconstitutional, it is clear that amendments can
cause tension with the original document "and may exert a gravitational force extending beyond their specific subject matter." n80 A final
justification for having a presumption against amending a constitution is that frequent [*535]
amendments might undermine the judiciary's interpretive role. n81 Ultimately, cumbersome amendment procedures
promote stability. Moreover, expeditious amendment procedures might sacrifice discussion and stability . n82 In
the end, frequent constitutional amendments reduce the potential for constitutions to promote a
consensus on social values by establishing transcendental norms in society . n83
2AC – School Rider DA
Amendment process ensures exceptions get written in – independent scenarios for
our impacts – AND school prayer rides – AND ensures delay
Thomas Berg 98. Professor of Law, Cumberland Law School, Samford University, “The Constitutional
Future of Religious Freedom Legislation,” University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 20(3), 1998,
20 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 715, http://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1623&context=lawreview
Of course, there are other ways to reinstitute a general legal rule that accommodations should be afforded except in cases of
overriding government necessity. Advocates of religious freedom could seek to convince the Court to abandon Smith and return to the rule requiring
accommodations; failing that, they could seek to amend the Constitution to reverse Smith. Or they could work at the level of
individual states, pushing for such a general standard through state statutes or constitutional amendments. The constitutional amendment
process is obviously long and arduous, and nothing would happen unless the required three-fourths of
the states ratified the amendment. The constitutional amendment process illustrates the power that can
be exercised by a few interest groups who are opposed to religious freedom in the cases that concern them. Groups from prison
wardens to the architectural preservation lobby to public educators to animal rights activists could
force exceptions to be written into the amendment at the front end--or more likely, they could defeat
it entirely at the back end by blocking passage in just a few states. The experience could be similar to that of the Equal Rights
Amendment, which shot out of the starting gate in 1972 but ran into insurmountable difficulties getting the last few states to ratify.39 The amendment
process would also tend to sweep in other issues in the contentious area of church and state, such as
various forms of prayer in public schools and financial aid to religious schools-a concern expressed by a
number of members of Congress at hearings held last year in the wake of Boerne.'° The state legislative or amendment process is more likely to
produce tangible results, but it too would move very slowly. It also is practically guaranteed to produce uneven results, with lobbies that are powerful in particular
states enjoying greater ability to force exceptions to the religious freedom law. Already some states have proposed to exempt prisoner claims;4 in other states,
lobbyists for groups on the other side of particular disputes may be able to demand exceptions .
School prayer risks extinction

Stephen D. Mumford 17. Expert on fertility and population growth, Ph.D., M.A. University of Texas
School of Public Health, B.A. agriculture, University of Kentucky, “The Catholic Church and Divisiveness
in America,” 5-27-2017, http://churchandstate.org.uk/2017/05/the-catholic-church-and-divisiveness-in-
america/
The Church and Divisiveness in America Because the Catholic Church ignores the principle of separation of church and state, it is the most divisive force in America. The March 19, 1984, issue of
U.S. News and World Report examined two secret Catholic elite religious societies in this country: the Knights of Malta with one thousand U.S. members who are prominent in government, business, or professional life and Opus
Dei with three thousand members of widely varied backgrounds. The Knights of Malta organization dates back to the time of the Crusades; its members include some of our nation’s most prominent Catholics: CIA Director William
Casey; William Wilson; Vernon Walters; Senators Denton and Domenici; Alexander Haig; William Sloan; and William F. Buckley, creator and leader of Young Americans for Freedom, from which a large proportion of the Reagan
administration team were drawn. Because many Knights and recipients of the Order’s honors have worked in or around the CIA, critics sometimes suggest a link between the two. The CIA has been dominated by the Catholic
hierarchy. According to members, the order serves “as an international defender of the Church.”[7] In June of each year a ceremony is held in Rome for Knights of Malta which includes the “swearing of allegiance to the defense of
the Holy Mother Church.”[8] Herein lies the problem for population growth control and its recognition as a national security issue. Population growth control seriously threatens the survival of the Vatican, as discussed in chapters
one and four. Knights are committed to defending the Church. Only the most devout and obedient are invited to join the Knights and Opus Dei (which its detractors have compared to mind-controlling cults).[9] If the Vatican has
determined that population growth control threatens the Holy Mother Church, the members of these societies are obliged to counter this threat by thwarting the development of population growth control government policies
and their execution. It is inevitable that the best interests of the Vatican and those of the United States are not always going to be the same. For this reason, no one can possibly swear complete alle giance to both and mean it. The
has serious
acts and attitudes of the Knights of Malta in the Reagan administration seem to reflect this complete allegiance to the Catholic Church rather than to our country. This deep conflict
ramifications for population growth control. As long as it exists, it is not possible to effectively deal with the population problem. The real population
problem is not convincing people that they must have small families or delivering the family planning
services to them. This we can most certainly achieve in just ten years for 95 percent of the world’s
population and at a price we can afford. The real population problem is this conflict between the needs
of the Church and the desperate needs of humanity to control its proliferation. Consider the intensity of the commitment of these
secret society members as “international defenders of the Church.” It is hardly a secret that one of the most important American advances in “defending the Church” by Catholic elitists was the creation of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA). The activities of the CIA go far beyond intelligence gathering of an international nature.[10] The CIA serves as an agency through which secret “assistance” to the Holy Mother Church can be provided by secret
American society members acting as her defenders: During the CIA’s formative years, Protestants predominated…. Somehow, however, Catholics wrested control of the CIA’s covert-action section. It was no coincidence that some
of the agency’s more grandiose operations were in Catholic countries of Latin America and the Catholic regime of South Vietnam.[11] For creating the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the wartime predecessor to the CIA, and this
special arrangement with the Vatican, General William “Wild Bill” Donovan was decorated in July 1944 by Pope Pius XII with the Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Sylvester, the oldest and most prestigious of papal knighthoods.
This award has been given to only one hundred other men in history, who, “by feat of arms or writings or outstanding deeds have spread the faith and have safeguarded and championed the Church.”[12] Donovan did more to
safeguard and champion the Church than any other American, and he was rewarded for his services with the highest Catholic award ever received by an American. No doubt, thousands of others have striven with their deeds for
similar recognition. What has this meant in terms of the issues cited in Table I? Communism is the greatest threat faced by the Church. The Catholic Church and communism cannot coexist. They are both rival absolut ists. Both
indoctrinate their children so as to ensure complete rejection of the other. Columnist Robert Blair Kaiser who covered the Vatican for Time magazine had a conversation with Pope John XXIII in August 1962. “For too long, he [the
pope] said, the Church had been waging a so-called holy war against the forces of communism. That was getting us nowhere.”[13] This holy war continues in Central America today! [ Table1 OMITTED ] It is believed by some
historians that the reason the Vatican aided Hitler in his rise to power was so that he could destroy Russian communism. When this failed, the Vatican through its defenders called upon the United States to stop the spread of
Russian communism in Europe and elsewhere. A Vatican-inspired hate campaign against the Russians, the greatest hate campaign ever endured by Americans, was launched. To this day, like most other Americans, I am a victim of
this campaign launched during my childhood. In August 1984, President Reagan showed his intense hatred of the Russian people in his infamous radio microphone test, “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve
signed legislation that would outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” No doubt, this Vatican-inspired hate campaign has influenced Mr. Reagan. By this theory, at a cost of hundreds of billions of American dollars,
we built a war machine for the protection of Catholicism. For this same reason have we built a nuclear
arsenal powerful enough to destroy the world five times over and have we seen the Russians match it?
This is, I feel, in great part the origin of the other great threat to civilization—nuclear war. Hundreds of millions of dollars
were spent to protect Catholicism from communism, and one can only conjecture about the ways in which the world would have been different if this money had been spent differently and if the first requests to the World Health
Organization by India for population growth control assistance had not been blocked by the Vatican thirty-four years ago. Our commitment to saving the Catholic government in South Vietnam from communism (only 5 percent of
the people of South Vietnam were Catholic, [14] causing some observers to refer to it as a Vatican colony) can be thought of as a result of the activities of the “U.S. Catholic defenders of the Church,” largely members of the CIA.
The French provided this same service to the Vatican for eighty years before they gave up on the holy war in Vietnam.[15] A number of issues cited in Table I, including U.S. military support for El Salvador and other Central
American governments, the Grenada invasion, and maintaining the status quo in Latin America can be seen as Vatican-inspired actions to prop up Catholic (Vatican-dominated) governments against popular uprisings. They are the
“holy wars against communism” mentioned by Pope John XXIII. During a May 1984 fundraising visit to New York, the archbishop of Managua, Nicaragua, Miguel Obando y Bravo, said his campaign represented the best-organized
opposition in Nicaragua to popular Sandinista government efforts.[16] Another example is Lebanon. Most Americans are not aware of the closeness of the Gemayel government to the Vatican. “Maronite Christians,” a minority
group in Lebanon, are the Eastern Catholic Church. “The Maronites are in communion with Rome and have a college for the education of their clergy in Rome. In the year 1181, at the time of the Crusades, the Maronites…made
peace with Rome and became attached to the Holy See.”[17] Gemayel, like his politician father, was Jesuit trained in a Catholic university.[18] The Vatican wishes to see the Maronites continue to be the dominant power in
Lebanon so that the only country in the Middle East in the Vatican sphere of influence will remain so. In all of these cases the Vatican, to maintain and expand its geographical control, seems to be calling upon the services of the
U.S. Defense Department to serve as an instrument of Vatican foreign policy in much the same way it has in Cold War Europe. My purpose in presenting this brief discussion of selected foreign policy initiatives of the Vatican is to
show the lengths to which “defenders of the Church” in the Reagan administration are willing to go in order to “safeguard” the Church. To these “defenders,” Vietnam, El Salvador, Grenada, and Lebanon are viewed in part as “holy
wars for the preservation of the Church.” They are unquestionably willing to go to similar lengths to protect the Church from population growth control activities. Population scientists, field workers, and, more importantly,
journalists must acknowledge the magnitude of this obstacle to solving the population problem and deal with this problem in its entirety—and without delay. In the meantime, the Vatican is enhancing
its political power through generating domestic divisiveness. The abortion issue is clearly the most important to the Church and one of the most contentious
issues in American history. It has allowed the Church to mobilize (under the guise of an emotional or “moral” issue) many Catholics, though a minority of those in this country, for political purposes. But it has also given the Church
the opportunity to mobilize a large number of non-Catholics, mostly Protestant fundamentalists, to serve the needs of the Vatican. Just after the Reagan administration announced the radical change in U.S. population assistance
policy, Senator Bradley of New Jersey sent out a press release dated August 8, 1984. He sharply condemned the Reagan administration policy change in the name of abortion restriction. “I cannot comprehend the logic of this new
policy. It is not about abortion. What the policy is about is denying support for family planning services…. The administration’s new policy will do a great deal to suppress family planning efforts . . .”[19] (emphasis added). The
Vatican’s real target here was family planning, and it expects Americans to be fooled by its strategy. Most Protestant fundamentalists have no problem with family planning, but they have been used here by the Vatican to
accomplish Vatican goals. Few fundamentalists are opposed to family planning, international population assistance, or illegal immigration control. Yet the Vatican uses its “Moral Majority” and the political force of the
Federal aid to public education has

fundamentalists to undermine family planning, international population assistance, and illegal immigration control through this organization of lobbyists.
always been opposed by the Church. Between 1925 and 1945, it was blocked by the Catholic lobby[20] because it enhances the disparity
between Catholic education and public education and shifts some decision-making to the federal level
where it is less susceptible to Church influence than at the local level . The Vatican is opposed to the United Nations and its agencies because it sees
them as a competitor for the role of international arbitrator and peacemaker. Parochial school aid is viewed by the Church as vitally important . Only 30
percent[21] (about three million[22]) of Catholic children attend Catholic schools. While these schools produce enough obedient Catholics to advance the Vatican agenda, tripling this proportion
would substantially enhance the power of the Church . School prayer is important because, the more
religious the public schools are made, the easier it is to justify government assistance to parochial
schools. Other issues appearing in Table I have been discussed elsewhere in this text and need not be dealt with here. What is important is that the Church picks up
non-Catholic support on each of these issues. For example, non-Catholic private school parents who send their children to nonreligious schools support the Church’s political
initiatives because they stand to gain from them. The Vatican has elevated fundamentalist leader Jerry Falwell to a position of power and status of which he never dreamed. He is enabled to have frequent meetings with President
Reagan and given an opportunity to be one of the nation’s foremost “moral leaders,” delivering “Moral State of the Union” speeches on nationwide prime-time telecasts. In return, Falwell provides the Church with a constituency of
The Vatican’s
millions of fundamentalists to mask as a “Christian” effort the Vatican’s lobbying effort against abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, family planning, and population assistance issues.
extensive intrusion into American policy-making is causing considerable national divisiveness. The
Vatican gains considerable political advantage from its allies among non-Catholics and uses it to heavily
influence government policy (or to thwart the making of policy altogether in some areas). Their
manipulation has frustrated mobilization in this country to deal with the nation’s most pressing
problems, such as population growth control, nuclear disarmament, illegal immigration control,
environmental degradation, including the pollution of our nation’s waters and soil, soil erosion, and the
“greenhouse effect.” Our country is finding itself in a position similar to those in Latin America which are literally being buried under their problems because their national interests sometimes differ from
Vatican interests.
2AC – Runaway DA
CP causes runaway convention
Condray and Conlan 19 (Patrick, MA from George Mason, Public Policy PhD student with the Schar School (George Mason
University), Timothy J. Conlan is University Professor of Government at George Mason University. He holds a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard
University and an undergraduate degree in Political Science from the University of Chicago, Article V Conventions and American Federalism:
Contemporary Politics in Historical Perspective, Publius: The Journal of Federalism, Volume 49, Issue 3, Summer 2019, Pages 515–539,
https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.unlv.edu/10.1093/publius/pjz009 )
In 2013, a group called Citizens for Self-Governance (CSG) initiated the

Convention of States (CoS) Project, which seeks to
amend the U.S. Constitution through an Article V Convention. With funding and support from conservative
entities such as the Koch Brothers and the American Legislative Exchange Council , the Project promotes
amendments designed to “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government,” “limit the power and
jurisdiction of the federal government,” and “limit the terms of office for federal officials ” (Guldenschuh 2015).
As of early 2019, fourteen states had issued calls for a convention to consider these amendments.
Another conservative effort bringing new life into state calls promoting a convention to adopt a
Balanced Budget Amendment has generated a total of twenty-eight applications as of 2018 . Meanwhile, on
the left, a smaller and less well-funded effort has led to six states issuing calls for an Article V Convention focused on campaign finance. They
seek to amend the Constitution in order to overturn the Supreme Court decision overturning various campaign-finance limits in Citizens United
v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Active
state Article V Convention calls continue to be debated in multiple state
legislatures. For example, as of March 2019 the Convention of States call (pushed by CSG, which modestly describes itself as the “largest
Article V grassroots organization in the country”) has been the subject of active legislation in fourteen state legislatures in 2019 (Convention of
States 2019). Arkansas and Utah passed the CoS call in 2019. Efforts
such as these have drawn renewed attention to the
state convention method of amending the U.S. Constitution. Article V of the Constitution allows two-thirds of the states
to call for a convention of states for proposing Constitutional amendments. Unlike the alternative and more familiar process of advancing
Constitutional amendments by a two-thirds vote of the Congress, followed by state ratification, the power to call for a
Constitutional convention rests with the states. As Article V states, in part: “The Congress … on the Application of the
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…” Because the convention
method has never been employed under the U.S. Constitution, the prospect of a convention raises many
questions and alternative assessments. Must all of the state calls be expressed in identical language? Can such a convention be
limited in scope or would it constitute an entity immune from preconditions? What role (if any) do the courts play
in deciding such questions? Uncertainty about these and other issues has long posed a political hurdle to
utilizing the convention approach, with many observers raising the prospect of a “runaway” convention
that might trample on the Bill of Rights or other provisions (Goldberg 1983). Accordingly, these and other
aspects of an Article V convention have prompted considerable discussion and analysis by lawyers,
scholars, and public officials (Caplan 1988; Vile 1993). Less is known, however, about why and how states have articulated Article V
applications over time and how contemporary movements to call a convention may align with or differ from historical patterns. Over the course
of American history, states
have issued at least 354 distinct calls for an Article V convention. Some, such as the
efforts to provide for the direct election of Senators or to require a balanced federal budget , have come
close enough to garnering support from two-thirds of the states that they provoked a preemptory
response from Congress. Others have prompted momentary interest and then faded away. Many have been motivated by states’
interest in enhancing their power relative to the national government, but others have been focused on important policy issues of the day. Can
these and other patterns from the past inform our understanding of today’s efforts to amend the Constitution through a convention of the
states, or are there features of contemporary calls for an Article V convention that are different and unique?
Constitutional amendments are a key mechanism of democratic backsliding – they’re
off the table now but reviving them kills democracy
Huq and Ginsburg 18 (Aziz and Thomas, Professors of Law, University of Chicago Law School, "How to Lose a Constitutional
Democracy," 65 UCLA Law Review 78 (2018), https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=13666&context=journal_articles )
1. Constitutional Amendment Imagine that a political party had disciplined majorities in both houses of Congress
and the thirty-eight states necessary to utilize Article V . Or alternatively, suppose that the growing chorus of
calls for a new constitutional convention yielded fruit.281 It would then be feasible to reform core
elements of the American Constitution . The content of such reforms is not hard to imagine. Perhaps,
following patterns in other illiberal democracies, a first target might be the Twenty-Second Amendment,
which constitutionalized term limits in the wake of Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency. Or simply examine the various
liberty-restricting constitutional amendments that have been proposed in Congress over the years,
mainly to overturn court decisions.282 To be sure, there are other amendments that have been proposed that would enhance
liberty. But the point is that there is nothing structural in Article V that prevents this disciplined national
majority with sufficient political support at the state level from using constitutional amendment to
entrench its power and restrict liberty. Nevertheless, we do not think that constitutional amendment will play a significant role in
promoting the retrogression of constitutional liberal democracy for two reasons. First, American political parties have historically lacked
discipline relative to their counterparts in other democracies—a complex result of history, geography, and our electoral system. And the very
veneration of the Constitution suggests that amendments are likely to receive a good deal of attention, working as focal points for
constitutional resistance by regime opponents.283 As a strategic matter, more subtle mechanisms are likely to be more effective and hence
more likely to be deployed.284 Second, Article V of the Constitution establishes “some of the most onerous hurdles
in the world for the ratification of amendments .”285 Indeed, it has been so rarely used that some scholars have argued that it
has fallen into desuetude.286 In most other contexts in which amendment has played a large role in facilitating
backsliding from democratic practices, by contrast, the amendment rule has been less demanding .287 There is
an irony here: Article V has been condemned roundly by commentators, especially on the political left.288 Yet the rigidity of the
formal constitutional procedure largely takes off the table at least one potent instrument of
constitutional retrogression at a moment when liberal commentators might well feel their priorities
most imperiled.
2AC – White Supremacy DA
Right-wing states will hijack the constitutional convention to push white supremacist
policy – Louisiana proves
Garrett Epps ’19, Professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore, “Sometimes the Supreme Court Sticks to the Law”,
3/20/19, The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/4-supreme-court-cases-show-legal-limits-prosecution/585217/
Evangelista Ramos was convicted of second-degree murder by a Louisiana jury in 2016. The jury split 10–2
after hearing mostly circumstantial evidence . After the conviction, Ramos’s appointed counsel argued on
appeal that the evidence was insufficient, but in a separate brief, Ramos, proceeding without a lawyer, raised the
unanimous-jury issue. The state appellate courts rejected his brief. Then a Louisiana criminal-justice reform nonprofit called the Promise of Justice
Initiative filed a cert. petition for Ramos. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up his case . Ramos’s new
lawyers cite historical evidence that the non-unanimous-jury rule was adopted in 1898 by a state
constitutional convention called with the express purpose of, as the president of the convention put it,
“establish[ing] white supremacy in this state.” This evidence, they suggest, shows that the non-unanimous
rule was put in place precisely to prevent minority jurors from blocking a white majority ’s decision to
punish black defendants.
1AR – P – Do CP
PDCP---its not functionally competitive because it results in the plan
1AR – P – USFG
Extend permutation—USFG should call the convention and states ratify the plan.
It’s not severance—it’s a way the aff could be done—the USFG can reform art crime
through a convention.
It’s not textually or functionally intrinsic—all the words are in the texts and no
mechanisms are added because USFG calling the convention is a way the aff can be
done.
1AR – P – Delay
Extend perm do the plan when the amendment is ratified – the plan happens when
the amendment happens – con-cons are an explicit multi-step process that require
both states and congress – the CP introduces the element of time to artificially
generate competition – we can permute that temporal adjustment and add it to the
plan which solves the NB because it happens after the DA decision
It's not intrinsic --- the con con is delayed --- the perm takes the delay aspect from con
con and applies it to the plan --- they introduce the element of time into their CP text
by dividing the amendment process into distinct phases --- we permute that delay by
affixing it to our plan, which doesn’t specify timeframe anywhere in the text --- our
model of competition only limits out delay CP’s and other process garbage that
competes off of immediacy, which safeguards aff ground on a topic where States rules
the day
1AR – Too Slow
Con Con takes too long.
Can’t solve
John G. Malcolm 16, Director of and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow
in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 2/19/16,
“Consideration of a Convention to Propose Amendments Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution,”
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/consideration-convention-propose-amendments-
under-article-v-the-us
Many questions surrounding Article V of the Constitution merit thorough and careful consideration. Although James Madison did not object at
the Philadelphia Convention to including an amendments convention in Article V, he warned “that difficulties might arise as to the form, the
quorum etc. which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided.”[57] Michael Stern, former Senior Counsel to the U.S.
House of Representatives and a strong proponent of the Article V convention process, has stated that “[i]t must be acknowledged…that the
purely legal issue of whether an Article V Convention may be limited cannot be definitely resolved.
Constitutional scholars have long debated the question , and it is widely recognized to be a quintessentially open one.”[58]
These questions loom large over the current calls of some advocates and state legislatures for such a convention
and might well lead to attempts to frustrate the will of states that call for a limited convention by those
who oppose the concept of a limited convention, want to use the convention to consider other subjects, or
do not like the results of such a convention . Such challenges could take various forms including lawsuits
that could take years and lead to unpredictable results. This is not an argument against proceeding with a constitutional
convention—after all, the Bill of Rights emerged at a time when no procedures or customs existed for implementing Article V—so much as it is
an observation that those who are pursuing a call for a convention to consider a particular amendment or subject area they favor must
recognize the risk that a convention might consider and yield amendments that they dislike on other subjects.
1AR – Theory – OV
Con Con CPs are bad—
Our interp is that they can’t be a limited convention. None of their answers assume
that we allow Con Con CPs, just not the version that’s just utopian fiat.
They violate the interp because the CP text says limited
Limited Con Con kills aff ground by creating a change that’s even more durable and
credible than the aff. They kill any fed key warrants because amendments affect
everyone. The only check on that is reading normal means disads against it like
runaway convention.
Con Con CPs kill education. Con Con is a hypergeneric that’s not grounded in the lit
because of how utopian it is—the Article V Convention has never been called by the
states. Process CPs shift the debate away from the core controversies like the fed
versus state debate and ends debates about the topic. This is exacerbated by limited
ones that don’t even look to the entire amendment process.
1AR – AT: Theory
[Generic]
These outweigh all neg standards—
No aff bias—other cps check like normal states or adv cps. Even if there is aff bias—
this CP isn’t justified because it is way too cheaty and completely kills affs every time
No legal education—we make it better by making it about the entire process of a Con
Con which would include runaway conventions. Education about a process that never
happens is also useless—that was the overview.
No real world—It’s not real world to fiat through normal means or to even have a Con
Con.
[Specific]
No reciprocity—we’ll defend links to rider DAs. The Con Con CP is specifically bad—
that was above.
No ground—this CP doesn’t get killed. Runaway conventions can definitely be
answered. And even if it is, that’s checked by other CPs. The overview is also a reason
why the CP in general is bad.
INDIAN PIC
2AC – “Indian” PIC – T/L
Legally imprecise, doesn’t solve the aff – our 1AC authors all used “Indian.
I will use the term “American Indian” or “Indian” to describe indigenous women living in the lower forty-
eight states, as this is the most common terminology used in scholarship . See generally ROBERT N.
CLINTON ET AL., AMERICAN INDIAN LAW: NATIVE NATIONS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 134 (7th ed.
2015)
Perm do the CP.

Counterplans must be functionally competitive – textual only CPs justify word PICs
and synonyms – that centers the debate on grammatical minutia which is
unpredictable and kills aff ground – it’s not logical – the words “do both” would be
textually intrinsic – words have meaning beyond the letters on the page.
Perm do both.
Word PICs are a voter – steals the aff, and shifts the focus of the debate away from the
plan to arbitrary word difference.
RPP CP
2AC – RPP CP – T/L
Feds say no –
1 – Racist and sexist Trump hates the plan.
2 – Past commissions were ignored.
Alarcon, 11 (Molly Alarcon, Molly Alarcon has been a Deputy City Attorney since 2018, but she has
been working with the City Attorney's Office since law school. The Bay Area native got her start at Yale
Law School where she interned at the City Attorney's Office and joined the San Francisco Affirmative
Litigation Project, "Continue Fight for National Criminal Justice Commission," Brennan Center for Justice,
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/continue-fight-national-criminal-justice-
commission, 11-2-2011)//ILake-NC
The idea of a national commission to study local, state, and federal criminal justice practices and make recommendations for
evidence-based reforms is not new. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson convened the President’s Commission on
Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, which created the most recent study of its kind, as
the nation faced rising crime rates, the increased use of narcotic and other illegal drugs, and
overburdened local and state courts. According to the Commission’s executive director, James Vorenberg, the group “sought to
show how police, courts, and correctional agencies could both reduce crime and treat people more decently.” The Commission made
more than 200 recommendations, few of which, apart from expanded funding for local law enforcement, Congress
passed into federal law. Instead, smart recommendations, like diverting drug offenders to treatment programs rather than
prisons, expanding the ability of local courts to handle increased caseloads, and using technology to optimize administrative processes , were
ignored. To this day, courts remain overburdened, non-violent drug offenders represent a huge proportion of prison populations, especially
at the federal level, and court dockets are clogged and disorganized.
3 – Hasty reports get rejected.

Warin et al., 15 (F. Joseph Warin Oleh Vretsona Lora E. MacDonald, Warin the Lawyer of the Year in
2020 and in 2016 for White Collar Criminal Defense in the District of Columbia, and he was named
among the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America in 2016. Mr. Warin has handled cases and
investigations in more than 40 states and dozens of countries, "A Practical Guide to the Use of the
Commissioned Public Report as an Effective Crisis-Management Tool ," Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub.
Pol'y , https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1741&context=ndjlepp, 2015)//ILake-
NC
The 9/11 Commission Report, which took some twenty months to compile and was delivered nearly three
years after the attacks, demonstrates the value of a comprehensive approach. By giving itself enough time to authoritatively deliver a compelling and
accurate narrative of the day’s events, the 9/11 Commission enhanced the credibility and impact of its report. Conversely, the Roberts Commission
delivered its report less than two months after Pearl Harbor; consequently, its conclusions were deemed
“hasty, inconclusive, and incomplete” by Congress’s Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack.106 That being
said, an investigative and reporting process that takes too long might likewise be self-defeating . A
prolonged period of silence following an event may be perceived as lack of concern with regard to institutional responsibility for the crisis and its consequences; it
may also create a space for entities potentially adverse to the institution to take control of the narrative for their own purposes.107 Advice from Warren Buffett is
instructive in this space: “First, state clearly that you do not know all the facts. Then promptly state the facts you do know. One’s objective should be to get it right,
get it quick, get it out, and get it over. You see, your problem won’t improve with age.”108
Perm do the plan and the commission should suggest reforming sentencing and
policing.
The United States federal government should create a quasi-legislative independent commission for
Criminal Justice based on action research. That Criminal Justice Commission should recommend
substantial criminal justice reform in sentencing and policing.
Consult USFG CPs are bad – kills non or bipartisan affs – say no warrants get cross
applied to politics – skews competitive equity. Shifts the debate to hypergenerics that
kill clash and topic education.
Perm do the CP.
Perm do both.
2AC – AT: NB
Litany of issues – red tape, time, ideological disagreements
Sullivan et al. 13 (Tami P Sullivan, Tara McPartland, Bonnie S. Fisher, Tami Sullivan, PhD Associate Professor of Psychiatry; Co-
Director, Division of Prevention and Community Research, Psychiatry; Co-Director, NIDA-funded T32 Training Program in Substance Use
Prevention Research, Psychiatry; Director, Family Violence Research and Programs, Psychiatry. Bonnie S. Fisher is a Professor in the Division of
Criminal Justice and Research Fellow in the Center for Criminal Justice Research at the University of Cincinnati. Professor Fisher received her
Ph.D. (1988) in Political Science from Northwestern University. She is a nationally recognized expert in the areas of sexual, violent and stalking
victimization of college women, including repeat victimization, self-protection effectiveness, and fear of crime, and how post-secondary
schools’ respond to reports of sexual victimization. She has authored more than 150 publications in national and international peer-reviewed
criminology, criminal justice, crime prevention, gerontology, legal, medical, methodological, nursing, urban planning, public administration,
psychology, security, and victimology periodicals. She also has edited three volumes that focus on victimization issues: Encyclopedia of
Victimology and Crime Prevention; Campus Crime (with Steven P. Lab); Legal, Social and Political Perspectives, 2nd edition (with John Sloan, III);
Violence Against Women and Family Violence; and Developments in Research, Practice, and Policy. She has been the co-editor of the Security
Journal since 1998. She has served as the Deputy Editor of Justice Quarterly and since 2008 has been the Associate Editor of the Journal of
Research Crime and Delinquency. She has been the Principal Investigator or Co-PI on several U.S. Department of Justice grants examining a
range of college student victimization issues and on a grant from the British Home Office to examine college student victimization in the East
Midlands, United Kingdom. Currently she is a Co-PI on a National Institute of Health grant examining forensic sexual examinations and the use
of digital images and staining techniques to enhance the detection of injuries and the use of digital images in decision making among the police,
prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and juries in the criminal justice process. "Guidelines for Successful ResearcherPractitioner Partnerships
in the Criminal Justice System, Findings from the Researcher‐ Practitioner Partnerships Study (RPPS)," U.S. Department of Justice,
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243918.pdf, 10-2013)//ILake-NC
TIME According to both researchers and practitioners, most phases of collaboration took longer than anticipated. One
researcher describes collaborative research as a marathon and noncollaborative research as a 100‐yard dash. Additionally, research
takes longer than practitioners typically imagine . It is important to consider time as a resource and
incorporate a buffer in the timeline to deal with delays and setbacks. Budgeting for additional time, which
often coincides with needing additional funds, will help to avoid frustration down the road. “However hard you think it’s gonna
be, its really gonna be a lot harder than tha t.”—Academic Researcher INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) Ensuring
confidentiality and safety of study participants should be paramount. RPPS participants commonly experienced delays as a result of the length
of time it takes to obtain IRB approval for projects. This process and related delays were often new concepts to practitioners. Therefore, it is
wise to ensure that all partners are informed about the IRB process and potential challenges. Learning, in the initial stages of the collaboration,
about legal and ethical issues unique to the CJ system and the study population can help to overcome these challenges. According to RPPS
participants, ensuring confidentiality and safety of project participants and considering access to data are critical. Regardless of all other factors,
without IRB approval from the researcher’s institution (and perhaps from the organization’s research oversight committee), the project cannot
move forward. TURNOVER Another common barrier to successful completion of projects was staff turnover. Practitioners
involved atthe beginning of a project were not necessarily with the organization to see the project through to the
end. This turnover frequently resulted in a need for hiring, retraining, and/or “restarting,” “And from the practitioner’s
point of view, this is a project that needs to be done in the next month and can be done in the next month. And in my view, nothing gets done
in a month; nothing gets done really in three months, or sometimes a year.” —Academic Researcher This document is a research report
submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are
those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. GUIDELINES FOR
SUCCESSFUL RESEARCHER‐PRACTITIONER PARTNERSHIPS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM | 16 “Well, that lead prosecutor who was the
supervisor—that person turned over seven times. So, there are just multiple ways that we couldn’t get everybody to coalesce and then get
momentum going. It just kept restarting, and restarting, and restarting.”—Academic Researcher RPPS study participants therefore
recommend to (a) be prepared for this to happen and (b) engage practitioners in the project across the
spectrum of direct service staff to higher ‐level administrators. FUNDING RPPS participants also
recommended having a backup plan for how the project will continue in case funding runs out before
anticipated. This plan may include specifics on how support for activities such as product development or dissemination of materials can
continue unfunded. In situations where funding is a necessary component of the project, this may not be possible. BUREAUCRACY RPPS
participants reported that there are limitations to the scope and activities of collaborations as the result of what many called
“red tape.” Because of policies, regulations, or agency requirements, collaborators may not be able to obtain the information they need to
answer particular research questions. Funders may dictate or restrict who can collaborate, what data can be collected, and
what the end products must be. Further, timelines may be set that differ from what is feasible or agreed upon. In
cases where funding and other regulations exist, it is important to consider the scope of work within the parameters set and to have discussions
with administrators early on in the collaboration about what is feasible. BALANCING THE NEEDS OF RESEARCHERS AND PRACTITIONERS
Investment in the project is best accomplished when the needs of both researchers and practitioners are met and there is some sort of gain for
all involved. Investing time and energy into a project that is expected to result in a satisfactory outcome was identified as an important reason
to “buy into” a project. However,
the varying and sometimes conflicting needs of researchers and
practitioners can be a barrier to a project’s successful completion. “I’m very much about open communication. So it’s
‘tell me what you need and we’ll tell you what we need.’ And then we can just go from there. That’s basically what really has helped us – is
being able to have that open communication and say, ‘look we want to work together, we need to work together. So let’s just lay it all out on
the table and go from there. We’ll tell you what we can do and ya’ll will tell us what you can do and move from there.’ And that has been
invaluable in being able to work with researchers and both of us being able to get what we need from each other.” —Community‐based
Practitioner This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the
Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the
U.S. Department of Justice. GUIDELINES FOR SUCCESSFUL RESEARCHER‐PRACTITIONER PARTNERSHIPS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM | 17
For researchers, especially those in academic settings, publishing study findings in peer‐reviewed journals and
obtaining grants are crucial, as these are means to maintaining employment and being promoted . RPPS
participants reported that, at times, these needs are inconsistent with practitioners’ needs . Practitioners need products
that are translatable and written in lay language, which can be challenging and time consuming for researchers. Practitioners need
results to inform and improve practice and policy and to demonstrate the effectiveness of their
programs. It is important for collaborators to be aware of these needs and to discuss them at the start of
the collaboration. Study participants stated that being explicit and identifying expectations at the beginning of the process and
presenting what one hopes to gain from the collaboration is one way to ensure all collaborators get what they need.
IF CPS
2AC – If No Plan CPs – T/L
Perm do the aff and [x]—it’s not textually or functionally intrinsic—[x] is a function of
the CP
Perm do both
Perm do the CP
If and only if counterplans are a voter –
Can’t solve the aff—

2AC – If Yes Plan CPs – T/L
Perm do the aff and don’t [function of the CP]—it’s not functionally intrinsic because
one function is that the [function of the CP] doesn’t happen if the plan doesn’t pass.
CPs have to be functionally competitive – textual competition justifies word PICs and
synonym CPs – that centers the debate on grammatical minutia and kills aff ground –
it’s not logical – words have meaning beyond the letters on the page – otherwise the
words “perm do both” would be textually intrinsic.
Can’t solve the aff—
CONSULT CPS
2AC – Process CP – TL
Resolved is not certain.
Webster’s 9 – Merriam Webster 2009
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved)
# Main Entry: 1re·solve # Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\ # Function: verb # Inflected Form(s): re·solved; re·solv·ing 1 : to
become separated into component parts; also : to become reduced by dissolving or analysis 2 : to form a resolution : determine 3 : consult,
deliberate
The includes particulars.

Random House 6 (Unabridged Dictionary, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the)
(used, esp. before a noun, with a specifying or particularizing effect, as opposed to the indefinite or generalizing force of
the indefinite article a or an): the book you gave me; Come into the house.
Should doesn’t require certainty.

Black’s Law 79 (Black’s Law Dictionary – Fifth Edition, p. 1237)
Should. The past tense of shall; ordinarily implying duty or obligation; although usually no more than an obligation of propriety or
expediency, or a moral obligation, thereby distinguishing it from “ought.” It is not normally synonymous with “may,” and although often
interchangeable with the word “would,” it does not ordinarily express certainty as “will” sometimes does.
Nor immediacy.
Dictionary.com – Copyright © 2010 – http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should
should /ʃʊd/ Show Spelled[shood] Show IPA –auxiliary verb 1. pt. of shall. 2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I
should be pleased. 3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. 4. would (used to make a statement
less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize. Use should in a Sentence See images of should Search should on the Web Origin: ME
sholde, OE sc ( e ) olde; see shall —Can be confused: could, should, would (see usage note at this entry ). —Synonyms 3. See must1 . —
Usage note Rules similar to those for choosing between shall and will have long been advanced for should and would, but again the rules
have had little effect on usage. In most constructions, would is the auxiliary chosen regardless of the person of the subject: If our allies would
support the move, we would abandon any claim to sovereignty. You would be surprised at the complexity of the directions. Because the main
function of should in modern American English is to express duty, necessity, etc. ( You should get your flu shot before winter comes ), its use
for other purposes, as to form a subjunctive, can produce ambiguity, at least initially: I should get my flu shot if I were you. Furthermore,
should seems an affectation to many Americans when used in certain constructions quite common in British English: Had I been informed, I
should (American would ) have called immediately. I should (American would ) really prefer a different arrangement. As with shall and will,
most educated native speakers of American English do not follow the textbook rule in making a choice between should and would. See also
shall. Shall –auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person shall, 2nd shall or ( Archaic ) shalt, 3rd shall, present plural shall; past singular 1st
person should, 2nd should or ( Archaic ) shouldst or should·est, 3rd should, past plural should; imperative, infinitive, and participles lacking. 1.
plan to, intend to, or expect to: I shall go later.
2AC – Consult CP – TL
Perm do the aff and consult [whatever country]
Perm do both
Perm do the CP
Perm lie
Consult CPs
Reject Consult CPs — they destroy aff ground and distort the topic, hurting depth and
clash over core controversies. DAs are sufficient to “test” the plan, but consult
counterplans artificially inflate the strategic value of bad DAs. Reject the argument
and the team to discourage bad practices and encourage case-specific research and
clash.
2AC – Perm – Plan and Consult
Perm do the plan and consult on another issue —
a. It solves — their solvency advocates don’t specify the plan as the key issue — only
consulting in general is key
b. It’s legitimate — it includes the entirety of the aff and it consults
1AR – Perm – Plan and Consult
Extend Perm do the plan and consult on another issue — it solves — their 1NC cards
don’t specify what the US has to consult over to maintain alliance — no reason why
consulting over the plan is key
AT: Intrinsic
It’s not intrinsic — “on another issue” isn’t part of the perm text — it just clarifies that
the indirect object of the verb consult is unknown —
If it is intrinsic — that’s good –
a. It’s key to test the germaneness of the link — if they win the link they beat the
perm
b. Key to aff ground — it’s a functional limit on cheaty CP’s that are built off artificial
competition
c. If we win artificial competition is bad, then the perm is justified
Reject the argument, not the team.
AT: Links To the Net Benefit
It doesn’t link — no reason why consulting specifically over the aff is key to solving —
whether the aff or another issue will be a bigger issue is completely arbitrary
AT: Vagueness
It’s not vague
a. Infinitely regressive — no brightline for how much we should spec about the issue
b. It’s not about the issue, it’s about the consultation — none of their ev says the plan
is key, only says that we should consult
DA
POLITICS DAS
2AC – Politics DA – T/L
It’s not intrinsic – a logical policymaker can do both.
Bottom of the docket.

2AC – PC
PC not real.
Edwards 16 – George C. Edwards III, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Jordan Chair in
Presidential Studies at Texas A&M, 2016, “The Potential of Presidential Leadership”, Study Done for the
White House Transition Project
The best evidence is that presidential persuasion is effective only at the margins of congressional
decision making. Presidential legislative leadership operates in an environment largely beyond the
president’s control and must compete with other, more stable factors that affect voting in Congress in
addition to party. These include ideology, personal views and commitments on specific policies, and
the interests of constituencies. By the time a president tries to exercise influence on a vote, most
members of Congress have made up their minds on the basis of these other factors.
Winners win.
Gould 17 – Erik Gould, 11/04/2017, Two ways the media slants the GOP tax bill | The Knife
Media. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/two-ways-the- media-slants-the-
gop-tax-bill-the-knife_us_59fdd01 2e4b05e3e1f0a0176
What is the purpose of Congress proposing and debating bills? Ideally, it’s to pass legislation that would
help the country run effectively. But sometimes we treat it like a party score card – a running total of partisan one-
upmanship – and media feeds into it. This happened with news coverage of the tax bill. Three of the outlets suggest that Republicans and
the president really need a win with this bill because they’ve failed to gain legislative “victories,” and The
Hill emphasizes that the party needs to “sell” the bill. The effect of this is twofold: (1) it implies the bill is flawed and won’t
garner support on its own merits, and (2) it reinforces the idea that legislating is more about winning than about serving
the country. Let’s look at both. Needing to “sell” the bill “Republicans launch into sales push for tax plan” (The Hill, headline) “House
Republicans have rolled out their long-awaited tax reform bill. Now they have to sell it.” (The Hill, lead sentence) … Speaker Paul Ryan
“continued pitching the bill.” (The Hill) Ryan and other Republicans introduced the bill, spoke about some of its proposed benefits and
explained why they supported it. Describing that process as “selling” or “pitching” the plan suggests the legislative
process is about making sales, not serving the public. It also could imply that the bill needs to be “sold,” or that it won’t get support
on its own. This could promote a bias against the bill based on a subjective opinion rather than helping people form their own opinions after
critical evaluation of its details. Who’s keeping score, and what are we measuring? The public and media can and should hold
elected officials accountable and ensure that they are working to pass legislation to run the country and
address problems under their purview. But that isn’t quite the same as categorizing legislative “victories” or “wins” by party. Keeping
score in that way could influence political priorities and may encourage divisiveness . In other words, it could
make it seem as if getting more “wins” than the other party is more important than cooperating to enact laws
that best serve the public. In turn, members of the public who identify with a party, may learn to concern themselves more with their side
winning than whether Congress is passing beneficial legislation.
2AC – Not Intrinsic
No link – The plan is not an intrinsic opportunity cost to the plan. A logical
policymaker can pass the aff and also successfully vote to avoid their impact scenario.
2AC – Fiat Shields
Fiat is immediate – we debate “should” not “would” – process debates distract from
the merits of substance – and the aff would lose to circumvention
2AC – Winding Way
No Link – The plan has to wind its way through both houses of Congress, including
committees, before it becomes a law. No political intersection with their impact
scenario because the timelines and paths are different.
2AC – Bottom of the Docket
No link – The plan enters Congress at the bottom of the docket – it’s normal means –
the plan would go to the back of the legislative line. There is no reason the plan affects
passage of the impact scenario.
2AC – AT: Floortime
Fiat is immediate.
Policing bill thumps.

Tully-McManus 9/8 (Katherine Tully-McManus, Chris Cioffi, and Lindsey McPherson, Reporters for
Roll Call, “Road Ahead: Coronavirus aid, spending deadline loom, but slow start expected for Congress’
return,” 09/08/20, Roll Call, https://www.rollcall.com/2020/09/08/congress-returns-coronavirus-
stimulus-government-shutdown/, GBN-TM)
The must-pass spending bill will be a sought-after vehicle for other legislative priorities that lawmakers
will try to attach, including a renewed effort to reconcile the House and Senate policing bills that aim to tackle
systemic racism in law enforcement. A group of House Democrats are working with South Carolina GOP Sen. Tim
Scott on crafting a smaller version of the House-passed policing legislation that Scott can introduce and
the Senate can advance as a vehicle to go to conference with the House, Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee said on a press call last
week. “I can see the Justice in Policing Act being attached to a must-pass bill of appropriations and funding the government,” the Texas
Democrat said. It’s been more than two months since the House passed its sweeping bill, named for George Floyd, who was killed by
Minneapolis police in May. Senate Republicans had their own, much narrower proposal on policing, but without Democratic support, it was
blocked on the floor. Scott, the lone Black Republican senator, took the lead on the Senate bill and tied it to his own experiences with racism.
Both measures called for greater transparency from police departments and additional training for
officers, but a compromise was not reached before the August recess .
OR any of these – insert this list.

ORSH 9-12 Office of Rep. Steny Hoyer 9-12-2020 --- (“THE WEEKLY LEADER: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 11,
2020”, EINPRESSWIRE, https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/526063724/the-weekly-leader-friday-
september-11-2020)//CL
H.R. 7909 – Ensuring Children and Child Care Workers Are Safe Act of 2020 , as amended (Rep. Finkenauer –
Education and Labor) S. 2683 – Child Care Protection Improvement Act of 2020 , as amended (Sen. Burr – Education and
Labor) H.R. 3659 – Danny’s Law, as amended (Rep. Rose (NY) – Education and Labor) H.R. 8162 – 21st Century
Community Learning Centers Coronavirus Relief Act of 2020, as amended (Rep. Wild – Education and Labor) S. 881 –
PROSWIFT Act (Sen. Peters – Science, Space, and Technology) H.R. 4979 – Rural STEM Education Act, as amended (Rep.
Lucas – Science, Space, and Technology) H.R. 4990 – Election Technology Research Act of 2020 , as amended (Rep. Sherill –
Science, Space, and Technology)
The internal link disproves the link – if they’re right the bill is important, then congress
will pass it despite floor time
“Floor time” DAs are bad---they contrive fiat to maximize the link. They get other
politics DAs, which solves any education warrant.
OR, plan isn’t immediate, which means it’s after various bills.
2AC – AT: Partisanship
No link – the aff isn’t perceived as soft on crime and it’s small. Their evidence is about
broad CJR.
TLOA and VAWA thumps the DA – they were bipartisan Indian sentencing bills – that’s
Redlingshafer and ABA.
2AC – Savanna Thumper
The bipartisan Savanna’s Act thumps.
Campisi 9-22 [Jessica Campisi, Cnn, House sends bipartisan bill to address missing and murdered
Native Americans to Trump's desk, CNN, 9-22-2020, Accessible Online at
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/politics/savannas-act-house-passes-bill-native-americans-
trnd/index.html] KL 9-26-2020
A bipartisan bill aimed at addressing cases of missing and murdered Native Americans has been sent to President Donald Trump's desk for final
approval. Savanna's
Act, a bill named for 22-year-old Savanna LaFontaine-Greywind, passed the US House of Representatives on
Monday after
passing the Senate earlier this year. LaFontaine-Greywind, a member of the Spirit Lake Tribe, was
abducted and killed in Fargo, North Dakota, in August 2017 while eight months pregnant. The measure requires the Justice
Department to develop guidelines for responding to cases of missing or murdered Native Americans and report statistics on those cases. The
bill also instructs the department to provide trainings for law enforcement agencies and to work with tribes and tribal organizations in
implementing its strategy. The bill unanimously passed the Senate in March after Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski reintroduced
the legislation, which was first introduced in 2017 by then-North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp. Savanna's Act initially passed the Senate in 2018
but was blocked in the House. Murkowski,
an Alaska Republican, reintroduced the bill in 2019, with more than two
dozen senators named as co-sponsors. "Savanna's Act addresses a tragic issue in Indian Country and
helps establish better law enforcement practices to track, solve and prevent these crimes against Native Americans," North
Dakota Sen. John Hoeven, chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, said in a statement Monday. "We appreciate our House
colleagues for passing the bill today and sending it on to the president to become law. At the same time, we continue working to advance more
legislation like this to strengthen public safety in tribal communities and ensure victims of crime receive support and justice," he continued.
Advocates have pushed for more state and federal data on missing and murdered Native Americans. Many of those victims experienced
domestic or sexual violence or were victims of human trafficking, according to the Urban Indian Health Institute. The Justice Department has
reported that on some reservations, Native American women are murdered at a rate more than 10 times the national average.
2AC – STOP Thumper
There’s bipartisan support for Indian sovereignty – the STOP Act proves – it also non-
UQs their DA.
Cole 19 [Tom Cole, Congressman, Bipartisan, Bicameral STOP Act To Safeguard Tribal Items Introduced,
7-18-2019, Accessible Online at https://cole.house.gov/Bipartisan-Bicameral-STOP-Act-Introduced] DL 8-
17-2020
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-N.M) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) reintroduced the bipartisan
Safeguard Tribal Objects of Patrimony (STOP) Act, a bill to prohibit the exporting of sacred Native American items and increase
penalties for stealing and illegally trafficking tribal cultural patrimony. The House companion was
introduced by U.S. Representatives Tom Cole (R-Okla.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Deb Haaland (D-N.M.) and Don Young (R-Alaska). “I am
proud to work with tribes in New Mexico and across Indian Country to reintroduce this legislation to safeguard sacred Native American items,”
said Heinrich. “The STOP Act has garnered broad, bipartisan support and I’m confident we can pass it into law .
In New Mexico, we all recognize the incredible beauty of American Indian art--from the ancient wonders that we can explore and admire in
places like Chaco Canyon and the Gila Cliff Dwellings to the traditional and modern art masterpieces created to this day by Native artists. But
there is a clear difference between supporting American Indian art ethically and legally as opposed to dealing or exporting items that tribes
have identified as essential and sacred pieces of their cultural heritage. We need to take all possible action to stop the latter and repatriate
stolen culturally significant items to their rightful owners.” “By protecting and repatriating tribal cultural heritage, we are also actively
preserving the cultural identity and history of our Native populations. This process of returning stolen items back to their rightful owners in our
Native communities aids in the process of healing from cultural oppression. The STOP Act simply works to right a wrong,” said Murkowski.
“Working to increase penalties for illegally trafficking cultural items and artifacts, providing an export certification system that protects these
relics, and improving coordination between federal agencies working to protect and repatriate tribal artifacts, we can ensure that these items
of such cultural importance remain with or are returned to their rightful owners.” “I am proud to join with my colleagues in the introduction of
the STOP Act, which would preserve and safeguard the precious cultural property of Native Americans,” said
Cole. “Just as the United States helps protect and return foreign cultural property, it is only right for other countries to respect ownership of the
sacred treasures, artifacts and other items belonging to Native Americans. I am encouraged that this legislation would combat trafficking of
Native American artifacts and help preserve the priceless history and culture of tribal nations.”
2AC – Policing Thumper
Policing bill thumps.
Tully-McManus 9/8 (Katherine Tully-McManus, Chris Cioffi, and Lindsey McPherson, Reporters for
Roll Call, “Road Ahead: Coronavirus aid, spending deadline loom, but slow start expected for Congress’
return,” 09/08/20, Roll Call, https://www.rollcall.com/2020/09/08/congress-returns-coronavirus-
stimulus-government-shutdown/, GBN-TM)
The must-pass spending bill will be a sought-after vehicle for other legislative priorities that lawmakers
will try to attach, including a renewed effort to reconcile the House and Senate policing bills that aim to tackle
systemic racism in law enforcement. A group of House Democrats are working with South Carolina GOP Sen. Tim
Scott on crafting a smaller version of the House-passed policing legislation that Scott can introduce and
the Senate can advance as a vehicle to go to conference with the House, Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee said on a press call last
week. “I can see the Justice in Policing Act being attached to a must-pass bill of appropriations and funding the government,” the Texas
Democrat said. It’s been more than two months since the House passed its sweeping bill, named for George Floyd, who was killed by
Minneapolis police in May. Senate Republicans had their own, much narrower proposal on policing, but without Democratic support, it was
blocked on the floor. Scott, the lone Black Republican senator, took the lead on the Senate bill and tied it to his own experiences with racism.
Both measures called for greater transparency from police departments and additional training for
officers, but a compromise was not reached before the August recess .
2AC – Shutdown Thumper
Congress is completely stopped
Adams, 9-8 (Kimberly Adams; Government shutdown, COVID talk await Congress; ;
https://www.marketplace.org/2020/09/08/government-shutdown-covid-talk-await-congress/) accessed
9-18-2020 cyang
The November election is looming over all of this. Neither party wants a shutdown that will make it look
like they can’t govern effectively. But there’s also not much incentive to compromise in this political environment. “All of these
issues are conflating and they are signals that ultimately Congress is essentially paralyzed until the
election,” said Ravi Perry, who teaches political science at Howard University.
2AC – COVID Thumper
COVID relief thumps – ensures massive infighting and partisanship.
AP 9/7 (Associated Press; “Hopes fading for coronavirus deal as Congress returns”; KWCH 12; 9/7/20;
https://www.kwch.com/2020/09/07/hopes-fading-for-coronavirus-deal-as-congress-returns/ kp)
WASHINGTON (AP) — At least there won’t be a government shutdown. But as lawmakers straggle back to Washington for an
abbreviated preelection session, hopes are dimming for another corona virus relief bill — or much else .
Talks between top Dem ocrat s and the Trump administration broke off last month and remain off track , with
the bipartisan unity that drove almost $3 trillion in COVID-19 rescue legislation into law this spring replaced by toxic
partisanship and a return to Washington dysfunction . Expectations in July and August that a fifth bipartisan
pandemic response bill would eventually be birthed despite increased obstacles has been replaced by
genuine pessimism . Recent COVID-related conversations among key players have led to nothing. Dem ocrat s seem secure in
their political position, with President Donald Trump and several Senate GOP incumbents lagging in the polls.
Trump is seeking to sideline the pandemic as a campaign issue, and Rep ublican s aren’t interested in a
deal on Democratic terms — even as needs like school aid enjoy widespread support. Poisonous relationships among
key leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows give
little reason for confidence about overcoming obstacles on the cost, scope and details of a potential
relief bill. Pelosi recently referred to Meadows as “whatever his name is,” while the Meadows-run White House during a press briefing ran a
video loop of Pelosi’s controversial visit to a San Francisco hair salon. Trump said Monday that Democrats “don’t want to make
a deal because they think that if the country does as badly as possible ... that’s good for the Democrats.”
“I am taking the high road,” he told reporters at the White House. “I’m taking the high road by not seeing them.”
2AC – Platinum Thumper
Trump’s platinum plan thumps politics.
Magee 9-25 [Ny Magee, Trump tries to win over Black voters with $500B 'platinum plan', TheGrio, 9-
25-2020, Accessible Online at https://thegrio.com/2020/09/25/trump-tries-to-win-over-black-voters-
with-platinum-plan/] KL 9-26-2020
President Donald Trump rolled out his “Platinum Plan” for Black Americans during a summit in Atlanta,
Georgia on Friday. The plan aims to invest $500 billion in Black communities. Trump did not disclose
how the plan will be funded but he vows to create 500,000 new Black-owned businesses, 3 million new
jobs for the Black community, and designate the KKK and Antifa as terrorist organizations, NPR reports.
The “Platinum Plan” states that it will “prosecute the KKK and ANTIFA as terrorist organizations and
make lynching a national hate crime.” The plan also calls for Congress to make “Juneteenth” a holiday,
and prioritize criminal justice reform. Read More: Trump to choose Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS,
sources say In a statement released to theGrio, the Biden campaign’s Director of Strategic
Communications Kamau Marshall said: “In 2016, President Trump asked Black Americans “What the hell
do you have to lose?” The answer was everything. President Trump has been in office for nearly 4 years
and the results have been devastating for Black Americans. Trump lied about the danger of COVID-19
and failed to contain the virus and tens of thousands of Black Americans have lost their lives. More than
1.5 million additional Black Americans are unemployed than at the same time last year and 400,000
small businesses have closed because of the economic fallout from the crisis. Now with 39 days to the
election, Trump is making more empty promises. Black voters won’t fall for it. They know that Vice
President Biden and Senator Harris are the candidates in the race with a real plan to create jobs, address
racial equity, close the racial wealth and income gaps, and lower health care costs. And, while President
Trump fans the flames of race and division, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will bring Americans together to
advance racial equity and root out systemic racism.” Critics have noted that lawmakers have already
introduced much of Trump’s plan or it has been opposed by his own officials. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.
introduced legislation over the summer to make Juneteenth a national holiday, theGRIO previously
reported. “Together with my colleagues Cory Booker, Tina Smith, and Ed Market, we are proposing that
Juneteenth be a national holiday,” Harris said in June. “And we are dropping that bill saying that
Juneteenth should be a national holiday.” Her announcement, delivered on MSNBC’s AM Joy, was made
on the same day that Republican Senator John Cornyn released a statement also supporting the creation
of a national holiday marking the end of the enslavement of Africans in America. Harris’ lynching
legislation has been repeatedly stalled by Trump loyalist Sen. Rand Paul. Trump, who won 8% of the
Black vote in 2016, aims to woo Black voters ahead of the election with his “Platinum Plan.” Read More:
Trump questions ‘why the hell’ he passed reform after failing to energize Black voters “When I ran for
president four years ago, I looked at the shameful record of the Democrat party, and asked black
Americans, ‘What the hell do you have to lose?’” Trump told the crowd in Atlanta on Friday. “I want to
share what you have to gain from voting Republican on November 3rd – the biggest election of our lives.
For decades, Democrat politicians like Joe Biden have taken Black voters for granted.” Meanwhile, news
of Trump’s “Platinum Plan” is being met with the side eye among activists and media influencers.
Popular YouTuber Professor Black Truth noted, “Trump’s “Plan” for Black America is mostly hot air,” he
wrote on Twitter. “The KKK is largely a relic, with the WS having moved onto other groups, whom Trump
makes no promises to prosecute! But it’s worth mentioning that someone is now mentioning black
people specifically. A shame he’s not serious,” he added. Filmmaker Tariq Nasheed also pointed out that
the “Trump Platinum Plan for Black America, where he wants to designate the “KKK and Antifa” as
“terrorist groups”, is filled with bait & switch trick bag language. It starts off using the word Black…And
when you get to the fine print, it switches to “minority” (ie white women),” he wrote on Twitter. In a
separate tweet he wrote, “Unfortunately Trump’s Platinum Plan for Black people has the same trick bag
“minority” language when you start reading the fine print. So this is yet another nothing burger.”
1AR – STOP Act Thumper
STOP thumps
Turner 20 [Scott Turner, reporter, Bill protecting Native objects gets hearing, No Publication, 6-27-
2020, Accessible Online at https://www.abqjournal.com/1470675/bill-protecting-native-objects-gets-
hearing.html] DL 8-17-2020
a bill that seeks to protect Native American artifacts had a

Almost a year after it was introduced by Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico,
hearing before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Heinrich promoted the bipartisan Safeguard Tribal Objects of Patrimony Act before the panel
on Wednesday. Fellow New Mexico Democrat Tom Udall is the committee’s vice chairman. The STOP Act was one of seven bills heard by the committee. The hearing was the
first by the committee since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The STOP Act increases penalties for illegally
trafficking tribal cultural patrimony , Heinrich said. Patrimony refers to objects possessing cultural, traditional, or historical importance to the heritage of a group.
It also prohibits the export of the objects and creates an export certification system, which the senator said
would protect sacred objects under international law. “It also encourages the voluntary return of sacred
objects held in private collections, because the highest priority of everyone involved in this issue is to see these sacred items return home to where they belong,”
Heinrich told the committee. Heinrich used the return of the stolen shield to Acoma Pueblo as an example of the need for the legislation. The ceremonial shield was to have been auctioned off
in Paris. Through public pressure and diplomatic efforts, the shield was returned to the pueblo in November. “However, this only happened through the cooperation of the individual who put
the shield up for auction in the first place,” Heinrich said. “There is still no federal law prohibiting the export of items like the shield and requiring the cooperation of foreign governments in
recovering them.” He said that in other cases, tribes in New Mexico and across the nation have been forced “to effectively pay a ransom or had to stand by and watch the sale of their priceless
religious and cultural items in international markets.” It is a federal crime to sell protected Native American cultural objects in the United States, the senator said. But he said penalties are not
as high as in other statutes. Heinrich also said prosecutions are far too infrequent to deter people from smuggling and selling the objects. “In addition, there is no explicit ban on exporting
these items to foreign countries, where they might be sold at auction – a fact that was cited by the French government when they initially declined to stop the auction of the Acoma shield,”
Heinrich said. Udall said at the hearing that he supported the legislation. “It will provide Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations with the tools to prevent the theft, sale, and export of their
the legislation will be signed into law this year ,

cultural patrimony,” Udall said, thanking Heinrich for his leadership on the bill. Heinrich is confident
spokesman Aaron Morales told the Journal. U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M., is the sponsor of companion legislation in the House . It had a hearing
before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indigenous Peoples in September.
Reform of illicit cultural property is bipartisan

Valley Daily Post 20 [Valley Daily Post, Heinrich Legislation To Safeguard Tribal Items To Receive Key
Committee Hearing – Valley Daily Post, No Publication, 6-24-2020, Accessible Online at
https://valleydailypost.com/blog/heinrich-legislation-to-safeguard-tribal-items-to-receive-key-
committee-hearing/] DL 8-17-2020
legislation to prohibit the exporting of sacred Native

WASHINGTON – On Wednesday, June 24, at 2:30 p.m. ET/ 12:30 p.m. MT, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich’s (D-N.M.)
American items and increase penalties for stealing and illegally trafficking tribal cultural patrimony will
be included in a key hearing on pending legislation for the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. The bicameral, bipartisan Safeguard Tribal Objects of Patrimony
(STOP) Act, introduced and championed by Senator Heinrich and U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), continues to gain momentum and widespread,
bipartisan support. The bill has been endorsed by organizations and tribes across Indian Country. “My legislation will increase penalties for stealing
and illegally trafficking tribal cultural patrimony. It will also prohibit exporting these objects and create a
tribal working group to help federal agencies better understand the scope of the problem and how to solve it,” said Heinrich. “I am proud to see this bipartisan
legislation gain momentum as we take steps to stop the trade of culturally significant items and repatriate stolen pieces to their rightful owners.”
1AR – Floortime Thumper
Fast Act thumps
Wynn 9/8 [Sarah Wynn, Reporter. “Transportation groups warn Congress of billions in canceled
projects.” The Bond Buyer. https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/transportation-groups-warn-congress-
of-billions-in-canceled-projects]
Transportation groups warn billions of dollars worth of future infrastructure projects will be canceled if
Congress doesn't act swiftly to extend current surface transportation funding. In a letter to congressional leaders
published this week, groups urged lawmakers to extend the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act, which will expire Sept. 30, by one year.
That date also marks the federal government’s fiscal year-end. “Public agencies continue to face COVID-19 -induced revenue declines,” said the
American Association of State Highway Officials, the American Road & Transportation Builders of America, the Associated General Contractors
of America, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in a press release. “As a result, state and local entities already delayed or canceled $8 billion in
surface transportation projects, with more on the horizon absent any clear sign of support from the federal government,” they said. “Timely
action by Congress will tangibly enhance the quality of life for all Americans and jump-start the nation’s economic recovery.” Transportation
groups in the letter also asked for lawmakers to provide for the solvency of the depleted Highway Trust Fund, which will have a $1.36 billion
shortfall by FY 2021. The HTF runs mostly on gas taxes, but also receives money from Treasury general funds under the existing legislation. The
letter follows a report from the Congressional Budget Office last week indicating that the HTF will become insolvent by FY 2021. From 2008
through 2019, HTF’s spending exceeded its revenues by $127 billion, CBO found. Before the pandemic, revenue from gas taxes was estimated
to fall about $195 billion short of supporting current funding levels, the groups wrote in the letter. Groups said a
year-long extension of
the current surface transportation law would bolster market certainty in 2021, making businesses more
likely to hire workers and invest in new equipment. They also asked for increased investment levels of the current law,
though AASHTO Executive Director Jim Tymon said they have not decided on a number yet. They would also want additional flexibility such as
not requiring a state or local match of federal funds and states to be able to use federal funding to pay for employees’ salaries. Extensions of
the current law tend to be shorter than a year, said Caroline Sevier, American Society of Civil Engineers’ director of government relations. “A
one-year extension would alleviate some of that uncertainty that the short term extensions create ,”
Sevier said. A one-year reauthorization could be attached to other bills such as a future economic relief bill.
“Whatever happens, it needs to get done by the end of September when the current surface
transportation program expires,” Tymon said. “If that means that the extension will ride on another vehicle — whether that’s a
continuing resolution or COVID bill, that’s fine with us.” Changing funding levels in the existing surface transportation law could make it more
difficult to pass. Andrew Olmem, a partner at Mayer Brown and former deputy director of the National Economic Council, said a
one-year
reauthorization gives more time for Congress to develop a larger infrastructure bill. "If Congress passes a
clean one-year reauthorization, it would set the stage for Congress to consider a broader, longer-term
reauthorization next year,” Olmem said. Transportation groups reiterated asks for more direct federal funding in the next COVID-19
relief bill. AASHTO has advocated for at least $37 billion through FY 2024 to offset state transportation revenue losses. The American Public
Transportation Association estimated public transit agencies would need $32 billion. Tymon said these
next few weeks are a good
opportunity for Congress to pass an extension among others. “We think this is a good opportunity for
Congress as they’re coming back into town for a couple of weeks to deal with some must-pass pieces of
legislation to address all three of these issues,” Tymon said. “They can do a one-year extension of the surface
transportation program, they can provide that COVID relief that state DOTS (departments of transportation) and transportation
agencies desperately need and they can make sure that the Highway Trust Fund doesn’t run out of money in the near term.”
1AR – CJR Thumper
Litany of police bills thump
Gaskill, 9-16 (Hannah Gaskill received her master’s of journalism degree in December 2019 from the
University of Maryland. She previously worked on the print layout design team at The Diamondback,
reported on criminal justice in Maryland for Capital News Service and served as a production assistant
for The Confluence — the daily news magazine on 90.5 WESA, Pittsburgh’s NPR member station. Gaskill
has had bylines in The Baltimore Sun, The Washington Post and The Chicago Tribune, among other
publications.Before pursuing journalism, she received her bachelor’s of fine art degree from Carnegie
Mellon University in 2016. She grew up in Ocean City.; Senators Will Consider 15 Police Reform Bills Next
Week. Here’s a Look at the Proposals – Maryland Matters; Maryland Matters;
https://www.marylandmatters.org/2020/09/16/senators-will-consider-15-police-reform-bills-next-
week-heres-a-look-at-the-proposals/) accessed 9-18-2020 cyang
The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee released a series of bills Wednesday evening that are set to
be discussed at a virtual hearing next week, all of which focus on police accountability and reform.
Judicial Proceedings Chairman William C. Smith Jr (D-Montgomery) Sen. Jill P. Carter (D-Baltimore City) and Sen. Charles E. Sydnor III (D-
Baltimore County) have collectively put forth 15 police reform and accountability bills , including one that
seeks to completely repeal the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights. The measures will be discussed next Tuesday,
Wednesday and Thursday from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at virtual bill hearings. Smith announced Tuesday , in an unusual move, that the
committee would hear testimony for bills in the interim between the 2020 and 2021 legislative sessions. “Systemic
injustices in policing have plagued our communities for generations and developing the best solutions requires legislators to be thoughtful and
purposeful,” Smith said in a statement. “To achieve this, we need participation from all Marylanders to find solutions to heal the relationship
between our law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.” Advocates and lawmakers have pushed House Speaker Adrienne A.
Jones (D-Baltimore County) and Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) to convene a special session to address police brutality and a
host of other pressing issues. Del. Julian Ivey (D-Prince George’s), one of the most vocal lawmakers in the fight for a special session, has chosen
to highlight a victim of police violence on Twitter each day. Wednesday was day 83. Since the abrupt end of the 2020 session in March, Jones
and Ferguson have convened workgroups to recommend legislation on pressing issues. But at a rally by advocates on Wednesday evening, the
leaders indicated they will not convene a special session. On
Tuesday, Sept. 22, the Senate committee will hear bills
concerning use of physical or deadly force standards, the creation of a misconduct database to
establish an officer’s credibility as a witness, the elimination of no-knock warrants, an officer’s duty to
intervene and report misconduct, whistleblower protections, and a measure that prohibits purchasing
certain military-grade equipment. Wednesday, Sept. 23, lawmakers will discuss legislation regarding
public access to and court admissibility of body camera footage, the ability of state prosecutors to
investigate of use of force and fatal officer encounters, financial liability surrounding police misconduct
investigations, mandatory drug and alcohol testing after civilian fatalities, and required routine
psychological testing for law enforcement officers. Thursday, Sept. 24, is wholly devoted to two pieces
of legislation sponsored by Carter concerning the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights, which sets
due process rules for police in investigatory and disciplinary scenarios.
RIDER DAS
2AC – Rider Theory
Interp – Fiat is the simplest way to enact a plan, not the most likely
Rider DA’s are terrible for debate and a voting issue – they garner offense off of the
mechanism by which the resolution itself is affirmed, which has three independent
impacts –
A) Clash – there’s no incentive to engage with the 1AC because they get links based on
the fiated passage of the plan
B) Topic education – it eliminates incentives to research because you know you’ll just
lose to a random rider that you didn’t even know existed
C) Fairness – it decks competitive equity because it has an invincible link story and the
aff can only read impact defense
Independently, politics DA’s solve their offense
2AC – Not Must-Pass
No link – the plan’s ‘should-pass’ not ‘must-pass’ – which is defined as appropriations
bills
Hamilton 12 – reporter for Politifact, an independent fact-checking journalism website aimed at
bringing you the truth in politics. (Martha, “Unrelated items in urgent legislation” 3/28,
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/gop-pledge-o-meter/promise/666/will-not-bundle-
bills-into-must-pass-legislatio/
When POLITICO wrote a story in December, suggesting that this action ran afoul of the Republican promise, Michael Steel, a spokesman for
Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the bill "does not fit the definition of 'must-pass' legislation ," which he noted
generally refers to funding bills or increasing the debt limit , nor did it contain unpopular provisions, he said. We asked
congressional analysts how they defined the term. "Obviously appropriations bills are the highest order of must-
pass bills," said Donald Wolfensberger, director of the Congress Project for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Appropriations bills "have always been rife with legislative riders, no matter which party is in the majority," he said. "Whether the payroll
tax holiday extension bill should be considered 'must pass,' technically it is not the same as an appropriations measure or debt limit
bill," he wrote in an email. "It falls more in the category of a 'political should pass bill,' especially going in an election year. You
don't cut off unemployment comp to the unemployed or middle class tax cuts on Christmas Eve."
MORE DA
2AC – MORE Act – T/L
Postponed until after the election – shutdown and corona are more important.
Wu '9/17 [ Nicholas; Congressional Reporter; 2020; "House vote on marijuana legalization bill
postponed after backlash from moderate lawmakers"; USA TODAY;
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/17/marijuana-legalization-vote-postponed-
after-backlash-moderates/3484129001/; Accessed 9-18-2020; LR]
WASHINGTON – Democrats in the House of Representatives postponed a planned vote next week on marijuana
legalization following a backlash from moderate Democrats. The legislation, the MORE Act, would legalize
marijuana at the federal level and expunge some marijuana-related criminal records, though it left the decision on the sale of
marijuana up to the states. According to a senior Democratic aide, lawmakers in tough re-election contests wanted the
House to first pass COVID-19 relief before acting on marijuana legalization. Another senior Democratic aide said a group
of moderate Democrats had made the case to party leadership that they wanted to focus on legislation other than pot legalization given the
risks posed at the ballot box – and their argument won over party leaders. The
MORE Act would probably not come up until
after the election, according to twoaides. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in a statement the House would pass the
MORE Act "later this autumn," but right now, "the House is focused relentlessly on securing agreement to stave off a
damaging government shutdown and continuing to do its job addressing the COVID-19 pandemic." Congress has a just
few weeks left in its scheduled session to pass COVID-19 legislation and bills to keep the government funded .
The House is scheduled to stay in session until Oct. 2, though Pelosi promised the body would remain in session until a deal is brokered on
COVID-19 relief. The Senate is scheduled to stay until Oct. 9. After they leave, the two chambers are not scheduled to
return until after Election Day.
2AC – AT: Econ
No impact – covid thumps econ
2AC – AT: Bitcoin
Bitcoin use is high now – cryptocurrency is seen as the future.
Bitcoin solves cyber security.

Higgins 14 [staff writer at Coin Desk, FireEye Founder: Bitcoin Could Secure Our Global Payments
Infrastructure, http://www.coindesk.com/fireeye-bitcoin-secure-global-payments-infrastructure/]
**internally cites Ashar Azis – a cybersecurity entrepreneur and founder of malware solutions provider
FireEye
For example, bitcoin mining company PeerNova announced in July that it had received funding from Ashar Aziz, a cybersecurity entrepreneur
and founder of noted malware protection solutions provider FireEye. Aziz explained in a new interview with CoinDesk that the strengths of
bitcoin are most obvious when you look at the infrastructure of today’s mainstream payment systems. This infrastructure, which he labeled
primitive, reflects the evolution of 20th century styles of payment. For this reason, Aziz argued, a new approach has to be taken, and that
bitcoin may be the key to unlocking this future . Aziz told CoinDesk: “As we’ve seen over the past several years, more and
more of our traditional transactions have moved to the Internet and are leveraging Internet speed for what used to be typical offline
transactions. The value exchange is somewhat limited and primitive in their mechanisms, and bitcoin’s
underlying technology
provides a good, cryptographically secure platform for exchange.” Beyond payments, the actual procedural
aspects of bitcoin could be applied to other types of digital infrastructure , Aziz said. To Aziz, bitcoin payments
are the first application of what may become a litany of additional use cases that fortify the Web’s
security for the long term. Legacy systems out of date Aziz believes that the various elements of today’s payments infrastructure
don’t work fluidly enough to handle the needs of a global economy. He called credit card systems archaic and unfit for the digital age, saying
that the technological holes make it easy for cybercriminals to acquire sensitive data and subsequently commit
fraud. When asked how digitized payment systems will evolve in the years ahead, Aziz called the situation amorphous, owing to the many
companies involved and the complexities in the infrastructure itself. From a security perspective, however, he said that change will have to take
place as the stark realities of securing payment networks becomes more apparent, explaining: “It’s a large and complex problem, and many
enterprises struggle to even understand where their valuable digital assets are, much less effectively secure them. So, if
we can shrink the
attack surface down to a small set of objects, which can then be very easily secure, that makes the
attacker’s job much harder.”
Cyberattacks cause nuke war

Stoutland 18, [Page Stoutland, PhD Vice President, Scientific and Technical Affairs at Nuclear Threat
Initiative and Samantha Pitts-Kiefer, NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE NEW CYBER AGE, September 18,
https://www.nti.org/media/documents/Cyber_report_finalsmall.pdf]
Reduction of confidence in the nuclear deterrent and the effect on strategic stability. In addition to
heightening the risk of use as a result of miscalculation or unauthorized launch, cyber threats to nuclear
weapons systems could undermine the very foundation of nuclear deterrence and strategic stability.
The uncertainty caused by the unique character of a cyber threat could jeopardize the credibility of the
nuclear deterrent and undermine strategic stability in ways that advances in nuclear and conventional
weapons do not. For example, cyberattacks against communications systems could prevent the flow of
information vital for making decisions about the use of nuclear weapons, including responding to
warnings of attack; disable the ability to transmit nuclear orders; cut off much-needed de-escalation
channels between nations in a crisis; or lead to misinterpretation if dualuse systems are attacked with
no way to clarify the adversary’s intentions. In addition, the introduction of a flaw or malicious code into
nuclear weapons through the supply chain that compromises the effectiveness of those weapons could
lead to a lack of confidence in the nuclear deterrent. Confidence in the ability to use nuclear weapons as
intended, and the adversary’s belief that the country’s weapons could be used and would work as
intended, are vital ingredients for nuclear deterrence. A loss of confidence in the ability to deter nuclear
use by an adversary would have a significant negative effect on strategy stability.
It is important to note that these risks existed before cyber threats became prevalent. False warnings
because of human error or technical failures have occurred multiple times in the nearly seven decades
since nuclear weapons were developed. The cyber threat exacerbates those risks and creates new ones.
The speed, stealth, unpredictability, and challenges of attribution of any particular cyber threat or attack
make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate, deter, and defend against such an attack.
Furthermore, nuclear weapons are dependent on systems with digital components, including those
connected to civilian systems.
1AR – AT: Floortime
The bill won’t be put on the floor until September 21st. That’s their own evidence.
1AR – Bitcoin High
Bitcoin legitimacy high now and cybercriminals are moving on.
Hopkins 5-4 [Patrick Hopkins, Smart Brief writer, “Why hackers moving to Monero may improve
bitcoin legitimacy”, https://www.smartbrief.com/original/2020/05/why-hackers-moving-monero-may-
improve-bitcoin-legitimacy]
Bitcoin and its anonymous transactions might address these long-standing security concerns. This
Cryptonews article discusses several bitcoin wallets, and this Cryptonews article lays out how you can make online purchases with bitcoin
securely.
While you might be worried that such a relatively new form of currency won’t be accepted by your retailer of choice, this site explains how to
use bitcoin to buy things from Amazon sellers. This article outlines even more products and services you can buy with bitcoin.
It’s easy to see bitcoin legitimacy growing as word spreads that criminals are abandoning it and
investing in cryptocurrencies becomes more common. If that happens, asset management firms might
offer more bitcoin-focused mutual funds. This could be of particular interest to young people, whom
Yahoo has reported are a plurality of bitcoin owners .
While the number of cryptocurrency investors is still fairly modest, a December 2019 Charles Schwab news release offered a surprising nugget:
Among the company’s young investors, more had money in bitcoin than in Berkshire Hathaway,
Disney, Netflix, Microsoft or Alibaba.
Far from being merely the focus of younger investors (plus a couple of older and bigger names), though,
bitcoin is a pop culture phenomenon . The Halving (or Halvening, if you prefer) is next month. This event is another step toward
reducing the available supply of bitcoin, and it may increase bitcoin’s price.
Bitcoin also presents two bigger, policy-based options for growth. First, its anonymous transactions can
help people send money to relatives or friends in other countries while avoiding trouble for doing so -- a
problem this Vox article discusses. Second, it is a big opportunity for the part of the world divorced most from
billionaire investors, such as people who don’t have a bank account or whose bank has no local location .
Those without banks might find use in the words of bitcoin evangelist Nick Spanos, who wrote for The Hill that bitcoin’s
low barrier to
entry makes it an attractive way to buy things online, as well as to get a truly small business loan
(microlending).
With those potential avenues of growth, with millennials and some older people investing in bitcoin, and
with bad actors moving away from bitcoin and toward Monero, the price of bitcoin could increase
rapidly.
1AR – Won’t Pass
No vote.
NORML '9/17 [ NORML; nonprofit public-interest advocacy group for marijuana legalization; 2020;
"Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: MORE Act Vote Postponed"; NORML;
https://norml.org/blog/2020/09/17/justice-delayed-is-justice-denied-more-act-vote-postponed/;
Accessed 9-18-2020; LR]
It is with a heavy heart that we make this post. Despite an unprecedented level of support, it appears the
prohibitionists and concern-mongers have carried the day and the House vote on the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment,
and Expungement (MORE) Act will not take place next week as we had anticipated.
MORE won’t pass – McConnell blocks, and it’s too partisan – the DA link proves.
Ward 9/13 – Andrew Ward, staff writer, 2020 ("The MORE Act Won't Pass Congress, But Cannabis
Insiders Say That's OK — For Now," Benzinga, Available online at
https://www.benzinga.com/markets/cannabis/20/09/17476193/the-more-act-wont-pass-congress-but-
cannabis-insiders-say-thats-ok-for-now, Accessed 9-14-2020) LR
Can the MORE Act Pass? The short answer is highly doubtful. Most experts believe that while a House passage is
possible, the MORE Act is almost certain to be stopped in the conservative-held Senate where Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell has repeatedly shot down and derided cannabis reform efforts. Even if the Senate were to
show their support, those like the NCIA's Fox believe McConnell would put the movement on ice. "Whether it
would pass the Senate right now is irrelevant because McConnell will almost certainly not call it for a vote in
the current session," Fox said. When asked if the MORE Act could pass the Senate Majority Leader, Denton's
Berlin replied, "Not a chance." Fox Rothschild's Horn shared a similar stance, elaborating on the party divide. "[ The MORE Act]
will likely pass the House on partisan lines because the Democratic party has promoted criminal and cannabis reform. It will not likely
garner any traction in the Senate, also for partisan reasons that the majority of Republican Senators are
against cannabis reform," he said.
Won’t pass – even if it does, it’s inevitable.

Demko 9/13 -- 9-13-2020 ("States plow forward with pot, with or without Congress", POLITICO,
Available online at https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/13/marijuana-legalization-state-measures-
412764, Accessed 9-14-2020)
Roughly 1 in 3 Americans could have access to legal recreational marijuana if voters approve state ballot
initiatives this November. While a planned House vote on legalizing weed at the federal level is scheduled for
later this month, the real action remains in the states. That’s because even if the House measure passes, there’s zero
chance the Republican-controlled Senate will take up the bill, which would eliminate federal criminal
penalties and erase some past marijuana convictions. But with the federal government continuing to take a hands-off
approach when it comes to cracking down on state-legal markets, five more states could make it legal to
buy weed for medical or recreational purposes. The legalization wave could have been much bigger: Organizers in five states saw their efforts
derailed in large part due to the pandemic, with Nebraska’s medical campaign the latest blow after losing a legal challenge on Thursday. The
other state measures are already set. The biggest stakes are in New Jersey and Arizona, where polling suggests voters will back recreational
sales. If both measures pass, more than 16 million additional Americans would be living in states where anyone at least 21 years old can buy
weed for any reason. That would mean more than 100 million Americans would have access to legal recreational marijuana sales, less than a
decade after Colorado and Washington pioneered the modern legalization movement. South Dakota and Montana could also pass recreational
legalization measures this year. The former could become the first state to go from a total ban on weed to legalizing both medical and
recreational sales, if voters back a pair of referendums. Meanwhile, Mississippi voters will decide whether to legalize medical marijuana.
Mississippi would join a recent wave of archconservative states — including Oklahoma, Arkansas and Utah — that have embraced medical sales
in recent years. "We’re now working in very red states," said Matthew Schweich, deputy director of pro-legalization advocacy group Marijuana
Policy Project. "If we win in Mississippi, Montana and South Dakota … it becomes more difficult for those senators to oppose legislation that
allows their home states to implement laws the voters have approved." If all five states pass their ballot measures, more
than two-thirds of federal lawmakers would represent states with legal medical or recreational marijuana
markets. Even if only the New Jersey and Arizona measures pass, those votes would add four additional senators and 21 representatives —
meaning a quarter of the Senate and a third of the House would represent states with legal adult-use marijuana. Lawmakers often
change their views on cannabis once their state legalizes it, with Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) being the most obvious
example. And this year’s ballot measures would bring in some heavyweight lawmakers. New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone is the House Energy
& Commerce chair and South Dakota Republican John Thune is Senate majority whip. "Every victory on the state level makes
the federal-state conflict more untenable than it already is ," Schweich said. The Brookings Institution’s John Hudak points
out that marijuana legalization referendums have become routine, no longer seen as exotic or outlandish. “ This is just mainstream
public policy,” said Hudak, author of "Marijuana: A Short History". “In the same way that states have votes on tax policy and a variety of
other types of issues, this is rapidly becoming just another standard public policy issue.”
No Senate – even if, states fill in.

Nicholas Wu 9/6 – USA Today (“House to vote on federal marijuana legalization, bill’s future uncertain
in Senate”, Ionia Sentinel - Standard-Ionia, MI, Available online at https://www.sentinel-
standard.com/news/20200906/house-to-vote-on-federal-marijuana-legalization-bills-future-uncertain-
in-senate, Accessed 9-14-2020)
The Democratic-controlled House will vote on legalizing marijuana at the federal level for the first time in the
chamber’s history later this month, a hurdle Democrats and advocates are celebrating as
Congress grapples with a host of
pressing issues before the November election. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the House would vote on the MORE Act
during the week of Sept. 21. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., would remove marijuana from the federal list of controlled
substances and expunge some marijuana-related criminal records, though it would still be up to states to pass their own
regulations on the sale of marijuana. “It’s about time,” Nadler told USA TODAY, calling it a “historic vote” marking the beginning
of the end of the federal government’s “40-year, very misguided crusade” against marijuana. Maritza Perez, director of the office of national
affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, a group advocating for the decriminalization of drugs, said her organization was “thrilled,” saying the bill
would “begin to repair some of the harms caused by the war on drugs in communities of color and low-income communities.” TheHouse’s
vote comes as views of marijuana have changed in Washington and increased numbers of Americans support the
legalization of the drug, whether for recreational or medicinal purposes. And while this bill is likely to fail in the Republican-
majority Senate, advocates still saw the vote as a step forward.
PROSWIFT DA
2AC – PROSWIFT DA – T/L
Empirically denied --- a massive solar storm happened in 2012

AP 12 (Associated Press, “Solar storm headed toward Earth may disrupt power”, 3/7/2012,
http://news.yahoo.com/solar-storm-headed-toward-earth-may-disrupt-power-162508973.html)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The largest solar storm in five years is racing toward Earth, threatening to unleash a torrent of
charged particles that could disrupt power grids, GPS and airplane flights. The sun erupted Tuesday evening, and the effects
should start smacking Earth between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. EST Thursday (0600 GMT and 1000 GMT), according to forecasters
at the U.S. government's Space Weather Prediction Center. They say the storm, which started with a massive solar flare , is
growing as it speeds outward from the sun. "It's hitting us right in the nose," said Joe Kunches, a scientist for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. He called it the sun's version of "Super Tuesday."
We’re building in resiliency and warning systems to prevent solar energy damage
Boyle 17 [Rebecca Boyle, How We'll Safeguard Earth From a Solar Storm Catastrophe, June 14, 2017,
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/space/how-we-ll-safeguard-earth-solar-storm-catastrophe-n760021,
NBC News]
From the fabric of the global economy to families planning tonight’s dinner, communications networks — and the power grid that underlies
them — are woven more tightly through our lives than ever before. But those networks all could be gone in a flash. A geomagnetic storm
triggered by a burst of solar energy could overwhelm the nation’s power grid and shut down cell towers and communication networks.
Similarly, a human-built electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon could temporarily wipe out the networks that connect and sustain us. This would
be much worse than a power outage: Along with the lights, information itself would be blacked out. Experts
are not taking this
lightly. From space-based research about the sun's energy to new efforts that could safeguard power stations against
an attack, science is fighting back to keep our connections open . Staring at the Sun Occasionally, the sun unleashes pent-up
energy in the form of a solar flare or a coronal mass ejection (CME), which is a blast of plasma. Satellite data helps scientists predict these solar
eruptions, but there are still plenty of questions about how the sun works; answering them would improve forecasts of space weather. Earth’s
magnetic field protects us against the sun’s firehose of energy, but sometimes the sun overpowers the planet’s defenses. When that happens,
solar radiation heats the upper atmosphere and charges it with electricity, which is what causes auroras at the northern and southern poles.
When the coronal mass ejection arrives a day or so later, it interacts with and dramatically changes Earth’s magnetic field, explains Thomas
Berger, a solar physicist in Boulder, Colo., home of NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center. The atmosphere’s uppermost layer is already
warmer, and now it’s battling a cloud of plasma that creates currents in the atmosphere and on the ground. “That’s when the power grids start
to feel things," Berger says. "When you create a giant current in the ionosphere, you also create currents in the ground. And the power grid is
anchored in the Earth — grounded, as they call it. In the worst-case scenario, the CME would damage equipment, which would need to be
replaced before you can bring power back to the grid.” Earth already experienced this worst-case scenario, but nobody alive today was there to
see it. The 1859 Carrington Event was a geomagnetic storm triggered by an eruption of charged particles that streamed toward Earth. It was in
the early days of telegraphs, well before countries were electrified. But particles from the sun were powerful enough to send a charge through
telegraph lines that shocked operators and lit telegraph paper on fire. If this happened now without warning, the results could be catastrophic.
Power plants, substations, and transmission lines for entire cities or regions could be fried. People might be without power for days or weeks,
leading to food shortages and untold crises. The effects on the economy would also be devastating: Just one day without power in New York
City could cost $1 billion, according to a 2013 report from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Across the federal government, at least 27
separate programs are working on ways to prevent this scenario. Power transformers are the backbone of the grid. Some transformers at
power stations increase voltage so that it can be transmitted many miles, while others “step down” voltage so it can enter homes at safe levels.
Large ones can take months to repair or rebuild, resulting in long-term blackouts, according to the Electric Power Research Group. In an
emergency, federal agencies could set up temporary transformers to act as a stopgap, much like FEMA sets up
temporary housing after disasters. The Department of Homeland Security has a Recovery Transformer program devoted to designing and
building a type of easily deployable transformer that can be installed anywhere in an emergency. And the Department of Energy ( DOE) is
working on a “strategic transformer reserve ” — a supply of extra transformers that can be trucked throughout America if
necessary. Equipment to protect large power transformers costs about $350,000 per circuit, according to the Foundation for Resilient Societies.
Safeguarding the grid against solar storms and EMPs would cost between $10 billion and $30 billion, the foundation says. Utilities
are
already working on solutions, says Rob Manning, vice president for transmission at the Electric Power Research Institute. Some
are building capacitor banks, which could work like batteries to absorb and dissipate excess energy. Or they can
install electricity-dampening devices called Faraday cages, which are like force fields that can surround critical pieces of
equipment and protect them from currents. The DOE is also building better flywheels that can spin faster or slower
depending on their charge. A flywheel could physically drain excess electricity off the grid, turning the sun’s electrons into movement and heat .
Special dampening devices can also drain away or block excess current, but none of these is a perfect solution,
Manning says. “There are some devices that will ground that current out and remove it from the system, but it creates some unintended
consequences,” Manning says. “It’s like taking a drug that fixes a problem you might have, but it has unintended side effects.” The
best
way to protect against solar storms is to forecast them in advance and shut down the grid before it's struck .
DHS has a Solar Storm Mitigation project that's designed to “enhance awareness of potential disruptions” caused by solar rays. Researchers
are improving solar forecasts to provide at least a few hours of warning. The Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) provides
crucial data about the timing and speed of solar bursts, says NOAA’s Berger: “DSCOVR is really like a tsunami buoy.” And even better
warning systems are coming. A new sun-orbiting satellite launching in 2018, called the Parker Solar Probe, will study the corona in
unprecedented detail, providing new information about how the sun’s atmosphere gets so hot and spits out harmful CMEs. NOAA scientists are
also working on a new satellite, unofficially called the Space Weather Follow-On Mission, that would study the sun’s magnetic fields — if it
receives federal funding.
SHUTDOWN DA
2AC – Shutdown DA – T/L
No shutdown
Kilgore 9-23 [Ed Kilgore, Stopgap Spending Deal Ends Government Shutdown Threat, Intelligencer, 9-
23-2020, Accessible Online at https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/stopgap-spending-deal-ends-
government-shutdown-threat.html] KL 9-26-2020
A relatively brief moment of peril for standard federal government operations ended Tuesday when the
House passed a stopgap spending bill to keep Washington humming beyond the September 30 end of
the fiscal year (at least until December 11). As Roll Call reports, Speaker Pelosi caved on money for the Commodity Credit
Corporation fund Trump has been tapping to compensate farmers hurt by his trade policies, in exchange for some Republican concessions:
The House swiftly passed a stopgap funding measure needed to avert a partial government shutdown in
eight days after top congressional leaders reached a deal resolving a fight over farm payments. On a
lopsided vote of 359-57, the House sent to the Senate a revised continuing resolution that would extend current funding for all federal agencies
through Dec. 11 … The
bipartisan pact would restore money for farm payments sought by lawmakers from
both parties that House leaders had rejected in an earlier stopgap measure introduced Monday. It also
would restore new money for a pandemic-related program funding subsidized meals to children who
would normally receive them when schools are open, among other nutrition assistance, Democrats said.
There was apparently enough Democratic pressure for the farm aid to convince Pelosi to back off an earlier objection to Trump’s use of CCC
funds, which would shower dollars on heartland voters just before the election. But she did get some language stopping POTUS from using the
same funds to benefit fossil-fuel refiners. The
Republican-controlled Senate, where the earlier deletion of farm aid
was a potential deal-breaker, is expected to pass the bill within the next few days. There’s no reason
for Trump to consider vetoing it. The continuing resolution, as the stopgap is known, mostly continues
current spending levels for federal programs pending enactment of appropriations bills between now
and the CR’s expiration date of December 11. Depending on what happens on Election Day, and whether control of the White
House and Congress is quickly determined, the “lame duck” session to which the appropriations can has been kicked could be more contentious
than usual.
No shutdown impact – it’s fearmongering.

Novak 17 — Jake Novak, Senior Columnist at CNBC, 2017 (“Don't fall for the shutdown scam — most
of the U.S. government will keep on running just fine,” CNBC, December 7th, Available Online at
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/shutdown-threats-cloud-the-truth-commentary.html, Accessed 01-
05-2018)
America's $20.5 trillion national debt didn't just create itself. It's been sowed, cultivated, and put on steroids by a patented formula that
guarantees it keeps growing — and the political class keeps getting what it wants. But perhaps there's
no tool that's more sinister
and disingenuous, and used by leaders of both parties, than what's become the semi-annual scare tactic known as the
"government shutdown." You have to put quotes around the term because the government does not
shut down. About 85 percent of it keeps functioning, especially the military and homeland security , air
traffic control, VA hospitals, FBI, DEA, and ATF enforcement and criminal investigations, oversight of
food and drug safety, nuclear safety, and even the IRS. Social Security and Medicare payments continue
as well. For sure, some services are put on hold. Around 400,000 federal workers were furloughed during the last shutdown in 2013 with
another 1.2 million who worked but were paid late. Of course, even those furloughed workers eventually received their full salaries. Some of
them even received overtime pay. In other words, shutdowns for federal workers are more like an unplanned paid vacation. Others aren't so
lucky. Government contractors endure delays in their payments and don't get any bonuses for waiting. Some mortgage applications can be
delayed. People who need passports or want to visit national parks are out of luck. No one should just brush off those inconveniences. Yet for
the most part, calling a shutdown a "shutdown" is a major stretch of the imagination . But the term fits right into the
bipartisan scam Washington has been running for years. Without scare and hurry-up tactics, none of our huge debt and sprawling federal
government would be possible. The con game works like this: The federal government keeps expanding and expanding. New departments and
spending programs are launched with regularity. But somehow they immediately become sacred cows as if they had existed since 1776. Deficits
keep rising even though incoming revenues break record after record. But we're told the only reasonable way to cut the debt is increase
revenues. Whenever anyone questions the need or oversight for new spending, the word "emergency" is slapped onto it, so reasonable caution
— and the people asking for it — are disregarded and even demonized. The
government shutdown scam wraps all of the above
elements into one stinky package. First, it uses the hyperbolic and 85 percent inaccurate "shutdown" title . Second, it
always comes with fast-approaching deadlines , (this latest one is December 8th), that discourage any fair-minded critics from
asking for more scrutiny. Third, the "solution" is always connected to agreeing to more spending , as opposed to an
across-the-board spending cut of any kind. It's like out of control spending has a superhero bodyguard and its name
is "government shutdown." But there's one more thing that makes government shutdown battles a
particularly egregious example of D.C. dishonesty . That is, they're usually not really about spending at all.
They have historically grown out of debates over partisan wedge issues including abortion, oil drilling, and civil rights.
That last shutdown in 2013 was about Obamacare. This time, the face-off is more and more about a dispute on
immigration. But the Constitution connects almost every government policy to the Congressional power of the purse. So it's easy for
political opportunists to take the budget and use it as a hostage whenever they have enough will to do so. When that happens, the actual issue
of our exploding debts and unfunded future liabilities gets kicked down the road again by hysterical and grave sounding
politicians and their enablers in most of the news media. They ensure that no matter how inconsequential
"shutdowns" really are, they are perceived by the public as dire. But try thinking back to that last
shutdown when it happened from October 1 to October 17, 2013. Don't just trust your raw memories, check your
emails or social media posts from that time period for help. See if they provide any evidence of your life in
tatters and a nation in chaos. The bet here is that there will be no such evidence for the overwhelming majority of you.
That's where the danger really lies for the political class and business as usual in Washington. That is, this scam is in danger if more
voters, and the people supposedly holding our political leaders up to scrutiny, would just look at these shutdown threats
more clearly. Then, at least that very key layer of the Washington budget con game would be peeled away. Yes, both parties are to blame.
But until voters on all sides start to call baloney on the shutdown scare tactic, expect more of the
hyperbole, half truths, and deflection from the real issues to continue . The only way it ends is if
Americans get a healthy and timely dose of skepticism .
2AC – AT: Naval Power
Naval power high, resilient, and doesn’t solve war
Easterbrook ‘15
GREGG EASTERBROOK MARCH 9, 2015 “Our Navy Is Big Enough”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/opinion/our-navy-is-big-enough.html?
module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Opinion&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article&_r
=0
Yet no naval expansion is needed. The Navy has 10 nuclear-powered supercarriers — 10 more than the
rest of the world. No other nation is even contemplating anything like the advanced nuclear
supercarriers that the United States has under construction. China possesses one outdated,
conventionally powered carrier, and is believed to be building two other carriers, neither of which is a
nuclear supercarrier capable of contesting the “blue water,” or deep open oceans, where the United
States Navy dominates. In aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, naval aviation, surface firepower, assault
ships, missiles and logistics, the United States Navy is more powerful than all other navies of the world
combined. Some commentators engage in fearmongering regarding China’s carriers, new submarines
and its anti-ship ballistic missile. But the carriers are modest compared with America’s, the submarines
far less capable than ours. And there’s no evidence that its anti-ship missile has had a realistic test.
China’s neighbors are unhappy that the growing Chinese Navy may back Beijing’s claims regarding the
South China Sea. But Chinese naval expansion does not pose any direct threat to the national security of
the United States, or to its dominance of the oceans. For the United States to think there is something
sinister in China’s projecting power in its own nearby waters would be like China’s asserting there were
something sinister in the fact that the United States Fourth Fleet operates in the Caribbean. South China
Sea jurisdictional disputes are an issue to be resolved by negotiation. Making the United States Navy
even more powerful won’t matter to such clashes. For many centuries, naval rivalry was a central
aspect of great-power relations. Yet for more than half a century there has been no great -power naval
rivalry — because the United States Navy rules. The last major sea battle was at Okinawa, in 1945. Piracy
still occurs, but in the main, global trade has flowered because sea lanes are open and commercial
vessels ply the oceans unthreatened by warships. Free commerce upon the oceans brings nearly all
nations, including developing nations, higher living standards and less poverty. Since Navy operations
take place far from home, Americans may be unaware of their country’s nautical strength and of the
progressive role the Navy plays in world affairs. Many Americans have never seen an active-duty United
States warship; ships can’t march in Fourth of July parades or fly over football games. But arguably,
naval hegemony is among the greatest American achievements, and one that makes all nations better
off. That hegemony is secured by such a dramatic margin that no naval buildup is needed. A few years
ago, I gave a lecture at the United States Naval War College, in Newport, R.I. Officers from 129 nations
have graduated from the Naval War College; flags of their countries ring the grounds. I was reminded
that one lesson that officers of other navies learn at the Naval War College is that there is zero chance
they will ever defeat the United States in battle — so why even try? This situation is a tremendously
positive development for the world, but it also means there is no reason to increase the Navy’s budget ,
nor for Congress to fret about how many ships we have.
No US/China war.
Heath 17 ---- Timothy, senior international defense researcher (RAND Corporation), former senior
analyst for the USPACOM China Strategic Focus Group, M.A. in Asian studies (George Washington
University), B.A. in philosophy (College of William and Mary), Ph.D. candidate in Political Science (George
Mason University), written with William R. Thompson who is a Professor of Political Science (Indiana
University), “U.S.-China Tensions Are Unlikely to Lead to War,” National Interest, 4/30,
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/us-china-tensions-are-unlikely-lead-war-20411?page=2
Graham Allison's April 12 article, “How America and China Could Stumble to War,” explores how misperceptions and
bureaucratic dysfunction could accelerate a militarized crisis involving the United States and China into an unwanted war.
However, the article fails to persuade because it neglects the key political and geostrategic conditions that make war
plausible in the first place. Without those conditions in place, the risk that a crisis could accidentally escalate into war
becomes far lower. The U.S.-China relationship today may be trending towards greater tension, but the relative
stability and overall low level of hostility make the prospect of an accidental escalation to war extremely
unlikely. In a series of scenarios centered around the South China Sea, Taiwan and the East China Sea, Allison explored how well-established
flashpoints involving China and the United States and its allies could spiral into unwanted war. Allison’s article argues that given the context of
strategic rivalry between a rising power and a status-quo power, organizational and bureaucratic misjudgments increase the likelihood of
unintended escalation. According to Allison, “the underlying stress created by China’s disruptive rise creates conditions in which accidental,
otherwise inconsequential events could trigger a large-scale conflict.” This argument appears persuasive on its surface, in no small part because
it evokes insights from some of Allison’s groundbreaking work on the organizational pathologies that made the Cuban Missile Crisis so
dangerous. However, Allison ultimately fails
to persuade because he fails to specify the political and strategic
conditions that make war plausible in the first place. Allison’s analysis implies that the United States and China are in
a situation analogous to that of the Soviet Union and the United States in the early 1960s. In the Cold War example, the two
countries faced each other on a near-war footing and engaged in a bitter geostrategic and ideological struggle for supremacy. The two countries
experienced a series of militarized crises and fought each other repeatedly through proxy wars. It was this broader context that made issues of
misjudgment so dangerous in a crisis. By contrast, the U.S.-China relationship today operates at a much lower level of
hostility and threat. China and the United States may be experiencing an increase in tensions, but the two countries
remain far from the bitter, acrimonious rivalry that defined the U.S.-Soviet relationship in the early 1960s.
Neither Washington nor Beijing regards the other as its principal enemy . Today’s rivals may view each other warily
as competitors and threats on some issues, but they also view each other as important trade partners and partners on
some shared concerns, such as North Korea, as the recent summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese
president Xi Jinping illustrated. The behavior of their respective militaries underscores the relatively restrained
rivalry. The military competition between China and the United States may be growing, but it operates at a far lower level
of intensity than the relentless arms racing that typified the U.S.-Soviet standoff. And unlike their Cold War counterparts,
U.S. and Chinese militaries are not postured to fight each other in major wars. Moreover, polls show that the
people of the two countries regard each other with mixed views—a considerable contrast from the hostile
sentiment expressed by the U.S. and Soviet publics for each other. Lacking both preparations for major war and
a constituency for conflict, leaders and bureaucracies in both countries have less incentive to misjudge crisis
situations in favor of unwarranted escalation. To the contrary, political leaders and bureaucracies currently
face a strong incentive to find ways of defusing crises in a manner that avoids unwanted escalation. This
inclination manifested itself in the EP-3 airplane collision off Hainan Island in 2001, and in subsequent incidents
involving U.S. and Chinese ships and aircraft, such as the harassment of the USNS Impeccable in 2009. This does not mean that
there is no risk, however. Indeed, the potential for a dangerous militarized crisis may be growing. Moreover, key political and geostrategic
developments could shift the incentives for leaders in favor of more escalatory options in a crisis and thereby make Allison’s scenarios more
plausible. Past precedents offer some insight into the types of developments that would most likely propel the U.S.-China relationship into a
hostile, competitive one featuring an elevated risk of conflict.
2AC – Shutdown DA – Old
Passes inevitably.
Basil 9/11 [John; 9/11/20; reporter for KRQE; “Democrats and Republicans look to avoid another
government shutdown,” https://www.krqe.com/news/washington-dc/democrats-and-republicans-look-
to-avoid-another-government-shutdown/; DS]
WASHINGTON (NEXSTAR) — The clock is ticking for Congress to prevent another government shutdown
at the end of September.
“There is, under no circumstance, any room for us to face a potential government shutdown,”
Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger said.
Spanberger says the proactive discussion between the House and the Trump administration is
reassuring.
“Certainly having those conversations before we are at the brink of a shutdown is incredibly important,”
Spanberger.
Both House Democrats and Republicans say last year’s shutdown should never be repeated.
“I would be shocked if we reached Sept. 30 and there’s no agreement reached. I don’t think it’s to
anybody’s advantage to let that happen,” Pennsylvania Congressman Mike Kelly said.
Both Spanberger and Kelly say a shutdown on top of the current pandemic would be too much for many
Americans to handle. Talks on a coronavirus relief package are still ongoing.
No link – a bill hasn’t been drafted yet so there is nothing for the plan to derail or
knock of the docket
There’s no agreement over the details.
Shutt 9/17/20 - Web producer and Afternoon Energy reporter at POLITICO, reporter for CQ Roll Call
Jennifer, “Deal elusive on stopgap funding as deadline nears.”
https://www.rollcall.com/2020/09/17/deal-elusive-on-stopgap-funding-as-deadline-nears/
Despite the best efforts of top Capitol Hill and White House officials, drama is creeping back into
negotiations over the stopgap spending bill needed to avert a partial government shutdown Oct. 1.
There's no agreement on how long the continuing resolution will extend current funding levels , for starters,
while tricky policy issues like upcoming redistricting-related census deadlines remain unresolved. What's
more, there's even some talk among rank-and-file House Democrats about withholding their votes on the CR
unless the House takes up coronavirus relief , despite a White House-leadership deal to keep the two issues separate.
No shutdown impact – it’s fearmongering.
Novak 17 — Jake Novak, Senior Columnist at CNBC, 2017 (“Don't fall for the shutdown scam — most
of the U.S. government will keep on running just fine,” CNBC, December 7th, Available Online at
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/shutdown-threats-cloud-the-truth-commentary.html, Accessed 01-
05-2018)
America's $20.5 trillion national debt didn't just create itself. It's been sowed, cultivated, and put on steroids by a patented formula that
guarantees it keeps growing — and the political class keeps getting what it wants. But perhaps there's
no tool that's more sinister
and disingenuous, and used by leaders of both parties, than what's become the semi-annual scare tactic known as the
"government shutdown." You have to put quotes around the term because the government does not
shut down. About 85 percent of it keeps functioning, especially the military and homeland security , air
traffic control, VA hospitals, FBI, DEA, and ATF enforcement and criminal investigations, oversight of
food and drug safety, nuclear safety, and even the IRS. Social Security and Medicare payments continue
as well. For sure, some services are put on hold. Around 400,000 federal workers were furloughed during the last shutdown in 2013 with
another 1.2 million who worked but were paid late. Of course, even those furloughed workers eventually received their full salaries. Some of
them even received overtime pay. In other words, shutdowns for federal workers are more like an unplanned paid vacation. Others aren't so
lucky. Government contractors endure delays in their payments and don't get any bonuses for waiting. Some mortgage applications can be
delayed. People who need passports or want to visit national parks are out of luck. No one should just brush off those inconveniences. Yet for
the most part, calling a shutdown a "shutdown" is a major stretch of the imagination . But the term fits right into the
bipartisan scam Washington has been running for years. Without scare and hurry-up tactics, none of our huge debt and sprawling federal
government would be possible. The con game works like this: The federal government keeps expanding and expanding. New departments and
spending programs are launched with regularity. But somehow they immediately become sacred cows as if they had existed since 1776. Deficits
keep rising even though incoming revenues break record after record. But we're told the only reasonable way to cut the debt is increase
revenues. Whenever anyone questions the need or oversight for new spending, the word "emergency" is slapped onto it, so reasonable caution
— and the people asking for it — are disregarded and even demonized. The
government shutdown scam wraps all of the above
elements into one stinky package. First, it uses the hyperbolic and 85 percent inaccurate "shutdown" title . Second, it
always comes with fast-approaching deadlines , (this latest one is December 8th), that discourage any fair-minded critics from
asking for more scrutiny. Third, the "solution" is always connected to agreeing to more spending , as opposed to an
across-the-board spending cut of any kind. It's like out of control spending has a superhero bodyguard and its name
is "government shutdown." But there's one more thing that makes government shutdown battles a
particularly egregious example of D.C. dishonesty . That is, they're usually not really about spending at all.
They have historically grown out of debates over partisan wedge issues including abortion, oil drilling, and civil rights.
That last shutdown in 2013 was about Obamacare. This time, the face-off is more and more about a dispute on
immigration. But the Constitution connects almost every government policy to the Congressional power of the purse. So it's easy for
political opportunists to take the budget and use it as a hostage whenever they have enough will to do so. When that happens, the actual issue
of our exploding debts and unfunded future liabilities gets kicked down the road again by hysterical and grave sounding
politicians and their enablers in most of the news media. They ensure that no matter how inconsequential
"shutdowns" really are, they are perceived by the public as dire. But try thinking back to that last
shutdown when it happened from October 1 to October 17, 2013. Don't just trust your raw memories, check your
emails or social media posts from that time period for help. See if they provide any evidence of your life in
tatters and a nation in chaos. The bet here is that there will be no such evidence for the overwhelming majority of you.
That's where the danger really lies for the political class and business as usual in Washington. That is, this scam is in danger if more
voters, and the people supposedly holding our political leaders up to scrutiny, would just look at these shutdown threats
more clearly. Then, at least that very key layer of the Washington budget con game would be peeled away. Yes, both parties are to blame.
But until voters on all sides start to call baloney on the shutdown scare tactic, expect more of the
hyperbole, half truths, and deflection from the real issues to continue . The only way it ends is if
Americans get a healthy and timely dose of skepticism .
COVID RELIEF DA
2AC – Covid Relief DA – T/L
The stimulus bill doesn’t pass now – Supreme Court confirmation, funding, and
election campaigning.
Friedman 9-20 [Zack Friedman, holds degrees from Harvard, Wharton, Columbia, and Johns Hopkins,
Stimulus Bill Chances May Drop Dramatically With Supreme Court Battle, Forbes, 9-20-20, Accessible
Online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/09/20/stimulus-bill-supreme-court-
vote/#192dbb573930] DL 9-20-2020
The chances of a stimulus package before the November election just dropped dramatically. Here’s what you
need to know. Stimulus Package If you’re expecting a stimulus deal before the election on November 3, there’s an additional hurdle that
makes a deal now less likely. Here are 3 reasons why a stimulus deal may not get done before November. 1. Supreme Court
confirmation With the passing on Friday of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says he will hold a
vote before the November election to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court. To the dismay of Democrats,
McConnell is not willing to wait until after the election. Similarly, President Donald Trump says he wants to nominate a
Supreme Court justice “without delay.” Democrats such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) argue
that McConnell should let the American people vote for president, and then let the winner—whether it’s TRump or Joe Biden—nominate the next Supreme Court justice. If the
Senate will be focused on a Supreme Court confirmation process, with about six weeks until the election, it’s less likely they
will be focused on creating a bipartisan stimulus package. 2. Funding the federal government The federal
government needs to be funded beyond September 30, 2020. Congress will need to approve a
continuing resolution to fund the government. This will require time and effort to agree on funding priorities. If Congress is focused on both a Supreme Court confirmation
process and a continuing resolution, any potential stimulus deal could be moved to the back burner . 3. Election
campaigning in October All member of the U.S. House of Representatives and 35 U.S. senators are up for re-election this November. While
they have been campaigning for months, October is when they focus on the last stretch. Many members of Congress are
away from Washington and home in their districts, making a final campaign push. Can members of Congress be called back to Washington to vote?
Yes, since all voting must be done in person. While Pelosi has said the House would stay in session until early October to finalize a potential stimulus deal, many members will
want to return home to secure their election prospects.
Non-unique – no large stimulus bill will pass – their ev describes how Republicans will
disagree and that Pelosi already rejected smaller deals.
2AC – Smaller Bills
Not key – other actions solve.
Brown 9/12 (Shelby Brown, Clifford Colby, Alison DeNisco Rayome. "GOP COVID relief bill failed in
Senate: Is there hope for a new stimulus check and package?," CNET, 9-12-2020,
https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/gop-covid-relief-bill-failed-in-senate-is-there-hope-for-a-new-
stimulus-check-and-package/)
Several smaller bills could pass instead Called the Delivering Immediate Relief to America's Families, Schools and Small
Businesses Act, the Senate's narrower proposal now will not become law. But it does suggest a path forward that delivers
coronavirus aid in chunks, possibly sidestepping the partisan flare-ups that have plagued this new
stimulus legislation talks, which has dragged on for over a month. The House presented one of the first of these
piecemeal bills seeking to provide funding to the US Postal Service ahead of an election in which many will likely be voting by mail. "Let's do a
"If we need to do more in
more targeted bill now," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Sept. 6 in support of the GOP skinny bill.
30 days, we'll continue to do more." Executive actions might be issued instead of, or in addition to, a
bill After talks originally collapsed on Aug. 7, President Donald Trump took unilateral action by signing one executive
order and three memoranda on Aug. 8. It's possible more executive actions are coming. During a news
conference on Sept. 4 Trump said the administration might consider another executive action to release $300
billion in stimulus aid in an unused account for Americans, if Congress doesn't vote to redirect those
funds. Trump's current COVID-19 relief executive actions address slowing evictions, extending
unemployment benefits to a lesser degree and deferring payroll taxes until next year.
1AR – AT: STATES
This is nonsensical, and their evidence is speculative at best. Even if the House passes
MORE, the Senate wouldn’t pass STATES.
1 – McConnell. Even if he’s pro-hemp, he’s still anti-reform and his track record proves
it. He single handedly has the ability to block it from getting a vote, which is sufficient
to zero uniqueness.
2 – Partisanship. Republicans won’t support decrim, especially before upcoming
elections. Even if MORE passes the House, they don’t have incentive to flip because
they could blame it on the majority Dems.
That’s Ward.
2AC – AT: HEROES
HEROES won’t pass – McConnell blocks, and it’s too partisan.
Schonter 9-18 [Allison Schonter, Second Stimulus: Nancy Pelosi Continues to Push HEROES Act Amid
Partisan Stalemate, Trending, 9-18-2020, Accessible Online at
https://popculture.com/trending/news/second-stimulus-nancy-pelosi-continues-push-heroes-act-amid-
partisan-stalemate/] KL 9-18-2020
As new stimulus proposals continue to arise on Capitol Hill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is continuing to push for the approval of
the HEROES Act. Introduced in May, the Democratic-backed bill, introduced by Pelosi, has already passed the House of Representatives in
a vote of 208-199. However, despite the House's approval, the "$ 3 trillion left-wing wish list" has never been
brought to the Senate floor for a vote, instead remaining completely stalled. This has proven to be controversial
among many Democrats, who feel that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has failed to do his job, a belief Pelosi
pushed on Twitter Thursday afternoon. In a tweet, the House Speaker noted that 125 days, 126 days as of this posting, have passed since the
House took action to move the bill through Congress. Using the hashtag "Fund the Frontlines," she said that the HEROES Act is critical in the
fight against the coronavirus and in protecting those working on the front lines of the pandemic. With
a more than $3 trillion price
tag, which many Republicans deemed to be far too high and therefore a nonstarter, the HEROES Act contained a
number of provision to not only aid the American people amid the unprecedented economic crisis, but also slow the spread of the virus and
protect those treating the ill. Along with an extension nutrition and food assistance programs, the bill sought to provide $75 billion for
coronavirus testing and contact tracing implementation. It also called to allow all Americans to receive free coronavirus treatment. Now, with
the country nearing 200,000 coronavirus deaths, Pelosi said that this funding is needed now more than ever.
USPS DA
2AC – USPS DA – T/L
Their ev doesn’t say HEROES is bipart – just that people like the Post Office.
The link talk about PC.

2AC – AT: Econ
Covid thumps econ.
‘’
Clary 15 – PhD in Political Science from MIT and a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Watson Institute for
International and Public Affairs at Brown [Christopher, “Economic Stress and International Cooperation:
Evidence from International Rivalries,” MIT Political Science Department, Research Paper No. 2015-8, p.
4]
Economic crises lead to conciliatory behavior through five primary channels. (1) Economic crises lead to austerity
pressures, which in turn incent leaders to search for ways to cut defense expenditures. (2) Economic crises also
encourage strategic reassessment, so that leaders can argue to their peers and their publics that defense
spending can be arrested without endangering the state . This can lead to threat deflation, where elites
attempt to downplay the seriousness of the threat posed by a former rival. (3) If a state faces multiple threats, economic
crises provoke elites to consider threat prioritization, a process that is postponed during periods of
economic normalcy. (4) Economic crises increase the political and economic benefit from international
economic cooperation. Leaders seek foreign aid, enhanced trade, and increased investment from abroad
during periods of economic trouble. This search is made easier if tensions are reduced with historic rivals. (5) Finally,
during crises, elites are more prone to select leaders who are perceived as capable of resolving economic
difficulties, permitting the emergence of leaders who hold heterodox foreign policy views. Collectively, these
mechanisms make it much more likely that a leader will prefer conciliatory policies compared to during periods of
economic normalcy. This section reviews this causal logic in greater detail, while also providing historical examples that these mechanisms recur
in practice.
Economic decline doesn’t cause war – best and most recent data
Drezner 14 [Daniel, American Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, April,
“The System Worked: How the World Stopped Another Great Depression,” Oxford University Press, pg. 37-8/AKG]
A closer look at the numbers, however, reveals more encouraging findings. What seemed to be an inexorable
increase in piracy, for example, turned out to be a blip. By September 2013, the total numbers of piracy attacks
had fallen to their lowest levels in seven years. Attacks near Somalia, in particular, declined substantially; the total
number of attacks fell by 70 percent in 2012 and an additional 86 percent in the first nine months of 2013. Actual hijackings were down 43
percent compared to 2008/9 levels. 47 The US Navy’s figures reveal similar declines in the number and success rate of pirate attacks. 48
Security concerns have not dented the opening of the global economy.
As for the effect of the Great Recession on political conflict, the aggregate effects were surprisingly modest. A key conclusion
of the Institute for Economics and Peace in its 2012 report was that “the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is
approximately the same as it was in 2007. ” 49 The institute’s concern in its 2013 report about a decline in peace
was grounded primarily in the increase in homicide rates— a source of concern, to be sure, but not exactly the
province of global governance. Both interstate violence and global military expenditures have declined
since the start of the financial crisis. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase
in violent conflict. Looking at the post-crisis years, Lotta Themnér and Peter Wallensteen conclude, “The pattern is one of
relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years. ” 50 The decline in secular violence that started
with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that “the crisis has not to date generated the surge in
protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.” 51
NDAA DA
2AC – NDAA DA – T/L
It’s not intrinsic – a logical policymaker can do both – especially since this is a must
pass for the budget.
NDAA has passed – and it’s very bipartisan.

Williams 20 [Lauren C. Williams, Senate passes 2021 NDAA with veto-proof majority, FCW, 7-24-20,
Accessible Online at https://fcw.com/articles/2020/07/24/williams-senate-ndaa-passes.aspx] DL 9-19-
2020
The U.S. Senate passed its version of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, 86-14, that includes provisions that support
renaming military bases named after Confederate leaders and to fight workplace racial discrimination for military personnel. The July 23 vote
comes days after the White House threatened to veto the bill over mandates to rename military bases. The
U.S. House of
Representatives passed its version July 21, which includes a review and mandate to rename the bases within a year. The Senate
bill calls for a similar review and gives DOD three years to implement changes. Both houses passed their bills with veto-proof
majorities.
The floor time link ev is from June – either it’s too late, or there’s no need for it to pass
quickly.
No floor time link – the evidence has no warrant for why it has to pass quickly, other
than ‘GOP guy said so.’
2AC – AT: Grid
“The grid” doesn’t exist.
Uchill 18 Joe Uchill, Cybersecurity reporter at Axios, former cybersecurity reporter at The Hill,
internally citing Department of Homeland Security officials and other cybersecurity experts. [Why
"crashing the grid" doesn't keep cyber experts awake at night, 8-23-18, https://www.axios.com/why-
crashing-the-grid-doesnt-keep-cyber-experts-awake-at-night-a40563a5-f266-493d-856a-
5c9a5c1383dd.html]//BPS
Reality check: The people tasked with protecting U.S. electrical infrastructure say the scenario where hackers take down the
entire grid — the one that's also the plot of the "Die Hard" movie where Bruce Willis blows up a helicopter by launching a car at it — is
not a realistic threat. And focusing on the wrong problem means we’re not focusing on the right ones. So, why can't you hack the
grid? Here's one big reason: "The thing called the grid does not exist," said a Department of Homeland
Security official involved in securing the U.S. power structure. Think of the grid like the internet. We refer to the collective mess of servers,
software, users and equipment that routes internet traffic as "the internet." The internet is a singular noun, but it’s not a singular thing.
You can’t hack the entire internet. There’s so much stuff running independently that all you can hack is individual pieces of the internet.
Similarly, the
North American electric grid is actually five interconnected grids that can borrow electricity
from each other. And the mini-grids aren't singular things either. Taking down "the grid" would be more
like collapsing the thousands of companies that provide and distribute power accross the country. "When someone
talks about 'the grid,' it's usually a red flag they aren't going to know what they are talking about," says
Sergio Caltagirone, director of threat intelligence at Dragos, a firm that specializes in industrial cybersecurity including the energy sector.
Redundancy and resilience: Every aspect of the electric system, from the machines in power plants to the grid as a whole, is
designed with redundancy in mind. You can’t just break a thing or 10 and expect a prolonged blackout. On some level, most
people already know this. Everyone has lived through blackouts, but no one has lived through a blackout so big it caused the Purge. 'The
power system is the most complex machine ever made by humans," said Chris Sistrunk, principle
consultant at FireEye in energy cybersecurity. "Setting it up, or hacking it, is more complicated than
putting a man [person] on the moon." An attack that took out power to New York using cyber means would require a
nearly prohibitive amount of effort to coordinate, said Lesley Carhart of Dragos. Such a failure would also tip off other
regions that there was an attack afoot. Causing a power outage in New York would likely prevent a power outage in
Chicago.
No cyber impact.
Wirtz 18 James J. Wirtz, National Security Affairs professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, former
Director of the Global Center for Security Cooperation at the Defense Security Cooperation Agency,
Political Science PhD from Colombia, internally citing Cyber War versus Cyber Realities, a book by
Brandon Valeriano and Ryan C. Maness. [Cyber War or Monkey Business? International Journal of
Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 31(2), Taylor and Francis]//BPS
Between 4 and 7 September 2001, I attended the First Biennial Threat Reduction Conference that was sponsored by the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency in Norfolk, Virginia. One of the panels featured a debate about the likelihood of mass casualty terrorism in the United States.
One panelist asserted that such an event was unlikely—the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack being a case in point. Although well-funded and left
relatively unmolested by the authorities, cultists managed to kill only 13 people when they released a nerve agent in the Tokyo subway. Thus,
inflicting mass casualties, even with sarin, was not easily accomplished. The threat of mass casualty terrorism was being
exaggerated by scholars and pundits alike, the panelist asserted, urging the conferees to instead focus on plausible threats. The other panelist
agreed that Aum Shinrikyo was inept but offered the obvious counterpoint: just because something has not occurred in the past does not
guarantee that it will not occur in the future. The next morning, I contemplated this wonderfully “academic” debate on a pleasant United
Airlines flight from Dulles to San Francisco. Soon afterwards it occurred to me that when it comes to picking an itinerary or making observations
about the future, timing is everything. DOUBTING THE THREAT HYPE Brandon Valeriano and Ryan Maness acknowledge the “timing” problem
inherent in their well-reasoned and empirically based assessment of state cyber conflicts that occurred between 2001 and 2011. Nevertheless,
in their view, cyber
war is mostly hype, created by over-imaginative academics and a cyber security
industry ready to profit from cyber anxieties. By contrast, their analysis reveals that, at least in the period considered,
cyber conflict was limited in both scope and severity, and was largely characterized by espionage or
hooliganism (defacement of government websites) that generally produced no lasting impact. They note that in the
vast majority of cases the incompetence of the victim or the aid of a witting or unwitting accomplice had facilitated
penetration of some system. Here the 2015 hack of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which compromised the personal
information of just about everyone who had ever applied for or possessed a U.S. security clearance, comes to mind. The Stuxnet attack against
Iranian centrifuges, an outlier in their database, is used to illustrate their fundamental point: that the use of cyber warfare to inflict
real damage is a rare and extraordinarily difficult endeavor that is probably within the technical reach of only a few
states. Valeriano and Maness also back up their empirical observations with some theoretical musings about why the reality of cyber warfare is
out of step with the cyber hype surrounding the issue. Zero-day exploits (using heretofore unknown system vulnerabilities) are
fleeting in their efficacy; once revealed, they are quickly rectified . Because they begin to lose their effectiveness soon
after they are employed, the tendency is to keep one’s powder dry, so to speak. Moreover, aggressive viruses can either propagate
uncontrollably across the Internet or be repackaged and returned to the sender with unpredictable
consequences. Because predicting the impact of more aggressive cyber attacks is difficult, states tend to
exhibit restraint in their use of cyber weapons. Put somewhat differently, weapons that are likely to produce
collateral damage or even fratricide are not readily embraced by military professionals. Although the authors
do not mention it, attitudes toward the use of cyber weapons seem to mirror the history of biological warfare. Unleashing contagion is highly
unpredictable; weapons with unknowable effects have little military utility. They might produce their intended impact, but there is no telling
how far disease might spread. Because the same can be said for cyber weapons, restraint characterizes the way states engage in
cyber conflict. Another theoretical insight offered by Valeriano and Maness is that cyber conflict is both profoundly political and strategic.
Conflict is centered on a set of enduring rivalries: India and Pakistan, China and Japan, Russia and member states of the former Soviet Union,
the United States and China, and the United States and Iran. With the exception of Stuxnet, these incidents tend to be limited,
matching the “short-of-war” levels of acrimony present in these relationships. These observations are important because some
policymakers and scholars tend to focus on what might happen in cyberspace, not why it might happen. For instance, it is theoretically possible
to temporarily bring down the power grid in the United States, or to disrupt the stock market, or to cripple the banking system, creating
significant disruption or even loss of life. But in focusing on these scenarios observers
fail to stipulate the strategic purpose
or the political setting that would motivate the launch of a highly devastating cyber attack. Admittedly, for those on the
front lines of cyber defense, it might appear that the world has descended into a feral state of nature as they monitor thousands of attempts
daily to hack into protected networks. Nevertheless, Valeriano and Maness correctly note that no one has yet died in a cyber
attack, a requirement needed to turn an incident into a “war.” In a political and strategic sense, the world has not yet witnessed
cyber war.
No blackouts.
Larson 18 Selena Larson, Cyber threat intelligence analyst at Dragos, Inc. [Threats to Electric Grid are
Real; Widespread Blackouts are Not, 8-6-2018, https://dragos.com/blog/industry-news/threats-to-
electric-grid-are-real-widespread-blackouts-are-not/]//BPS
The US electric grid is not about to go down. Though it’s understandable if someone believed that. Over the last few weeks,
numerous media reports suggest state-backed hackers have infiltrated the US electric grid and are capable of manipulating the flow of
electricity on a grand scale and cause chaos. Threats against industrial sectors including electric utilities, oil and gas, and manufacturing are
growing, and it’s reasonable for people to be concerned. But to say hackers have invaded the US electric grid and are
prepared to cause blackouts is false. The initial reporting stemmed from a public Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
presentation in July on Russian hacking activity targeting US electric utilities. This presentation contained previously-reported information on a
group known as Dragonfly by Symantec and which Dragos associates to activity labeled DYMALLOY and ALLANITE. These groups focus on
information gathering from industrial control system (ICS) networks and have not demonstrated disruptive or damaging
capabilities. While some news reports cite 2015 and 2016 blackouts in Ukraine as evidence of hackers’ disruptive capabilities, DYMALLOY
nor ALLANITE were involved in those incidents and it is inaccurate to suggest the DHS’s public presentation and those destructive behaviors are
linked. Adversaries have not placed “cyber implants” into the electric grid to cause blackouts; but they are infiltrating business
networks – and in some cases, ICS networks – in an effort to steal information and intelligence to potentially gain access to operational
systems. Overall, the activity is concerning and represents the prerequisites towards a potential future disruptive event – but evidence to
date does not support the claim that such an attack is imminent. The US electric grid is resilient and
segmented, and although it makes an interesting plot to an action movie , one or two strains of malware targeting
operational networks would not cause widespread blackouts. A destructive incident at one site would
require highly-tailored tools and operations and would not effectively scale. Essentially, localized impacts
are possible, and asset owners and operators should work to defend their networks from intrusions such as those described by DHS. But
scaling up from isolated events to widespread impacts is highly unlikely.
FAST ACT DA
2AC – Fast Act DA – T/L
Passage is inevitable, corona’s an alt cause, and FAST isn’t key.

Lombardo 9/1 – Jessica Lombardo, editor, 2020 ("States Eyeing Gas Tax Hikes Due to COVID-19," For
Construction Pros, Available online at
https://www.forconstructionpros.com/infrastructure/news/21173569/states-eyeing-gas-tax-hikes-due-
to-covid19, Accessed 9-14-2020) LR
States should not have to tax their residents even more during these already strapped times. With just weeks left in the 2020 legislative session,
Congress needs to enact longterm funding for our roadways, especially beforethe FAST Act expires at the end of this month. On
Friday, the ranking member of the HouseTransportation and Infrastructure Committee signaled an extension
was all but inevitable. "The first priority must be providing the certainty of a long-term extension, but Congress also needs to
work together to ensure transportation projects around the country are not halted due to the economic and
operational impacts on state transportation funding caused by the pandemic," a spokesman for Rep. Sam Graves, R-MO, said.
"Once a long-term extension is secured, Congress should get back to work on a bipartisan surface
transportation bill that can pass Congress and be signed into law."
It doesn’t solve infrastructure---it needs $4.6 trillion---prefer engineers

Ashley Halsey 17, III, Transportation Reporter for WaPo, 3-9-2017, "Trump promised $1 trillion for
infrastructure, but the estimated need is $4.5 trillion," Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/trump-promises-1-trillion-for-
infrastructure-but-the-estimated-need-is-45-trillion/2017/03/08/2f2eca7c-0414-11e7-ad5b-
d22680e18d10_story.html
The Trump administration promises

to pump $1 trillion into improving the country’s crumbling infrastructure ,
but a benchmark report says it
will take almost $4.6 trillion over the next eight years to bring all those systems
up to an acceptable standard.
The price tag for redemption has grown steadily for 15 years while an expanding country has focused on building new
infrastructure rather than maintaining existing systems that were nearing the end of their natural life.
Since 2001, the cost of repairing those systems has mushroomed from $1.3 trillion to the current figure ,
more than three times as high, according
to an assessment released Thursday by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). The
report comes out every four years.
It gave the U.S. infrastructure an overall grade of D-plus, the same grade it received in 2013, “suggesting only incremental progress was made
over the last four years.”
“President Trump is on to something when he calls for a national rebuilding,” ASCE President Norma Jean Mattei said in presenting the study.
“But Congress and the American people have to pay for it.”
She said lawmakers should raise the federal gas tax by 25 cents and index it to inflation.
Trump reiterated campaign promises on infrastructure in his inaugural address and in his recent address to Congress, but the only supporting
detail for that pledge thus far has been an 11-page white paper issued in October. In that document, Trump said the money would be raised by
granting private investors an 82 percent tax credit that would encourage them to pump money into infrastructure projects.
“We can use private financing for the major things, but it’s a slice of investment,” said former Pennsylvania
governor Ed Rendell (D), who now co-chairs the advocacy group Building America’s Future. “ You can’t do it on the cheap . It’s time
for Congress to suck it up and vote for real [federal] investment.”
Rendell said the

“fix it first” approach that Trump espouses — repairing needy infrastructure before launching new projects — is not
likely to draw private investors.
2AC – AT: Econ
Covid thumps econ.
No impact to economic decline --- countries respond with cooperation not conflict
Clary 15 – PhD in Political Science from MIT and a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Watson Institute for
International and Public Affairs at Brown [Christopher, “Economic Stress and International Cooperation:
Evidence from International Rivalries,” MIT Political Science Department, Research Paper No. 2015-8, p.
4]
Economic crises lead to conciliatory behavior through five primary channels. (1) Economic crises lead to austerity
pressures, which in turn incent leaders to search for ways to cut defense expenditures. (2) Economic crises also
encourage strategic reassessment, so that leaders can argue to their peers and their publics that defense
spending can be arrested without endangering the state . This can lead to threat deflation, where elites
attempt to downplay the seriousness of the threat posed by a former rival. (3) If a state faces multiple threats, economic
crises provoke elites to consider threat prioritization, a process that is postponed during periods of
economic normalcy. (4) Economic crises increase the political and economic benefit from international
economic cooperation. Leaders seek foreign aid, enhanced trade, and increased investment from abroad
during periods of economic trouble. This search is made easier if tensions are reduced with historic rivals. (5) Finally,
during crises, elites are more prone to select leaders who are perceived as capable of resolving economic
difficulties, permitting the emergence of leaders who hold heterodox foreign policy views. Collectively, these
mechanisms make it much more likely that a leader will prefer conciliatory policies compared to during periods of
economic normalcy. This section reviews this causal logic in greater detail, while also providing historical examples that these mechanisms recur
in practice.
Economic decline doesn’t cause war – best and most recent data
Drezner 14 [Daniel, American Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, April,
“The System Worked: How the World Stopped Another Great Depression,” Oxford University Press, pg. 37-8/AKG]
A closer look at the numbers, however, reveals more encouraging findings. What seemed to be an inexorable
increase in piracy, for example, turned out to be a blip. By September 2013, the total numbers of piracy attacks
had fallen to their lowest levels in seven years. Attacks near Somalia, in particular, declined substantially; the total
number of attacks fell by 70 percent in 2012 and an additional 86 percent in the first nine months of 2013. Actual hijackings were down 43
percent compared to 2008/9 levels. 47 The US Navy’s figures reveal similar declines in the number and success rate of pirate attacks. 48
Security concerns have not dented the opening of the global economy.
As for the effect of the Great Recession on political conflict, the aggregate effects were surprisingly modest. A key conclusion
of the Institute for Economics and Peace in its 2012 report was that “the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is
approximately the same as it was in 2007. ” 49 The institute’s concern in its 2013 report about a decline in peace
was grounded primarily in the increase in homicide rates— a source of concern, to be sure, but not exactly the
province of global governance. Both interstate violence and global military expenditures have declined
since the start of the financial crisis. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase
in violent conflict. Looking at the post-crisis years, Lotta Themnér and Peter Wallensteen conclude, “The pattern is one of
relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years. ” 50 The decline in secular violence that started
with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that “the crisis has not to date generated the surge in
protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.” 51
KIGALI DA
2AC – Kigali DA – T/L
Won’t pass.
Eilperin and Mufson 9/11---reporters for Washington Post (Juliet and Steven “Bipartisan Senate plan
would slash use of hydrofluorocarbons, a powerful greenhouse gas”
https://governorswindenergycoalition.org/bipartisan-senate-plan-would-slash-use-of-
hydrofluorocarbons-a-powerful-greenhouse-gas/)//EL
Despite the Trump administration’s refusal to join a global agreement to reduce hydrofluorocarbons ,
which are among the world’s most potent drivers of climate change, a push by U.S. firms and environmentalists appears to have swayed
lawmakers. “This agreement protects both American consumers and American businesses,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), who chairs the
Environment and Public Works Committee. “We can have clean air without damaging our economy.” The proposed phase-down will be offered
as an amendment to a bipartisan energy bill, though it
is unclear whether it will clear both chambers and be signed
into law by President Trump before Congress adjourns in January.
China and India are alt causes.
HFC’s have a miniscule effect on warming – no tangible benefit from Kigali.

Adve 16, Member of India Climate Justice. He works and writes on issues related to global warming
(Nagraj, If You’re Celebrating the Kigali Agreement on HFCs, This is Why You Should Stop,
https://thewire.in/73462/hfcs-kigali-radiative-forcing/)
The Kigali agreement has been met with rapturous welcome . The New York Times waxed lyrical that “the outcome could
have an equal or even greater impact [than the Paris Agreement] on efforts to slow the heating of the planet.” The US Secretary of State John
Kerry has been quoted as saying, “It is likely the single most important step we could take at this moment to limit the warming of our planet.”
At the same time, some relevant
data published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests we
need to keep our excitement in check. A key concept to quantify and understand the warming caused by any agent is its
radiative forcing (RF). Radiative forcing is the planetary energy imbalance caused by changes in any driver, either human (greenhouse gases
such as carbon dioxide, methane, HFCs, etc., added to the atmosphere) or natural (changes in the Sun’s luminosity, e.g.). RF is measured in
watts per square metre (W/m^-2). An increase in the radiative forcing of every one watt per square metre results, eventually, in a warming of
0.75º C over the long-term. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report provides a handy table of the radiative forcings of different greenhouse gases
over the period 1750-2011. The main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has caused a radiative forcing of 1.82 watts/m^-2;
methane’s contribution is 0.97. In contrast, the HFCs have had a forcing of merely 0.02 W. Include HCFCs as well, and they total
0.07 watts, 26-times less than carbon dioxide’s. Okay, so HFCs weren’t around in 1750, so some may think it’s an unfair
comparison. But if one were to compare these latest numbers with that in the previous IPCC report of 2007, the radiative forcing of HFCs rose
from 0.01 to 0.02 W between 2005 and 2011. If one takes HCFC-22, a refrigerant commonly used in India, its forcing rose from 0.03 to 0.04
watts in the same period. In comparison, CO2’s RF increased by 0.16 watts over the same six-year period. It’s
been reported that
HFCs are several thousand times more potent than carbon dioxide. That’s true, but there’s very, very
little of them in the atmosphere . The agreement has been welcomed because it would slow down what many fear would be an
exponential rise in this trace greenhouse gas what with the increased use of refrigerators, ACs and cars in China and India in the years to come.
But the
numbers above suggest that an increase in its RF to even ten times as much as the present would
be small compared to the increase in carbon dioxide’s or methane’s warming effects . This isn’t to pour cold
water over the Kigali agreement – but let’s maintain a little perspective. There is a broader issue here that relates to our development
trajectory. It’s
a reflection of our partial, skewed approach to tackling global warming: that we seek to
minimise refrigerants and coolants but not the gadgets that need them in the first place, whose
greenhouse gas emissions through their making and operating are vastly greater . Take, say, home air-ACs. The
window AC units you’d have in your homes require 900-1,400 W. A colleague in India Climate Justice conducts workshops in colleges and
elsewhere to measure a household’s carbon footprint. In one such workshop, we found that a household using an AC for a few hours each day
emits over 800 kg of carbon dioxide in a year from the AC alone! A
mindset that focuses on HFCs but has nothing to say about the
massive electricity demanded by AC use is not one that will help us in tackling global warming . There have been opinions
lamenting what this agreement may imply for future potential users of personal ACs in India, because substituting HFCs may make ACs more
expensive. In a country where, going by official figures, over 300 million people – including 25 million in urban areas – have no access to any
electricity at all, and perhaps another 300 million do for only a few hours each day, it isn’t clear that our chief concern ought to be that more
people will not use ACs at home. There’s also the issue of carbon
emissions embodied in the manufacturing of these
consumer goods, which again are much greater than emissions from HFCs. Take just one part of the embodied
emissions that go into making a car. According to the Aluminium Association of India’s website, any car made in India contains, on average,
about 140 kg of aluminium. Manufacturing aluminium is hugely energy intensive. According to the International Energy Association, it takes
roughly 15 megawatt-hours’ worth of electricity to manufacture each tonne of aluminium from alumina because the process needs so much
heat. And the energy needed in the entire process – from mining the bauxite ore, transforming it into alumina and thence to aluminium –
would require at least 25 megawatt-hours per tonne of aluminium, though some sources peg it higher. Given that generating each megawatt-
hour of electricity emits about a thousand kg of carbon dioxide in India and about 750 kg worldwide, that’s a staggering 19,000-25,000 kg of
carbon dioxide in manufacturing every tonne of aluminium. Do the math for the 140 kg in an average car, and one arrives at about 2,800-3,500
kg of carbon dioxide trapped just in the aluminium in the car. To say nothing of everything else that goes into making the car. And we are
concerned about the HFCs from its AC unit alone? Focusing on technology while ignoring its trajectory is a grave, wilfully blinkered omission. To
be sure, the deal in Kigali is welcome for climate reasons; but, for those very reasons, it is worrying that burning fossil fuels is still so firmly part
of the world’s future energy basket. BP’s study of future energy trends worldwide published last year says, “Fossil fuels [will] remain the
dominant form of [primary] energy in 2035, with a share of 81%.” The Paris Agreement, as it currently stands, will take us to at
least 3º C of warming, way beyond dangerous levels . In climate terms, the Kigali agreement is a small,
half-step forward. Unless we are less easily satisfied, unless we are able to push a lot harder, our development trajectory –
increasingly unequal and unsustainable, both in India and around the world – will at the same time be pushing us two large steps
back, taking the planet to levels of warming not experienced ever before in human history .
Warming doesn’t cause extinction.

richer
systems, first responders and public health bureaucracies. New research published in the journal Global Environmental Change finds that
target, much less 1.5 degrees, as many activists now demand. But recent forecasts also suggest that many of the worst-case
available today because policy-makers in the U.S. and elsewhere set out to develop those technologies.” The energy intensity of the
global economy continues
to fall. Lower-carbon natural gas has displaced coal as the primary source of new fossil energy.
The falling
cost of wind and solar energy has begun to have an effect on the growth of fossil fuels. Even nuclear
1AR – AT: Key to Paris
It’s not and it fails overall
Cass 16 [Oren Cass is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow, JD from Harvard Law, City-Journal, October
19, 2016, “Another Climate “Landmark””, http://www.city-journal.org/html/another-climate-landmark-
14808.html
In Kigali, Rwanda, on Saturday, negotiators concluded a global agreement to limit use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a
potent set of greenhouse gases. The “landmark” deal, if one takes the White House at its word, is a critical step in the fight against climate
change. Last year’s “landmark” agreement in Paris placed the world on a path to just 2.7°C of warming; Kigali
itself purportedly
achieves a 0.5°C reduction. The New York Times reports that Kigali “could have an equal or even greater
impact” than the Paris agreement. It would seem that the goal of holding warming to less than 2°C above
preindustrial temperatures—considered the “magic number” by climate watchers—is now within reach.
But nobody really believes that. The White House and its boosters will gladly exaggerate each
individual deal as a historic achievement while insisting that the imperative for action remains as
strong as ever.
In reality, the Paris agreement is best understood as a public but vague New Year’s resolution to lose weight,
with the actual promises being only to stop gaining weight and start weighing oneself regularly .
Compliance is subjective, enforcement absent, and the high-profile pledges of the developing world are
promises only to proceed on pre-existing trajectories . MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of
Global Change, for instance, estimates that Paris would reduce warming this century only from 3.9°C to
3.7°C.
In this context, the new HFC agreement is like a February update to your weight-loss resolution, in
which you announce that you will not be hitting the local all-you-can-eat buffet every wee k—which by your
own calculation counts as 25 pounds of weight loss this year alone. Was it ever plausible that you would go every week?
Well, no. Isn’t such a commitment implicit in the weight-loss resolution for which you have already sought and
received so much attention? Well, yes. But can’t blame a guy for trying!
The claim that Kigali is worth 0.5°C of avoided warming originates, like many incorrect claims of climate progress,
from a manipulated baseline. Any estimate of “avoided warming” must start from a baseline of
forecasted greenhouse-gas emissions absent the proposed policy . Manufacture an artificially high
baseline, far above the likely “business as usual” trajectory, and a commitment to business as usual
suddenly appears like substantial progress.
Here, the chosen baseline appears to be a 2013 study in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics that rejected previous forecasts for HFC growth
and introduced a much higher one. The authors acknowledged this and explained their
scenario was “not necessarily a more
accurate forecast of future HFC emissions than other scenarios, but a projection of what can happen if
developed countries continue current practices in [adopting] HFCs and if developing countries follow this path as well.”
Generally, their model discounted “technological and economic developments,” which are already
leading to adoption of HFC alternatives in the developed world. It assumed HFC use, still in its infancy
today, would be ubiquitous and still growing alongside GDP by the end of the twenty-first century .
If this study were correct, the commitments made in Kigali would indeed be substantial . But other
climate change forecasts, including those used to assess commitments and progress under the Paris agreement,
make no such assumptions. Further, unlike carbon dioxide, HFCs are relatively short-lived in the
atmosphere. Thus, avoiding emissions in 2030 or 2040 matters little compared with minimizing the role
HFCs will play at century’s end. Simply assuming constant growth over 100 years is a bad way to assess
that threat.
The dollars provide a more useful perspective. Air-conditioning and refrigeration are the primary use of HFCs, making
India—with its massive population, developing economy, and scorching climate—particularly eager to adopt them. India’s
Council on Energy, Environment, and Water estimates it can phase out HFCs for a total cost of
approximately $1 billion per year over 30 to 40 years . By comparison, India estimates its meager efforts at slowing the
growth of its carbon-dioxide emissions will cost $60 billion per year.
Some might view this as progress, but it’s not. Compliance with Kigali counts toward fulfillment of the
Paris pledges—it is, per the European Union, a “step forward in implementing the Paris Agreement.” Which points to
the question: Why was an international agreement needed? If all countries are already committed to
the Paris process, it should be in their own interest to pursue HFC reductions to the extent that the approach is cost-
effective.
In fact, Kigali waters Paris down. Diplomats are endorsing an extraordinarily high HFC baseline to
promote their Kigali achievement. But this artificially inflates the value of whatever action countries
might pursue. India, for instance, can now take enormous credit for HFC emissions supposedly forgone
at almost no cost, instead of taking difficult (and real) action on carbon-dioxide emissions. Even better for
India, the agreement includes “climate finance” from developed nations to mitigate whatever costs it does incur. Who is paying, and how
much? That decision will have to wait until next year. But the diet is going to start right after that. And when it does, what a “landmark”
moment it will be.
1AR – AT: Warming
Doesn’t solve even if fully implemented – the study their internal’s based on was
revoked.
Doyle 16 [Alister, “HFC gas pact can’t meet high hopes?”
[http://www.thehansindia.com/posts/index/News-Analysis/2016-10-19/HFC-gas-pact-cant-meet-high-
hopes/259646]
Amid celebrations of the legally binding Kigali pact to phase down use of factory-made hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), many
governments and environmentalists said it could avert 0.5C of warming this century, citing a 2013 scientific study.
Hydrofluorocarbons are any of a class of partly chlorinated and fluorinated hydrocarbons, used as an alternative to chlorofluorocarbons in foam
production, refrigeration, and other processes.¶ But some leading
researchers expect it will be less. Eager to declare a
victory, governments glossed over many uncertainties about HFCs . Some more recent research indicates
HFCs may be less powerful in trapping heat than once feared , said Michiel Schaeffer of Climate Analytics.
"My guesstimate would be around 0.2 degree Celsius (0.36F) by 2100" of avoided warming, he said. Climate
Analytics is one of four European research groups working together to project temperatures based on government pledges.¶ Their Climate
Action Tracker indicates that government promises for cutting greenhouse gases - if all carried out and before accounting for the HFC
agreement - would raise average temperatures by 2.7C (4.9F) over pre-industrial times by 2100. Half a degree would be a gigantic saving. Last
year's Paris Agreement set an over-riding goal of limiting a rise in average temperatures to "well below" 2C (3.6F), ideally just 1.5C (2.7F), to
avert more droughts, floods, rising sea levels and food and water shortages.¶ US Secretary of State John Kerry, whose government hopes to
leave a strong legacy in fighting global warming, hailed the Kigali agreement as a "monumental" step forward. "It will give us the opportunity to
reduce the warming of the planet by an entire half a degree centigrade," he said. Guus
Velders, an author of the widely
quoted 2013 study of HFCs and warming, said his calculations of the impact of the Kigali accord show
HFCs are now likely to stoke only 0.06C (0.1F) of warming this century, down from a range of 0.3C to
0.5C with no action.¶ He said it was better to give ranges because of many uncertainties. Using one number means "it seems you know
more than you do," said Velders, who works at the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. The Rwanda pact sets
varying dates for rich and poor nations to freeze and cut HFC use. The United States and the European Union are among those that already
have laws phasing out HFCs, with manufacturers using less damaging chemicals in fridges and air conditioners and aerosols.¶ Andrew
Jones of Climate Interactive, a US based think-tank that builds climate simulations with the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, said the HFC deal was crucial to combat global warming. "But it's in no way a silver bullet," he said,
adding that his group would not lop as much as 0.5 degree off its existing projection that the Paris promises will
lead to 3.5C of warming this century.
Too slow, and allows for most countries to increase emissions before the freeze takes
place.
Dyer 16[Gwynne, “Moves to ban HFCs are too late and too slow”
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/10/20/commentary/world-commentary/moves-ban-hfcs-
late-slow/#.WCCubNz8-3M]
So we needed another miracle like the Montreal Protocol — and now we have it. On Oct. 15, in Kigali, Rwanda, almost 200 countries
signed an agreement to curb the use of HFCs b eing used. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called it “the single most
important step we could take at this moment to limit the warming of our planet.”¶ Well, yes it is, but you are probably noticing a pattern in all
this. It’s not so much that we keep getting it wrong. It’s the time it takes to put it right: a century so far, and we’ll
still be at it for at
least another 30 years before all the HFCs are out of the system.¶ When you read the fine print of the
Kigali Amendment, it turns out that the United States (the second-biggest HFC polluter), the European Union and some
other rich countries will have to achieve their first 10 percent cut in HFC production by 2019 — but the
schedule for further cuts is not clearly defined, apart from the fact that they must be down by 85
percent by 2036. (That’s 20 years from now.)¶ The majority of the world’s countries — including China, the
biggest polluter — will only have to freeze their production level in 202 4. (At the moment, their production of
HFCs is going up by an average of 16 percent a year, which means it could almost triple by 2024.)¶ The
first 10 percent cut by these countries is only due in 2029, and it will be 10 percent of whatever they are
producing five years from now — possibly double the current amount. They will then make further cuts in 2030-2045,
getting production of HFCs down by 85 percent by the latter date (three decades from now).¶ India, Pakistan and most of the
Middle Eastern countries don’t even have to freeze production until 2028, and their target date for
getting to 85 percent cuts in production is 2047 . At a rough guess, global HFC production will peak some time in the late
2020s, and will be back down to the current level by the mid-2030s.¶ Don’t get angry. Countries don’t know how to negotiate any other way:
Nobody gives anything away if they don’t absolutely have to. But if you want to despair, go right ahead. The
pace of the political
process does not remotely match the speed with which the threat is growing .¶ We have to do much
better than this if we are to avoid crashing through the plus-2-degree limit and tumbling into runaway warming.
We are not ready to make those deals yet, but when we finally are we will have one small consolation. This deal has been far easier to make
because it is an amendment to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, not a whole new treaty.¶
FEDERALISM DA
2AC – Federalism DA – T/L
There’s no federalism controversy over criminal justice in Indian country
And the aff doesn’t affect states

2AC – Resilient
Federalism is resilient.
Bednar 14 Jenna Bednar, political science professor at the University of Michigan. [The Resilience of
the American Federal System, Handbook of Constitutional Law, Oxford University Press, http://www-
personal.umich.edu/~jbednar/WIP/handbook.pdf]//BPS
Federal systems of governance have the capacity to be robust— meaning that despite internal and external changing circumstances, they can
continue to produce the benefits of a decentralized but internally coordinated polity. Whether or not a federal system is robust is a function of
its institutional design and federal culture. The
American federal system, distributing authority between levels of
government, has been remarkably resilient, failing only once during the past two centuries. Its
resilience surprises many who keep expecting it to wither away as the national government grows. In this
chapter I make two contributions. In the first part, I review the claims of the Ameri- can federation's inherent centralization and suggest the
evidence as well as institutional and cultural reasons why federalism may still be meaningful in the American context. Second, I
present the
science of federal robustness: its key is its adaptability, provided by a set of safeguards that jointly
protect federalism's boundaries while permitting experimentation around the edges. Future progress in the
study of federalism obliges us to move beyond the standard equlibrium-based analysis to take a more dynamic view of federal system design
and operation.
2AC – No Spillover
No spillover.
Constantine ’16 (Molly; 4/21/16; B.A. in Political Science and Government from Boston University, administrative coordinator; Thesis,
“The Capitol in the Classroom: Implementing the Common Core in an Era of Coercive Federalism,”
open.bu.edu/bitstream/handle/2144/16144/Constantine.HonorsThesis.pdf; RP)
The challenges with implementing the federal programs have raised great concerns. Bowling and Pickerill discuss the challenges faced by states
as the system of federalism our nation employs becomes less distinct.5 They note that as of 2012, the state of our federalism
can no
longer be designated as one specific type. This can be attributed by, “challenges at the federal level-the
party polarization, the budget deficit, the level of tax increases and spending cuts required, and the inability of
lawmakers to compromise,” which have then trickled down to subnational governments in the process.6 This
fragmented federalism is especially prominent in education policy, as Bowling and Pickerill explain. The overlapping
existence of No Child Left Behind, the No Child Left Behind waivers, Race to the Top, and the end of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has led to great confusion. The lack of clarity in policy causes difficulty
in determining the authority of the federal government and the states. One result of this fragmented
federalism is the creation of state-specific policy. The inability of the federal government to offer more
specific policy causes states to create policy catering to their needs. Recent education policies fall in line
with the current period of coercive federalism, as federal policies seek to address the disparity in academic
achievement amongst students of different socioeconomic backgrounds, formally known as the achievement gap. Traditionally, education
has been the responsibility of state governments. However, reforms to the education system over the past two decades
have placed greater authority in the hands in the federal government, largely evident through federal incentives
programs and policies aimed to instate nation-wide academic standards.
2AC – Helps States
It’s not zero-sum.
Ryan 19 Erin Ryan, Law Professor at Florida State University, former clerk for Judge James R. Browning,
Appeals for the 9th Circuit. [Federalism as Legal Pluralism, from the Oxford Handbook on Global Legal
Pluralism, 2-8-19, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3323066]//BPS
1. Rejecting Zero-Sum Federalism. The entrenched role of negotiation in American federalism reveals a
dynamic relationship between state and federal power that departs from the stylized, strict
separationist model that predates it, one which I previously coined “zerosum” federalism. 164 The zero-sum model of
federalism, which predominated the American federalism discourse until relatively recently, assumes that jurisdiction is a finite
and fixed-sum competitive resource, in which more for one competitor necessarily means less for the other.165 Focusing on sovereign
antagonism within the federal system, it envisions the federal and state governments as locked in a bitter, winner-takes-all struggle for power,
in which every jurisdictional gain by one side represents a loss for the other. 166 By contrast, the
dynamic federalism model
acknowledges sovereign competition while also recognizing the ways in which engagement enhances the
ability of both sovereigns to achieve their regulatory goals and obligations.167 Countless real-world examples of
interjurisdictional governance reveals that the boundary between state and federal authority is less a bright line
and more an ongoing project of negotiation, taking place on levels both large and small.168
2AC – Fism Low
Every other area of federal overreach thumps and intrusion forces state
experimentation.
Omoniyi-Shoyoola ‘17 (Richard; 8/27/17; Undergraduate student at the University of Chicago specializing in political science,
citing case law and legal research; UChicago’s Undergraduate Political Review, “On Federalism in the Trump Era,”
http://uchicagogate.com/2017/08/27/on-federalism-in-the-trump-era/; RP)
The current fissures

between the federal and state governments should be viewed as a consequence of our
co-operative system of federalism coming into conflict with increased political polarization and partisanship in
recent years. In theory, co-operative federalism is characterized by the central and lower level governments using their mutual power and
specific advantages to work together to accomplish shared policy goals. However, when federal government actors undertake
ideologically motivated steps that are perceived to infringe upon the rights and authorities relegated to the
states, state government actors sound the alarm; what was intended to be a mutually beneficial relationship turns dour, and the
American political landscape grows increasingly splintered. President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement is not
a mandate that the states stop working with foreign nations to address climate change. Since many foreign leaders are
vocalizing frustrations with the President, with some even viewing him as a liability, the result of these concerns could be an
increase of foreign nations bypassing federal leaders such as the President and Secretary of State, instead working
directly with state governors and even mayors to get things done. While climate change advocates may celebrate such a political
alliance, it should be viewed with caution. The high-minded goals of protecting the environment may be noble, but this alliance
represents a fissure between the current presidential administration and a number of the states it relies upon to
implement effective and well crafted public policy initiatives. When such hard-line opposition is employed,
wellsprings of co-operation between the federal government and the states begin to dry up, as elected officials
attempt to use political leverage to counter and oppose the President’s agenda. An instance of this can be observed with the massive
rejection of the Commission on Voter Integrity, which is another instance of state-level pushback toward the President’s policies. This is not to
suggest that the Commission on Voter Integrity is a good or well-substantiated idea, but rather to consider the effects of hard-line politicking on
the long term relationship between the states and federal government, especially considering how polarized American political leaders have
become in recent years. Some of these state-level rejections may simply be unavoidable, due to the turbulent and
unrefined nature of this presidency. As such, the importance of having level heads and reasonable policy advocates in the Oval Office is
now highly evident. There are certain aspects of federalism that could spell trouble for those states that reject the
President’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. One potential consequence is what is referred to as coercive federalism, in
which the federal government manipulates funding streams and unfunded mandates to push the states in the
intended policy direction. A present-day instance of this can be seen in the policy of current US Attorney General Jeff Sessions
towards “sanctuary cities.” Sanctuary cities are those cities with policies favorable or forgiving towards illegal
immigrants, particularly those who commit no crimes, are refugees, or can demonstrate that they are of no immediate risk to society.
These cities are taking a policy stance that is in direct opposition to the Trump administration, which expects
cities to turn in these immigrants to federal immigration officers to be detained and deported. What makes this policy dispute an
instance of coercive federalism is that Attorney General Sessions is withholding federal law enforcement grant
dollars from sanctuary cities. Chicago is a city in particular that has drawn the vexation of the Attorney General, with the city filing a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court to revoke the policy. City representatives argue the funding restrictions stifle progress in the relationship
between “local law enforcement and immigrant communities.” The coercive federalist strategy may also be applied to
marijuana-friendly municipalities, which the Attorney General has also strongly condemned. The roots of these conflicts
stem partially from President Trump’s ambitions to create a stark policy shift from former President Obama. Given current
political circumstances, however, it is likely that the President’s efforts to fully withdraw from Paris will be
unsuccessful. Any removal from the agreement will be met with deep resistance, and the President has already alienated
many top domestic and international actors with a series of political missteps. Among these include the failed GOP health
care bill, which has created a tense divide between the President and some establishment Republican leaders like Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell; the G20 Summit where the President eagerly met with Russian President Vladimir Putin, before returning home to find
Congress imposing a strong sanctions package against Russian interests; and the morally ambiguous response to the
Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally, which angered and frustrated Republicans, some of whom, like Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, the
President has even begun to publicly war with. One must also take into account the President’s extremely limited prior
experience with government management, policy, and oversight, and an ongoing investigation by special
counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. All things considered, it is highly unlikely that President
Trump will be able to accomplish a significant portion of his policy agenda. There are still storms on the horizon for this administration to
push through, both literal, in the case of Hurricane Harvey, and figurative. There is the looming debt ceiling debate, the
Republican tax reform agenda, and the frustrations of Congressional Republicans over President Trump’s threats of a government
shutdown; the President insists on one unless any budgetary negotiations include a payment plan for a border wall. What remains to
be seen is how this administration will attempt to contend with the pressing policy challenges that are coming to shore. Before the
President’s policy agenda can cohere and be marketed to Congress, he must first establish much needed stability within
the federal government. If he does not, it could spell long term consequences for the ability of the federal government to lead the nation, and
to create sustainable policy solutions that actually work for Americans.
BLM DA
2AC – BLM DA – T/L
Trump XO’s AND broader Congressional reforms thump.
WFMJ ’20 [WFMJ; June 16; News organization, citing the Associated Press; WFMJ, “A look at Trump's
executive order on police procedures,” https://www.wfmj.com/story/42255759/a-look-at-trumps-
executive-order-on-police-procedures; RP]
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday aimed at curbing police brutality by directing
federal dollars to those police departments that meet certain credentialing standards on the use of force. The
executive action also makes it harder for those officers with a troubled history from getting hired by other
departments. Congress is also moving toward passing policing bills, but Trump was anxious to put his own
stamp on the issue with a Rose Garden press conference in which he was flanked by representatives from the nation's leading law
enforcement groups.
Previous reforms may have quieted BLM, but now they energize the movement.
Collins 6/4/2020 [Sean Collins is a weekend editor for Vox. 6/4/2020. “Why these protests are
different.” Vox. https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/6/4/21276674/protests-george-floyd-arbery-
nationwide-trump, dhs-brt]
The protesters are fighting against history, present injustices, and hearts that refuse to be changed At the core of this
rage is a legitimate fear for black Americans: the sense that they can be killed anywhere at any time by anyone, but especially
by law enforcement. It is a feeling black Americans have carried for all of America’s history. And the fact that the feeling has
persisted for so long, that it has passed through so many iterations — the casual and common brutality of slavery, the
lynching terrorism that followed, the assassinations of the civil rights era, the police killings of today — has created a feeling of
futility. That no effort, no matter how herculean — not marching a million people through the nation’s capital, not placing a black man at the
head of government — will be enough. This sort of frustration can only build so long before it becomes anger.
And it has. Americans have left their homes where they were told to shelter in place for safety to
express that anger, to rage in the ways that feel right to them — chanting, marching, rattling barricades, seizing goods, writing on walls,
creating art, climbing vehicles, breaking glass, setting fires. They have done so in masses that reflected the diversity of
the country they hope will change, a positive development given racism and police brutality aren’t a problem black people have
that they need support to solve; they are evils black people suffer with little control over — ills that can be destroyed only with the assistance of
all those who make up society and those who consciously or unconsciously benefit from and perpetuate them. In doing this, in acknowledging
this, these protesters have begun to create a new movement — one that aims to rework society. The breadth and weight of what
protesters are fighting for is why they are not slowing down. In Ferguson’s 2014 uprisings, the unrest quieted
when Michael Brown’s family requested people not protest on the day of his funeral. In Baltimore,
protests dissipated in 2015 when charges were brought against the officers in Freddie Gray’s death.
When charges were brought against former police officer Derek Chauvin — who has been charged with Floyd’s murder — on
Friday, protests only ramped up. In fact, there were protests in cities from Atlanta to Chicago to San Diego only hours later. Over the
weekend, despite nearly 20 percent of US citizens being under a curfew, people still took to the streets. And those demonstrations
happened not just in big cities but in towns and villages across the country, including ones that do not necessarily have large black
populations: they happened in Normal, Illinois, and Laramie, Wyoming; Naples, Florida, and Bend, Oregon; and countless other places. These
protests are a reminder that policing, systemic racism, and the legacy of slavery do not just affect cities and
do not just affect black people — that there is something very wrong with American society , all of it,
everywhere, and that people across the nation want something new. Because of this, protesters are
demanding life itself be changed — that policing be fairer and kinder, that biases be inspected and
corrected, that lasting policies be implemented that erase inequality, and that all people be able to
move through the country without experiencing existential dread .
Criminal justice reform energizes the BLM movement – at worst, their shift to policy is
inevitable.
Greenblatt 16 [Alan is Senior Staff Writer for Governing Alan covers politics as well as policy issues
for Governing. He is the coauthor of a standard textbook on state and local governments., 4/29/16,
“Turning Black Lives Matter Protests Into Policy,” Governing,
https://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-black-lives-matter-protests.html, dhs-brt]
The Black Lives Matter movement isn’t giving up on street protests, but it’s starting to press its demands
within political and policy circles as well. Well-known activist DeRay Mckesson made a bid for mayor of Baltimore last month, and
Black Lives Matter played a key role in other elections -- namely, helping to unseat prosecutors in Chicago
and Cleveland who were seen as insufficiently rigorous in their pursuit of justice following police shootings. But even as the
movement works to hold elected officials accountable, some African-American politicians are working to
highlight the need to change law enforcement and criminal justice policies. A group called the 20/20 Club,
consisting of 20 Republican and 20 Democratic officials, will host forums on these topics at the two national party
conventions this summer, while pressing Congress to act on legislation. Street protesters helped signal “a new
era of civil rights,” says Ashley Bell, Republican co-chair of the 20/20 Club. He says Black Lives Matter helped to mobilize
people and branded a movement. But translating anger over police shootings and the economic ramifications of
mass incarceration into new governmental policies still requires people who can work an inside game,
people who take “a relentless, incremental approach ,” says Bell, a former county commissioner in Georgia. “We saw
lots of marches, we saw lots of protests,” he says, “but where was that aspect that talked about policy and
strategy? We think that part of the discussion needs to be brought to bear .” Every protest movement with any real
resonance has come to this crossroads. There’s always tension between those who want to topple the status quo and political insiders who say
affecting real change requires working within a system protesters find tainted. “Street-based protest and militancy raises some issues,” says
Rosemary Feurer, a historian of protest movements at Northern Illinois University. “Then there are groups that come forward that say, ‘We’ll
address these issues, but we’ll be brokers. We’re going to direct this anger toward a more detailed purpose.’” One
certain difference between the approach taken by the 20/20 Club and the Black Lives Matter movement is that the elected officials’ group
includes top police officials and organizations as part of its advocacy work. That might not sit well with activists, but if police are part of the
problem, they need to be part of the solution, says Bell. The 20/20 Club’s goal is to make policing and criminal justice a top-
tier issue in the presidential campaign and to ensure meaningful legislation is enacted by the time of the
presidential election in 2020. Already, members of the club have pushed issues such as decriminalization of marijuana
in their states. “We’re trying to add policy to quiet the concerns that are being reflected in the Black Lives Matter
movement,” says Democratic state Rep. Ted James of Louisiana, a club member. When James says he’s trying to quiet the movement’s
concerns, that doesn’t mean he’s trying to dismiss them. Quite the contrary. The eruptions of distrust and unrest within the
black community have led African-American officials to try to find common ground on these pressing
issues, on a bipartisan basis, wherever possible. Last fall, in South Carolina, the group hosted the only forum on criminal
justice issues that drew presidential candidates from both parties. High-profile events, whether they’re televised
speeches or marches, can draw attention to an issue . The grunt work that leads to policy change looks a lot
different from protests, but it doesn’t have to be done in opposition to the activists. “We play a different role,” Bell
says. “We like to say that we’re a different instrument within the same orchestra .”]
National-building and protest are fundamentally at odds.

Chang ’20 [Vivien; June 8; Contributor for the Washington Post, Ph.D. candidate at the University of
Virginia; Washington Post, “Black Lives Matter now represents America’s best ambassadors,”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/08/black-lives-matter-is-now-americas-best-
ambassador/; RP]
What’s more, as postcolonial leaders in Africa adopted increasingly autocratic policies in the name of development
and cozied up to the United States and former colonial powers to secure Western aid and investment, some
African American activists became disillusioned with the utility of transnational alliances. The gradual
fracturing of such linkages highlights the gulf between the nation-building aspirations of sovereign states and
the emancipatory impulses of nonstate actors, of movement politics — untainted by compromise and corruption
— and the demands of institutional politics . In the decades that followed, it became clear that the continued existence of a black
underclass would persist, albeit less visibly. As the United States declared victory over the Soviet Union and proclaimed U.S.-
style liberal democracy to be “the end of history,” the economic and social conditions of black
communities underwent further deterioration in the face of mounting unemployment, deindustrialization ,
mass incarceration and a “culture of segregation.”
ELECTIONS DA
2AC – Elections DA – T/L
Biden’s locked in – polling and protests.
De Liz 9/7 (Ana De Liz, BA in international relations and journalism from Kingston Univercity, 9-7-2020,
"Can Trump win? New electoral college forecast puts Biden clear on 279 votes," Newsweek,
https://www.newsweek.com/can-trump-win-electoral-college-forecast-biden-1530016) JF
Joe Biden is projected to lead with 279 electoral college votes to President Donald Trump's 163, with 96 votes
still a toss-up, according to a new CBS News/YouGov poll of battleground states . The poll showed that 52 percent
of likely voters would cast a ballot for Biden, while 42 percent would vote for Trump. In Wisconsin, where
protests are ongoing since the shooting of Jacob Blake in August, Biden polled at 50 percent while Trump polled at 44 percent.
Arizona, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia and Florida —accounting for 95 electoral college votes in total—are the
states which are a toss-up if the election was held today. In the 2016 election, all five states' electoral votes went to Trump.
The poll surveyed 2,493 registered voters nationwide and 1,006 registered voters in Wisconsin between September 2 and September 4. The
margin of error for national registered voters was 2.4 points, and for Wisconsin, it was 3.7 points. In the U.S. election system, each state has a
number of electors—equal to the total number of representatives the state has in the Senate and the House of Representatives—for a total of
538. In all but two states, Maine and Nebraska, when voters cast their ballot for a candidate, the candidate with the most votes will get that
state's entire electoral college votes. A majority of at least 270 electoral college votes are needed by a candidate to win the election. This
means that Biden could win the election if it were held today, based on the above poll numbers. Trump would need to secure the 163 electoral
votes projected to go his way, plus the 96 toss-up votes (also usually called swing states), plus he would have to turn states currently polled to
vote Democrat. The president would need 11 more votes from a state or states which are currently leaning towards Biden, for example,
Michigan or Pennsylvania, two states with 16 and 20 electoral college votes respectively which Trump won in 2016. Protests
around the
country, not only in Wisconsin, have become a closely measured factor by some polls. A recent ABC News/Ipsos
survey found that 55 percent of Americans believe that the president's rhetoric is worsening unrest
around the country, while another poll found that most prefer the Democratic nominee over Trump on issues of
law and order and his ability to quell violence across the U.S. The poll also asked registered voters who they believed would
make them feel safer, with 48 percent saying Biden and 43 percent for Trump. A contentious area for voters is the economy, with 45 percent
saying the president would do a better job handling it, versus 44 percent for his Democratic rival in the CBS News/YouGov poll. When it comes
to handling the coronavirus situation in America, 50 percent believe Biden would do a better job than Trump,
who received 38 percent. On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin defended the record U.S. deficit levels reached under the
Trump administration, saying the COVID-19 pandemic requires as much funding as a "war." The U.S. government budget deficit , the
difference between what the government spends and what it brings in through taxes and other revenue streams, has been projected to
reach $3.3 trillion, according to projections by the Congressional Budget Office. "Before we got into COVID I thought the debt was very
manageable," Mnuchin told Fox News Sunday. "This is like a war. In a war, you've got to spend whatever you need to spend." According to the
Johns Hopkins University coronavirus resource centre, some 188,941 people have died from the virus in the U.S. with 6,276,835 confirmed
cases.
Too many black swans ensure the aff’s not key and voters forget – corona, economy,
and protests.
It’s over for Trump, and he’s already reverted to “law and order”.
Suebsaeng 7/25 – Asawin Suebsaeng, White House Reporter, 2020 ("‘It’s Bleak’: Trump’s Great
American Comeback Is a Dumpster Fire," The Daily Beast, Available online at
https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-bleak-trumps-great-american-comeback-is-a-dumpster-fire,
Accessed 8-16-2020) LR
Shortly before the summer kicked off, Donald Trump was hopeful. The president, his campaign, and the top lieutenants in
his administration were busy branding Trump the face of an upcoming American rebirth. He and his White House staff
made a big push to position him as the frontman for economic revival , as summertime employment upticks seemed
on the horizon, and as experts and politicians kept their fingers crossed that the season’s heat would provide some respite from the global
pandemic. Trump and his 2020 team kept promising that they were doing everything they could to get him back on the campaign trail as soon
as possible, where attendance at his signature mega-rallies would surely humiliate Joe Biden and the former VP’s paltry turnouts. The
president was relentless in telling the American public that it was time to get back to work, and that he was
right about it being time to triumphantly and speedily “open” the country and show the coronavirus who’s boss. The
planned rebirth would build upon a message crafted in the early months of this year, when Trump was
gearing up to campaign on issues such as a strong economy and even criminal-justice reform. That effort was aimed
at peeling away as many Black voters as he could from Biden’s column, with his campaign knowing full well that
even a marginal depression of enthusiasm for a Democratic presidential nominee among that demographic can help ensure Republicans keep
the White House. The summer would end, much to President Trump’s giddy enthusiasm, with the 2020 Republican National Convention, a
lavish, celebratory, in-person extravaganza—virus be damned—that at every turn would show up Biden and the Democrats, who clung to their
masks, their social distancing, and their safe spaces like politically correct cowards. But
just one month into the summer, it all
came crashing down, with the president admitting to the American people and the press corps that he was throwing
in the towel in more ways than one. “It’s not the right time,” Trump told reporters at the White House on
Thursday, announcing the official cancellation of his big night for the GOP re-nominating convention in Jacksonville, Florida, in
light of the shocking coronavirus surge in the Sunshine State. He finally called it off this week after months of insisting that it was, in fact, the
right time, and with many weeks of public-health officials and experts warning Team Trump that these types of events can be dangerous during
a still-raging pandemic. Three people working on the president’s re-election effort told The Daily Beast on Friday that the reason for all of these
cancellations and suspensions of Trump’s summer plans is simple: The
situation with the virus, which has a U.S. body
count upwards of 140,000 dead, is so dire still that even some of Trump’s most diehard advisers no longer
think it wise to press on. It’s bad enough that even the notoriously stubborn and obsessed president realizes that it just isn’t politically
viable at this stage, with one of the sources recounting a recent conversation in which Trump griped that his enemies in the press “love” looking
for chances to say that he’s going to get a lot of people hurt or possibly killed. During Thursday’s event, he
also underscored how the
virus—which he had for months publicly insisted would go away so soon—had vanquished his once-promising rally schedule.
“We’re going to do other things, like ‘tele-rallies’ and other, smaller events,” the president told the assembled press. It’s not that the president
didn’t try to keep the rally model. Earlier this month, when Trump pulled out of a planned New Hampshire rally, not long after enduring utter
humiliation and diminished attendance at his Tulsa event, his White
House said the New Hampshire one was going to be
put off for a mere “week or two.” Two weeks on, there’s no news of Trump returning to the state. On Friday night, a
Trump campaign spokesperson told The Daily Beast that there was “nothing to announce” regarding New Hampshire at this time. One reason
several of Trump’s top aides wanted to get him back on the trail was to help alleviate his worsening mood, as he grew increasingly impatient
with month after month of being mostly holed up in the White House. During a conference call organized by the Trump campaign last week,
Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) told journalists on the line that Trump’s coronavirus-era arena rallies around the country would be “good for
everybody.” Now they’ll be good for nobody. However, those working to re-elect the president attempted to spin it as a moment of austere
leadership, rather than an overly demanding president cowed by grim reality. “Leading by example, President Trump has put the health and
safety of the American people first with his decision on the Jacksonville convention,” Bill Stepien, Trump’s new 2020 campaign manager, said in
a statement. In an official RNC “pundit prep” talking-points memo blasted out to the GOP’s media surrogates on Friday, the committee advised,
“President Trump is prioritizing the safety of everyone—particularly older Americans and most vulnerable—and encouraging masks, hand
washing, and social distancing. While President Trump is leading this bold response, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Congressional Democrats are
politicizing this pandemic for their own gain… Thanks to President Trump, our great American comeback is underway.” The email reviewed by
The Daily Beast also noted, “While we will not celebrate the President’s accomplishments in Jacksonville, we look forward to President Donald
Trump accepting the nomination and outlining his vision for the next four years.” But it wasn’t just the rallies or Trump’s festivities in Florida
that were being taken away from the president. As the seasons got warmer, his re-election prospects have grown
dimmer. For weeks, he’s consistently trailed Biden, Barack Obama’s vice president and the presumptive 2020 Democratic
pick, in a solid majority of not only national polling, but in surveys done in crucial swing states that will likely
determine if he’ll be remembered as a one-term loser. And with his presidency imperiled by widespread voter disapproval to his
response to the pandemic, the tanked U.S. economy, and protest movements in the wake of the police
killing of George Floyd, his senior aides and campaign officials have largely resorted to tactics specifically designed to make Trump feel
better about himself. Meanwhile, the president’s drive to re-open American schools on his terms and his timeline—a policy
push that his reelection campaign had thought would be a real winner with the electorate, given their own private polling on the matter— has
mostly backfired, with various school leaders and health officials defying his wishes , citing the safety of the
teachers, kids, and families. The economic “revival” Trump had promised since April hasn’t happened, and many
prominent Republicans and conservative lawmakers aren’t sure if boosting the president’s 2020 chances with
another large injection of economic stimulus would even be worth it at this point, with just over three months
to go until Election Day. And even Team Trump’s previous intention to troll Biden throughout the election for his past
“tough on crime” excesses, and to frame the president as the true criminal-justice reformer, is dead and
gone, replaced in recent weeks by Trump’s unequivocal pivot to “law and order,” draconian posturing and
federal crackdowns in American cities. “It’s bleak,” said one senior White House official, discussing the current electoral landscape
and how, for instance, it’s highly possible that the suburbs end up crushing Trump and other Republicans in the
November election. “The president has done such damage to himself that a lot of us are just waiting for
him to stop being handed so many of those kinds of opportunities.”
FSA and XO both thump. Trump tried to take credit but it failed.
2AC – AT: Heg
Biden can’t solve – Trump’s permanently destroyed alliances and credibility.
No impact.
Fettweis, 17 – Associate Professor of Political Science at Tulane University (Christopher, “Unipolarity,
Hegemony, and the New Peace,” Security Studies, 26:3, 423-451, 5-8-2017,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2017.1306394)
Conflict and Hegemony by Region Even the most ardent supporters of the hegemonic-stability explanation do not contend that US influence
extends equally to all corners of the globe. The United States has concentrated its policing in what George Kennan used to call “strong points,”
or the most important parts of the world: Western Europe, the Pacific Rim, and Persian Gulf.64 By doing so, Washington may well have
contributed more to great power peace than the overall global decline in warfare. If the former phenomenon contributed to the latter, by
essentially providing a behavioral model for weaker states to emulate, then perhaps this lends some support to the hegemonic-stability case.65
During the Cold War, the United States played referee to a few intra-West squabbles, especially between Greece and Turkey, and provided
Hobbesian reassurance to Germany’s nervous neighbors. Other, equally plausible explanations exist for stability in the first
world, including the presence of a common enemy, democracy, economic interdependence, general war
aversion, etc. The looming presence of the leviathan is certainly among these plausible explanations, but only inside the US sphere of
influence. Bipolarity was bad for the nonaligned world, where Soviet and Western intervention routinely exacerbated local conflicts.
Unipolarity has generally been much better, but whether or not this was due to US action is again unclear.
Overall US interest in the affairs of the Global South has dropped markedly since the end of the Cold War, as has the level of
violence in almost all regions. There is less US intervention in the political and military affairs of Latin America compared to any
time in the twentieth century, for instance, and also less conflict. Warfare in Africa is at an all-time low , as is relative US
interest outside of counterterrorism and security assistance.66 Regional peace and stability exist where there is US active
intervention, as well as where there is not. No direct relationship seems to exist across regions. If
intervention can be considered a function of direct and indirect activity, of both political and military action, a regional picture might look like
what is outlined in Table 1. These assessments of conflict are by necessity relative, because there has not been a “high” level of conflict in any
region outside the Middle East during the period of the New Peace. Putting aside for the moment that important caveat, some points become
clear. The great powers of the world are clustered in the upper right quadrant, where US intervention has been high, but conflict levels low. US
intervention is imperfectly correlated with stability, however. Indeed, it is conceivable that the relatively high level of
US interest and activity has made the security situation in the Persian Gulf and broader Middle East worse. In recent years,
substantial hard power investments (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq), moderate intervention (Libya), and reliance
on diplomacy (Syria) have been equally ineffective in stabilizing states torn by conflict. While it is possible that
the region is essentially unpacifiable and no amount of police work would bring peace to its people, it remains hard to make the
case that the US presence has improved matters. In this “strong point,” at least, US hegemony has failed to bring
peace. In much of the rest of the world, the United States has not been especially eager to enforce any particular rules. Even rather
incontrovertible evidence of genocide has not been enough to inspire action. Washington’s intervention choices have at best
been erratic; Libya and Kosovo brought about action, but much more blood flowed uninterrupted in Rwanda, Darfur,
Congo, Sri Lanka, and Syria. The US record of peacemaking is not exactly a long uninterrupted string of
successes. During the turn-of-the-century conventional war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, a highlevel US delegation containing former and
future National Security Advisors (Anthony Lake and Susan Rice) made a half-dozen trips to the region, but was unable to prevent either the
outbreak or recurrence of the conflict. Lake and his team shuttled back and forth between the capitals with some frequency, and President
Clinton made repeated phone calls to the leaders of the respective countries, offering to hold peace talks in the United States, all to no avail.67
The war ended in late 2000 when Ethiopia essentially won, and it controls the disputed territory to this day. The
Horn of Africa is
hardly the only region where states are free to fight one another today without fear of serious US involvement.
Since they are choosing not to do so with increasing frequency, something else is probably affecting their calculations .
Stability exists even in those places where the potential for intervention by the sheriff is minimal. Hegemonic stability can only take credit for
influencing those decisions that would have ended in war without the presence, whether physical or psychological, of the United States. It
seems hard to make the case that the relative peace that has descended on so many regions is primarily due to the
kind of heavy hand of the neoconservative leviathan, or its lighter, more liberal cousin. Something else appears to be at
work.
2AC – AT: Warming
Biden can’t solve – Trump’s court packing is irreversible.
No modeling – India and China are alt causes.

richer
The falling
2AC – Irrelevant
Nobody cares about CJR – insert this data.
Hrynowski 20 (Zach Hrynowski, 1-13-2020, "Several Issues Tie as Most Important in 2020 Election,"
Gallup, https://news.gallup.com/poll/276932/several-issues-tie-important-2020-election.aspx , accessed
6/23/2020)//DB
Extremely important Extremely important + Very important
% %
Healthcare 35 81
Terrorism and national security 34 80
Gun policy 34 74
Education 33 83
The economy 30 84
Immigration 28 74
Climate change 26 55
Abortion 25 64
The distribution of income and wealth in the U.S. 25 58
The federal budget deficit 23 72
Taxes 23 69
Race relations 23 66
The nation's infrastructure 22 74
Foreign affairs 21 64
Trade with other nations 18 68
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights 11 38
Ranked by percentage "extremely important"
GALLUP, DEC. 2-15, 2019

2AC – Shelf Life
Nothing sticks OR black swans.
Glasser 19 (Susan B. Glasse, journalist at The New Yorker, previously served as editor-in-chief of
Foreign Policy magazine and editor at The Washington Post and Roll Call, "“He’s No Mr. Nice Guy”:
Impeachment Comes for Trump", Oct 31, 2019, The New Yorker,
https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/hes-no-mr-nice-guy-impeachment-
comes-for-donald-trump)
All of that is just from the past few days, which is the other signal fact of life in the
Trump era: it is exhausting and
overwhelming and so filled with outrage and revelation that it’s hard to remember events beyond a
news cycle or two, no matter how significant or striking . Remember the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the
world’s most-wanted terrorist? That was only announced by Trump to the world on Sunday. In other times, the news would
still be exclusively concerned with this development , after years in which Baghdadi’s Islamic State wreaked death and
mayhem not only across a wide swath of Iraq and Syria but also via isis-inspired terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States. Surely, the
Trumpian flourish that led the President to apparently make up his account of Baghdadi “whimpering” and “crying” as he died is not something
that should be easily forgotten.
2AC – Dems Fail – Generic
Dems don’t solve
Gelman 7-3-2020, assistant professor of political science at the University of Nevada at Reno (Jeremy,
“House Democrats are sending dead-on-arrival bills to the Senate. There’s a good reason.,” Washington
Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/03/this-is-why-house-democrats-send-so-
many-dead-on-arrival-bills-senate/)//BB
Although symbolic today, voting now improves the odds of these bills becoming law later if Democrats
regain control of Congress and the White House. For example, consider what would happen if House
Democrats did not vote on the Justice in Policing Act now. If Democrats waited until 2021, my research
suggests the bill would have an almost zero chance of becoming law. By voting on it today, an overhaul
of policing practices is almost guaranteed serious consideration in a unified Democratic Congress and
has a much better chance of being enacted, even after taking into account that the new Congress could
be more liberal. Granted, even in the best circumstances, Democrats’ DOA bills face a tough road. Most
DOA bills do not eventually pass; as is true with any bill, they face serious hurdles to enactment. Even
with a unified Democratic government, most would still fail unless Democrats were to obliterate the
Senate filibuster or make changes that could secure at least some GOP support. Even more challenging,
former DOA ideas must compete with one another for time on the party’s agenda. A policing overhaul
would need to compete with climate change, health care, political and voting restructuring,
immigration, gun control, and dozens of other Democratic priorities. Even the most productive
Congress will not be able to do it all. Three or four big ideas is very optimistic; some policies will
inevitably get left out.
2AC – Dems Fail – Budget
Democrats won’t pass ambitious overhauls—budgetary roadblocks
Aaron 19, Senior Fellow of Economic Studies @ Brookings (Henry, “The legislative challenges facing
Democrats if they win the White House in 2020,” Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-
legislative-challenges-facing-democrats-if-they-win-the-white-house-in-2020/)//BB
THE BUDGET
The second challenge to passage of the Democrats’ program is the budget. The CBO projects that budget
deficits will total more than $12 trillion over the next decade. It is a safe bet that if Republicans return to
minority status they will rediscover the sacred virtues of balanced budgets, conveniently disregarded
when passing deficit-increasing tax cuts. Economists may argue among themselves about whether
burgeoning debt poses real risks, but the fact is that deficits foster legislative parsimony. Rising baseline
deficits mean that the stunningly costly legislative agenda that leading Democratic candidates are
proposing will face heavy sailing, even in a sympathetic Congress. That agenda includes universal health
insurance coverage—federal budget cost $1 trillion to more than $30 trillion over ten years. The lower
number applies to measures that would build on the Affordable Care Act, the larger number to some
variants of Medicare for All, depending on how much such a plan would boost use of health care
services or lower their prices. The larger number would be largely, and perhaps entirely, offset by
reductions in private spending. The agenda also includes rebuilding U.S. infrastructure—roads, bridges,
water and sewer systems, public transportation, railroads, and other public assets. The American Society
of Civil Engineers in 2017 assigned a grade of D+ to U.S. infrastructure and estimated that spending
would have to increase by more than $2 trillion by 2025 to raise that grade to B. The combination of
measures Democratic candidates have endorsed to relieve past borrowers of their student debt and
provide free public college education would take another $2 trillion. Dealing with global warming will be
costly—$1.7 trillion is the public cost of Joe Biden’s proposals. There is, as yet, no reliable estimate of
the cost of the Green New Deal, as it has not been described in sufficient detail to permit cost estimates.
The campaign site of no leading candidate currently supports a carbon tax, the one way of discouraging
global warming that would generate revenues, rather than use them. [Bernie Sanders supported one in
2016 but is not doing so at present.] Then there are the long-term shortfalls in Medicare Hospital
Insurance and Social Security. Trust fund reserves, projected to be depleted in 2026 for Medicare
Hospital Insurance and 2034 for Social Security, now fill the gap between current revenues and outlays
for both programs. The next president may be able to leave Social Security to his or her successor but
will have to fix Medicare Hospital Insurance. If Congress began now to provide both programs enough
additional income spread evenly over time to sustain benefits for the full seventy-five-year period used
to determine program solvency, the cost over the next decade would be nearly $3 trillion. This list
excludes additional funding that will be necessary to maintain other government services, including
national defense. The candidates have embraced higher taxes on the rich, such as a wealth tax or higher
estate and gift taxes, and a tax on financial transactions. But revenue from these taxes will not cover the
cost of the full Democratic agenda. The point of this list is not that these measures are undesirable. On
the contrary, each would deal with real and urgent problems. But they cost money, and without higher
taxes most will remain pipe-dreams. The candidates have embraced higher taxes on the rich, such as a
wealth tax or higher estate and gift taxes, and a tax on financial transactions. But revenue from these
taxes will not cover the cost of the full Democratic agenda. For perhaps understandable reasons, no
candidate has stated the simple fact that paying for the Democratic agenda will require increased taxes
on the middle class. Meanwhile, in Congress large numbers of Democrats are on record to cut taxes, not
to increase them. More than 300 Representatives from both parties have co-sponsored a bill to repeal a
tax on high-cost health insurance plans, enacted to help pay for Obamacare. Dozens of Democrats have
co-sponsored legislation to restore some or all deductions for state and local taxes, the benefits of which
would go overwhelmingly to high-income filers. Many have indicated in general terms that they would
repeal part of the Republican sponsored tax cuts of 2017, but not on ‘the middle-class.’ And no leading
Democrat has publicly expressed any interest in enacting a tax on value-added, which could raise
enough money to pay for much of the Democratic legislative agenda. Unless and until Democrats are
prepared to fight for, and are able to win, enactment of enough added revenues to pay for most of the
cost of the ambitious agenda they and their activist supporters seek, the aspirations of progressive
Democrats will remain just that—aspirations.
2AC – Dems Fail – Courts
Courts prevent Dem agenda
THE COURTS
Even if Democrats win control of both the executive and legislative branches of government and figure
out how to pay for their very ambitious agenda, they will face one more obstacle: the courts. After a
series of decisions in the 1930s striking down important segments of the New Deal, the Supreme Court
reversed course and broadened the power of the federal government to pass social and economic
legislation resting on the Constitutional provision authorizing Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
The Court also allowed Congress to write broadly worded legislation that left to regulatory agencies and
executive departments the job of fleshing out those laws through rules and regulations. A unanimous
Supreme Court decision stated in 1984 instructed lower courts to grant deference to administrative
agencies whenever clear Congressional intent does not conflict with such rules and regulations.
Congress also used financial incentives to induce states to implement national policies. These pillars of
government action are all now under threat. When opponents of the Affordable Care Act sued to
invalidate the law, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not justify its requirement that people
carry health insurance under the Commerce clause. This decision came after other decisions limited the
reach of the Commerce clause. The Court also ruled that the Constitution barred Congress from cutting
off federal support for Medicaid if states did not expand Medicaid eligibility, raising questions about
whether Congress could use fiscal incentives to encourage state action as much as in the past. At least
four and possibly five justices seem ready to narrow the authority of executive branch and independent
agencies to draft detailed rules and regulations implementing broadly worded legislation. When
Congress cedes these powers, the argument goes, it violates the separation of legislative and executive
powers. In addition, several justices think the Courts should stop deferring to the interpretations of
Congressional intent by these organizations, on the ground that Constitution vests this power in the
courts. Should these views prevail, large swathes of existing federal regulations could be swept away.
Interpretations of those rules and regulations that remain would emerge through case-by-case litigation,
a slow and costly process that would render much current government action infeasible. These
obstacles to future government action are currently speculative. But they could quickly become all too
real, based on incidental comments in decisions or dissents by sitting Supreme Court justices.
Conservative legal scholars and lower-court judges, from whose ranks President Trump would likely
choose to fill any Supreme Court vacancy that might emerge, have expressed similar views. And, even if
such vacancies occur at the very end of the Trump administration, Senate majority-leader Mitch
McConnell has said he will try to confirm them—notwithstanding his refusal for eleven months at the
end of Barack Obama’s presidency to allow a vote on the nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
Democrats who think that winning the presidency in 2020 will enable a rapid transformation in social
and economic policy should understand how formidable the obstacles they face actually are. Winning
control of the Senate is vital, but the odds of doing so are long. This challenge is generally understood.
But Democrats have been unwilling to call for large, broad tax increases—ones that go well beyond
proposals to tax the rich—that are a precondition for their legislative program. And they must be
prepared to deal with a risk of judicial nullification of their program not seen since the 1930s. However,
as I noted at the start, there remain vast swathes of public policy that non-legislative action can affect
and despite the challenges, these goals are worth the fight.
1AR – AT: Indian Link
Indian voters who care about sexual assault would never vote for Trump who is a
sexist bigot and has committed multiple acts of sexual violence.
Native Americans aren’t a key vote because they can’t under many circumstances.
Ferguson-Bohnee 20 [Patty Ferguson-Bohnee, How the Native American Vote Continues to be
Suppressed, American Bar Association, 2-9-2020, Accessible Online at
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/voting-
rights/how-the-native-american-vote-continues-to-be-suppressed/] KL 9-19-2020
The right to vote has been an uphill battle for Native Americans. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 helped to secure and protect that right for many
Native Americans and Alaska Natives. With the Voting Rights Act, voter participation among Native Americans increased. However, the
Supreme Court invalidated the Section 5 preclearance formula in 2013 (Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)), removing one of the
most powerful tools to ensure equal access to the ballot, including Alaska and Arizona, and two jurisdictions in South Dakota with significant
Native American and Alaska Native populations. Since the Shelby County decision, efforts to suppress the vote have increased. For Native
Americans, these voter suppression efforts can and do have devastating impacts. "The right to vote is precious. It is almost sacred. It is the most
powerful non-violent tool we have in a democracy." —Representative John Lewis Despite
the passage of the Indian Citizenship
Act of 1924, many Native Americans living on reservations continued to be excluded from the
democratic process. In 1948, Native Americans in New Mexico and Arizona successfully litigated their right to vote. Utah and North
Dakota became the last states to afford on-reservation Native Americans the right to vote in 1957 and 1958, respectively. When the right to
vote was finally secured, voter suppression laws kept Native Americans from voting and seeking elected office.
In Arizona, for example, Native Americans could not fully participate in voting until 1970 when the Supreme Court upheld the ban against using
literacy tests (Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)). Today, the
right to vote continues to be challenged through the
passage of new laws and practices that either fail to consider, disregard, or intentionally target Native
American voters. In order to understand the challenges faced by Native American voters, one must recognize the vast differences in
experiences, opportunities, and realities facing on-reservation voters as compared to off-reservation voters. I will never forget the Navajo
grandmother who spoke only Navajo and could not vote after Arizona passed its voter ID law in 2004. She tried several times to obtain an
Arizona ID on her own but was denied because she was born at home in a hogan, and the boarding schools changed her Navajo name to
English. She lived in a modest home on the Navajo Reservation without electricity and running water, and lived a traditional lifestyle taking care
of her sheep. She was embarrassed and devastated when she was turned away from the polls for not having an ID. Working with her, a team
from the Indian Legal Clinic traveled five hours to meet her at multiple agency offices to obtain her delayed birth certificate; we then went to
two separate Motor Vehicle Division Offices. The first one did not issue same-day photo IDs, and the other initially denied her request. The
office rejected her delayed Navajo birth certificate, until I was able to intervene and demonstrate to them that it was an acceptable document.
The system failed to consider her reality as a Navajo woman and failed to value her as a voter. Fortunately, she was persistent in exercising her
right to vote, but not all voters are, nor should they have to be. This example helps explain why voting can be difficulty for Native American
Turnout for Native Americans is the lowest in the country, as compared to other groups. While a number of issues
voters.
low levels of trust in
contribute to the low voter turnout, a study conducted by the Native American Voting Rights Coalition found that
government, lack of information on how and where to register and to vote, long travel distances to
register or to vote, low levels of access to the internet, hostility toward Native Americans, and
intimidation are obstacles. Isolating conditions such as language barriers, socioeconomic disparities, lack
of access to transportation, lack of residential addresses, lack of access to mail, and the digital divide
limit Native American political participation. Changes to voting processes further frustrate the ability of Native Americans to
vote.
1AR – Trump’s XO
Trump’s XO thumps the link --- it’s similar to the plan and he used the signing as a
campaign event
Oprysko 6-16-2020 (Caitlin, “Trump signs executive order incentivizing police reforms,” Politico,
https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2020/06/16/trump-signs-executive-order-
incentivizing-police-reforms-1293283)
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed

an executive order aimed at guiding police reforms after weeks of
nationwide unrest over police killings of unarmed black Americans — though the reforms he outlined fall far short of
changes demanded by protesters. The president revealed in his Rose Garden remarks that he’d just met with the families of nine victims of
police or racially motivated killings — though none were in the audience as he laid out three planks of reforms, according to a pool report. The
order would create federal incentives through the Justice Department for local police departments that seek “independent credentialing” to
certify that law enforcement is meeting higher standards for the use of force and de-escalation training. Trump specifically noted that those
standards would include banning the use of chokeholds — an especially controversial tactic that has led to the high-profile deaths of multiple
African-American men — “except if an officer’s life is at risk.” Trump's order would also incentivize local departments to bring on experts in
mental health, addiction and homelessness as “co-responders” to “help officers manage these complex encounters.” And it would encourage
better information sharing to track officers with “credible abuses” to prevent them from moving from one department to the next. The text of
the order directs the Justice Department to create and maintain a database to track when officers have been terminated or decertified, have
been criminally convicted for on-duty conduct or faced civil judgments for improper use of force. It notes that information-sharing related to
use-of-force complaints would not apply in “instances where a law enforcement officer resigns or retires while under active investigation
related to the use of force,” and emphasizes that the database would track only episodes in which an officer was “afforded fair process.“ But it
does not address the issue of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that reform advocates say shields police from liability and that the White
House has called a nonstarter for any reform measures. The president’s action on Tuesday swiftly drew criticism from activists for systemic
reform for not going far enough and for a lack of teeth. The vast majority of law enforcement decisions are made at the state and local levels,
and Trump‘s order aims only to incentivize local departments by stipulating that only departments that adopt his reforms might be eligible for
discretionary grants from the Justice Department. The ACLU seized on the optics of Tuesday‘s event, as well as Trump‘s failure to mention
racism in his remarks or in the executive order. It noted that on the point of whether racism exists in policing, he even broke with some in his
party. The group also called for communities to divest from police departments and shrink police presence in Americans' lives. “The word he
was afraid to use is more memorable than anything he did say,” the ACLU’s executive director, Anthony D. Romero, said in a statement. “The
president’s use of victims’ families as a backdrop as he offered empty words of sympathy, anemic reforms, and hollow rhetoric was sad — to
borrow a word from the president’s vocabulary. What’s wrong with this picture: The president had a veritable beauty pageant of law
enforcement officers behind him as he signed an executive order that was supposedly meant as a response to the public outcry of recent
weeks.“ The Brennan Center, a think tank and advocacy group that has pushed for criminal justice reform, dismissed the executive order as
making “only cosmetic changes when the nation is ready for law enforcement’s racism to be pulled out by its roots," noting that it “says
nothing“ about racial disparities in policing. While the group called the order‘s reforms a slate of “welcome changes,” it said that legislation in
the House was more comprehensive and would be more effective. The president himself appeared to acknowledge the restraints of unilateral
action, announcing that “beyond the steps we're taking today, I am committed to working with Congress on additional measures” for police
reform. The executive order comes as Senate Republicans led by Tim Scott of South Carolina, the lone black member of their conference, are
planning to introduce their own police reform proposal on Wednesday. Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced their own
sweeping police reform proposal, which would ban chokeholds, limit qualified immunity for police officers, create a National Police Misconduct
Registry and stop the use of no-knock arrest warrants in drug cases. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said the executive order “was pretty good as far
as it went,” but noted that “there are limitations.“ “It’s not the law,” he said. “But I thought it was fine.” Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) added that he
supported the president‘s recommending a ban on chokeholds, and predicted that GOP legislation “is going to be consistent with that.” But
Trump’s executive order was panned by Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “While the president has finally
acknowledged the need for police reform, one modest, inadequate executive order will not make up for his decades of inflammatory rhetoric
and his recent policies designed to roll back the progress that we’ve made in previous years,” Schumer told reporters. “Now is the moment for
real, lasting, comprehensive change.“ Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), meanwhile, said the president‘s latest move “completely misses the mark,“
asserting that the American public wants to see “bold ideas that will lead to major change.“ House Speaker Pelosi, in an interview on MSNBC,
also ripped Trump’s order as “weak“ and pointed to the president’s call on Congress to supplement Tuesday‘s executive order. "He alluded to
that a number of times: Congress should do more. Yes, it would be easy to do more, because he fell so short,“ she said, before blasting Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for dismissing the House bill. The House is expected to approve its bill at the committee level later this week
and bring the measure to the floor late next week. Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are now considering holding a vote on Scott’s police reform
bill before the July Fourth recess — after previously ruling out the idea — with a decision on timing likely coming this week. At the outset of his
remarks, the president took on a more somber tone as he addressed his private meeting with the families of Ahmaud Arbery, Botham Jean,
Antwon Rose, Atatiana Jefferson, Jemel Roberson, Michael Dean, Darius Tarver, Cameron Lamb and Everett Palmer. “To all of the hurting
families, I want you to know that all Americans mourn by your side. Your loved ones will not have died in vain. We're one nation, we grieve
together and we heal together,” Trump said. “I can never imagine your pain or the depth of your anguish, but I can promise to fight for justice
for all of our people.” Although the president later added that “what is needed now is not more stoking of fear and division,” his early calls for
unity quickly fell by the wayside as the speech delved into an emphasis on, and condemnation of, the looting and destruction that were relative
outliers at mass protests nationwide for police reform. “Law and order must be restored,” Trump demanded, though the country‘s protests
have been largely peaceful for weeks. He asserted that “the looters have no cause that they're fighting for — just trouble." “Americans know
the truth: Without police, there is chaos. Without law, there is anarchy. And without safety, there is catastrophe,” Trump argued, adding that
“we need leaders at every level of government who have the moral clarity to state these obvious facts.” “Reducing crime and raising standards
are not opposite goals. They're not mutually exclusive,” he continued. Although he was ostensibly in the Rose Garden to discuss police reform,
Trump delivered an emphatic defense of law enforcement as a whole, rejecting complaints of systemic racism in policing and contending that
only a “very tiny” percentage of police are so-called bad apples. The text of the executive order itself contains no mention of the words
“racism” or “bias,” concepts that reform advocates assert are ingrained in law enforcement. For the signing ceremony itself, Trump surrounded
himself onstage with sheriffs and other law enforcement representatives. Just one of the several law enforcement representatives onstage with
the president was black. “Americans want law and order, and they demand law and order. They may not say it, they may not be talking about it,
but that's what they want,” he told the audience. “Some of them don't know that that's what they want but that's what they want.” The
president also lobbed political attacks, denouncing “radical and dangerous efforts” by some on the left to “dismantle and dissolve our police
departments, especially now when we’ve achieved the lowest recorded crime rates in American history.” “We have to break old patterns of
failure,” he said later, contending that “many of the same politicians now presenting themselves as the solution are the same ones that have
failed for decades on schools, jobs, justice and crime.” “They're all often unfortunately the same politicians running the cities and states where
help is most needed,” he argued. He then accused two such politicians by name. "President Obama and Vice President Biden never even tried
to fix this during their eight-year period. The reason they didn't try is because they had no idea how to do it,” Trump claimed without noting
that his administration had overturned several initiatives that were the result of an Obama administration task force on police reform. The end
of Trump's speech morphed into a version of his campaign speech, touting his administration's
accomplishments to pass criminal justice reform legislation and secure funding for historically black
colleges and universities. It also touched on the stock market and the coronavirus pandemic, with Trump
promising a vaccine and therapeutics to address the global pandemic by year's end , and separately making the
eyebrow-raising suggestion that school choice “is the civil rights statement of the year, of the decade, and probably beyond.”
SENATE ELECTIONS DA
2AC – Senate Elections DA – T/L
Too many black swans ensure the aff’s not key and voters forget – corona, economy,
and protests.
“Trump doomed” means Senate Republicans are too.

Nicholas 5-23-2020, analyst @ The Atlantic (Peter, “Senate Republicans’ Big Trump Problem,” The
Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/05/senate-republicans-reelections-
depend-trump/611989/)//BB
Senate Democrats liked former President Barack Obama, but never feared him; Senate
Republicans fear incumbent President Donald
Trump, but don’t necessarily like him. Should Trump lose the election in November, any grieving inside GOP offices could be
short-lived—no more having to defend an unpopular president whose handling of the pandemic has distressed many Americans. “I don’t think
there’s a lot of love for Trump; people tolerate him,” said one Senate Republican aide, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to
talk frankly about the president. More alarming for Senate Republicans would be losing their slim majority . A scenario in
which Trump is sent home to Mar-a-Lago while Republicans retain control of the upper chamber would be not only palatable, the aide said, but
maybe even preferable. And yet, that’s not likely to happen. Trump’s
fate is yoked to that of Senate Republicans, whose
fragile majority likely depends on his reelection. Put simply, vulnerable Republican senators are in a bind:
They need to win the backing of Trump’s enthusiastic base without driving away more independent
voters who are an important part of a winning coalition . They want the energy Trump creates, but not the divisiveness.
What the past four years have shown is, you don’t get one without the other. Trump has made the presidency about himself, and now the
same is largely true for Senate races. Splitting
the ticket—voting for one party in the presidential race and another in down-ballot
contests—has grown vanishingly rare in recent decades. Every state with a Senate election that Trump carried in 2016 also
chose the Republican candidate, while each state with a Senate election that Hillary Clinton won picked the Democrat. That pattern should hold
in 2020, reinforced by Trump’s ubiquity. “Everyone puts most candidates in two buckets: pro-Trump or anti-Trump. That’s it,” a former senior
White House official told me. Republicans start at a disadvantage. They’re defending nearly twice as many seats as their opposition while
holding a narrow 53–47 majority. Democrats need to pick up three seats should Joe Biden defeat Trump. (Biden’s future vice president would
cast any tie-breaking votes.) If the president wins, Democrats would need to gain four seats to take control. Some of the party’s juiciest targets
are GOP senators from battleground states where Trump appears most vulnerable: Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona, Susan
Collins of Maine, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Polling shows that Trump is trailing Biden in each of the four except North Carolina, where
he leads by only a point. Republicans
looking to improve their chances face a tricky set of options. A classic
strategy employed by lawmakers running down ballot is to create some distance from a weakened
president and carve an identity that might appeal even to his detractors . Obama told Democratic lawmakers to do
just that in the 2010 midterm elections, when his job-approval ratings had been sinking. “You may not even want me to come to your district,”
Obama said to a group of legislators over lunch at the White House that summer. He was fine with that; he wanted them to win and to do what
was necessary to make it happen. In the most competitive races this cycle, Republicans
may try this tactic, separating
themselves from Trump by minimizing mention of him . But it won’t be easy. Trump is sensitive to slights
and wants unwavering obeisance. “The president does demand pretty much 100 percent loyalty ,” Jeff
Flake, a former GOP senator from Arizona who was at the receiving end of Trump’s attacks before his retirement last year, told me. “He can
pick up the phone and generate a primary pretty fast against anyone who strays. And senators know that.” Trump
is also
temperamentally incapable of staying away, even though that might be best for some of the Republican
senatorial candidates who are imperiled . It’s not always helpful to have him grandly exiting Air Force One in a swing state and
seizing the spotlight. His appearances could remind still-undecided voters of the coronavirus pandemic’s
death toll, the testing snafus, and the months he spent downplaying the danger .
The GOP won’t take credit – they’ve staked their campaigns on anti-reform. Or, if they
do it’s perceived as a last-ditch effort which ruins their imagine.
FSA thumps. The GOP can already campaign on CJR.
Our interpretation of fiat is least necessary means. That means only 4 Republicans flip,
which means Dems take credit. This is best – any other interpretation is arbitrary and
encourages debates over unrealistic scenarios.
Budgetary roadblocks impede any reform.

THE BUDGET
The second challenge to passage of the Democrats’ program is the budget. The CBO projects that budget deficits will
total more than $12 trillion over the next decade. It is a safe bet that if Republicans return to minority status they will
rediscover the sacred virtues of balanced budgets , conveniently disregarded when passing deficit-increasing tax cuts.
Economists may argue among themselves about whether burgeoning debt poses real risks, but the fact is that deficits foster legislative
parsimony. Rising
baseline deficits mean that the stunningly costly legislative agenda that leading
Democratic candidates are proposing will face heavy sailing, even in a sympathetic Congress. That agenda
includes universal health insurance coverage—federal budget cost $1 trillion to more than $30 trillion over ten years. The lower number applies
to measures that would build on the Affordable Care Act, the larger number to some variants of Medicare for All, depending on how much such
a plan would boost use of health care services or lower their prices. The larger number would be largely, and perhaps entirely, offset by
reductions in private spending. The agenda also includes rebuilding U.S. infrastructure—roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, public
transportation, railroads, and other public assets. The American Society of Civil Engineers in 2017 assigned a grade of D+ to U.S. infrastructure
and estimated that spending would have to increase by more than $2 trillion by 2025 to raise that grade to B. The combination of measures
Democratic candidates have endorsed to relieve past borrowers of their student debt and provide free public college education would take
another $2 trillion. Dealing with global warming will be costly—$1.7 trillion is the public cost of Joe Biden’s proposals. There is,
as yet, no reliable estimate of the cost of the Green New Deal, as it has not been described in sufficient detail to permit cost estimates. The
campaign site of no leading candidate currently supports a carbon tax, the one way of discouraging global warming that would generate
revenues, rather than use them. [Bernie Sanders supported one in 2016 but is not doing so at present.] Then there are the long-term shortfalls
in Medicare Hospital Insurance and Social Security. Trust fund reserves, projected to be depleted in 2026 for Medicare Hospital Insurance and
2034 for Social Security, now fill the gap between current revenues and outlays for both programs. The next president may be able to leave
Social Security to his or her successor but will have to fix Medicare Hospital Insurance. If Congress began now to provide both programs enough
additional income spread evenly over time to sustain benefits for the full seventy-five-year period used to determine program solvency, the
cost over the next decade would be nearly $3 trillion. This list excludes additional funding that will be necessary to maintain other government
services, including national defense. The candidates have embraced higher taxes on the rich, such as a wealth tax or higher estate and gift
taxes, and a tax on financial transactions. But revenue from these taxes will not cover the cost of the full Democratic agenda. The point of this
list is not that these measures are undesirable. On the contrary, each would deal with real and urgent problems. But they cost
money, and without higher taxes most will remain pipe-dreams . The candidates have embraced higher taxes on the
rich, such as a wealth tax or higher estate and gift taxes, and a tax on financial transactions. But revenue from these taxes will not
cover the cost of the full Democratic agenda. For perhaps understandable reasons, no candidate has stated the simple fact that
paying for the Democratic agenda will require increased taxes on the middle class . Meanwhile, in
Congress large numbers of Democrats are on record to cut taxes, not to increase them. More than 300
Representatives from both parties have co-sponsored a bill to repeal a tax on high-cost health insurance plans, enacted to help pay for
Obamacare. Dozens of Democrats have co-sponsored legislation to restore some or all deductions for state and local taxes, the benefits of
which would go overwhelmingly to high-income filers. Many have indicated in general terms that they would repeal part of the Republican
sponsored tax cuts of 2017, but not on ‘the middle-class.’ And no
leading Democrat has publicly expressed any interest in
enacting a tax on value-added, which could raise enough money to pay for much of the Democratic
legislative agenda. Unless and until Democrats are prepared to fight for , and are able to win, enactment of enough
added revenues to pay for most of the cost of the ambitious agenda they and their activist supporters
seek, the aspirations of progressive Democrats will remain just that—aspirations.
2AC – AT: Democracy
So many alt causes – China, Russia, Trump’s agenda, etc.
Democracy doesn’t solve war.

Larison 12 – Daniel Larison, senior editor at The American Conservative and PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, April 17th ("Democratic Peace Theory Is False," The American Conservative,
available online at https://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/democratic-peace-theory-is-
false/, accessed 7-5-2020) LR
Rojas’ claim depends entirely on the meaning of “genuine democracy.” Even though there are numerous examples of wars
between states with universal male suffrage and elected governments (including that little dust-up known as
WWI), the states in question probably don’t qualify as “genuine” democracies and so can’t be used as counter-examples. Regardless,
democratic peace theory draws broad conclusions from a short period in modern history with very few cases
before the 20th century. The core of democratic peace theory as I understand it is that democratic governments are more
accountable to their populations, and because the people will bear the costs of the war they are going to be less willing to support a war policy.
This supposedly keeps democratic states from waging wars against one another because of the built-in electoral and institutional checks on
government power. One small problem with this is that it is rubbish. Democracies in antiquity fought against one another.
Political equality and voting do not abolish conflicts of interest between competing states. Democratic
peace theory doesn’t account for the effects of nationalist and imperialist ideologies on the way
democratic nations think about war. Democratic nations that have professional armies to do the fighting for them
are often enthusiastic about overseas wars. The Conservative-Unionist government that waged the South African War
(against two states with elected governments, I might add) enjoyed great popular support and won a huge majority in the “Khaki”
election that followed. As long as it goes well and doesn’t have too many costs, war can be quite popular, and even if the war is
costly it may still be popular if it is fought for nationalist reasons that appeal to a majority of the public. If the
public is whipped into thinking that there is an intolerable foreign threat or if they believe that their country
can gain something at relatively low cost by going to war, the type of government they have really is irrelevant. Unless a
democratic public believes that a military conflict will go badly for their military, they may be ready to welcome the outbreak of a war that they
expect to win. Setting aside the flaws and failures of U.S.-led democracy promotion for a moment, the
idea that reducing the
number of non-democracies makes war less likely is just fantasy. Clashing interests between states aren’t
going away, and the more democratic states there are in the world the more likely it is that two or more of
them will eventually fight one another .
2AC – AT: Warming
Dems can’t solve – Trump’s court packing is irreversible.
No modeling – India and China are alt causes.

richer
The falling
2AC – AT: Russia
Empirics proves it has no effect.
Rosenberg et al. 2o – Matthew Rosenberg, correspondent at The New York Times, Nicole Perlroth,
covers cybersecurity at The New York Times, and David E. Sanger, national security correspondent and
senior writer at The New York Times, published January 10 th and updated July 16th ("‘Chaos Is the Point’:
Russian Hackers and Trolls Grow Stealthier in 2020," The New York Times, available online at
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/us/politics/russia-hacking-disinformation-election.html?
auth=login-google, accessed 7-17-2020) LR
An episode during the run-up to Britain’s recent parliamentary election highlighted the potential, but also the
limits, of disinformation campaigns based on real information. In November, an anonymous Reddit user —
who has since been linked to a wide-ranging Russian disinformation campaign — posted internal British
government documents that detailed preliminary talks with the United States on a trade deal. Though the post
did not gain much attention initially, it eventually made its way to the opposition Labour party, which said it offered
proof that the Conservatives, if re-elected, planned to privatize the National Health Service as part of a
deal with the United States. News of the documents forced Prime Minister Boris Johnson to deny that his party
planned to privatize the health service, though his government acknowledged that the leaked materials were
genuine. But with the Conservatives well ahead in the polls, the episode did nothing to alter the election’s outcome.
Mr. Johnson won a commanding majority in Parliament and a clear mandate to proceed with Britain’s exit from the
European Union — and cut a trade deal with the United States. The other pieces of the Russian campaign, which targeted
a number of Western countries between 2016 and 2019, had even less impact, according to a report last month
by Graphika, a firm that tracks social media activity. Called Secondary Infektion, the campaign was run by trolls who used
hundreds of social media accounts to spread 44 stories in at least six languages. The stories ranged from fictitious
claims about the 2016 American election to an article that sought to link President Emmanuel Macron of France to Islamist
militants. Most were demonstrably false and based on faked interviews or manufactured documents. The trade-deal story
appears to have been the only one based on real material, and the only one that made international headlines. “ Some were openly
mocked by real users; many were simply ignored,” Ben Nimmo of Graphika wrote in the firm’s report.
Or a Biden loss is inevitable

2AC – Irrelevant
Nobody cares about CJR – insert this data.
Hrynowski 20 (Zach Hrynowski, 1-13-2020, "Several Issues Tie as Most Important in 2020 Election,"
Gallup, https://news.gallup.com/poll/276932/several-issues-tie-important-2020-election.aspx , accessed
6/23/2020)//DB
Extremely important Extremely important + Very important
% %
Healthcare 35 81
Terrorism and national security 34 80
Gun policy 34 74
Education 33 83
The economy 30 84
Immigration 28 74
Climate change 26 55
Abortion 25 64
The distribution of income and wealth in the U.S. 25 58
The federal budget deficit 23 72
Taxes 23 69
Race relations 23 66
The nation's infrastructure 22 74
Foreign affairs 21 64
Trade with other nations 18 68
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights 11 38
Ranked by percentage "extremely important"
GALLUP, DEC. 2-15, 2019

2AC – Base L/T
The plan can’t help Senate Republicans---they’re inevitably tied to Trump’s racism
Phillips 6-9-2020, analyzes politics for The Washington Post's nonpartisan politics blog and authors
The 5-Minute Fix newsletter, a rundown of the day's biggest political news (Amber, “What’s keeping
Senate Republicans from ditching Trump?,” Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/09/whats-keeping-senate-republicans-ditching-
trump/)//BB
It’s been a can’t-win situation for congressional Republicans from the start: Criticize the president’s
latest controversial words and risk his wrath and the wrath of his base, or risk public ridicule for not
speaking out against it. Those stakes have become much higher now that the national conversation and
Trump’s controversial tweets have centered on police brutality and racism. Since he became president,
Trump has also made Republican lawmakers swallow policies that have been anathema to their long-
held principles, like tariffs over free trade, or pushed them toward policies they had been trying to move
away from, like tough immigration laws. The pressure has built to a potentially unmanageable degree
among some senators. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) allowed last week that she’s “struggling” on how
she can support the president, especially after a respected military general and Trump’s former defense
secretary alleged that the president is a threat to the nation because of Trump saying he would deploy
active military troops in U.S. cities to restore law and order. On top of all that, Trump’s poll numbers are
sinking and there’s a real concern among Republicans he could take some vulnerable GOP Senate
members — and their majority — down with them. But even with all that, to ditch Trump now would be
a futile effort for most Senate Republicans. Who are they going to win over? Probably not any significant
number of Democratic-leaning voters to make it worth their while. To Trump’s critics, Senate
Republicans have had dozens of chances to speak out more forcefully against the president and haven’t
done so. An unnamed Republican senator who is publicly supporting Trump told the New York Times’s
Jonathan Martin that he might prefer Trump losing reelection if Republicans could keep their Senate
majority. But the two are more linked than ever in a hyperpartisan environment, stoked by Trump’s
constant “you’re with us or against us” mentality . The relatively small pool of voters who might be
inclined to vote for former vice president Joe Biden and a Senate Republican hav e by now been on the
receiving end of plenty of messaging that a vote for a Senate Republican is a vote for Trump. Democratic
leaders in Congress have accused Senate Republicans of enabling Trump on everything from separating
families at the border to driving racial animus in America to dismantling independent oversight into his
administration. The party has spent tens of millions to try to unseat three to four Republicans in
November and regain control of the Senate. Any anti-Trump sentiment that Senate Republicans express
would probably be too little too late to change those dynamics in a significant way . Then there’s
Trump’s stalwart base, which hasn’t budged over the years and the controversies . During Trump’s
impeachment trial in the Senate at the start of this year, the evidence Democrats presented was enough
to persuade one Republican senator, Mitt Romney of Utah, to vote to remove Trump from office. But it
was not enough for Trump’s supporters to even consider such a thing. The Post’s Griffe Witte traveled to
Kentucky, where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is up for reelection, and Colorado,
where Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) is vulnerable, and found a Republican base adamant that their
senators stand behind Trump during impeachment. In 2016, Republican Kelly Ayotte was in a tight
Senate reelection race in New Hampshire when she said she wouldn’t support Trump. She lost that race.
There is a vocal group of Republicans who oppose Trump where these senators could find a home. The
marquee group is led by George Conway, the husband of Trump’s senior adviser Kellyanne Conway. But
it would be a lonely one: The Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump super PAC, doesn’t have the support of
sitting GOP lawmakers. All of the Republican senators who publicly criticized Trump in the first half of his
presidency were retiring. It seems there is no choice for Senate Republicans but to stick with the home
they have under Trump, as frustrating as it is for them, and hope for the best: that somehow they can
keep the presidency and control of the Senate.
But, the plan does anger the GOP base---those are the only variable votes
Taylor 6-29-2020 (Andrew, “Why Congress failed to answer the national call for police bill,” Christian
Science Monitor, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2020/0629/Why-Congress-failed-to-answer-
the-national-call-for-police-bill)
The swift rise and fall of prospects for the police bill showed how lawmakers are often driven more by
the views of their parties' hard-liners than overall public opinion. "The incentive structure is misaligned
for compromise. That's the reality of it. Members are more likely to be rewarded electorally for
representing their base primary voters than for reaching out to voters in the middle," said Michael
Steel, who was a top aide to former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "The giants of yesteryear are
remembered as such because voters rewarded them for successfully legislating. And that just seems to
be less and less the case."
2AC – Russia Inev
It's too late for Russian interference – the impact has become self-perpetuating
Gilsinan, ‘20 (KATHY GILSINAN is a contributing writer at The Atlantic, "The Russian Trolls’ Next
Favorite Candidate," Atlantic, 2-20-2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/russia-
trump-bernie-sanders-election-interference/606703/, accessed 7-2-2020, SShaf)
“Please move.” The white woman doesn’t raise her voice; she’s got her shirt on inside out and she’s aiming a cellphone at the taco-truck vendors parked on her street. She wants them gone, and they’re telling her to go back inside. “Okay, baby girl,” she says. “Vamonos. I’ll call ICE.”
“Stupida bitcha,” comes a reply. A video of the confrontation, filmed outside a house in Dallas last spring, soon went viral, with the title “racist woman talking about shes gonna call ICE ON US FOR SELLING FOOD IN DALLAS WHEN WE HAVE PERMIT.” Within weeks, it had more than
In 2016, the Kremlin invested heavily in creating memes and Facebook ads
170,000 views. This is the new face of Russian propaganda.
designed to stoke Americans’ distrust of the electoral system and one another after four years . Now, nearly
under a president whose divisive rhetoric and policies have inflamed voter anger on issues such as race,
inequality, and his own conduct the Russian government is still interferin g, but it doesn’t need to do
,
much creative work anymore . The taco-truck video wasn’t fabricated in some St. Petersburg workshop. It was a real video of a real incident, made in America—and all Russia had to do was help it spread with its Twitter trolls. Luckily for
Trump a polarizing figure

the Russians, then, the two current front-runners for the presidency, DonaldRussian trolls sought toand Bernie Sanders, re both s—and they’re both candidates
promote in 2016 , as Special Counsel Robert Mueller found. This time, the Democratic field is crowded and squabbling, but it includes no hawkish, long-established Hillary Clinton to tear down. If the election does end up being a Trump-Sanders face-off, one of
the Kremlin’s favored candidates from 2016 is guaranteed a win. They are far apart ideologically but nearly equally suited to the Kremlin’s interests, both in being divisive at home and in encouraging U.S. restraint abroad. Both Sanders and Trump profess to want to refocus the U.S. inward
—a message that clearly appeals to many Americans. But that doesn’t mean the Russian propaganda machine is slowing down; it’s just aimed at a new target. Darren Linvill, a Clemson University professor who has studied Russian information operations, told me, “Systems like this don’t
tend to stop simply because their reason for being no longer exists. They find new reasons for being.” In this case, building on their 2016 successes and worsening divisions in the United States. Linvill offered me a list of reasons the Kremlin still wants to interfere in U.S. politics, despite the
we’re doing such a great job of dividing ourselves. Russia’s goals include depressing voter turnout
fact that already
and making it more difficult for the eventual winner to govern by sowing doubts about the electoral
process. The Kremlin might also still have a preference for Trump, if only because Russian leaders now know what to expect from him, Alina Polyakova, the president and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis, told me. The New York Times reported after we spoke
that intelligence officials told lawmakers, in a briefing last week, that Russia is indeed interfering to help Trump again. The report did not specify exactly how. Then came reports that U.S. officials had briefed Sanders that Russia was interfering on behalf of his campaign—Sanders said that
Americans
Putin should “stay out of American elections,” in keeping with his position since 2016. No matter what, Polyakova said, “a U.S. that’s mired in its own domestic problems and not engaged in the world benefits Moscow.” That’s where the videos come in.
are now the chief suppliers of the material that suspected Russia-linked accounts use to stoke anger
ahead of U.S. elections leaving Russia free to focus on pushing it as far as possible
, trolls shift . Linvill has seen Russian
tactics to become “curators more than creators driving Americans apart videos ,” with the same goal of . “The Russians love those ,” he said, “because
function to make us more disgusted with one another

they .” He and a colleague have traced viral tweets about the Dallas incident to Russia-linked accounts that Twitter has since suspended.
America’s largely self-inflicted political condition has provided a stunning return on investment for the
Russian government , which began orchestrating—as far back as 2014—what Mueller later called a conspiracy of “fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes,” including the 2016 presidential election.
Mueller laid bare the extent of the conspiracy led by a St. Petersburg–based organization called the Internet Research Agency. The IRA was the nerve center of the interference operation; it had hundreds of employees and a budget of millions of dollars dedicated to what it internally
the specter of Russian interference itself

referred to as “information warfare” against America, with Facebook ads, fake Twitter personas, and even efforts to organize real-world protests. Meanwhile, the irony is that
has become a tool to discredit political enemies online The biggest effect is the .“ that I think foreign disinformation has had on our conversations
perception that if someone disagrees with you, they’re a Russian troll ,” Linvill said. “When, in fact, they probably just are somebody that disagrees with you.” Twitter,
for instance, at one point suspended an account supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement as a suspected Russian troll. Wired later identified the user: an American living in Florida. The IRA was already setting up fake social-media accounts and sending operatives to the United
States two years before the 2016 election. It operated English-language Twitter accounts that circulated made-up news stories—about a salmonella outbreak in New York, for instance, and a chemical explosion in Louisiana, neither of which had happened, Linvill said. These days,
Russian internet operatives barely deal in outright fabricated news stories , he said, and those early efforts failed because they were easily debunked. When
the campaign started, the IRA wasn’t focused on supporting any particular candidate so much as targeting Clinton. This meant boosting not only Trump (by establishing Facebook accounts such as “Clinton FRAUDation” and “Trumpsters United”) but also, incongruously, Sanders. (A
BuzzFeed investigation found one Russian Tumblr account, 4mysquad, that posed as a black activist and celebrated Sanders as “not some old White man who just decided that #BlackLivesMatter yesterday. He’s BEEN fighting.”) Mueller later found that the clear preference for Trump
The organization
developed over time. Mueller’s investigation led to indictments of some IRA operatives—which meant little, since they were in Russia, beyond the reach of American law, and turning their attention to the 2018 midterm elections. was still
began using more of what Americans

creating memes, and it got an even bigger budget, according to Graham Brookie, the director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council think tank. But it also
themselves were putting on the internet seizing on divisive debates about immigration, gun control, and ,
police shootings of unarmed black men, using real news stories to highlight genuine anger and
dysfunction in American politics. political rivals have spent years locked in battle over
Now, in 2020, the president and his
things such as the Mueller investigation, impeachment, and America’s very institutions and role in the
world. Russian trolls can largely just watch Americans fight among themselves , and use fictitious Twitter personas to offer vigorous encouragement, as
They will keep prodding the same bruises in American society

they did with the taco-truck video. , or encouraging cries of electoral fraud if there’s a contested Democratic primary
The U.S. doesn’t need Russians to erode faith in its elections buggy app at the Iowa caucus
or a tight general election. —one
did that just fine prompting the president’s campaign manager to wonder
, whether the caucus had on Twitter
been “rigged Trump is both a cause and an effect of existing American lack of faith in institutions, which
.”
he encourages with frequent reference to the “deep state .” And Sanders gets authentic support for his criticism of political and economic elites, which the Russia-linked accounts also
promote. Even as the U.S. by virtue of its political divisions has made Russia’s job easier in some ways, it has made Russian operations more difficult in others. The Mueller investigation and congressional scrutiny have made people more aware of Russia’s activities since 2016, Brookie
said. Social-media companies such as Twitter and Facebook have grown more active at suspending suspicious accounts—even to the point of accidentally suspending real people spreading polarizing messages. Still, although Brookie didn’t want to understate the threat of Russian
American domestic disinformation is worse than anything the IRA could do
interference, he maintained that . Of the Russians at this point, he
said: “ They could spike the football and say, ‘Mission accomplished.’”
1AR – Tied to Trump
GOP senators lose—polarization means no voters splits the ticket—Trump drags.
That’s 2AC Nicholas
These all mean passing a policy has no effect on the way someone votes.
The senate election is tied to Trump – empirics prove.

Goldmacher 7-22 [Shane Goldmacher, national political reporter and was previously the chief
political correspondent for the Metro Desk, As Trump Slumps, Republican Donors Look to Save the
Senate, NYT, 7-20-2020, Accessible Online at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/us/politics/trump-
polls-senate.html] DL 7-24-2020
The fate of Senate candidates has been increasingly yoked to the top of the ticket . In 2016, every state
that elected a Republican senator also voted for Mr. Trump, and every state that elected a Democratic
senator voted for Hillary Clinton. And in 2018, all five Senate incumbents who lost were defeated by
challengers from the party that carried their state in the 2016 presidential contests. Strategists in both
parties expect that kind of polarization to continue, making it hard for Republicans to distance from Mr.
Trump.
Republicans lose – Senate races are tied to Trump – Republicans underperform

compared to their president while Democrats overperform – empirics prove.
Taylor 7-23 [Jessica Taylor, B.A. in political science from Furman University in South Carolina, Almost
100 Days Out, Democrats Are Favored to Take Back the Senate, Cook Political Report, 7-23-2020,
Accessible Online at https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/senate/senate-overview/almost-100-days-out-
democrats-are-favored-take-back-senate] DL 7-27-2020
A historic look at Senate elections in presidential years As Trump’s numbers continue to freefall, perhaps the
statistic that should scare Republicans fighting to hold the Senate the most is that in 2016, every Senate race
outcome tracked exactly with the presidential winner in that state. Republicans lost incumbents in Illinois and New Hampshire, while
Democrats kept a seat in Nevada even as Trump scored an upset White House victory (while Clinton carried the popular vote). If that trend holds for 2020 , as state
polling stands now Republicans would be on pace to lose seats in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and North Carolina ,
according to FiveThirtyEight’s polling averages as of Thursday. Both Iowa and Georgia remain incredibly close with Trump just
narrowly ahead. Still, even those first four states would be enough to give Democrats a majority. On the flip side, for Democrats that could make
Montana a more difficult gain. A historical look through data dating back to 1980 — the last time the Senate flipped outright during a presidential
election year — unsurprisingly shows that four decades ago, voters were more likely to split their tickets between a presidential
ballot and a Senate race. That difference has virtually evaporated in today’s far more polarized environment . That is
especially true in the most competitive Senate races, as we looked through our ratings back to our founding in 1984. In fact, open-seat races and other contests the Cook Political Report
has rated as competitive (Toss Up or Lean) in recent cycles perform closest to the presidential margin , and in many years they
perform worse. Republicans tend to hew closest to the presidential margins, while Democrats have been able
to overperform their presidential nominee in competitive races and states they lost at the presidential level better on average than Republicans. Look
at the 1980 election — which has drawn perhaps the most salient comparisons to today’s political environment, given Jimmy Carter’s sagging approval ratings — Republicans
flipped 12 Senate seats. But even in the seats Democrats lost, they still overperformed Carter by 10 points. Senate
Democrats overall outperformed the beleaguered incumbent president by 23 points . The last time a president lost re-
election was in 1992, when George H.W. Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton. That year, GOP senators in competitive races outperformed the top of the ticket by 13 points — but those numbers
are also skewed because of the three-way race Bush and Clinton found themselves in with billionaire Ross Perot. In 1996, Clinton won re-election (and Perot ran again but was less of a factor),
and although Bob Dole lost, Republicans were able to pick up a net of two Senate seats as incumbents began to successfully use the "check and balance" argument to maintain a GOP Senate.
Fast forward to 2016. Republicans in competitive states the GOP held on to — in another presidential year where they had
hoped to flip the Senate — did end up outperform ing Trump, but only narrowly in many instances. In Florida, Marco Rubio outpaced Trump by 3.4
points, while in Ohio, Rob Portman ran ahead of Trump by 6.7 points. In Wisconsin, Ron Johnson’s vote total was almost 3 points higher than Trump’s narrow win in the state, while in
But in 2008, when Republican last lost

Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey only outran Trump by 0.6 points. In North Carolina, Richard Burr’s vote total was 1.27 points higher than Trump’s.
candidates in competitive Senate seats ended up underperforming John

control of the White House amid a blue wave,
McCain’s ballot numbers in their states by 3.6 points. Four years later, as Barack Obama won re-election, Republicans in competitive races
underperformed by 3.1 points.
Down ballot votes make Dem Senate guaranteed and other issues matter more
Nilsen, ‘6/11 (Ella Nilsen covers Congress and the Democrats for Vox. Before coming to Vox, she
worked at the Concord Monitor newspaper in New Hampshire, where she covered Bernie Sanders and
Donald Trump in the 2016 primary, "Democrats are seeing a much better chance of retaking the Senate
in 2020," Vox, 6-11-2020, https://www.vox.com/2020/5/18/21243174/most-competitive-senate-races-
2020, accessed 6-21-2020, SShaf)
Republicans had been hoping to make impeachment the centerpiece of

The election is mainly a referendum on Trump Trump’s their attack on Democrats in
2020 but , impeachment is no longer registering.

now they admit Instead the “Impeachment was three or four years ago, it feels like,” Newhouse said. ,
government’s response to the coronavirus, the economy, and Trump’s own approval rating will be
driving both the presidential race and many down-ballot races in November Covid has thrown . -19 already elements of
campaigning into disarray Everyone’s in

. With the virus still disrupting American life, campaigns are having to rethink how to fundraise, organize, and get their message out to voters virtually. “
uncharted territory corona might take on the largest focus.

here,” a Republican strategist told Vox. “I think virus, the response ... Right now there are a lot of things that are
Republican senators hope anti-Trump voters split their tickets but Newhouse said with more
unpredictable.” may will ,
people voting straight party up and down the ticket, the fate of Trump and many GOP senators could be
inextricably linked Trump is at the top of the ticket time The
. Whereas the 2018 midterms were considered a referendum on Trump without the president being on the ballot, this .“
fate of our Senate majority lies in how Donald Trump does in some of these key states Democrats ,” Newhouse said. ,
are planning to run a playbook that was successful in 2018

meanwhile, moderate, “pragmatic” many House races: backing
candidates focusing on health care in the middle of a pandemic

and that has millions of newly unemployed people losing their health insurance along with their jobs. Democrats
will highlight Medicaid expansion as an issue in states that didn’t expand it, including North Carolina, Kansas, Georgia, Texas, and Alabama. They’re already going after North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis (R) for his role in rejecting Medicaid expansion when he was leading the North Carolina
Biden and Democratic Senate candidates alike are hoping disaffected suburban voters who voted
state legislature.
for Democrats in 2018 will vote blue in 2020

House Taylor sees little effort on the part of the GOP to woo as well. And
these more moderate voters back into the fold. “I think that 2018 clearly showed there’s some buyer’s remorse,” said Taylor. “And we’re no longer talking about a hypothetical President Trump and what he could do — you’ve
political operatives in both parties

seen it in action. I don’t think [Trump] or Republicans writ large have done anything to get [moderate voters] back.” With the deluge of news in an uncertain environment,
concede that voters will be judging the president’s and Congress’s response to the pandemic and getting
the economy up and running this fall. “A lot of that is going to be determined in where we’re at as a country handling coronavirus this fall,” Cameron said. “Do these voters trust Trump or Biden more to bring us back from
this recession that we’re either in or headed toward? It’s so hard to tell what the political environment is going to be like.” Here’s where the Senate map stands so far.
They can’t escape him

Martin 6-25-2020, NYT analyst with Matt Stevens (Jonathan, “Trump’s Sagging Popularity Drags Down
Republican Senate Candidates,” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/us/politics/trump-senate-
republicans-poll.html)//BB
President Trump’s erratic performance in office and his deteriorating standing in the polls is posing a grave
threat to his party’s Senate majority, imperiling incumbents in crucial swing states and undermining
Republican prospects in one of the few states they had hoped to gain a seat, according to a new poll of registered
voters by The New York Times and Siena College. Senator Martha McSally of Arizona, a Republican, trails her Democratic
opponent, Mark Kelly, by nine percentage points while Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina is behind his Democratic
rival, Cal Cunningham, by three. Both incumbents are polling below 40 percent despite having recently aired a barrage of television
advertisements. In
Michigan, which Senate Republicans viewed as one of their few opportunities to go on
the offensive this year, Senator Gary Peters, a first-term Democrat, is up by 10 percentage points over John
James, who is one of the G.O.P.’s most prized recruits. NYT Upshot/Siena College poll of registered voters in Michigan Michigan Senate 41%
Peters 31% James 29% Other “Other” includes those who would vote for another candidate, would not vote or did not know. Based on a New
York Times/Siena College poll of 610 registered voters in Michigan from June 8 to June 18. The poll showed that the same voters who are
fleeing the president — highly educated white Americans, many of them once-reliable Republicans — are providing an advantage to
Democratic Senate candidates. Mr. Trump’s mismanagement of the coronavirus and his bombastic response to protests over racial justice have
made him an underdog against Joseph R. Biden Jr., the presumptive Democratic nominee, who led the president by 14 percentage points
nationally in the Times poll. And
in an era when Senate races increasingly mirror the presidential preference of a
given state, there is little Ms. McSally and Mr. Tillis may be able to do to overcome Mr. Trump’s current
drag on their party. The president trails Mr. Biden by seven percentage points in Arizona and nine in North Carolina. Mr. Trump is
capturing the support of only 41 percent of Arizona voters and 40 percent of North Carolinians. NYT Upshot/Siena College poll of registered
voters in North Carolina North Carolina Senate 42% Cunningham 39% Tillis 19% Other “Other” includes those who would vote for another
candidate, would not vote or did not know. Based on a New York Times/Siena College poll of 653 registered voters in North Carolina from June
8 to June 18. The president’s prospects are even more dire in Michigan, where the poll shows he is losing to Mr. Biden by 11 points, capturing
just 36 percent of the vote in a state he narrowly carried four years ago. Taken together, the three battleground states paint a grim picture for
Republicans right now — and suggest that if
Mr. Trump does not arrest his fall he could hand Democrats control of
both the presidency and the Senate next year. “The election is a referendum on Trump,” said Kirk Adams, a
Republican and former Arizona state House speaker. “That could change, but until then, down-ballot Republicans will have to decide if they will
ride the Trump train to its final destination or if they need to establish some brand independence.” Jill Cohen, a 52-year-old resident of Tempe,
Ariz, who was a Republican until 2016, said she would have a difficult time supporting a Senate candidate who “aligns herself” with Mr. Trump
and his views. “I look to a leader of our country to be someone who is unifying, who is welcoming, who is inclusive and who I can tell my
children to look up to,” she said. Mr. Trump, she added, “is not any of those things.” She said she longed for more consensus-oriented
lawmakers and would vote for Mr. Kelly. “I really like Kyrsten Sinema for that reason because she is willing to go across the aisle and work
bipartisan,” she said, referring to Arizona’s other senator. “And I think Kelly would, too.” The margin of sampling error in the Times/Siena
survey for the individual state polls in Arizona, Michigan and North Carolina is about four percentage points. The Times survey of battleground
states is not the only recent polling that illustrates how the president’s unpopularity is endangering his party’s candidates. A recent Des Moines
Register poll in Iowa — which found Mr. Trump up by just one percentage point in a state he carried by about 10 in 2016 — showed Senator
Joni Ernst trailing by three points against Theresa Greenfield, a first-time candidate. Republicans have a 53-47 Senate majority. A pickup of
three seats would give Democrats control, if Mr. Biden wins and his vice president is able to break a 50-50 tie. But if Doug Jones of Alabama, a
rare Democratic senator in the Deep South, loses his re-election in a state that Mr. Trump is expected to comfortably carry, Democrats would
need to pick up four seats to take control. Yet with Republicans defending a number of competitive seats this year, the majority is now clearly
within reach for Democrats. In addition to Arizona, North Carolina and Iowa, Republicans have vulnerable incumbents in Colorado and Maine,
two states that Mr. Biden is favored to win. Further, two Senate Republicans are facing competitive re-elections this year in Georgia, a fast-
changing state where surveys have shown Mr. Trump effectively tied with Mr. Biden. And in Montana, the state’s popular Democratic governor,
Steve Bullock, is challenging Senator Steve Daines. Republicans could still limit the Democrats’ opportunities to pick up seats, especially if Mr.
Trump stabilizes his standing. There are a considerable number of undecided voters in these Senate races, particularly in Michigan and North
Carolina where Mr. Peters and Mr. Tillis, who’s also in his first term, are not well known. However, by aligning themselves so closely with Mr.
Trump, Senate Republicans now risk the same fate that could await the president without a drastic change in fortune. “I really resent when I
see in the newspaper that Trump is supported by all these Republicans,” said Fern Fousse, an 84-year-old Tucson, Ariz., resident who said she
would vote for a Democrat for president for the first time this year. “Well, I’m a Republican! I have a voice! And I am not a Trump Republican.”
Ms. McSally, who was appointed last year to the seat previously held by the late Senator John McCain, “became a Trump lackey,” Ms. Fousse
continued. “I would have never thought that of her.” Ms. Fousse said she had also become disillusioned with Ms. McSally after watching her
unsuccessful Senate campaign in 2018. “Martha McSally’s campaign has been so negative,” Ms. Fousse said. “Mark Kelly sounds like a nice
person, a winner and someone who can work with both parties.” Mr. Trump’s precipitous drop in these battleground states owes largely to his
decline among voters like Ms. Fousse who were once staunch Republicans. The president has sagged among white voters, especially those who
are younger and those who have college degrees. He has received especially poor marks from this slice of the electorate for his handling of the
coronavirus pandemic and his response to the protests against racial injustice. His divisive conduct has, in turn, soured voters on his party’s
other candidates. Michael Maddox, a 60-year-old teacher from Fayetteville, N.C., said he had been disturbed by Mr. Trump’s stated desire to
slow coronavirus testing and by his use of racist language, describing the pandemic as “Kung Flu.” “We’ve gotta get him out of there,” Mr.
Maddox said, “and I think one of the ways to help do that is to try to remove some of the folks who support his agenda.” Mr. Maddox said he
has been unnerved by what he said was Mr. Tillis’s “silence” in the face of these and other remarks by Mr. Trump. It’s voters like Mr. Maddox
and Ms. Cohen, the Tempe resident, both of whom have college degrees, who are imperiling Senate Republicans. In Arizona, Mr. Kelly leads Ms.
McSally 49 to 39 among voters with a college degree. In North Carolina, Mr. Cunningham is up 52 to 29 with the same voters. And Mr. Peters
also enjoys a comfortable margin among college-educated voters, leading Mr. James 47 to 29. Like Mr. Trump, the Republican Senate
candidates are also struggling to appeal to voters under 45. Their challenge, therefore, is how to win over some Biden voters without angering
the president’s most ardent supporters. The composition of the undecided voters in the Times-Siena survey illustrates how tricky that can be
because they largely lean to the right but are uneasy with Mr. Trump. If Senate Republicans try to woo these voters by
distancing themselves from the president, they risk incurring his volcanic wrath and driving away his most loyal
voters, in the fashion of a handful of congressional candidates who lost in 2016. “It’s a difficult needle to thread and requires astute political
maneuvering to hold the Trump voter and attract the swing voter,” Mr. Adams, the former Arizona speaker, noted. Liesl Hickey, a Republican
strategist, said her party’s Senate candidates have little choice but to try to localize the races and to make them about themselves and their
opponents rather than Mr. Trump. “These senators have strong brands and have worked hard for their states so they should run on delivering
for their constituents,” said Ms. Hickey, adding, “What else can they do?” Some of the Republicans are doing just this by taking
the unusual step of calling for a series of debates, a tactic incumbents turn to only in times of peril because they don’t want to hand attention
to lesser-known opponents. Yet
for voters who are eager to register their opposition against Mr. Trump in every
conceivable way, such ploys may have little impact.
1AR – Dems Fail – Generic
Dems don’t solve
Gelman 7-3-2020, assistant professor of political science at the University of Nevada at Reno (Jeremy,
“House Democrats are sending dead-on-arrival bills to the Senate. There’s a good reason.,” Washington
Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/03/this-is-why-house-democrats-send-so-
many-dead-on-arrival-bills-senate/)//BB
Although symbolic today, voting now improves the odds of these bills becoming law later if Democrats
regain control of Congress and the White House. For example, consider what would happen if House
Democrats did not vote on the Justice in Policing Act now. If Democrats waited until 2021, my research
suggests the bill would have an almost zero chance of becoming law. By voting on it today, an overhaul
of policing practices is almost guaranteed serious consideration in a unified Democratic Congress and
has a much better chance of being enacted, even after taking into account that the new Congress could
be more liberal. Granted, even in the best circumstances, Democrats’ DOA bills face a tough road. Most
DOA bills do not eventually pass; as is true with any bill, they face serious hurdles to enactment. Even
with a unified Democratic government, most would still fail unless Democrats were to obliterate the
Senate filibuster or make changes that could secure at least some GOP support. Even more challenging,
former DOA ideas must compete with one another for time on the party’s agenda. A policing overhaul
would need to compete with climate change, health care, political and voting restructuring,
immigration, gun control, and dozens of other Democratic priorities. Even the most productive
Congress will not be able to do it all. Three or four big ideas is very optimistic; some policies will
inevitably get left out.
1AR – Dems Fail – Courts
Courts prevent Dem agenda
THE COURTS
Even if Democrats win control of both the executive and legislative branches of government and figure
out how to pay for their very ambitious agenda, they will face one more obstacle: the courts. After a
series of decisions in the 1930s striking down important segments of the New Deal, the Supreme Court
reversed course and broadened the power of the federal government to pass social and economic
legislation resting on the Constitutional provision authorizing Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
The Court also allowed Congress to write broadly worded legislation that left to regulatory agencies and
executive departments the job of fleshing out those laws through rules and regulations. A unanimous
Supreme Court decision stated in 1984 instructed lower courts to grant deference to administrative
agencies whenever clear Congressional intent does not conflict with such rules and regulations.
Congress also used financial incentives to induce states to implement national policies. These pillars of
government action are all now under threat. When opponents of the Affordable Care Act sued to
invalidate the law, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not justify its requirement that people
carry health insurance under the Commerce clause. This decision came after other decisions limited the
reach of the Commerce clause. The Court also ruled that the Constitution barred Congress from cutting
off federal support for Medicaid if states did not expand Medicaid eligibility, raising questions about
whether Congress could use fiscal incentives to encourage state action as much as in the past. At least
four and possibly five justices seem ready to narrow the authority of executive branch and independent
agencies to draft detailed rules and regulations implementing broadly worded legislation. When
Congress cedes these powers, the argument goes, it violates the separation of legislative and executive
powers. In addition, several justices think the Courts should stop deferring to the interpretations of
Congressional intent by these organizations, on the ground that Constitution vests this power in the
courts. Should these views prevail, large swathes of existing federal regulations could be swept away.
Interpretations of those rules and regulations that remain would emerge through case-by-case litigation,
a slow and costly process that would render much current government action infeasible. These
obstacles to future government action are currently speculative. But they could quickly become all too
real, based on incidental comments in decisions or dissents by sitting Supreme Court justices.
Conservative legal scholars and lower-court judges, from whose ranks President Trump would likely
choose to fill any Supreme Court vacancy that might emerge, have expressed similar views. And, even if
such vacancies occur at the very end of the Trump administration, Senate majority-leader Mitch
McConnell has said he will try to confirm them—notwithstanding his refusal for eleven months at the
end of Barack Obama’s presidency to allow a vote on the nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.
Democrats who think that winning the presidency in 2020 will enable a rapid transformation in social
and economic policy should understand how formidable the obstacles they face actually are. Winning
control of the Senate is vital, but the odds of doing so are long. This challenge is generally understood.
But Democrats have been unwilling to call for large, broad tax increases—ones that go well beyond
proposals to tax the rich—that are a precondition for their legislative program. And they must be
prepared to deal with a risk of judicial nullification of their program not seen since the 1930s. However,
as I noted at the start, there remain vast swathes of public policy that non-legislative action can affect
and despite the challenges, these goals are worth the fight.
1AR – Democracy – Too Late
It’s too late
Jones and Taussig 19 – *PhD @ LSE, Hamburg fellow in conflict prevention at Stanford University, vice
president and director of the Foreign Policy program at Brookings and a senior fellow in the Institution’s
Project on International Order and Strategy, **PhD @ Tufts, nonresident fellow in the Foreign Policy
program’s Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings. In 2018-19, she is based in Berlin as a
Robert Bosch Foundation Fellow. Taussig works on U.S. foreign policy, European and Asian security,
authoritarian politics, and U.S.-Russia relations (Bruce, Torrey, “Democracy and Disorder: The Struggle
for Influence in the New Geopolitics,” Kindle Edition)
4. The interplay between internal strains and external efforts to exacerbate them has weakened the
leverage of the political West. The phase of the post-Cold War era when the United States and other
like-minded states could enlarge the democratic community through democracy promotion efforts with
manageable domestic and international pushback has ended. Instead, the global financial crisis and the
rise of China have triggered a deep level of introspection within the political West. The world’s most
important shaping power, the United States— itself a revisionist power bent toward liberalism and
democracy—is in strategic disarray and appears to be withdrawing from its commitment to supporting
and exemplifying democratic standards. The European Union, the other bulwark of the liberal order, has
turned inward, facing domestic instability caused by characteristics inherent to a more open order,
including economic integration, low trade barriers, and the free movement of people. Authoritarian
leaders within the West challenge the very foundations of the liberal democratic model. Protectionist
forces challenge key elements of the international order, including the rules-based trading system and
an alliance structure rooted in trans-Atlantic cohesion and American power. Given the trans-Atlantic
community’s role as the primary instigator and promoter of democratic progress in the post-WWII era,
internal discord has significant consequences for democracy and the future character of the
international order. The West’s ability to be the primary shaper of democratic institutions and norms
will remain limited. While Western distraction may not lead to an inevitable backsliding of democracy
globally, internal disarray among the world’s most powerful democratic states leaves many unanswered
questions about what countries, or coalitions of countries, will play a more active role in sustaining the
pillars of the liberal order.
1AR – Democracy – China A/C
Alt cause---China
Diamond 19 – PhD in Sociology, professor of Sociology and Political Science at Stanford University
(Larry, “Ill Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambition and American Complacency,”
Kindle Edition)
Russia is also making strides to modernize its military power, particularly its ability to wage a high-speed,
mechanized war, enhanced by the use of drones, high-tech tanks, electronic jamming, computer
hacking, and long-range air defenses. Combined with its improvements in the range and accuracy of its
weaponry, these aggressive investments pose a new and serious threat to NATO. 57 Nevertheless,
Russia is fundamentally a declining power whose malign intentions and nationalist bravado cannot
disguise its outstripped economy and shrinking importance to the twenty-first-century world. Another
autocratic power is also cutting deep into the fabric of democracies around the world: China, an
enormous, proud country that is rapidly emerging as the next superpower. China’s methods are more
patient and incremental than Russia’s, relying heavily on the geopolitical leverage that comes with
Beijing’s massive aid and investment, the omnipresence of its firms and immigrants, and the burgeoning
flows of its money—overt and covert—to associations, parties, politicians, media, think tanks, and
universities abroad. Increasingly, these forms of influence seek to compromise the independence of
critical democratic institutions, stifle public criticism of China, and preempt foreign and defense policies
that could hinder China’s rise to global dominance. In the long run, the greatest external threats to
global democracy are the ambitions of a rising China, not the resentments of a falling Russia. China’s
global reach and power will increasingly and inevitably dwarf [outweigh] Russia’s. Through China’s
“hidden world of inducements, threats, and plausible deniability, ” as the Australian journalist and policy
adviser John Garnaut has put it, a quiet invasion is unfolding. 58 And all this is happening at just the
moment when Donald Trump’s United States is retreating from its decades-long role of global
leadership and when the American model of liberal democracy is decaying from within .
1AR – Russia
Election interference is superficial – won’t cause a real impact
Heckel & Tempest, '20 (Jodi Heckel is the Illinois News Bureau arts and humanities editor, they are
interviewing Richard Tempest who is a Slavic languages and literature professor at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, "What do Russians hope to gain from U.S. elections interference?," Illinois
News Bureau, 3-12-2020, https://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/807224, accessed 7-2-2020, SShaf)
Is election interference by Russia something new? The tradition of election interference goes back to the Cold War . In the immediate postwar period, the United States covertly
influenced elections in France and Italy to prevent Communists from coming to power. Afterward, the U.S. continued to try to influence election outcomes in foreign countries, and the Soviet Union did the same. In 1996, the United States wanted to make sure Russian president Boris
Yeltsin was reelected. Western political consultants and public relations specialists came to Russia and worked for the reelection of Yeltsin, while the Clinton administration made it abundantly clear Yeltsin was its preferred candidate. This has been going on for a good 70 years, continuing
It’s part of the strategic competition between the U.S. and Russia What
past the collapse of the Soviet Union. are the goals . do you believe
of Putin and Russia Disruption and division ? It’s not a master plan to destroy the credibility of – those are their priorities.
our election system let alone bring down American democracy It’s a low-rent, on-the-cheap, fly-by-night
, .
operation, designed to sow a bit of confusion . Their goals are to achieve the lifting of sanctions, which they suffer a great deal from and are very constrained by, and to have the acknowledgement of Russian
special interests across the former Soviet republics. They are worried about China, which is immensely more powerful than Russia and infiltrating central Asia. Russia is quite keen to find some way to restate its claim to supremacy in the former Soviet spaces, and to get Western
the Russians
recognition of the same. Do would
want to disrupt vote counting and reporting? Or do they want to spread fear that our voting system has been hacked and encourage people to believe our elections are illegitimate? My sense is they
prefer to create the impression rather than the reality of hacking . From the Russian perspective, that would be an elegant
solution it would leave no
. And fingerprints physical or electronic . What do their new tactics say about their use of social media for interference? The Russians are comfortable with 21st-century methods of disseminating
information, and they know how to operate at the interface between conspiracy theories, low-information voters and the tremendous, tribalized passions splitting the American electorate. They take advantage of opportunities that the internal politics of their competitors offer in order to
generate confusion and promote their own interests. Putin comes from the KGB, the Soviet security service. That’s a particular mindset. A conspiratorial way of thinking and acting is part of that makeup. Reports say the Russians have been active in the primary elections, trying to help
Bernie Sanders’ campaign, as well as supporting Donald Trump’s reelection. Are they trying to promote a particular candidate? They are promoting Donald Trump, but from entirely pragmatic considerations. Trump is a better choice for Russia than Joe Biden, who is seen as someone who
will follow in the tradition of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy doctrine. Also, as a neo-isolationist and a skeptic about the post-World War II system of U.S.-led alliances, Trump is seen by Russia as a useful president. Any support for Bernie Sanders is not because he’s a socialist. Nobody is
Russia
more capitalistic than the people running Russia right now. considers Sanders to be Biden's strongest rival and favors him for that reason only. What do you foresee in terms of interference in November’s general election? It will be similar to 2016, playing on the same
will inject into the political conversation ideas and concerns and fears and conspiracy theories to
divisions. They
promote the geopolitical concerns of Russia it’s something that won’t make a real difference . I think . But
whoever loses will, blame the Russians. This kind of interference is unlike organizing a coup in
can, and , say,
another country – something the U.S. and the Soviet Union used to do with some regularity.
1AR – Dems Fail – Filibuster
Nothing passes, even with the majority --- filibuster
Brownstein 19, senior editor @ The Atlantic (Ronald, “Abolishing the Filibuster Is Unavoidable for
Democrats,” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/democrats-filibuster-
2020/596572/)//BB
Even if Democrats regain unified control of the White House and Congress in 2020, the fate of their
ambitious legislative agenda will still likely hinge on a fundamental question: Do they try to end the
Senate filibuster? If the party chooses to keep the filibuster, it faces a daunting prospect: Democrats
elected primarily by voters in states at the forefront of the country’s demographic, cultural, and
economic changes will likely have their agenda blocked by Republican senators largely representing the
smaller, rural states least touched by all of those changes. In fact, since the Senate gives each state two
seats, the filibuster allows Republican senators from states representing only about one-fifth of the
country’s population to be in a position to stymie Democratic legislation. Although the Democratic 2020
contenders are promising sweeping action on issues ranging from gun control to immigration, none of
those proposals has any realistic chance of becoming law if the Senate rules requiring 60 votes to break
a filibuster remain in place. “The argument over the filibuster really crystallizes if you actually win and
you look out at the coming year,” says Adam Jentleson, who served as deputy chief of staff to former
Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid. On most issues, “you cannot count to 60 [votes] , period. It
becomes a very clear question of, Are we going to get anything done or not?” Such considerations led
Reid, in a striking op-ed last week, to urge Democrats to abolish the filibuster when they regain power—
and led Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to respond with an op-ed of his own defending the
rule. Democrats and Republicans alike have become more frustrated with the filibuster as the Senate
has grown more polarized since the 1980s. While defenders of the procedure have portrayed it as a
mechanism that forces the majority party to negotiate with the minority party, in contemporary
Washington, both parties have found it difficult to attract much support from the other for their
initiatives under any circumstance. As a result, the filibuster has become simply a means for the minority
to block the majority, rather than a spur to compromise. That led Democrats, when they controlled the
Senate in 2013, to eliminate the filibuster for nominations by the president, with the exception of
Supreme Court picks. Republicans then swept away that exception in 2017. But both sides have
hesitated at taking the momentous next step of eliminating the filibuster for all legislation. Yet the
widening demographic and geographic divide between the two parties is guaranteed to heighten the
pressure on Democrats to make that move if the 2020 election provides them with unified control in
Washington. In both the Senate and Electoral College, Republicans rely heavily on heartland states that
have a large number of white Christians, rural populations, few immigrants, strong gun cultures, and
major economic ties to the fossil-fuel economy. Democrats do better in states with fewer white
Christians, more racial minorities and immigrants, a more urbanized population, fewer guns, and an
economy less focused on fossil fuels. There are exceptions on each side. Big, diversifying Sun Belt states
—namely North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Arizona—still lean Republican, although all but
Florida are growing more competitive for Democrats. And Democrats are still favored or competitive in
several Midwest and northern states—including Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Vermont, New
Hampshire, and Pennsylvania—that have relatively few immigrants and strong gun cultures. But the
basic pattern is clear. Democrats represent what I call the “coalition of transformation”: the group of
voters most comfortable with the big changes remaking America. Republicans represent the “coalition
of restoration,” centered on the predominantly white voters uneasy with those changes. If Democrats
take back the Senate, preserving the filibuster amounts to providing the places most resistant to
America’s changes a veto over the agenda of the Democratic coalition based in the places that are most
welcoming to them. In a Senate controlled by Democrats, the filibuster would effectively empower what
America has been over what it is becoming. “More and more Democratic activists are picking up on the
fact that the filibuster, either by purpose or unintended consequences, is benefiting a certain amount of
small-population states,” says Jim Manley, a former top aide to Reid and late Senator Ted Kennedy of
Massachusetts. “There’s an inherent unfairness to the Senate that more and more people are focusing
on.” That structural imbalance is most apparent when looking at four issues near the top of the priority
list for most 2020 Democratic contenders: gun control, immigration, climate change, and democratic
reform. Gun control may be the most pointed of the four. Polls consistently show that roughly 90
percent of Americans support a requirement for universal background checks on all gun sales, including
those at gun shows and on the internet. After the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio,
support for an assault-weapons ban has crossed 60 percent in several recent surveys. Yet such measures
have essentially no chance of passing the Senate, because so many Republicans representing states
with strong gun cultures feel little pressure to respond to that national majority. Gun ownership by state
is difficult to quantify precisely, but one study from 2015 ranked states on the share of residents who
owned guns. In 19 states, the researchers found, at least 35 percent of the adult population owned
guns. Republicans now hold 27 of the 38 Senate seats from those states. In another 10 states, at least 30
percent of the population owned guns, and Republicans hold 17 of those 20 seats. Democrats hold 33 of
the remaining 42 seats in the 21 states where less than 30 percent of the population owns guns. But
those 21 states with the lowest rates of gun ownership contain well over twice as many people as the 19
states with the highest rates. In fact, their population (176 million) is substantially larger than all 29
states where at least 30 percent of adults own guns (147 million). But the Republican dominance in
those states with lots of gun owners easily gives them enough votes to sustain a filibuster against any
gun-control measure. That prospect leads Dan Pfeiffer, who was the White House communications
director under President Barack Obama, to predict that gun control is the issue most likely to ignite a
demand to end the filibuster, “because it is so urgent, has so much public support, and is the perfect
example of why the filibuster is antidemocratic.” Similar dynamics govern the prospects for action on
climate change. Polls show that a majority of Americans believe that the climate is changing, that human
activity is a contributor, and that the federal government should do more to respond. But what I’ve
called a “brown blockade” in the Senate makes it virtually impossible for any meaningful climate action
to overcome a filibuster. Republicans now hold 35 of the 40 Senate seats in the 20 states that emit the
most carbon per dollar of economic activity, which are mostly heartland states that are large energy
producers, large manufacturers, or both, according to government figures. Republicans also hold 12 of
the 20 Senate seats from the next 10 states that emit the most carbon per dollar. Democrats control 34
of the 40 seats from the 20 lowest-emitting states, most of which are coastal and have transitioned
toward a greater reliance on renewable power. But once again, the Republican strength in the higher-
emitting states gives the party the numbers to filibuster almost any climate initiative. Immigration
presents the same picture. For years, polls have found that about two-thirds or more of Americans
support a comprehensive plan that would provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented
immigrants without a criminal record, while tightening enforcement at the border. In both 2006 and
2013, Democrats attracted enough Republican votes to cross the 60-vote threshold and pass
comprehensive immigration reform. (Each time, the GOP-controlled House refused to consider the
measure.) But after Donald Trump’s success at making the GOP more nativist, it’s not clear that enough
Republicans would again join a narrow Democratic majority in 2021 to pass such legislation. That’s
especially true because, when it comes to immigration, once again, Republicans overwhelmingly
represent the parts of America least touched by change. Forty-five of the 53 Republican senators
represent the 30 states with the smallest share of foreign-born residents in their population, according
to census figures. Democrats hold 32 of the 40 seats in the 20 states with the highest share of
immigrants. And among those few Republicans in high-immigrant states, GOP senators in Arizona and
Colorado, and more distantly Texas, will be among the Democrats’ top targets in 2020. The tensions on
these issues would be compounded for a Democratic Senate majority come 2021 because they largely
align the same states on each side of the divide. Of the 30 states that emit the most carbon per dollar of
economic activity, 26 also rank in the bottom 30 for immigrant population. Twenty-three of the high-
carbon states also rank in the top 29 for gun ownership. In all, 20 states meet each of these thresholds
as high-carbon, low-immigrant, and high-gun places: Wyoming, Montana, Utah, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Louisiana,
Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Alaska. Of the 40 Senate seats across these states,
Republicans now hold 36 of them, which comes close to the 41 votes needed to sustain a filibuster on
any of these issues. Republicans also hold all four Senate seats in two other solidly GOP states that meet
the criteria for low immigration and high carbon output, but not high gun ownership—Nebraska and
Missouri. At that point, Republicans from the states least touched by change would need only a single
vote from any other senator to reach the 41-vote threshold required to sustain a filibuster. That means
that even if Democrats recapture unified control of government, they face the real threat that the same
states, many of them smaller and disproportionately white and Christian, c ould block almost all of their
goals—even though these 22 states contain only about 70 million people, only about one-fifth of the
national population. This equation isn’t likely to change much in 2020: Iowa and possibly Montana are
the only states among those 22 with Senate seats up for grabs that Democrats have a serious chance to
contest, and Democrats face a tough challenge to Senator Doug Jones of Alabama.
Dems won’t eliminate it---fear of it flipping back

Brownstein 19, senior editor @ The Atlantic (Ronald, “Abolishing the Filibuster Is Unavoidable for
Democrats,” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/democrats-filibuster-
2020/596572/)//BB
Many Democrats, especially those in the Senate, are hesitant about ending the filibuster if they indeed
get the chance. Only a few of the 2020 candidates have urged its elimination , Senator Elizabeth Warren
of Massachusetts most forthrightly. The hesitation partly reflects a respect for tradition. But Democrats
also fear forging a weapon that could soon be used against them. And in fact, recent history suggests
that Senate majorities are fragile: Neither party has controlled the Senate for more than eight
consecutive years since 1980, the longest period of such instability since the turbulent decades
immediately after the Civil War. “If you play the long game, there is no guarantee the Democrats are
going to control the Senate for any length of time,” Manley told me. “We could be in a period where the
Senate keeps on flipping back and forth ; when one party gets the majority, t hey are just going to try to
undo what the previous party did.”
1AR – Base L/T
Republicans are capitalizing on the perceived extremism of criminal justice reform to
paint democrats as radicals – the plan makes republicans “guilty” of the same reforms
which hurts GOP election strategy
Bierschbach, 6-9 – Briana Bierschbach is a Political Reporter at the Star Tribune and former member
of the Associated Press (“Republicans pounce on Minneapolis push to dismantle the police”, Star
Tribune, 6-9-2020, available online at: https://www.startribune.com/republicans-pounce-on-mpls-push-
to-dismantle-police/571116482/ or at https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news/nation/republicans-
pounce-on-minneapolis-push-to-dismantle-the-police/article_68de17e6-3741-59fb-8761-
08f3a02a5c2e.html )//CM
But the issue of dismantling the Minneapolis police in some form will be particularly challenging for
Democrats in rural districts that lean Republican. Sen. Kent Eken, DFL-Twin Valley, represents a rural
district in northwestern Minnesota where he said the police department is respected in the
community. “I’ve always had concerns about painting things with a broad brush, and I do feel that in
greater Minnesota and our rural communities, law enforcement is integrated into our communities and
very involved in our communities,” Eken said. “I don’t want to see a situation where the state takes over
implementing statewide approaches that are all based on what’s happening in Minneapolis. I’ve always
been an advocate of more local control.” Republicans in the Legislature are calling on Democrats in
control of the House to hold hearings on the proposal to dismantle the police during a likely upcoming
special session on Friday. And in campaigns, they are using the push in Minneapolis to paint all
Democrats, from top to bottom, as “extreme.” “It’s rare that a statement by a single City Council can
reverberate not just through state politics but through national politics so rapidly,” said Steven Schier, a
retired Carleton College political science professor. “It’s going to be an issue in state politics and you can
bet that Republicans are going to be bringing it up time and again.” Facing a crucial election year, with
control of the Legislature up for grabs, as well as a U.S. Senate seat and all eight congressional seats,
both sides will be navigating a new mood in racial politics and voters’ perceptions of policing. Republican
candidate Tyler Kistner, running against DFL U.S. Rep. Angie Craig in a suburban swing district this fall,
called on her to denounce the move by the Minneapolis City Council, saying law enforcement “deserves
our support, not to become the target of extreme ideas and ridicule.” Craig is serving her first term in
Congress and represents a district Republicans have already been targeting. “When it comes to
protecting Minnesota’s families and neighborhoods — we very much need our firefighters, police
officers and first responders,” she said. “We need real reform, but eliminating them is not the answer.”
DEMOCRACY BAD DA
2AC – Democracy Bad DA – T/L
1) The plan won’t save democracy – the last 4 years of Trump, conservative packing,
locking kids in cages, removing refugee programs, deportation, ending legal asylum,
xenophobia, and systematic racism ALL outweigh the action of a single policing
reform.
2) Abortion, LGBTQ+, BLM protests, impeachment investigations, and civil rights

movements thump – they ALL improved global perceptions of an equal America and
that everybody should be treated fairly – EVEN the president.
3) Democracy solves a laundry list of impacts---economic growth, public goods,

alliances, and war---the US is key.
Lee ’18 (Carrie; is an assistant professor at the U.S. Air War College and a Security Fellow with Truman
National Security Project. Any views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official
policy or position of the U.S. government, the Department of Defense, Air University, or Truman
National Security Project; The Truman Project; September 10th; “Why Democracy Promotion is in the
Strategic Interest of the United States”; https://medium.com/truman-doctrine-blog/why-democracy-
promotion-is-in-the-strategic-interest-of-the-united-states-ae959c111b2f; accessed 7/9/19; ME)
However, reducing the United States’ emphasis on a values-driven foreign policy is wrong, and contrary to
the strategic interests of the United States . Democracy promotion in particular serves a key role in
safeguarding U.S. interests and promoting global, long-term growth in ways fundamentally compatible
with U.S. strategic interests. After all, democracies protect private property in important ways, invest in
public goods, are more politically stable, make for more dependable allies, and empirically do not go to
war with one another. Ultimately, a world full of democratic governments is safer, more prosperous, and more stable — all states of
being that the United States has an interest in promoting.
Democracy guarantees that the public has a stake in its own institutions and government, which leads to
investor confidence and growth. Since elected politicians are accountable to property owners and are
held in check by an independent judiciary, democracies tend to have better mechanisms for protecting
private property than their autocratic counterparts. This makes democracies a particularly attractive
type of country for investors — both public and private — because checks and balances make it difficult
for the state to nationalize industries . Further, private property rights protected by the legal system
encourage entrepreneurship and small business development, both of which are key to a growing and
modernizing economy. As a result, democracies tend to be wealthier and more economically stable than
their autocratic counterparts. This is fundamentally in the interest of the United States in that both private and public investors have
an interest in seeing returns on their investments, thereby potentially making countries less willing to go to war if
that would require severing economic ties. Democratic institutions ensure that citizens with both economic and political power
are heard.
Democracies also invest in public goods at much higher rates than autocratic governments. Because
politicians must cater to the median voter, they approve policies that invest in public education and
healthcare, both of which promote long-term growth and development . Public education invests in a country’s
human capital, setting the stage for long-term innovation, adaptability, and advancement. Public
healthcare, meanwhile, has
been shown to increase overall societal productivity and well-being as people take fewer sick days,
citizens are able to afford their healthcare without going bankrupt, and ultimately, the overall costs of
healthcare are driven down as citizens become healthier. Productive, innovative societies are also better for the United
States — innovation around the world improves global quality of life, results in more educational and
vocational opportunities for Americans (both because other universities and jobs become more attractive to Americans who
want to go abroad and because potential immigrants are more likely to want to stay in their own country, opening up opportunities for U.S.
citizens at home), and may reduce friction between countries over resources and labor .
Democracies are also generally more politically stable because regular election cycles ensure an
established process for the habitual and peaceful removal of leaders from power. Elections ensure the
non-violent transition of power and reduce the need for mass protest, rioting, and revolution — which
makes countries more politically stable. Further, when citizens are granted rights and protections from government abuse,
enforced by an independent judiciary, they have fewer grievances against the government and are thus less able to mobilize large numbers of
people to violently overthrow the regime. Revolution,
while not always violent, often leads to political instability,
challenges to growth, increased incentives for diversionary war and conflict, and oftentimes civil war.
The externalities of civil war and international conflict then put pressure on the United States to intervene, protect human rights, and otherwise
expend resources on other countries’ issues. Further,
civil wars are highly destructive to institutions, human capital,
and resources, and can have significant security spillover effects, increasing global risk of political
instability and violent extremism.
This political stability, in addition to institutional checks and balances, makes democracies better
international partners and allies in the long-term. Treaties ratified by multiple branches of government are more durable
than executive agreements signed by a single leader who may be replaced within a short period of time. While democracies may be
more reluctant to commit to alliances and formal security pacts, once a party to them, they are more
dependable than other states with concentrated power at the executive level . These kind of durable
commitments are of interest to the United States as it seeks to preserve the liberal world order; it is
far more effective to ally with partners whose institutions make withdrawal from the alliance costly .
Finally, it
has been empirically observed that democracies do not go to war with one another. While there is a
robust debate around the exact nature of the so-called “democratic peace,” it appears that there are qualities particular to
democracies that make war between them particularly unlikely: a dovish public constrains leaders’
ability to wage war, competitive elections and a free press make it easier to credibly communicate
resolve to potential adversaries, consolidated democracies tend to be more wealthy and economically
interdependent, like-minded people are more hesitant to wage war against one another, and so on .
Regardless of the precise mechanisms, however, a world of democracies is inherently safer, more prosperous, and less
likely to initiate a war against the United States — a key factor in protecting American security and
interests.
4) No international modeling –
A) America is Garbo – a declining economy, loss in workers’ rights, increased
unemployment, Trumpian authoritarianism, and internal divisions makes the US look
terminally unsustainable now.
B) Politics – reforms are perceived internationally as Trump’s political stunts to gain
voters rather than a true invigoration of American democracy.
5) Last century of growing democracy thumps – should have triggered contextualize.

OR it proves that democracy solves – contextualize.
1AR – Empirics
There is no other explanation for declining violence.
Dafoe and Russett 13, Allen Dafoe and Bruce Russett, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale
and Dean Acheson Research Professor of International Relations and Political Science at Yale, Assessing
the Capitalist Peace, p.110, October 2013, ME)
The democratic peace—the empirical association between democracy and peace—is an extremely
robust finding. More generally, many liberal factors are associated with peace and many explanations have been offered for these associations,
including the effects of: liberal norms, democratic signaling, credible commitments, the free press, economic interdependence, declining benefits of
conquest, signaling via capital markets, constraints on the state, constraints on leaders, and others. Scholars
are still mapping the
contours of the liberal peace, and we remain a long way from fully understanding the respective
influence of these different candidate causal mechanisms. All this being said, the robustness of the
democratic peace, as one interrelated empirical aspect of the liberal peace, is impressive . The
democratic peace has been interrogated for over two decades and no one has been able to identify an
alternative factor that accounts for it in cross-national statistical analyses . Democracy in any two
countries (joint democracy) has been shown to be robustly negatively associated with militarized interstate
disputes (MIDs), fatal MIDs, crises, escalation, and wars. The democratic peace is for good reason widely
cited and regarded as one of the most productive research programs .
1AR – Thumpers
Thumpers – Obama, women’s rights, LGBTQ movements, civil rights, and a decline in
racism were inspiration that didn’t trigger the impact – we read RED.
1NC Haass 6/5 Richard, president of the Council on Foreign Relations since July 2003, prior to which
he was Director of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State and a close advisor to
Secretary of State Colin Powell, Foreign Affairs, “Foreign Policy By Example: Crisis at Home Makes the
United States Vulnerable Abroad” June 5, 2020 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-
states/2020-06-05/protests-pandemic-world-watching
Analysts of international affairs rarely focus on how the domestic condition of the United States shapes the country’s influence and role in the
world, but today the connection could hardly be more relevant. The United States is currently experiencing three upheavals simultaneously: the COVID-19
pandemic, the economic aftershocks of that emergency, and the political protests and in some cases violence sparked by the videotape of the killing of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African
American man, by police officers in Minneapolis. The three crises of this moment will undoubtedly affect the foreign policy of the U nited States, which for three-quarters of a century has been the
preeminent power in the world. Indeed, recent developments could have a profound and enduring impact on American influence. Unless the United States is
able to come together to address its persistent societal and political divides, global prospects for democracy may weaken, friends and allies of
the United States may rethink their decision to place their security in American hands , and competitors may dispense with some or all of their traditional caution. THE WORLD IS
WATCHING The example the United States sets at home and the image it projects abroad can either magnify American power or detract from it . For all that
foreign policy is commonly understood to be the province of officials and diplomats—consultations, negotiations, communiques, démarches, summits, and more—foreign policy by example is no less real. Through
example, a country communicates its values and furnishes a context for all that its representatives say and do . At times, the United States has stood as a paradigm
to countries that demanded accountability from their leaders; at other times, the United States has failed to live up to its highest ideals and thereby undermined its calls for other countries to treat their people better. Today’s
American travails have been widely seen and heard outside the United States. Globalization is a conveyor belt—one that in this instance carried
stark images of police brutality across the globe. If one lesson of COVID-19 is that what starts in Wuhan does not stay in Wuhan, one lesson of the killing of George Floyd is that what happens in
Minneapolis does not stay there. Comparisons between the current situation and the United States of 1968 are overdrawn, in no small part because what is going on now is arguably more serious, but one mantra from that time
“The Whole World is Watching.” As if to prove that point, spontaneous demonstrations against racism and police brutality have sprung up around American embassies in Europe and elsewhere. But
remains apt:
Confidence in the American example has been waning for years, the result of prolonged political division and
the context in which they did so is worth elucidating.
dysfunction within the United States—the pervasive gun-related violence that no other society allows or can identify with, the prevalence of opioid addiction and related deaths, the financial mismanagement
that led to enormous global hardship in the crisis of 2008, the rise of inequality, the poor infrastructure that greets most visitors to the country, and much else. U.S. President Donald Trump, moreover, has proven to be as
controversial, and in many cases as unpopular, abroad as he is at home. The American response to the COVID-19 pandemic reinforced doubts about American competence. That the novel coronavirus would reach American shores
was inevitable, given the nature of the pathogen and the initial failure of both China and the World Health Organization (WHO) to contain it and warn the world of it. What was not inevitable was that the disease would take the toll
it did. The lack of protective equipment for first responders and hospital staff; the inability to produce at scale accurate, quick tests for either the virus or the antibodies; the delayed and then inconsistent messaging about wearing
The United States has long
masks and social distancing—these failures are the country’s own. The result is more than 100,000 fatalities, millions of infections, and a deadly American course no one wishes to follow.
retained many positive features when seen from abroad: excellent universities, innovative companies, and a tradition (currently compromised)
of openness to immigration. The
election of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 seemed to show that racism had
abated to a significant degree; the gains of the civil, women’s, and gay rights movements were a
source of inspiration elsewhere; and even the country’s multiple experiences with impeachment
seemed to showcase a system in which no person was above the law. Now, however, the image of a United States
consistent with former President Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” grows ever more distant in the eyes of the world. As that image
recedes, the capacity diminishes for the United States to present itself as a model for others to emulate. So, too, does the ability of the United States to criticize or
pressure other countries for their failings. A good deal of evidence suggests that Chinese leader Xi Jinping was on the defensive at home for China’s initial inadequate response to the COVID-19 outbreak. But the United States’ poor
The current
showing essentially took Xi off the hook, as invidious comparisons could not be drawn. For all of Washington’s talk, it squandered the opportunity to take a tough stance vis-à-vis China on the pandemic.
political crisis, moreover, has likewise hindered U.S. prospects for promoting and protecting democracies abroad . Human rights and democracy
promotion have long been a staple of American foreign policy—partly for normative reasons, because Americans believe that such principles enhance the meaning and value of life, and partly
for practical reasons, because many U.S. policymakers believe that democracies act with restraint not just toward their own citizens but toward others and in so doing, make the world less violent. Now, democracy is in
recession around the world, and the ability of the U nited States to arrest that retreat is likewise in decline. A case in point is China, which has
countered Washington’s criticism of its actions in Hong Kong by pointing to U.S. behavior at home. What happened in Washington, D.C. on Monday night, June 1, was
particularly consequential in this regard. A peaceful protest in the public space across from the White House was broken up, not because it was a threat to order but to serve a political purpose. The White House made a bad
situation worse by deploying military units to Washington. But the rights of free speech and assembly, including public protest, are constitutionally guaranteed and stand at the core of American democracy. Public trust requires
that federal law enforcement agencies and the military not be politicized. Terrible images from that night traveled across the world. Not lost on either international viewers or American citizens was the dangerous precedent the
The turmoil in the United States, set before the eyes of the world, raises
incident set in a country just five months away from what is sure to be a hard-fought election. POWER IN RETREAT
questions about American power. To distinguish between absolute power and available power is useful here. The country’s absolute power, above all military and economic power, is still considerable. The
bigger question concerns its available power. Is a country with 42 million people unemployed, a declining GDP, shuttered factories, widespread protest that at
times turns violent, and deep internal divisions in a position to act internationally ?
1AR – No Modeling
No international modeling – unemployment, declining GDP, factories, protests, and
internal divisions – we read RED.
1NC Haass 6/5 Richard, president of the Council on Foreign Relations since July 2003, prior to which
he was Director of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State and a close advisor to
Secretary of State Colin Powell, Foreign Affairs, “Foreign Policy By Example: Crisis at Home Makes the
United States Vulnerable Abroad” June 5, 2020 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-
states/2020-06-05/protests-pandemic-world-watching
Analysts of international affairs rarely focus on how the domestic condition of the United States shapes the country’s influence and role in the
world, but today the connection could hardly be more relevant. The United States is currently experiencing three upheavals simultaneously: the COVID-19
pandemic, the economic aftershocks of that emergency, and the political protests and in some cases violence sparked by the videotape of the killing of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African
American man, by police officers in Minneapolis. The three crises of this moment will undoubtedly affect the foreign policy of the U nited States, which for three-quarters of a century has been the
preeminent power in the world. Indeed, recent developments could have a profound and enduring impact on American influence. Unless the United States is
able to come together to address its persistent societal and political divides, global prospects for democracy may weaken, friends and allies of
the United States may rethink their decision to place their security in American hands , and competitors may dispense with some or all of their traditional caution. THE WORLD IS
WATCHING The example the United States sets at home and the image it projects abroad can either magnify American power or detract from it . For all that
foreign policy is commonly understood to be the province of officials and diplomats—consultations, negotiations, communiques, démarches, summits, and more—foreign policy by example is no less real. Through
example, a country communicates its values and furnishes a context for all that its representatives say and do . At times, the United States has stood as a paradigm
to countries that demanded accountability from their leaders; at other times, the United States has failed to live up to its highest ideals and thereby undermined its calls for other countries to treat their people better. Today’s
American travails have been widely seen and heard outside the United States. Globalization is a conveyor belt—one that in this instance carried
stark images of police brutality across the globe. If one lesson of COVID-19 is that what starts in Wuhan does not stay in Wuhan, one lesson of the killing of George Floyd is that what happens in
Minneapolis does not stay there. Comparisons between the current situation and the United States of 1968 are overdrawn, in no small part because what is going on now is arguably more serious, but one mantra from that time
“The Whole World is Watching.” As if to prove that point, spontaneous demonstrations against racism and police brutality have sprung up around American embassies in Europe and elsewhere. But
remains apt:
Confidence in the American example has been waning for years, the result of prolonged political division and
the context in which they did so is worth elucidating.
dysfunction within the United States—the pervasive gun-related violence that no other society allows or can identify with, the prevalence of opioid addiction and related deaths, the financial mismanagement
that led to enormous global hardship in the crisis of 2008, the rise of inequality, the poor infrastructure that greets most visitors to the country, and much else. U.S. President Donald Trump, moreover, has proven to be as
controversial, and in many cases as unpopular, abroad as he is at home. The American response to the COVID-19 pandemic reinforced doubts about American competence. That the novel coronavirus would reach American shores
was inevitable, given the nature of the pathogen and the initial failure of both China and the World Health Organization (WHO) to contain it and warn the world of it. What was not inevitable was that the disease would take the toll
it did. The lack of protective equipment for first responders and hospital staff; the inability to produce at scale accurate, quick tests for either the virus or the antibodies; the delayed and then inconsistent messaging about wearing
The United States has long
masks and social distancing—these failures are the country’s own. The result is more than 100,000 fatalities, millions of infections, and a deadly American course no one wishes to follow.
retained many positive features when seen from abroad: excellent universities, innovative companies, and a tradition (currently compromised)
of openness to immigration. The election of Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 seemed to show that racism had abated to a significant degree;
the gains of the civil, women’s, and gay rights movements were a source of inspiration elsewhere; and even the country’s multiple
experiences with impeachment seemed to showcase a system in which no person was above the law. Now, however, the image of a United States
consistent with former President Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” grows ever more distant in the eyes of the world. As that image
recedes, the capacity diminishes for the United States to present itself as a model for others to emulate. So, too, does the ability of the United States to criticize or
pressure other countries for their failings. A good deal of evidence suggests that Chinese leader Xi Jinping was on the defensive at home for China’s initial inadequate response to the COVID-19 outbreak. But the United States’ poor
The current
showing essentially took Xi off the hook, as invidious comparisons could not be drawn. For all of Washington’s talk, it squandered the opportunity to take a tough stance vis-à-vis China on the pandemic.
political crisis, moreover, has likewise hindered U.S. prospects for promoting and protecting democracies abroad . Human rights and democracy
promotion have long been a staple of American foreign policy—partly for normative reasons, because Americans believe that such principles enhance the meaning and value of life, and partly
for practical reasons, because many U.S. policymakers believe that democracies act with restraint not just toward their own citizens but toward others and in so doing, make the world less violent. Now, democracy is in
recession around the world, and the ability of the U nited States to arrest that retreat is likewise in decline. A case in point is China, which has
countered Washington’s criticism of its actions in Hong Kong by pointing to U.S. behavior at home. What happened in Washington, D.C. on Monday night, June 1, was
particularly consequential in this regard. A peaceful protest in the public space across from the White House was broken up, not because it was a threat to order but to serve a political purpose. The White House made a bad
situation worse by deploying military units to Washington. But the rights of free speech and assembly, including public protest, are constitutionally guaranteed and stand at the core of American democracy. Public trust requires
that federal law enforcement agencies and the military not be politicized. Terrible images from that night traveled across the world. Not lost on either international viewers or American citizens was the dangerous precedent the
The turmoil in the United States, set before the eyes of the world, raises
incident set in a country just five months away from what is sure to be a hard-fought election. POWER IN RETREAT
questions about American power. To distinguish between absolute power and available power is useful here. The country’s absolute power, above all military and economic power, is still considerable. The
. Is
a country with 42 million people unemployed, a declining GDP, shuttered
bigger question concerns its available power
factories, widespread protest that at times turns violent, and deep internal divisions in a position to
act internationally?
SECESSION DA
2AC – Secession DA – T/L
No risk of mass secessions.
Rosecrance and Stein, 8 (Richard, Adjunct Professor of Public Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of
Government and Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, both at Harvard
University and Arthur Stein, Professor of Political Science at UCLA [Foreign Affairs] July/August 2008)
More important, the nationalist prospect was and remains hopelessly impractical. In the world today, there
are 6,800 different dialects or languages that might gain political recognition as independent linguistic groups. Does anyone seriously suggest
that the 200 or so existing states should each, on average, be cut into 34 pieces? The doctrine of national self-determination reaches its reductio ad absurdum at
this point. Furthermore, the one-nation, one-state principle is unlikely to prevail for four good reasons. First ,
governments today are more responsive to their ethnic minority communities than were the imperial
agglomerations of yesteryear, and they also have more resources at their disposal than their predecessors did. Many
provinces populated by discontented ethnic groups are located in territories adjacent to national capitals, not overseas. And many governments in this era of
globalization have annual budgets equivalent to nearly 50 percent of their GDPs, much of which is spent on social services. They can -- and do -- accommodate the
economic needs of their states' differentiated units. They also respond to those units' linguistic requests. Basques, Bretons, Punjabis, Québecois, and Scots live quite
well inside the bonds of multinational sovereignty and in some cases better than residents of other provinces with no claims of being a distinct nation.
Second , the achievement of separate sovereignty today depends on external recognition and support.
Prospective new states cannot gain independence without military assistance and economic aid from
abroad. International recognition, in turn, requires the aspiring nationalist movement to avoid international terrorism as a means of gaining attention. If a
separatist group uses terrorism, it tends to be reviled and sidelined. If an ethnic group does not have enough support to win
independence by peaceful electoral means inside its country, its resorting to terrorism only calls into question the legitimacy of its quest for independence.
Recognizing this, the Québecois abandoned the terrorist methods of the Quebec Liberation Front. Most Basques castigate Basque Homeland and Freedom (known
by its Basque acronym ETA). Enlightened Europeans have withdrawn their support for the Chechen rebels. And the continued terrorist shelling of Israeli cities from a
Hamas-dominated Gaza might undermine the previous international consensus in favor of a two-state solution to the Palestinian problem, or at least warrant an
exceptional approach to Gaza. With the possible exception of the Palestinians, the notion that any of these peoples would be better off in smaller and weaker
independent states in a hostile neighborhood is unrealistic. Occasionally, dissidents make the case that if they were to leave the state unit, they would be taken into
the comforting embrace of the European Union or the North American Free Trade Agreement, thereby gaining access to a large market. But that would depend a
great deal on outsider support for their cause. The United Kingdom might not wish to see Scotland in the EU and would be in a position to veto its membership.
The United States and Canada might not agree to let an independent Quebec join NAFTA. The belief that when a
tiny nation is born it falls automatically into the loving hands of international midwives is questionable. The truth varies from case to case. Third, although
globalization initially stimulated ethnic discontent by creating inequality, it also provides the means for quieting discontents down the road within the fold of the
state political system. Distributed economic growth is a palliative for political discontent. Indonesia,
Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand
contain different ethnic groups that have largely profited from the intense economic resurgence of their
states stimulated by globalization. Northern and southern Vietnam are culturally different, but both have benefited from the country's economic
growth. Cambodia has a diverse population, but it has gained greatly from China's move to externalize some of its production. Fourth , a discontented
population may react to ethnic discrimination, but it also responds to economic need, and whatever
its concerns, it does not always have
to seek independence to alleviate them. It has another safety valve: emigration to another country. The
state of Monterrey has not sought independence from Mexico; rather, many of its inhabitants have moved, legally or illegally, to the United States. The huge
emigration from the Maghreb to France and Italy reflects a similar attitude and outcome; the dissatisfied populations of North Africa can find greater welfare in
Europe. And when Poles move to France or the United Kingdom, they do not secede from the mother country but demonstrate greater satisfaction with French or
British rule. Emigration is the overwhelming alternative to secession when the home government does not sufficiently mitigate economic disparities. Even
where the central government has used force to suppress secessionist movements, it has offered carrots
at the same time that it has yielded sticks. The province of Aceh has been coaxed, even as it has been subjected to threats, to remain inside
the Indonesian republic. Kashmir, facing a balance of restraints and incentives, is unlikely to emerge as an independent state in India. And the Tamil Tigers have lost
the sympathy of the world by their slaughter of innocent Sinhalese. The recent formation of an "independent" Kosovo, which has not yet been recognized by
various key countries, does not foretell the similar arrival of other new states. It is unlikely that Abkhazia or South Ossetia, although largely autonomous in fact, will
gain full and formal independence from Georgia or that the Albanian areas of Macedonia will secede.
Rather, prospective secessionists , dissuaded by both central governments and the international
community, are likely to hold back. Indeed, the most plausible future outcome is that both established states and their international supporters
will generally act to prevent a proliferation of new states from entering the international system.
No impact to global secession – won’t escalate, mediation solves.
Tyson Chatagnier 14, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Bruno Kessler Foundation's Center for
Research on International Politics and Conflict Resolution and Adjunct Professor of International
Relations at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, 4/28/14, “Secession on the
International Stage,” http://www.insidesources.com/secession-on-the-international-stage/
So what is to be made of the recent popularity of secession attempts across the globe? In general, they are likely a
symptom of discontent, rather than a cause. As the global recession continues, it is possible that we will continue to witness a growth in the
number of regions that express a desire to sever ties from their respective homelands. Fortunately, however, these
movements, in
general, should not be especially destabilizing , as they tend to be responses to perceived problems,
rather than opportunistic attempts to cash in on someone else’s success. The genesis of a secession movement,
then, should be relatively predictable for someone who knows the region. Additionally, whether they succeed or fail,
these movements are usually peaceful . This has certainly been the case in Scotland and Veneto, and to a
lesser extent, it describes Crimea as well. Thus, even if the state of global affairs continues to degenerate,
resulting in a massive number of separatists , if history is any guide, then we can expect most of them to
express their grievances in a peaceful and cooperative way . The US and the international community at
large can best respond by facilitating communication between secessionists and their governments , in order
to help the two sides come to a mutually acceptable agreement .
CONSTITUTIONALISM DA
AT: Constitutionalism DA
Thesis is wrong.
The arguments against expanding tribal court jurisdiction through legislation are the same as those
offered when tribal VAWA jurisdiction was originally proposed. One argument against tribal courts
prosecuting nonIndians is that non-Indians have allegedly never been subjected to tribal criminal
jurisdiction.190 Similarly, it has been argued that tribal self-government only includes tribal authority
over Indians.191 Along these lines, it has been asserted that tribal court jurisdiction over non-Indians
violates the social contract because non-Indians have not consented to tribal court jurisdiction.192 The
Bill of Rights does not apply of its own force to Indian tribes,193 so some opponents of tribal jurisdiction
claim that non-Indians will be denied their constitutional rights in tribal courts.194 Opponents of tribal
court jurisdiction over non-Indians also contend that tribal juries can not treat non-Indians fairly,195 and
some contend tribal law itself is incomprehensible to non-Indians.196 These arguments all fail.
The most easily rebutted claim is the argument that tribes never exercised jurisdiction over non-Indians.
In fact, tribes historically applied their criminal laws to any person who perpetrated a crime within their
territory.197 Early treaties between the United States and Indian tribes expressly recognized tribal
criminal authority over non-Indians.198 The United States even turned over white fugitives to tribes for
criminal prosecutions during the early and mid-1800s.199 Accordingly, the congressionally created
American Indian Policy Review Commission concluded in 1977 that “[t]here is an established legal basis
for tribes to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians.”200 Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe is the only source
that says otherwise.201 As discussed above, Oliphant has been the subject of immense scholarly
criticism for its factual errors and the racism underlying its reasoning.202
The constitutional arguments against tribal courts prosecuting non-Indians lack force. Of course, it is
true that Indian tribes have never consented to the Constitution and therefore are not constrained by
it.203 This means the Bill of Rights does not apply in tribal court proceedings.204 Nonetheless, Indian
tribes are bound by ICRA, and ICRA’s provisions afford defendants in tribal court proceedings
protections that are nearly identical to the Bill of Rights.205 Indeed, the Court in Oliphant admitted
ICRA extirpates fears of tribes trampling non-Indian rights.206 Furthermore, the plain text of VAWA
mandates that tribal courts provide non-Indians with full constitutional rights.207 Based upon ICRA and
the language of VAWA, a group of law professors wrote in support of VAWA that “no defendant in tribal
court will be denied Constitutional rights that would be afforded in state or federal courts.”208
Concerns that non-Indians will be denied constitutional rights in tribal courts should be allayed by the
fact that tribes have been prosecuting non-Indians for over five years, and no non-Indian has alleged
that a tribal court has violated his rights.209
DEFENDANT RIGHTS DA
2AC – Defendant Rights DA – T/L
Tribal courts have procedural rights.
*Begin Footnote 152*

152 See 142 CONG. REC. E1704 (daily ed. Sept. 26, 1996) (statement of Rep. Henry J. Hyde) (“I want to say emphatically that it is only right that
[tribal] courts should provide all of the constitutional protections required by law, including basic due process. The consistent enforcement of
constitutional norms is particularly important if the tribal courts are to have jurisdiction over nonmembers who have only tangential
relationships with the tribes.”); Molly Ball, Why Would Anyone Oppose the Violence Against Women Act?, ATLANTIC (Feb. 12, 2013),
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/why-would-any one-oppose-the-violence-against-women-act/273103/ (discussing how
senators may have voted against VAWA because tribal courts do not provide adequate protection for defendants). Contra Milner S. Ball, Stories
of Origin and Constitutional Possibilities, 87 MICH. L. REV. 2280, 2306 (1989). It should also be noted that procedural
individual rights in tribal courts have existed for decades. See U.S. COMM’N ON CIVIL RIGHTS, THE INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT: A REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 1, 11–12 & nn.36–43 (1991) ( cataloguing tribal court opinions
pertaining to the right to a trial by jury, to a fair and speedy trial, to the right to counsel, to reasonable
search and seizure, to adequate jail conditions, to due process in the administration of justice, and to freedom from
fines).
*End Footnote 152*
Tribal courts maintain defendant rights – the idea they don’t is ridiculous.
Fears that non-Indians will be unable to receive a fair trial before a tribal jury lack foundation and are
sardonic. The unease about tribal courts prosecuting non-Indians seems to be predicated on the belief that Indians
will seek revenge for historic injustices if given the chance.215 Evidence for this proposition is scant; in fact, research
shows that tribal courts treat nonIndians fairly.216 Many reservations are majority non-Indian, and some
tribes allow non-Indians to participate in juries in all cases.217 Significantly, tribes prosecuting non-Indians
under VAWA are expressly forbidden from excluding non-Indians from jury pools.218 And, when Indians are
the defendant in state and federal court, seldom is a single Indian on the jury, yet Indian pleas for a jury
of their peers have been uniformly rejected in this scenario.219 According to Professor Judith Royster, “[t]o the extent that
distrust of tribal authority over non-Indians is rooted in ethnocentrism, the country simply ought to get
over it.”220 Assertions that tribal laws are unknowable to non-Indians are equally without basis and absurd.
This claim is usually predicated on the belief that tribal laws are unwritten, but even so, unwritten laws have
long been enforced in state and federal courts .221 The unwritten laws argument is moot in VAWA cases because tribes
must publish their laws in order to implement VAWA in the first place.222 In any event, as Thomas Jefferson stated, “ignorance
of the law is no excuse in any country.”223 The same should be true of Indian country. Tribal laws are no great mystery
—tribes criminalize conduct that damages people224 and property.225 Thus, non-Indians cannot in good faith argue
that tribal law is incomprehensible when their conduct—such as rape, battery, or robbery—violates universal principles of human behavior.226
For example, in Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 227 Dollar
General argued it could not
understand Choctaw law in an effort to evade Choctaw tribal court jurisdiction.228 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
shot down this argument stating: “Doe has brought two specific claims, both of which are based on the alleged sexual molestation
of a child by a store manager. We suspect that Dolgencorp could have easily anticipated that such a thing would be
actionable under Choctaw law.”229 It is difficult to imagine how a lawyer can make a straight-faced argument that
her client did not know rape or battery was a crime. Such preposterous assertions should be grounds for sanctions230 and
are an incredibly weak argument against tribal court jurisdiction over violent nonIndian criminals.
Tons of protections, empirically denied, and racist.

and Governance in Indian Country,” https://www.uclalawreview.org/crime-and-governance-in-indian-
country/]
To the extent empirical evidence is available, it reflects a trend in Indian country towards providing paid
counsel. Even before debate began over these recent laws, when tribes have had the financial resources to provide
lawyers for indigent defendants in adversarial style proceedings, they largely have done so.246 In cases where such
counsel is not affordable, tribes often have provided lay advocates—those who are authorized to provide defense
services to defendants, but who may not otherwise be legally trained—to indigent defendants in tribal court proceedings.247 Still other
tribes have sought additional creative avenues, such as utilizing law school clinics or other resources, to fill in the gaps so that
counsel may be afforded to all who appear as criminal defendants in Indian country.248 While being cautious not to draw sweeping
conclusions based on a very small set of cases, the preliminary results from the relevant TLOA and VAWA cases at least lend
the inference that tribes can and do respect the constitutional rights of defendants. In regards to the right to
counsel, for example, all three of the VAWA pilot project tribes provide lawyers to all who want one, regardless of
the crime.249 And not one non-Indian defendant prosecuted under VAWA filed a writ of habeas corpus to claim his
or her constitutional rights had been violated .250 Though the remedy is available—including providing for a stay of the
proceedings in tribal court and requiring that defendants be expressly notified of the right to counsel—the defendants simply have not wanted
to proceed in federal court.251 It is possible, of course, that tribal court defendants have taken this position entirely out of self-interest, merely
fearing a harsher result in another forum. However, tribal attorneys have posited other rationales for the absence of writs. In fact, as
CTUIR reports, the Tribe’s Office of Legal Counsel encouraged the first defendant under VAWA to file a habeas petition to
test the statute. The tribe realizes there will be an eventual test case, and they are confident in their
proceedings and practices; thus, they have actually encouraged an appeal. But that defendant and all subsequent defendants chose
not to do so. As an attorney for the tribe stated,“[i]t appears he preferred having the case handled by the tribal court
rather than literally making a federal case of it.”252 In addition, not one defendant during this period filed a challenge to test
the constitutionality of VAWA.253 During the period relevant to this study there is only one reported case of a constitutional
challenge to a conviction under the TLOA, and it dealt with the question of retroactive application of TLOA’s protections.254 In addition to the
fact that providing counsel in tribal court is merely a codification of the trend in tribal court practice in general,255 tribes know that providing
effective counsel in tribal court is good for tribal sovereignty. When it comes to Indian defendants, for example, tribal governments have
powerful incentives to ensure fairness. Whether Indian defendants are tribal members or not, they are indigenous: They likely have ties within
the community, often through family, friends, or extended religious or clan relations.256 These all provide meaningful incentives for tribal
governments to be fair, just, and legitimate, seeking to act as “good governments” to advance victims’ rights while ensuring fair criminal
processes for defendants.257 As to non-Indians tried under VAWA, tribal governments have similar motivations and concerns.258 By definition
—as discussed in Part I—for a defendant to be prosecuted under VAWA, he or she must have deep ties to the victim and the community. This
means many of the same considerations that must be weighed in prosecuting Indians—who are parents to Indian children, employees of the
tribe, etc.—are present in these cases as well. Muchof the testimony and information leading up to and since the
implementation of the statutes demonstrate pride on the part of tribal court staff—judges, clerks, lawyers, and others
—regarding the quality of justice and fairness tribal courts are able to provide, often with a fraction of the resources
available to state and federal courts.259 There is no indication that tribes seek to exploit or abuse non-Indians in an
exercise of power.260 To do so would be to signal that tribes are petty, corrupt, and incapable of functioning as
legitimate governments.261 This is entirely against larger tribal objectives of greater self determination,
jurisdiction, and respect.262 Many of the same concerns regarding the right to counsel translated to whether non-Indian defendants
could get a fair trial in tribal court, which motivated the concession that guaranteed defendants a cross-section of the
community in a jury trial.263 Of all the cases brought under the special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction provision of VAWA
during the pilot project period— around two dozen—only one went to trial.264 That case, prosecuted by Pascua Yaqui, involved a same-sex
domestic violence charge committed by one man against the other, who were, according to the prosecution, in an intimate samesex
relationship. The jury was comprised entirely of Pascua Yaqui Indians, with the exception of the foreman, who was African-American. The
result: The one and only non-Indian defendant in the past forty years to be prosecuted by an Indian tribe and tried by a reservation-based jury
resulted in an acquittal.265 The jury based its decision on its view that the prosecution had not sufficiently proven the existence of an intimate
relationship between the two men, a requirement under VAWA.
If not, appealing to federal court solves.

Furthermore, the federal government need not worry about tribal courts infringing on non-Indian
constitutional protections because all litigants can appeal to federal court, after exhausting all tribal recourse. By
utilizing a very deferential standard of review, federal courts would be able to protect individuals against any possible
unfair treatment by tribal courts while still not interfering with tribal sovereignty. This relationship between
tribal courts and federal courts, along with the TLOA and VAWA grants of authority (stripped of their restrictions), would give tribal
governments the power they need to protect their members .
Federal habeas solves.

Many people fear that non-Indians will not be able to receive a fair trial in the tribal court system. Concern
over unjust treatment in “foreign courts” is embedded in the United States Constitution; hence, the Constitution permits federal
courts to hear state claims involving citizens of different states.210 Although diversity jurisdiction does not exist in criminal cases, defendants in
state criminal proceedings can remove their cases to federal court.211 No analogous removal mechanism exists in tribal court.212
Nevertheless, anyperson who believes she has been wrongfully detained by an Indian tribe may seek habeas
corpus review of her custody in federal court.213 Habeas corpus serves to safeguard individuals from arbitrary
violations of liberty in tribal court just the same as it does in other courts.214
K
K – ESSENTIALS
2AC – FW [Short]
Weigh the entire 1ac against a competitive alternative for fair and predictable
engagement
2AC – FW [Long]
Interpretation – weigh the implementation of the affirmative or permutation versus
the alternative, the kritik is responsible for solvency and uniqueness questions and
only gets links to the plan.
1 – Procedural fairness – if the 1AC is a defense of our epistemology, they can kritik
infinite reps so the plan is a necessary stasis. Fairness is an intrinsic good necessary for
debate to function. We both agree it’s valuable, they’d be mad if we won and didn’t
give a 2AR. And prior – you cannot divorce different instances and it’s necessary to
evaluate arguments.
2 – Strategy testing – forcing a defense of a contestable advocacy enables comparison
for changes but recognizes our role is distinct from policymakers. That’s necessary to
operationalize any educational value of debate.
2AC – FW [Old]
Weigh the hypothetical implementation of the plan—Links must prove the plan is a
bad idea and the alt has to generate solvency and uniqueness.
1 – Competitive equity – any alternative is arbitrary and moots the 1AC through word
PIKs or individual reps which makes it impossible for the aff to win. Fairness
outweighs – it’s an intrinsic good and the only thing that matters since debate is a
game and we’re only here to win. It’s prior – to even evaluate other arguments you
have to use fairness.
2 – Clash – Ks are unpredictable, prevent aff engagement, and shift the debate away
from the core controversy which kills clash – clash is key to education and argument
refinement as well as advocacy skills for political and critical solutions – that turns
their offense – without clash, they won’t be good advocates outside of the debate
space
2AC – Vague Alts
Vague and utopian alts are a voter – wishes away solvency deficits and makes alt
debating impossible – kills fairness and clash.
2AC – Floating PIKs
Floating PIKs are a reason to reject the team – moots the 1AC and subverts clash over
the controversy of the alt and plan – reject the team for deterrence.
2AC – Perf Con
Performative Contradictions are especially bad – creates unrealistic models of
advocacy and kills clash since the 2AC can’t pick a side.
2AC – Word PIK
Counterplans that fiat the possibility of the plan OR PIC out of words are a voting issue
– no comparative literature, discourages research and topic-education, and nuke aff
fairness because we can’t leverage the 1AC as offense – any block interpretations will
be arbitrary and self-serving, justifying “read the plan in Portuguese” or “advocate the
1AC silently” as neg ground – reading it as a language K solves.
2AC – Cede the Political
The state is inevitable—denouncing us as “liberal reformism” ignores that even if we
don’t engage the state, it will engage us—any method which is mutually exclusive
with ours devolves politics into a dogmatic void that the right is all too willing to fill
Choat, 16—PhD in Political Science at Queen Mary University of London, member of the Political
Studies Association, Senior Lecturer in the School of Economics, Politics, and History (Simon, “Marxism
and anarchism in an age of neoliberal crisis,” http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/32233/1/Choat-S-3223-
AAM.pdf, dml)
The anarchist critique of Marxist organisational forms is unconvincing, then, because it does not acknowledge the diversity of Marxist
approaches and it tends towards a theoreticism that sees a linear, causal, and continuous line from theory to practice. Nonetheless, there are
significant differences of strategy between anarchism and Marxism: it is just that these are less to do with organisation as such, and are much
more broadly to do with differing attitudes toward politics and the state. Although some (though by no means all) anarchists have
supported formal political organisations, with rules, membership criteria, and even internal discipline (Schmidt and van der Walt 2009: 247-
263), they have traditionally rejected any engagement with the state – whether it be voting, demanding legal
rights or protections, forming political parties, or attempting the revolutionary seizure of government
– on the basis that such engagement can only end up replicating the oppressive hierarchies that they
are fighting: either it will lead to new forms of dictatorship and bureaucracy (such as developed in the Soviet
Union); or it will lead to parliamentary reformism and hence merely reinforce existing structures and relations of
power.
If Marxists support (qualified) engagement with the state and even the formation of political parties , however,
it is not because they think that centralised hierarchies are desirable or inevitable, but because they
begin from a different understanding of politics. They argue that the anarchist abstention from state politics
denies us the most effective means of political action : we disempower ourselves rather than the state
when we refuse to engage with it. Making demands on the state does not necessarily entail an
endorsement of the state, any more than the demands that are made by employees during a strike are
an endorsement of the employer or of the system of wage-labour (Marx 1988). Anarchists themselves have at least
implicitly recognised the efficacy of political engagement by occasionally supporting the policies of certain governments and even participating
in elections (Engels 1988; Franks 2012: 216).
More than this, abstention

from state politics is not a genuine option: whether we like it or not, we are all
already involved in state politics, because we are all always already submitted to state power, control,
and oppression. Anarchists are concerned that participation in conventional politics will lead to
parliamentary reformism. But this concern is itself ultimately premised on a tacit acceptance of the liberal-
parliamentary understanding of politics: to claim that we can safely repudiate state politics simply by
refusing ever to enter a polling booth is to assume that ‘the state’ stops at the door of Parliament .
Marxists, in contrast, have argued that the state apparatus includes educational institutions, the media, churches, the family, and so on (e.g.
Althusser 1971): simply in going about our daily lives we are all therefore implicated in state politics. Given
our necessary involvement within politics, the question is not whether we engage with it, but how we
do so; even libertarian Marxists like Holloway argue that engagement with the state is inevitable (Holloway 2005: 40). In contrast, the
anarchist recommendation of disengagement from the state risks a politics of withdrawal and isolation.
There are two related reasons why under our current conditions in particular the Marxist willingness to engage in state politics
is preferable to an anarchist position. The first is the dominance of neoliberalism today. Given the strength of neoliberalism
since the crisis that it created, there is a strong case for a certain pragmatism in our response. A danger of
the prefigurative politics favoured by anarchists is that it dogmatically dictates an a priori exclusion of certain
forms of political action. For Marxists, on the other hand, political strategies must be decided according to
particular conditions and within a certain context. In a context in which private companies are increasingly undertaking
tasks previously performed by the state, the active defence of state services and institutions can be viewed as a radical
position to adopt: defending welfare provision, public pensions, universal healthcare, and free higher education should be seen not as
a reformist compromise with the existing order but as safeguarding the gains of class struggle against
capitalist processes of accumulation by dispossession.
This leads to the second reason for doubting the refusal of state politics as a viable tactic under current conditions, which concerns the specific
role of the state under neoliberalism. The
anti-state politics of anarchism may have made sense during eras in
which the state could plausibly be presented as the main threat to freedom and equality: during the period of
nation-building and imperialistic expansion in the mid- to late-19th century, of the rise of fascism in the early-20th century, or even of the
development of welfare capitalism after WWII. But it
has far less purchase in an era in which neoliberalism, as both
the official ideology and a form of everyday common sense, is anti-statist. Put simply, the attack on state
power too easily echoes the rhetoric of neoliberalism itself (Taylor 2013: 735). When government actors
themselves are explicitly endorsing the retreat of the state, then anarchist attacks on state power have
limited efficacy either as a tactical call to arms or as a convincing analysis of our present conjuncture . In
practice, of course, it is true that neoliberalism has not dissolved state power. But nor has the relation between state and capital remained the
same under neoliberalism, such that our analyses, strategies, or rhetoric need not alter. The nature of this relationship between state and
capital will be examined in the next section.
2AC – State Good
Reform is possible and good. Strategic demands on the government can move the
political center. Defeatist attitudes ensure the world stays the same.
Eddie S. Glaude 16. Professor of African American Studies and Religion, Princeton. Democracy in
Black: How Race Still Enslaves. 185-97.
But Goldwater failed to realize that governmental

indifference can harden hearts, and government action can
create conditions that soften them. People's attitudes aren't static or untouchable. They are molded by
the quality of interactions with others, and one of the great powers of government involves shaping those
interactions-not determining them in any concrete sense, but defining the parameters within which
people come to know each other and live together . Today, for example, most Americans don't believe
women should be confined to the home raising children, or subjected to crude advances and sexist
remarks by men. The women's-rights movement put pressure on the government, which in turn passed
laws that helped change some of our beliefs about women. Similarly, the relative progress of the 1960s did
not happen merely by using the blunt instruments of the law . Change emerged from the ways those
laws, with grassroots pressure, created new patterns of interactions, and ultimately new habits. Neither
Obama's election to the presidency nor my appointment as a Princeton professor would have happened
were it not for these new patterns and habits.
None of this happens overnight. It takes time and increasing vigilance to protect and secure change . I was
talking with a dose friend and he mentioned a basic fact: that we were only fifteen years removed from the passage of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 when Ronald Reagan was elected president and Republicans began to dismantle the
gains of the black freedom struggle. Civil rights legislation and the policies of the Great Society had just
started to reshape our interactions when they started to be rolled back . We barely had a chance to imagine America
anew-to pursue what full employment might look like, to let the abolition of the death penalty settle in, to question seriously the morality of
putting people in prison cells, and to enact policies that would undo what the 1968 Kerner Commission described as "two Americas" before the
attack on "big government" or, more precisely, the attack on racial equality was launched. The objective was to shrink the size of government
("to starve the beast") and to limit its domestic responsibilities to ensuring economic efficiency and national defense. Democrats eventually
buckled, and this is the view of government, no matter who is in office, that we have today. It
has become a kind of touchstone of
faith among most Americans that government is wasteful and should be limited in its role-that it
shouldn't intrude on our lives. Politicians aren't the only ones who hold this view. Many Americans do ,
too. Now we can't even imagine serious talk of things like full employment or the abolition of prisons .
We have to change our view of government, especially when it comes to racial matters . Government
policy ensured the vote for African Americans and dismantled legal segregation. Policy established a
social safety net for the poor and elderly ; it put in place the conditions for the growth of our cities . All of
this didn't happen simply because of individual will or thanks to some abstract idea of America. It was
tied up with our demands and expectations. Goldwater was wrong. So was Reagan. And, in many ways, so is Obama. Our
racial habits are shaped by the kind of society in which we live, and our government plays a big role in
shaping that society. As young children, our community offers us a way of seeing the world; it lets us
know what is valuable and sacred, and what stands as virtuous behavior and what does not . When
Michael Brown's body was left in the street for more than four hours, it sent a dear message about the
value of black lives. When everything in our society says that we should be less concerned about black
folk, that they are dangerous, that no specific policies can address their misery , we say to our children
and to everyone else that these people are "less than"-that they fall outside of our moral concern. We say,
without using the word, that they are niggers.
One way to change that view is to enact policies that suggest otherwise. Or, to put it another way, to change
our view of government, we must change our demands of government. For example, for the past fifty years
African American unemployment has been twice that of white unemployment . The 2013 unemployment rate for
African Americans stood at 13.1 percent, the highest annual black unemployment rate in more than seventy years. Social scientists do not
generally agree on the causes of this trend. Some attribute it to the fact that African Americans are typically the "last hired and first fired."
Others point to changes in the nature of the economy; still others point to overt racial discrimination in the labor market. No matter how
we account for the numbers, the fact remains that most Americans see double-digit black
unemployment as "normal." However, a large-scale, comprehensive jobs agenda with a living wage
designed to put Americans, and explicitly African Americans, to work would go a long way toward uprooting
the racial habits that inform such a view. It would counter the nonsense that currently stands as a
reason for long-term black unemployment in public debate: black folk are lazy and don't want to work .
If we hold the view that government plays a crucial role in ensuring the public good-if we believe that
all Americans, no matter their race or class, can be vital contributors to our beloved community-then we
reject the idea that some populations are disposable, that some people can languish in the shadows
while the rest of us dance in the light . The question ''Am I my brother's or my sister's keeper?" is not just a question for the individual or a
mantra to motivate the private sector. It is a question answered in the social arrangements that aim to secure the goods and values
we most cherish as a community. In other words, we need an idea of government that reflects the value of all
Americans, not just white Americans or a few people with a lot of money .
We need government seriously committed to racial justice . As a nation, we can never pat ourselves on the
back about racial matters. We have too much blood on our hands. Remembering that fact-our inheritance, as Wendell Berry said-does not amount to
beating ourselves over the head, or wallowing in guilt, or trading in race cards. Remembering our national sins serves as a check and balance against national hubris.
We're reminded of what we are capable of, and our eyes are trained to see that ugliness when it rears its head. But when
we disremember-when
we forget about the horrors of lynching, lose sight of how African Americans were locked into a dual
labor market because of explicit racism, or ignore how we exported our racism around the world-we
free ourselves from any sense of accountability. Concern for others and a sense of responsibility for the
whole no longer matter. Cruelty and indifference become our calling cards .
We have to isolate those areas in which long-standing trends of racial inequality short-circuit the life
chances of African Americans. In addition to a jobs agenda, we need a comprehensive government response to
the problems of public education and mass incarceration. And I do mean a government response. Private
interests have overrun both areas, as privatization drives school reform (and the education of our children is lost in the boisterous
battles between teachers' unions and private interests) and as big business makes enormous profits from the
warehousing of black and brown people in prisons . Let's be clear: private interests or market-based strategies will not solve
the problems we face as a country or bring about the kind of society we need. We have to push for massive government
investment in early childhood education and in shifting the center of gravity of our society from
punishment to restorative justice. We can begin to enact the latter reform by putting an end to the
practice of jailing children. Full stop. We didn't jail children in the past. We don't need to now .
In sum, government can help us go a long way toward uprooting racial habits with policies that support
jobs with a living wage, which would help wipe out the historic double-digit gap between white and
black unemployment; take an expansive approach to early childhood education, which social science
research consistently says profoundly affects the life chances of black children ; and dismantle the prison-
industrial complex. We can no longer believe that disproportionately locking up black men and women constitutes an answer to social
ills.
2AC – Extralegal Activism
Extralegal activism fails—state interaction is required—grassroots movements leave
existing social structures intact while promoting the illusion of change
Lobel 7, Assistant Professor of Law
[February, 2007; Orly Lobel is an Assistant Professor of Law, University of San Diego. LL.M. 2000
(waived), Harvard Law School; LL.B. 1998, Tel-Aviv University, “THE PARADOX OF EXTRALEGAL
ACTIVISM: CRITICAL LEGAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND TRANSFORMATIVE POLITICS”, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 937]
Both the practical failures and the fallacy of rigid boundaries generated by extralegal activism rhetoric permit us to
broaden our inquiry to the underlying assumptions of current proposals regarding transformative politics -
that is, attempts to produce meaningful changes in the political and socioeconomic landscapes. The suggested alternatives
produce a new image of social and political action. This vision rejects a shared theory of social reform, rejects formal
programmatic agendas, and embraces a multiplicity of forms and practices . Thus, it is described in such terms as a
plan of no plan, n211 "a project of projects," n212 [*984] "anti-theory theory," n213 politics rather than goals, n214 presence rather than
power, n215 "practice over theory," n216 and chaos and openness over order and formality. As a result, the
contemporary message
rarely includes a comprehensive vision of common social claims, but rather engages in the description of
fragmented efforts. As Professor Joel Handler argues, the commonality of struggle and social vision that existed
during the civil rights movement has disappeared . n217 There is no unifying discourse or set of values, but
rather an aversion to any metanarrative and a resignation from theory. Professor Handler warns that this move
away from grand narratives is self-defeating precisely because only certain parts of the political
spectrum have accepted this new stance : "The opposition is not playing that game ... . Everyone else is operating
as if there were Grand Narratives ... ." n218 Intertwined with the resignation from law and policy, the new bromide
of "neither left nor right" has become axiomatic only for some . n219 The contemporary critical legal consciousness
informs the scholarship of those who are interested in progressive social activism, but less so that of those who are interested, for example, in a
more competitive securities market. Indeed, an interesting recent development has been the rise of "conservative public interest lawyering."
n220 Although "public interest law" was originally associated exclusively with liberal projects, in
the past three decades
conservative advocacy groups have rapidly grown both in number and in their vigorous use of
traditional legal strategies to promote their causes. n221 This growth in conservative advocacy [*985] is
particularly salient in juxtaposition to the decline of traditional progressive advocacy . Most recently, some
thinkers have even suggested that there may be "something inherent in the left's conception of social change -
focused as it is on participation and empowerment - that produces a unique distrust of legal expertise ."
n222 Once again, this conclusion reveals flaws parallel to the original disenchantment with legal reform .
Although the new extralegal frames present themselves as apt alternatives to legal reform models and as
capable of producing significant changes to the social map, in practice they generate very limited improvement in
existing social arrangements. Most strikingly, the cooptation effect here can be explained in terms of the most profound risk of the
typology - that of legitimation. The common pattern of extralegal scholarship is to describe an inherent
instability in dominant structures by pointing , for example, to grassroots strategies, n223 and then to assume
that specific instances of counterhegemonic activities translate into a more complete transformation .
This celebration of multiple micro-resistances seems to rely on an aggregate approach - an idea that the
multiplication of practices will evolve into something substantial . In fact, the myth of engagement
obscures the actual lack of change being produced, while the broader pattern of equating extralegal
activism with social reform produces a false belief in the potential of change . There are few instances
of meaningful reordering of social and economic arrangements and macro-redistribution . Scholars write
about decoding what is really happening , as though the scholarly narrative has the power to unpack
more than the actual conventional experience will admit . n224 Unrelated efforts become related and
part of a whole through mere reframing. At the same time, the elephant in the room - the rising level of
economic inequality - is left unaddressed and comes to be understood as natural and inevitable . n225
This is precisely the problematic process that critical theorists decry as losers' self-mystification, through
which marginalized groups come to see systemic losses as the [*986] product of their own actions and
thereby begin to focus on minor achievements as representing the boundaries of their willed reality. The
explorations of micro-instances of activism are often fundamentally performative, obscuring the distance
between the descriptive and the prescriptive . The manifestations of extralegal activism - the law and organizing
model; the proliferation of informal, soft norms and norm-generating actors; and the celebrated, separate nongovernmental sphere of action -
all produce a fantasy that change can be brought about through small-scale, decentralized
transformation. The emphasis is local, but the locality is described as a microcosm of the whole and the
audience is national and global. In the context of the humanities, Professor Carol Greenhouse poses a comparable challenge to
ethnographic studies from the 1990s, which utilized the genres of narrative and community studies, the latter including works on American
cities and neighborhoods in trouble. n226 The aspiration of these genres was that each individual story could
translate into a "time of the nation" body of knowledge and motivation. n227 In contemporary legal
thought, a corresponding gap opens between the local scale and the larger, translocal one. In reality,
although there has been a recent proliferation of associations and grassroots groups, few new local-state-
national federations have emerged in the United States since the 1960s and 1970s, and many of the existing voluntary
federations that flourished in the mid-twentieth century are in decline. n228 There is, therefore, an absence
of links between the local and the national, an absent intermediate public sphere , which has been termed "the
missing middle" by Professor Theda Skocpol. n229 New social movements have for the most part failed in sustaining
coalitions or producing significant institutional change through grassroots activism . Professor Handler
concludes that this failure is due in part to the ideas of contingency, pluralism, and localism that are so
embedded in current activism. n230 Is the focus on small-scale dynamics simply an evasion of the need to engage in broader
substantive debate? It is important for next-generation progressive legal scholars, while maintaining a critical
legal consciousness, to recognize that not all extralegal associational life is transformative. We must
differentiate, for example, between inward-looking groups, which tend to be self- [*987] regarding and
depoliticized, and social movements that participate in political activities, engage the public debate,
and aim to challenge and reform existing realities. n231 We must differentiate between professional associations and more
inclusive forms of institutions that act as trustees for larger segments of the community. n232 As described above, extralegal activism
tends to operate on a more divided and hence a smaller scale than earlier social movements, which had
national reform agendas. Consequently, within critical discourse there is a need to recognize the limited
capacity of small-scale action. We should question the narrative that imagines consciousness-raising as
directly translating into action and action as directly translating into change. Certainly not every cultural
description is political. Indeed, it is questionable whether forms of activism that are opposed to
programmatic reconstruction of a social agenda should even be understood as social movements . In fact,
when groups are situated in opposition to any form of institutionalized power , they may be simply
mirroring what they are fighting against and merely producing moot activism that settles for what
seems possible within the narrow space that is left in a rising convergence of ideologies. The original
vision is consequently coopted, and contemporary discontent is legitimated through a process of self-
mystification.
ABOLITION K
2AC – Abolition K – T/L
1 – Procedural fairness – the 1AC is a defense of our epistemology, they can kritik
evaluate arguments.
Their theory.
1 – The risk we’re right outweighs the risk we’re wrong. Voting negative permanently
cedes the political, denies any progress, and pathologizes successful movements.
2 – Structural claims are inherently suspect, they assume that the past overturns the
future. They should have the burden to proof every instance of reform is undesirable,
but we only need to win the plan is a good idea.
3 – Empirics prove prisons are inevitable, can be reformed, and are not inherently
anti-black.
Lancaster 17 Roger, professor of anthropology and cultural studies at George Mason University and
author of Sex Panic and the Punitive State, How to End Mass Incarceration, Jacobin, 8/18,
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/08/mass-incarceration-prison-abolition-policing
Meanwhile, the Left is divided over how to imagine and advocate for our goals. Prison abolitionism has gathered steam among some activists,
although it shows little sign of winning over the wider public. With evangelical zeal, abolitionists insist that we must
choose between abolition and reform, while discounting reform as a viable option. The history of the prison
system, they say, is a history of reform — and look where that has gotten us. I have tried to show here what’s wrong with this
argument. It is remarkably innocent of history. In fact, the history of reform was interrupted some time
around 1973 and what we have had instead for the past five decades is a history of counter-reform. The
unconscionable conditions we see today are not inevitable byproducts of the prison; they are the
results of the punitive turn. Abolitionists base their approach on an analogy between the prison system
and chattel slavery. This is a strained analogy at best, and it only appears convincing in light of the
oversized and unusually cruel American penal system . Slavery was an institution for the extraction of
unfree labor over a person’s (and his or her children’s) lifetime; the prison is an institution that imposes
unfreedom for a set period of time as punishment for serious infractions — historically with the express bargain that
at least theoretically the lawbreaker was to be improved and reintegrated into society. The better analogy might be with other disciplinary
institutions, which also to varying degrees curb freedoms in the name of personal and social good: the school, the hospital, the psychiatric
institution. Abolitionists usually respond to the obvious criticism — “ but every country has prisons” — by
citing Angela Davis’s polemical work, Are Prisons Obsolete? Slavery, too, was once universal, they point out; it required the
abolitionists’ utopian vision to put an end to that unjust institution. But this, too, misstates history. By the time American
abolitionism got fully underway in the 1830s, much of Europe and parts of Latin American had already
partially or wholly abolished slavery. The Haitian Revolution had dealt the institution a major blow, and
slavery was imploding in parts of the Caribbean. A world without slavery was scarcely unthinkable . The
same cannot be said of prisons: all signs suggest that the public — and not only in the United States —
believes that prisons are legitimate. Abolitionist arguments usually gesture at restorative justice, imagining that some sorts of
community institutions will oversee non-penal forms of restitution. But here, we are very far out on a limb. Such models might more or less
work in small-scale, face-to-face indigenous or religious communities. But, in
modern cities, it is implausible to think that
families, kinship networks, neighborhood organizations, and the like can adjudicate reconciliation in a
fair, consistent manner. In short, abolitionism promises a heaven-on-earth that will never come to pass.
What we really need to do is fight for measures that have already proven humane, effective, and
consistent with social and criminal justice. Consider Finland. In the 1950s, it had high crime rates and a
punitive penal system with high incarceration rates and terrible prison conditions. In these regards
Finland then was much like the United States today. After decades of humanitarian and social-
democratic reforms, the country now has less than one-tenth the rate of incarceration as the United States.
Its prisons resemble dormitories with high-quality health care, counseling services, and educational
opportunities. Not coincidentally, its prison system does not breed anger, resentment, and recidivism .
Finland’s system aligns with that of other Nordic and Northern European nations, all of whom remained
continuously on the path of reform. There, small-scale penal institutions are insulated from public opinion, with its periodic rages
against lawbreakers, and prioritize genuine criminological expertise. They have expressly rehabilitative aims, working not
only to punish but also to repair the person and restore him to society. Penalties top out at around
twenty years, consistent with the finding that longer sentences have neither a rehabilitative nor a
deterring effect. Many Scandinavian prisons have no walls and allow prisoners to leave during the day
for jobs or shopping. Bedrooms have windows, not bars. Kitchens and common areas resemble Ikea displays. Rather than call for
the complete abolition of prisons — a policy unlikely to win broad public support — the American left
should fight to introduce these conditions into our penal system. We should strive not for pie-in-the-sky
imaginings but for working models already achieved in Scandinavian and other social democracies . We
should demand dramatically better prison conditions, the release of nonviolent first offenders under other forms of supervision, discretionary
parole for violent offenders who provide evidence of rehabilitation, decriminalization of simple drug possession, and a broad revision of
sentencing laws. Such demands would attract support from a number of prominent social movements, creating a strong base from which we
can begin to build a stronger, universal safety net. Institutions
become “obsolete” only when more effective and
more progressive alternatives become available. The poorhouse disappeared when its functions were
replaced by social security, public assistance, health care clinics, and mental and psychiatric hospitals.
We see no such emergent institutions on the horizon today that might render prisons a thing of the
past. What we see instead are examples of criminal justice systems that have continued reforming,
modulating, humanizing, shrinking, and decentralizing the functions of the prison. Creating just such a
correctional system, based on genuinely rehabilitative goals consistent with our view of social justice,
should be a main task of socialists today.
4 – Even if they win the criminal justice system is inevitably irredeemable, it doesn’t
implicate 1AC solvency. We’ve isolated a specific scenario the plan solves, and durable
fiat means it’s impossible for the system to prevent that.
The links.
1 – The affirmative is negative state action. Their links are to the status quo and we’re
in the opposite direction.
2 – The affirmative is a non-reformist reform. It fundamentally changes the power
structure between the government and indigenous tribes by granting criminal
jurisdiction.
[LBL].
The alternative.
1 – Either it’s plan-plus which justifies the permutation, or it forecloses any state
reform.
2 – Floating PIKs are a voter – moots the 1AC, unpredictable because there’s an
infinite number of reps they could PIK out of, and subverts clash over the controversy
of the alt and plan.
[Specific Alt Answers]
Alt fails –
1 – The alternative would be worse – not only would it take forever, but there’s no
guarantee it will even happen, the aff solves in the interim by ending racial
subjugations.
2 – It’s utopian – only the aff battles the state from within AND energizes popular
momentum to sustain long-term movements
Chibber, 17 (Vivek Chibber, Vivek Chibber is a professor of sociology at New York University. He is the
editor of Catalyst: A Journal of Theory and Strategy. "Our Road to Power", Jacobin Magazine,
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/12/our-road-to-power, 12-5-2017, Accessed 6-21-2020) //ILake-JQ
[Strategy]
On the question of strategy, the October Revolution is perhaps less instructive. The
Bolshevik seizure of power was not a
coup, but it did embody a violent and sudden overthrow of a regime, in a context of state breakdown
and military disintegration. One might describe this as a strategy of a ruptural break with capitalism.
Now there’s no doubt that the decades from the early twentieth century all the way to the Spanish Civil War could be described as a
revolutionary period. It was an era in which the possibility of rupture could be seriously contemplated and a strategy built around it. There were
lots of socialists who advocated for a more gradualist approach, but the revolutionaries who criticized them weren’t living in a dream world.
The Russian road, as it were, was for many parties a viable one. But starting in the 1950s, openings for this kind of
strategy narrowed. And today, it seems entirely hallucinatory to think about socialism through this lens. This is indubitably true in the advanced
capitalist world, but it also holds for much of the South. Today,
the state has infinitely greater legitimacy with the
population than European states did a century ago. Further, its coercive power, its power of
surveillance, and the ruling class’s internal cohesiveness give the social order a stability that is orders of
magnitude greater than it had in 1917. What that means is, while we can allow for and perhaps hope for the
emergence of revolutionary conditions where state breakdown is really on the cards, we can’t build a
political strategy around it as an expectation — we can’t take it as the Left’s fundamental strategic perspective. Today,
the political stability of the state is a reality that the Left has to acknowledge. What is in crisis right now is the
neoliberal model of capitalism, not capitalism itself.
If this is so, then the lessons that the Russian experience has to offer — as a model of socialist transition — are limited. Our
strategic
perspective has to downplay the centrality of a revolutionary rupture and navigate a more gradualist
approach. For the foreseeable future, left strategy has to revolve around building a movement to
pressure the state, gain power within it, change the institutional structure of capitalism, and erode the
structural power of capital — rather than vaulting over it . This entails a combination of electoral and
mobilizational politics.
You build a party based in labor, you strengthen the organizational capacity of the class, you take on employers in the workplace and create
rings of power in civil society, and you use this social power to push through policy reforms by participating in electoral politics. The
reforms should have the dual effect of making future organizing easier, and also constraining the power
of capital to undermine them down the road. There are many names for a strategy of this kind — non-
reformist reforms, revolutionary reforms. But whatever you call it, it entails a more gradual approach than the ones
available to the Bolsheviks.
But that means that we have to carefully study the experience of parties and countries that fell short of socialism but achieved real
organizational and political gains nonetheless. We need to study social democracy, particularly its more ambitious
variants. First of all, to understand how they combined electoral and non-electoral dimensions in an
overall strategic perspective. This also entails studying their legislation, the economic models they implemented, how they used the
state, how they dealt with capital’s structural power and its hostility to labor’s advance. The gains made by the most advanced
social democracies, like the Nordic countries, are quite extraordinary, and their ritual denigration by the
Left as merely “reformist” are wrongheaded. Those achievements came through struggle and were
fought against tooth and nail by ruling elites.
The most important reason to study the history of social democracy, however, is to understand its limitations .
This is why it can’t be
dismissed as “merely” reformist. If you don’t understand why they failed, you will simply repeat their failure. It’s important to
appreciate that, whatever else happens, if people like Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders take power in the next few years, their political agenda
will broadly hew to the template laid down by social democracy.
This is great in many ways, but social democracy was a spent force by the 1980s; its parties degenerated into a
managerial ethos; their reformist agenda was halted and then reversed ; and they have proven to be largely
uninterested in revitalizing their own legacy. For this phenomenon to be so widespread and so pervasive means that
it can’t have been because of individual failings and treachery. There was something structural behind
it. And this means in turn that the Left needs to understand the structural roots of the failure to at least
have a fighting chance at avoiding the same fate. Hence, while we need to understand how something as ambitious as the
Meidner plan came about in Sweden in the late 1970s, we also need to see why it was defeated, and why the Social Democratic Party became
increasingly conservative in the following years.
2AC – AT: Links
No link – the nayak evidence never says reform is bad, just that cap and CJS is linked.
No reason why saying reform is good entrenches cap.
Masking link is wrong

1--We don’t justify that logic in general, we only justify it insofar as to justify our course of action.
2--The gov doesn’t need to mask and can point to other things – there’s many other reforms they can
point to
3-- saying we should never take any action that could potentially let Trump/gov sell it as his talking
points is a bad way to approach ptx. otherwise that precludes any liberal progressive action. That lets
sexual assault continue.
Cruel optimism link is wrong

No link – it’s not cruel when you drop solvency – they have no evidence the hope is cruel.
But we’re impact turn it – the idea that hope is cruel optimism justifies inaction in the face of
conservative ptx.
1AR – Offenders DA
Even if ontology is true --- the aff is good and colonizers deserve punishment.
Young, 17—Ph.D. Candidate, UNC Chapel Hill (Bryanne Huston, “KILLING THE INDIAN IN THE CHILD:
MATERIALITIES OF DEATH AND POLITICAL FORMATIONS OF LIFE IN THE CANADIAN INDIAN RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOL SYSTEM,” https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:9612561b-744a-44fc-8e79-
1296d79dbd9a, dml)
strategic, repeated exposure to prolonged conditions of near or actual physical death marks the
This kind of
indigenous body for inevitable decline and erasure. Cultural theorist Lauren Berlant describes this as a condition of “slow
death,” which she defines as, “the physical wearing out of a population and the deterioration of people in that
population that is very nearly a defining condition of their experience and historical existence” (754). Thus,
through material and signifying practices, Indianness is laminated more concretely onto death and
finality. Correspondingly, the Indigenous body is marked as anachronistic, a relic, an embodiment out of time whose configuration of experience is slow death.
Simultaneously, Indianness is renewed continually in the field of signification, performatively reproduced as “shiftless”, “indolent”, and “inert.” Through biopolitical techniques of control and
was trapped simultaneously in two temporalities: slow death and circularity, neither
regulation, the socalled Indian race
of which afforded it a future—through a strategy of control that is fundamentally chronopolitical. Whiteness, the Child, and the Logics of Futurity Against the politicized
topographies and temporalities of indigeneity and race, I now move into a consideration of the contributions of psychoanalytic theory to the questions of politics and time presented thus far.
psychoanalysis is interested in asking, the registers upon which it performs analysis, and its unique emphasis on temporality, language, and difference
The kinds of questions
provide an excellent conceptual apparatus through which we might begin to trouble/problematize

stable, taken-for-granted oppositions between psychic and social, personal and political, self and other. Freud’s interest in time is evident in his work on the
uncanny, and in his inaugural work on what we might now call trauma studies and conditions we now call post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For Freud, this theory of hysteria introduces a
provocative temporality in which traumatic events reoccur, flashing up in perfect replication of themselves, as though happening again and again. In his diagnosis of so-called shell-shocked
soldiers returning from World War I, Freud was keenly aware that time did not always progress along an even plane. Though Freud’s analysis of trauma is captivating and critically rich, it is not
what is most salient to my analysis are the capacities of

within my purview here to take on the full extent of this scholarship. Instead,
psychoanalytic theory to move critique outside and beyond prevailing notions of time and narratives
of progress that only mean moving forward. This chapter writes from a stance that views it as imperative that scholarship reaches beyond, and thinks
outside, the paradigms that invented it. Psychoanalytic theory, with its idiosyncratic temporal logics—particularly in conjunction with Foucauldian theory— offers a
productive and robust way to critique the continuing primacy of normative disciplines whose
chronologics have historically warranted a politics that kills in the name of life. Such an approach
allows us to hold in productive tension any definition of “the political” as stable and finite, with—as in the case
of liberal political philosophy—the legally constructed “person” as its primary epistemological unit. This conceptual
capacity of psychoanalysis, in turn, allows us to politicize a form of life and modality of corporeal
personhood hitherto constructed as what, in Bataillean parlance, we might call colonialism’s accursed share— colonialism’s pure waste.
Additionally, psychoanalytic notions of the death drive, whose proper movement is explicitly circular, allows us to begin to locate the child within logics of futurity, onto which is laminated a
kind of indelible whiteness. For the purpose of my analysis I engage Lacanian psychoanalysis, limiting myself to a consideration of the structure of the drives and to a Lacanian
conceptualization of language, and its role in the formation of self and the suturing of the psyche to sociality.
Any racialized violence we solve outweighs the highest risk of their offense AND
valuing hate crimes above all others in law independently breaks down colonizing
logic.
Mignolo ‘7 (Walter, argentinian semiotician and prof at Duke, “The De-Colonial Option and the
Meaning of Identity in Politics” online)
The rhetoric of modernity (from the Christian mission since the sixteenth century, to the secular
Civilizing mission, to development and modernization after WWII) occluded—under its triumphant
rhetoric of salvation and the good life for all —the perpetuation of the logic of coloniality, that is, of massive appropriation of
land (and today of natural resources), massive exploitation of labor (from open slavery from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, to
disguised slavery, up to the twenty first century), and the dispensability of human lives from the massive killing of people in the
Inca and Aztec domains to the twenty million plus people from Saint Petersburg to the Ukraine during WWII killed in the so called Eastern
Front.4 Unfortunately,not all the massive killings have been recorded with the same value and the same
visibility. The unspoken criteria for the value of human lives is an obvious sign (from a de-colonial
interpretation) of the hidden imperial identity politics: that is, the value of human lives to which the life
of the enunciator belongs becomes the measuring stick to evaluate other human lives who do not have
the intellectual option and institutional power to tell the story and to classify events according to a
ranking of human lives; that is, according to a racist classification.5
Abolition is a lofty ideal but there are some people who should be in prison
Andrew Neilson 2-10-20, is the Director of Campaigns for the Howard League for Penal Reform, a
charity which works for less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prison. “SHOULD PRISONS BE
ABOLISHED?” 2-10-2020. https://newint.org/features/2020/02/10/should-prisons-be-abolished
Prison abolitionism speaks to all of this and is therefore a valuable contribution to how we think
ourselves out of current criminal justice practices. But we must be pragmatic about what can be
achieved.
There are undeniably people who do commit serious and violent crimes, who cannot be safely managed
in the community. We may be able to radically reduce our prison population, but there are sadly some
individuals who will still be incarcerated for what they have done and what they may do to others.
Kelsey: Most people who have caused serious harm aren’t currently in prison and never will be. The Grenfell Tower fire tragically took many
working-class lives – the majority black and brown lives – yet nobody has been held accountable. If we look at incidences of sexual violence, we
know it’s powerful people – CEOs, workplace managers, artists, sports coaches and religious leaders – who are overwhelmingly protected and
continue to cause harm. A person is labelled ‘violent’ because of who they are, not what they have done. It is impossible to safely address
serious harm in a violent institution. Someone who has perpetrated violence won’t be incentivized to do better by being locked up and exposed
to further violence, in places where prison officers sexually and physically assault people in their care. This dynamic will continue as long as the
state is empowered to deny anyone their human rights. How can we be so concerned about people being hurt yet make an exception for those
who receive a salary for it? Many communities, unable to rely on the state, have worked to keep each other safe through community support
and accountability for generations. Mutual aid and care have always existed outside of the carceral state. Andrew: I agree that harms which are
termed ‘crimes’ by the state are in part the result of a political choice. The system is geared towards punishing poverty and disadvantage. As
the French author Anatole France once remarked: ‘The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges,
to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.’
There are certain serious violent harms by some individuals however – including murder and sexual
violence – where the incapacitating function of incarceration will trump other considerations. This is
not to ignore the failure of prisons to safely address serious harm, but to see incarceration as a
necessary evil in some circumstances. Efforts should then be directed to reducing the use of imprisonment, which should be
viewed as a ‘last resort’.
Abolitionism risks violent crime and delegitimizes legitimate harm reduction.

Polumbo 19 Brad, professional toolbag for the Washington Examiner, AOC’s goofy ‘prison abolition'
push sabotages real reform, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-
support-for-prison-abolition-sabotages-real-reform
Ocasio-Cortez is actually half-right on many issues of criminal justice reform. We do have a serious over incarceration
problem in this country. But when she conflates legitimate conversations about criminal justice reform
with abolishing prisons and letting violent criminals run loose, she does the entire movement a
disservice and discredits its less kooky activists unfairly. Let’s be clear about the “prison abolition” crowd:
They have no viable alternative to imprisoning violent and career criminals. When Ocasio-Cortez was pressed
about “what do you do with all the violent people?” she, like most prison abolition activists, just resorted to buzzwords
and pointing at shiny objects. The congresswoman replied, “Our lawmaking process means we come to solutions together, & either
way we should work to an end where our prison system is dramatically smaller than it is today.” Our prison system could use a
serious downsizing, especially for the millions we imprison for nonviolent and victimless crimes. But there will always be
violent criminals, rapists, and murderers, whom we need to remove from society. That means prisons
aren’t going anywhere. Ever.
CAP K
2AC – Capitalism K – T/L
evaluate arguments.
The links.
1 – The affirmative is negative state action. Their links are to the status quo and we’re
in the opposite direction.
2 – The affirmative is a non-reformist reform. It fundamentally changes the power
structure between the government and indigenous tribes by granting criminal
jurisdiction.
[LBL].
The alternative.
1 – Either it’s plan-plus which justifies the permutation, or it forecloses any state
reform.
2 – Floating PIKs are a voter – moots the 1AC, unpredictable because there’s an
infinite number of reps they could PIK out of, and subverts clash over the controversy
of the alt and plan.
3 – Neolib is too entrenched – the alt can’t solve.
4 – Socialism was founded by racists and has expanded to advocate for “inclusive
genocide,”
Tupy 17 (Marian L. Tupy – the editor of HumanProgress.org and a senior policy analyst at the Center
for Global Liberty and Prosperity. <TMS> “Anti-Racists Should Think Twice about Allying with Socialism,”
FEE, November 14 2017. DOA: 6/30/20. https://fee.org/articles/anti-racists-should-think-twice-about-
allying-with-socialism/)\
Speaking to the Los Angeles Times last August, the co-founder of Black Lives Matter, Patrisse Cullors, stated that BLM would not sit at the table
with President Trump because he “is literally the epitome of evil, all the evils of this country—be it racism, capitalism, sexism, homophobia”.
Trump’s views and actions aside, calling

capitalism evil and conflating it with racism is noteworthy. The same goes
for the increasing tendency among racial justice advocates to embrace the left-wing economic agenda.
So much so that Ryan Cooper, a columnist for The Week, wrote a column titled, "Is Black Lives Matter turning socialist?" As Cooper approvingly
noted, BLM has adopted a “hugely aggressive—and firmly leftist—economic program”.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Natalie

Jeffers, who cofounded BLM in the United Kingdom, urged her followers to: “Fight
racism with solidarity. Fight capitalism with socialism. We must organize—dedicate ourselves to
revolutionary politic power.”
The Black Lives Matter Movement, a separate British organization, was founded by Gary McFarlane, a representative of the Socialist Workers
Party, who writes for the Socialist Review and the Socialist Worker, and claims that “Capitalism is racist from the top to the bottom.” His
cofounders, including Kate Hurford, Harold Wilson, and Naima Omar, have also written for those two publications
There is, in other words, a growing assumption among racial justice advocates that more socialism would
result in less racism and, even, that socialism is, in itself, anti-racist. There is, in fact, no such necessary
connection between socialism and anti-racism, as a closer look at early socialist writings amply shows.
Socialists Had a Lot to Say About Race
To begin, it is important to note that the meaning of the word “race” changed over time. Today, most people think of races in terms of color, as
in “black” and “white.” Historically, however, race was also a synonym for a nation or , even, a family. In his 1933 book,
Marlborough: His Life and Times, Winston Churchill noted: “Deep in the heart of the Prussian state and race lay the antagonism to France.” The
English artist Mary Granville, in turn, referred to Churchill’s family as the “Marlborough race” in her 1861 book, Autobiography and
Correspondence.
Race was always a part of socialist thought.

But race, whether narrowly (black and white) or broadly (skin color, nation, and family) understood, was always a part of socialist thought. In
1894, for example, Friedrich Engels wrote a letter to the German economist Walther Borgius. In it, Engels
noted, “We regard
economic conditions as that which ultimately determines historical development, but race is in itself an
economic factor.”
In his 1877 Notes to Anti-Dühring, Engels

elaborated on the subject of race, observing “that the inheritance of
acquired characteristics extended … from the individual to the species.” He went on, “If, for instance,
among us mathematical axioms seem self-evident to every eight-year-old child and in no need of proof
from evidence that is solely the result of ‘accumulated inheritance.’ It would be difficult to teach them
by proof to a bushman or to an Australian Negro.”
It is noteworthy that Engels wrote those words 16 years before Francis Galton, writing in Macmillan’s Magazine, urged humanity to take control
of its own evolution by means of “good breeding” or eugenics. Speaking of which, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who were both
socialists and eugenicists, bemoaned the falling birthrates among so-called higher races in the New Statesman in 1913. They
warned that “a new social order [would be] developed by one or other of the colored races, the Negro,
the Kaffir or the Chinese”.
Che Guevara, the Argentine revolutionary and friend of the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, offered his views on race in his 1952
memoir The Motorcycle Diaries, writing, “The Negro is indolent and lazy and spends his money on frivolities,
whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent.”
Karl Marx came close to advocating genocide.
Socialists Are Historically Pro-Genocide

In addition to racism, early socialist writings contained explicit calls for genocide of backward peoples. The
toxic mix of those two illiberal ideas would result in at least 80 million deaths during the course of the 20th century.
In the New York Tribune in 1853, Karl Marx came close to advocating genocide , writing, “The classes and the races, too weak
to master the new conditions of life, must give way.” His friend and collaborator, Engels, was more explicit.
In 1849, Engels published an article in Marx’s newspaper, Neue Rheinische Zeitung. In it, Engels condemned the rural populations of the
Austrian Empire for failing enthusiastically to partake in the revolution of 1848. This was a seminal moment, the importance of which cannot be
overstated.
“From Engels' article in 1849 down to the death of Hitler,” George Watson
wrote in his 1998 book The Lost Literature of Socialism,
“everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist.”
So, what did Engels write?
Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their
vitality—the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All
the other large and small nationalities
and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they
are now counter-revolutionary."
“The Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav
barbarians,” he continued. “The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth
not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a
step forward.”
Here Engels clearly foreshadows the genocides of the 20th-century totalitarianism in general and the Soviet regime in particular. In fact, Joseph
Stalin loved Engels’ article and commended it to his followers in The Foundations of Leninism in 1924. He then proceeded to
suppress Soviet ethnic minorities, including the Jews, Crimean Tatars, and Ukrainians
It is unsurprising that Nazi Germany, with its concentration camps and omnipresent secret police, came so close to resembling the Soviet Union.
Adolf Hitler, who admired Stalin for his ruthlessness and called him a “genius,” was also heavily
influenced by Marx. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism,” Hitler said, “as I do not hesitate to admit.” Throughout his youth, Hitler
“never shunned the company of Marxists” and believed that while the “petit bourgeois Social Democrat … will never make a National Socialist
… the Communist always will.”
Hitler’s “differences with the communists ”, argued Watson, “were less ideological than tactical”. Hitler
embraced German nationalism so as not to “compete with Marxism on its own ground,” but explicitly
acknowledged that “‘the whole of national socialism’ was based on Marx.” It is, therefore, unsurprising that Nazi
Germany, with its concentration camps and omnipresent secret police, came so close to resembling the Soviet Union.
How much did the Nazis learn from the Soviets?
In his 1947 memoir Commandant of Auschwitz: The Autobiography of Rudolf Hoess, Hoess recalled that the Germans knew of the Soviet
program of extermination of the enemies of the state through forced labor as early as 1939. “If, for example, in building a canal, the inmates of
a [Soviet] camp were used up, thousands of fresh kulaks or other unreliable elements were called in who, in their turn, would be used up.” The
Nazis would use the same tactic on the Jewish slave laborers in, for example, munition factories.
Following their invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, wrote Watson, the Germans collected information on the immense scale of the Soviet
camp system and were impressed by the “Soviet readiness to destroy whole categories of people through
forced labor.”
Communist terror continues to be shrouded in ontological fog.
After the war ended, Stalin was deeply worried about what the Germans knew with regard to the Soviet camp system and the crimes that the
Soviets committed in the territories they conquered following the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. He sent Andrey Vyshinsky, the
mastermind of Stalin’s Great Purge (1936-1938), to Nuremberg to steer the war crimes tribunal away from inconvenient lines of inquiry.
Today we are familiar with the aggregate numbers of people who died as a result of the socialist
experiment, but communist terror continues to be shrouded in ontological fog . As such, the Nazi
extermination of the Jews is generally condemned as an example of race hatred. The Soviet
extermination of specific groups of people, in contrast, is generally seen as part of a much less toxic
“class struggle.”
The Strange Separation of "Race Hate" and "Class Struggle"
The Marxist theory of history focused on class struggle and posited that feudalism was destined to be
superseded by capitalism. Capitalism, in turn, was destined to give way to communism. Marx saw himself
chiefly as a scientist and thought that he had discovered an immutable law of evolution of human institutions, from barbarism at the
one end to communism at the other end. (Hence the idea of “scientific socialism ” that Engels promoted after
Marx’s death.)
Peoples stuck in feudalism, like the Slavs, “as well as Basques, Bretons and Scottish Highlanders”, could not progress
straight from feudalism to communism. They would have to be exterminated—so as not to keep
everyone else back! Watson noted, “They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history.”
How, then, are

we to think of socialism and race, and does the answer to that question have any bearing on
the distinction that has been drawn between the Nazi and communist atrocities?
The best that can be said of the socialists is that their victims were more varied than those of Hitler.
In his 1902 Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human life and Thought, H.G. Wells wrote, “There is
a disposition in the world, which the French share, to grossly undervalue the prospects of all things French, derived, so far as I can gather, from
the facts that
the French were beaten by the Germans in 1870, and that they do not breed with the
abandon of rabbits or negroes.”
“I must confess,” he continued, that “I do not see the Negro and the poor Irishman and all the emigrant
sweepings of Europe, which constitute the bulk of the American Abyss, uniting to form that great
Socialist party.”
Note the ease with which the socialist author of such best-sellers as The Time Machine (1895), The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896), The
Invisible Man (1897), and The War of the Worlds(1898), conflates backward whites and backward blacks.
To Wells, both were primitive and, consequently, unsuited to be the torchbearers of socialism. That’s perfectly consonant with Marx’s theory of
history, which was, by definition, universal in applicability. Creation
of a socialist utopia, therefore, depended on the
extermination of all races, broadly understood, who stood in the way of socialist revolution. As such, it
included black “Bushmen” and white Bretons.
In contrast to Marx, Hitler’s utopia was not universal . Hitler, the leader of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party
(Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), wanted to create socialism in only one country, Germany. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews, for
example, was partly rooted in his belief that capitalism and international Jewry were two sides of the same coin. As he once famously
asked, “How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-Semite ?”
The old distinction between the crimes of National Socialism and socialism proper seems to be
untenable
To achieve their socialist goals, wrote Götz Aly in his 2008 book Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare
State, the Germans confiscated gold, food, clothing, and machinery throughout the territories they
conquered. They also put the conquered peoples to work in German slave labor and extermination camps and
factories.
In conclusion, the
old distinction between the crimes of National Socialism (as purely racist) and socialism
proper (as lacking a racial component) seems to be untenable . Both the perpetrators of Nazi atrocities (ie, the Germans)
and their victims, including the Jews and the Slavs, were white. As such, Nazi atrocities make little sense on the narrow definition of racism (i.e.,
black versus white). They do make sense in the broader context—the perceived necessity to exterminate all peoples who stood in the way of
achieving Hitler’s utopian ideal.
But the same can be said of communist atrocities. The early socialists certainly toyed with the idea of racial inferiority
of the darker races (i.e., narrow definition of racism), but ultimately embraced a program of genocide that was
more encompassing. The best that can be said of the socialists, therefore, is that their victims were , in
accordance with the universal aspirations of Marxism, more varied than those of Hitler . Let us hope that’s not the sort of inclusivity
that Black Lives Matter on both sides of the Atlantic strives for.2
Capitalism is the single best way to reduce inequality

Ladan 19- Luka Laden is a Catalyst Policy Fellow “Capitalism Remains the Best Way to Combat Extreme
Poverty” Catalyst https://catalyst.independent.org/2019/06/14/capitalism-remains-the-best-way-to-
combat-extreme-poverty/
The 2020 election is heating up, and with it, so are the criticisms of free-market economics. Concerns
about “income inequality” have become a common theme on the campaign trail (yet again), as
presidential candidates blame the wealthy for being too wealthy and blame “the system” for making the
poor so poor. But just how common is extreme poverty in America? Are extreme poverty rates high and
rising, as many claim? Last year, the United Nations published a report suggesting there are more than
18 million Americans living in extreme poverty—roughly the equivalent of Chile’s entire population. As
Philip G. Alston, the author of the report, put it: “[America’s] immense wealth and expertise stand in
shocking contrast with the conditions in which vast numbers of its citizens live. About 40 million live in
poverty, 18.5 million in extreme poverty, and 5.3 million live in Third World conditions of absolute
poverty.” Say it ain’t so! Well, it ain’t really so. More recent research paints a much rosier picture.
According to a May 2019 study co-authored by University of Chicago professors and Census Bureau
researchers, the American experiment may not be perfect, but extreme poverty remains a statistical
anomaly. Specifically analyzing $2-a-day poverty—that is, the number of Americans living on $2 or less
per day—the study’s co-authors found that only 0.11 percent of Americans live in extreme poverty. That
comes out to roughly 336,000 people—still too high, but nowhere near 18 million. Moreover, the study
concludes that the extreme poverty rate for parents—whether single or married—is virtually zero.
Again, America is not perfect. Poverty lingers, even here. But the status quo could be a whole lot worse:
It may be difficult to become a member of the top “one percent,” but it is even harder to fall into
extreme poverty. The good fortunes of most can be traced to the free exchange of goods and services
for mutual gain. While an imperfect system, capitalism remains our most effective weapon in fighting
extreme poverty. As we’ve seen across continents, the freer an economy becomes, the less likely its
people are to become entrapped in extreme poverty. This can be corroborated by tracking the rise of
“economic freedom,” which is related to the openness of a country’s markets and corresponding
increases in living standards. Over the past 25 years, the global average economic freedom score—as
calculated by the right-leaning Heritage Foundation—has increased by 3.2 percentage points, with many
countries joining the ranks of at least the “moderately free.” Indeed, global economic freedom has
experienced a nearly six percent increase since 1995—after the Soviet Union’s collapse. Capitalism is
more commonplace now than ever before. And how have extreme poverty rates fared in that time?
Trending down—way down. During the early 1980s, more than 42 percent of the world’s population
lived in extreme poverty (earning less than $2 a day). In the Soviet Union, for example, 20 percent of the
population—over 43 million people—lived on less than 75 rubles a month (roughly $120). Fast forward
to the 21st century, and less than 10 percent of the world’s population is extremely poor—a 33 percent
decrease. The left-leaning Brookings Institution estimates that someone escapes extreme poverty every
1.2 seconds. Consider it this way: Even though the world’s population has increased by more than two
billion people since 1990, the net number of extremely poor people has been slashed by nearly 1.2
billion. In today’s era of globalization, about 130,000 people rise out of poverty every single day. That’s
like the entire city of New Haven, Connecticut leaving extreme poverty in a day’s time. Or take China,
which has opened many sectors of its economy in recent decades. Since 1995 alone, the Asian country’s
economic freedom score increased from 52 to 58.4 points—outpacing the rest of the world. In roughly
that same period of time, the Chinese economy lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty. That’s
right: 800 million Chinese people—nearly three times the U.S. population. While still far from a “free
economy,” China’s newfound openness to free-market principles is correlated with the most substantial
example of poverty reduction in the history of the world. Even if correlation does not always equal
causation, that accomplishment is difficult to ignore. Granting people the freedom to voluntarily make
mutually beneficial exchanges of goods and services has been the most effective anti-poverty solution to
date. As more of the world allows the exercise of such freedom, expect poverty to decline even further.
2AC – Cap Good – Generic
Capitalism saves the environment and ends poverty.
Brook 15- Barry Brook is a professor of environmental sustainability at the University of Tasmania “AN
ECOMODERNIST MANIFESTO” ECOMOERNISTS http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto-english
Intensifying many human activities — particularly farming, energy extraction, forestry, and settlement — so that
they use less land and interfere less with the natural world is the key to decoupling human development from
environmental impacts. These socioeconomic and technological processes are central to economic modernization and environmental protection.
Together they allow people to mitigate climate change, to spare nature, and to alleviate global poverty.
Although we have to date written separately, our views are increasingly discussed as a whole. We call ourselves ecopragmatists and ecomodernists. We offer this
statement to affirm and to clarify our views and to describe our vision for putting humankind’s extraordinary powers in the service of creating a good Anthropocene.
1. Humanity has flourished over the past two centuries. Average life expectancy has increased from 30 to
70 years, resulting in a large and growing population able to live in many different environments. Humanity has made extraordinary progress in reducing the
incidence and impacts of infectious diseases, and it has become more resilient to extreme weather and other natural disasters. Violence in all forms
has declined significantly and is probably at the lowest per capita level ever experienced by the human
species, the horrors of the 20th century and present-day terrorism notwithstanding. Globally, human beings have moved from
autocratic government toward liberal democracy characterized by the rule of law and increased
freedom. Personal, economic, and political liberties have spread worldwide and are today largely
accepted as universal values. Modernization liberates women from traditional gender roles, increasing their control of their fertility. Historically
large numbers of humans — both in percentage and in absolute terms — are free from insecurity, penury, and servitude. At the same time, human flourishing has
taken a serious toll on natural, nonhuman environments and wildlife. Humans use about half of the planet’s ice-free land, mostly for pasture, crops, and production
forestry. Of the land once covered by forests, 20 percent has been converted to human use. Populations of many mammals, amphibians, and birds have declined by
more than 50 percent in the past 40 years alone. More than 100 species from those groups went extinct in the 20th century, and about 785 since 1500. As we write,
only four northern white rhinos are confirmed to exist. Given that humans are completely dependent on the living biosphere, how is it possible that people are
doing so much damage to natural systems without doing more harm to themselves? “ Human technologies, from those that first
enabled agriculture to replace hunting and gathering, to those that drive today’s globalized economy,
have made humans less reliant upon the many ecosystems that once provided their only sustenance , even
as those same ecosystems have often been left deeply damaged. The role that technology plays in reducing humanity’s dependence on nature explains this
paradox. Human technologies, from those that first enabled agriculture to replace hunting and gathering, to those that drive today’s globalized economy, have
made humans less reliant upon the many ecosystems that once provided their only sustenance , even as those
same ecosystems have often been left deeply damaged. Despite frequent assertions starting in the 1970s of fundamental “limits to
growth,” there is still remarkably little evidence that human population and economic expansion will outstrip the
capacity to grow food or procure critical material resources in the foreseeable future. To the degree to which there are fixed physical boundaries to
human consumption, they are so theoretical as to be functionally irrelevant. The amount of solar radiation that hits the Earth, for instance, is ultimately finite but
represents no meaningful constraint upon human endeavors. Human civilization can flourish for centuries and millennia on energy delivered from a closed uranium
or thorium fuel cycle, or from hydrogen-deuterium fusion. With proper management, humans are at no risk of lacking
sufficient agricultural land for food. Given plentiful land and unlimited energy, substitutes for other material inputs to human well-being can
easily be found if those inputs become scarce or expensive. There remain, however, serious long-term environmental threats to human well-being, such as
anthropogenic climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and ocean acidification. While these risks are difficult to quantify, the evidence is clear today that
they could cause significant risk of catastrophic impacts on societies and ecosystems. Even gradual, non-catastrophic outcomes associated with these threats are
likely to result in significant human and economic costs as well as rising ecological losses. Much of the world’s population still suffers from more-immediate local
environmental health risks. Indoor and outdoor air pollution continue to bring premature death and illness to millions annually. Water pollution and water-borne
illness due to pollution and degradation of watersheds cause similar suffering. 2. Even as human environmental impacts continue to grow in the aggregate, a
range of long-term trends are today driving significant decoupling of human well-being from
environmental impacts. Decoupling occurs in both relative and absolute terms. Relative decoupling means that human environmental impacts rise at a
slower rate than overall economic growth. Thus, for each unit of economic output, less environmental impact (e.g., deforestation, defaunation, pollution) results.
Overall impacts may still increase, just at a slower rate than would otherwise be the case. Absolute decoupling occurs when total environmental impacts — impacts
in the aggregate — peak and begin to decline, even as the economy continues to grow. Decoupling can be driven by both technological and demographic trends and
usually results from a combination of the two. “ Given current trends, it is very possible that the size of the human population will peak this century and then start
to decline. The growth rate of the human population has already peaked. Today’s population growth rate is one percent per year,
down from its high point of 2.1 percent in the 1970s. Fertility rates in countries containing more than half of the global population are
now below replacement level. Population growth today is primarily driven by longer life spans and lower infant mortality, not by rising fertility rates. Given current
trends, it is very possible that the size of the human population will peak this century and then start to
decline. Trends in population are inextricably linked to other demographic and economic dynamics. For the first time in human history, over half the global
population lives in cities. By 2050, 70 percent are expected to dwell in cities , a number that could rise to 80 percent or more by the
century’s end. Cities are characterized by both dense populations and low fertility rates . Cities occupy just 1
to 3 percent of the Earth’s surface and yet are home to nearly four billion people . As such, cities both drive
and symbolize the decoupling of humanity from nature, performing far better than rural economies in providing efficiently for
material needs while reducing environmental impacts. The growth of cities along with the economic and ecological benefits that come with them are inseparable
from improvements in agricultural productivity. As agriculture has become more land and labor efficient, rural populations have left the countryside for the cities.
Roughly half the US population worked the land in 1880. Today, less than 2 percent does. “ Cities occupy just 1 to 3 percent of the Earth’s surface and yet are home
to nearly four billion people. As human lives have been liberated from hard agricultural labor, enormous human resources have been freed up for other endeavors.
Cities, as people know them today, could not exist without radical changes in farming. In contrast, modernization is not possible in a subsistence agrarian economy.
These improvements have resulted not only in lower labor requirements per unit of agricultural output but also in lower land requirements. This is not a new trend:
rising harvest yields have for millennia reduced the amount of land required to feed the average person. The average per-capita use of land today is vastly lower
than it was 5,000 years ago, despite the fact that modern people enjoy a far richer diet. Thanks to technological improvements in
agriculture, during the half-century starting in the mid-1960s, the amount of land required for growing
crops and animal feed for the average person declined by one-half. Agricultural intensification, along with the move away
from the use of wood as fuel, has allowed many parts of the world to experience net reforestation . About 80 percent of New England is
today forested, compared with about 50 percent at the end of the 19th century. Over the past 20 years, the amount of
land dedicated to production forest worldwide declined by 50 million hectares, an area the size of France. The “forest transition” from net
deforestation to net reforestation seems to be as resilient a feature of development as the demographic transition
that reduces human birth rates as poverty declines. Human use of many other resources is similarly peaking. The amount of water needed for the average diet has
declined by nearly 25 percent over the past half-century. Nitrogen pollution continues to cause eutrophication and large dead zones in places like the Gulf of
Mexico. While the total amount of nitrogen pollution is rising, the amount used per unit of production has declined significantly in developed nations. “ Taken
together, these trends mean that the total human impact on the environment, including land-use change, overexploitation, and pollution, can peak and decline this
century. By understanding and promoting these emergent processes, humans have the opportunity to re-wild and re-green the Earth. Indeed, in contradiction to
the often-expressed fear of infinite growth colliding with a finite planet, demand for many material goods may be saturating as societies grow wealthier. Meat
consumption, for instance, has peaked in many wealthy nations and has shifted away from beef toward
protein sources that are less land intensive . As demand for material goods is met, developed economies see higher levels of spending
directed to materially less-intensive service and knowledge sectors, which account for an increasing share of economic activity. This dynamic might be even more
pronounced in today’s developing economies, which may benefit from being late adopters of resource-efficient technologies. Taken
together, these
trends mean that the total human impact on the environment, including land-use change,
overexploitation, and pollution, can peak and decline this century. By understanding and promoting these emergent processes,
humans have the opportunity to re-wild and re-green the Earth — even as developing countries achieve modern living standards, and material poverty ends. 3. The
processes of decoupling described above challenge the idea that early human societies lived more lightly on the land than do modern societies. Insofar as past
societies had less impact upon the environment, it was because those societies supported vastly smaller populations. In fact, early human populations with much
less advanced technologies had far larger individual land footprints than societies have today. Consider that a population of no more than one or two million North
Americans hunted most of the continent’s large mammals into extinction in the late Pleistocene, while burning and clearing forests across the continent in the
process. Extensive human transformations of the environment continued throughout the Holocene period: as much as three-quarters of all deforestation globally
occurred before the Industrial Revolution. The technologies that humankind’s ancestors used to meet their needs supported much lower living standards with much
higher per-capita impacts on the environment. Absent a massive human die-off, any large-scale attempt at recoupling human societies to nature using these
technologies would result in an unmitigated ecological and human disaster. Ecosystems around the world are threatened today because people over-rely on them:
people who depend on firewood and charcoal for fuel cut down and degrade forests; people who eat bush meat for food hunt mammal species to local extirpation.
Whether it’s a local indigenous community or a foreign corporation that benefits, it is the continued dependence of humans on natural environments that is the
problem for the conservation of nature. “ Ecosystems around the world are threatened today because people over-rely on them. Conversely, modern technologies,
by using natural ecosystem flows and services more efficiently, offer a real chance of reducing the totality of human impacts on the biosphere. To embrace these
technologies is to find paths to a good Anthropocene. The modernization processes that have increasingly liberated humanity from nature are, of course, double-
edged, since they have also degraded the natural environment. Fossil fuels, mechanization and manufacturing, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, electrification and
modern transportation and communication technologies, have made larger human populations and greater consumption possible in the first place. Had
technologies not improved since the Dark Ages, no doubt the human population would not have grown much either. It is also true that large, increasingly affluent
urban populations have placed greater demands upon ecosystems in distant places –– the extraction of natural resources has been globalized. But those same
technologies have also made it possible for people to secure food, shelter, heat, light, and mobility through means that are vastly more resource- and land-efficient
than at any previous time in human history. Decoupling human well-being from the destruction of nature requires the conscious acceleration of emergent
decoupling processes. In some cases, the objective is the development of technological substitutes. Reducing deforestation and indoor air pollution requires the
substitution of wood and charcoal with modern energy. In other cases, humanity’s goal should be to use resources more productively. For example, increasing
agricultural yields can reduce the conversion of forests and grasslands to farms. Humans should seek to liberate the environment from the economy. Urbanization,
agricultural intensification, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are all processes with a demonstrated potential to reduce human demands on the
environment, allowing more room for non-human species. Suburbanization, low-yield farming, and many forms of renewable energy production, in contrast,
generally require more land and resources and leave less room for nature. These patterns suggest that humans are as likely to spare nature because it is not needed
to meet their needs as they are to spare it for explicit aesthetic and spiritual reasons. The parts of the planet that people have not yet profoundly transformed have
mostly been spared because they have not yet found an economic use for them — mountains, deserts, boreal forests, and other “marginal” lands .
Decoupling raises the possibility that societies might achieve peak human impact without intruding
much further on relatively untouched areas . Nature unused is nature spared. 4. Plentiful access to modern energy is an essential
prerequisite for human development and for decoupling development from nature. The availability of inexpensive energy allows poor people around the world to
stop using forests for fuel. It allows humans to grow more food on less land, thanks to energy-heavy inputs such as fertilizer and tractors. Energy allows humans to
recycle waste water and desalinate sea water in order to spare rivers and aquifers. It allows humans to cheaply recycle metal and plastic rather than to mine and
refine these minerals. Looking forward, modern energy may allow the capture of carbon from the atmosphere to reduce the accumulated carbon that drives global
warming. However, for at least the past three centuries, rising energy production globally has been matched by rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.
Nations have also been slowly decarbonizing — that is, reducing the carbon intensity of their economies — over that same time period. But they have not been
doing so at a rate consistent with keeping cumulative carbon emissions low enough to reliably stay below the international target of less than 2 degrees Centigrade
of global warming. Significant climate mitigation, therefore, will require that humans rapidly accelerate existing processes of decarbonization. There remains much
confusion, however, as to how this might be accomplished. In developing countries, rising energy consumption is tightly correlated with rising incomes and
improving living standards. Although the use of many other material resource inputs such as nitrogen, timber, and land are beginning to peak, the centrality of
energy in human development and its many uses as a substitute for material and human resources suggest that energy consumption will continue to rise through
much if not all of the 21st century. For that reason, any conflict between climate mitigation and the continuing development process through which billions of
people around the world are achieving modern living standards will continue to be resolved resoundingly in favor of the latter. Climate change and other global
ecological challenges are not the most important immediate concerns for the majority of the world's people. Nor should they be. A new coal-fired power station in
Bangladesh may bring air pollution and rising carbon dioxide emissions but will also save lives. For millions living without light and forced to burn dung to cook their
food, electricity and modern fuels, no matter the source, offer a pathway to a better life, even as they also bring new environmental challenges. Meaningful
climate mitigation is fundamentally a technological challenge. By this we mean that even dramatic
limits to per capita global consumption would be insufficient to achieve significant climate mitigation.
Absent profound technological change there is no credible path to meaningful climate mitigation . While
advocates differ in the particular mix of technologies they favor, we are aware of no quantified climate mitigation scenario in which technological change is not
responsible for the vast majority of emissions cuts.
Neolib solves war and world problems

Yevgeniy Feyman 14, Manhattan Institute Fellow, "The Golden Age Is Now", May 23, www.city-
journal.org/2014/bc0523yf.html
Bjørn Lomborg is well-known as a climate “skeptic.” He has frequently voiced concerns that money spent battling climate change could shift scarce resources away
from more urgent global problems, such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. But the most recent book by the self-proclaimed “skeptical environmentalist” does more than just
voice concern; it attempts to evaluate the damage caused by a variety of problems—from climate change to malnutrition to war—and project future costs related
to these same issues. In How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World ?, Lomborg and a group of economists
conclude that, with a few exceptions, the world is richer, freer, healthier, and smarter than it’s ever been .
These gains have coincided with the near-universal rejection of statism and the flourishing of capitalist
principles. At a time when political figures such as New York City mayor Bill de Blasio and religious leaders such as Pope Francis frequently remind us about the
evils of unfettered capitalism, this is a worthwhile message.¶ The doubling of human life expectancy is one of the most
remarkable achievements of the past century. Consider, Lomborg writes, that “the twentieth century saw life
expectancy rise by about 3 months for every calendar year .” The average child in 1900 could expect to live to just 32 years old;
now that same child should make it to 70. This increase came during a century when worldwide economic output, driven by the spread of capitalism and freedom,
grew by more than 4,000 percent. These gains occurred in developed and developing countries alike; among men and women; and even in a sense among children,
as child mortality plummeted.¶ Why are we living so much longer? Massive improvements in public health certainly
played an important role. The World Health Organization’s global vaccination efforts essentially eradicated smallpox. But this would
have been impossible without the innovative methods of vaccine preservation developed in the private sector by British scientist Leslie Collier. Oral rehydration
therapies and antibiotics have also been instrumental in reducing child mortality. Simply put, technological
progress is the key to these
gains—and market economies have liberated, and rewarded, technological innovation.¶ People are not
just living longer, but better—sometimes with government’s help, and sometimes despite it. Even people in the developing
countries of Africa and Latin America are better educated and better fed than ever before. Hundreds of
thousands of children who would have died during previous eras due to malnutrition are alive today.
Here, we can thank massive advancements in agricultural production unleashed by the free market. In
the 1960s, privately
funded agricultural researchers bred new, high-yield strains of corn, wheat, and various
other crops thanks to advances in molecular genetics. Globalization helped spread these technologies to
developing countries, which used them not only to feed their people, but also to become export
powerhouses. This so-called “green revolution” reinforced both the educational progress (properly nourished children tend to learn more) and the life-
expectancy gains (better nutrition leads to better health) of the twentieth century. These children live in a world with fewer armed conflicts, netting what the
authors call a “peace dividend.” Globalization
and trade liberalization have surely contributed to this more
peaceful world (on aggregate). An interdependent global economy makes war costly.¶ Of course,
problems remain. As Lomborg points out, most foreign aid likely does little to boost economic welfare, yet hundreds of billions of dollars in “development
assistance” continue to flow every year from developed countries to the developing world. Moreover, climate change is widely projected to intensify in the second
half of the twenty-first century, and will carry with it a significant economic cost. But those familiar with the prior work of the “skeptical environmentalist”
understand that ameliorating these effects over time could prove wasteful. Lomborg notes that the latest research on climate change estimates a net cost of 0.2 to
2 percent of GDP from 2055 to 2080. The same report points out that in 2030, mitigation costs may be as high as 4 percent of GDP. Perhaps directing mitigation
funding to other priorities—curing AIDS for instance—would be a better use of the resources. ¶ Lomborg’s main message? Ignore
those pining for the
“good old days.” Thanks to the immense gains of the past century, there has never been a better time
to be alive.
2AC – Cap Good – Terror
Free trade solves international terrorism
Lindsey 03
Lindsey Brink is director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies. 8/5/3.
http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-024.pdf.
Confronted by the grave threat of Islamist terrorism, the U nited States has an enormous and urgent
interest in encouraging economic and political liberalization in the Muslim world. In much of the
region, violent radicalism is currently the only available avenue for challenging a
clearly unacceptable status quo. The advance of freedom would open innumerable
new avenues—for building businesses, pursuing careers, forming and joining and
supporting nonprofit organizations, expressing viewpoints, and banding together for
peaceful political change. The appeal of radicalism— and with it the number of potential
recruits for the terrorist jihad—would wane with the emergence of constructive alternatives. But
what can the United States do to foster the growth of liberal institutions in the Muslim world? In two
countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. military has ousted entrenched despotisms
by force and is now overseeing reconstruction with large occupying forces. But what
are the options short of war for effecting “regime change”—which, defined broadly to
encompass thoroughgoing economic and political reform, is the desired objective for
the region? In other words, how can U.S. policy encourage developments in the
Muslim world that will make future wars less likely? The creative and determined use of
trade policy is one option with real promise. At the outset, though, a caveat: whether through
trade policy or other diplomatic initiatives, the United States can exercise at best only
modest leverage over conditions in the Muslim world. Whether countries in the region
embrace liberal reform, whether they can find a viable path to prosperity and
freedom, is overwhelmingly up to them. Even in Afghanistan and Iraq, where U.S. will
is backed by military force on the ground, success in building institutions that provide
even tolerable security for property, contract, and political rights is by no means
ensured. Elsewhere in the region, we must accept that our capacity to promote
needed changes is limited. With that disclaimer, trade policy is an option for combating
terrorism that we ignore or slight at our peril. By removing obstacles to exports from the region, by
convincing Muslim countries to open their own markets to foreign competition, we can expand
economic opportunities in the region and brighten the prospects for broader, pro-market, pro-growth
reforms. And while there is no guarantee that greater economic dynamism would lead
inevitably to full-scale liberal democracy, the growth of economic power centers outside the
state-run sector would likely create momentum in turn for a wider distribution of political power.
2AC – Cap Good – Disease
Cap solves Disease
-key to life expectancy for infants
Cudd 10 – Dean of Humanities and Professor of Philosophy @ KU

Anne Cudd, “Capitalism for and Against: A Feminist Debate,” pg. 60-61
A common misperception in the literature on development and health outcomes is that if a positive
public health outcome can now be achieved without accumulation of wealth and capital, then such
development, and capitalism in particular, could not be causally responsible for improvements in
health.75 But this follows neither for the historical nor the contemporary case. I have just argued the
historical case. Consider two contemporary examples of lifesaving and life improving medical
advances. The development of anti-retroviral drugs to combat AIDS has been incredibly expensive,
although today the drugs themselves are not expensive to make and they are being distributed in
many developing countries for very low prices. These drugs are saving many lives. But dearly they
would not exist at all were it not for the massive investments in capital and scientific expertise in
academic settings in developed capitalist countries. Capitalism provided the wealth accumulation
that made this possible, even while it was the collective action of government allocating funds for
development of the drugs and global health organizations that made possible their delivery to
poor, mainly noncapitalist countries. Another biomedical advance that promises to save or
improve the health of many premature infants is the development of the actifier. Premature
infants often have trouble learning to suckle, a task that requires a great deal of coordination of
sucking, swallowing, and breathing muscles. The actificr is a simple, cheap device that provides
instant feedback to the infant that teaches it to suckle properly, often in just a few sessions. Learning
this coordination of muscles is the first step that infants need to take to bootstrap cognitive skills
necessary for a successful and rich human life. It also allows infants to breastfeed, which is especially
crucial in places where water quality is questionable and assaults against a child's immune system are
likely to be many. This device will no doubt save many lives at low cost in developing countries. But
Its development has required a massive investment in science - the main developer of the device
has a million dollar laboratory and many postdocs who work for him. And this accounting leaves out
the many mis-steps and wrong turns that less successful innovations have taken. Any one successful
biomedical device or drug comes from a large number of trials and errors, most of which are costly
but never recover their cost directly.
Diseases lead to extinction

Fox 97
C. William. Lieutenant COLONEL. 6/24/97. http://se1.isn.ch/serviceengine/FileContent?

serviceID=ISN&fileid=4341F68C-1AF1-FEB7-10D7-5EE127216D05&lng=en.
HIV is a pandemic killer without a cure, and viruses such as Ebola-Zaire are merely a plane ride away
from the population centers of the developed world. Viruses like ebola, which are endemic to Africa,
have the potential to inflict morbidity and mortality on a scale not seen in the world since the Black
Plague epidemics of medieval Europe (which killed a full quarter of Europe's population in the 13th
and 14th centuries.)18 These diseases are not merely African problems, they present a real threat to
mankind. They should be taken every bit as seriously as the concern for deliberate use of weapons of
mass destruction.
2AC – Cap Good – Inequality
The spread of capitalism has reduced global inequality
Lane 16- Charles Lane is a journalist from the Washington Post specializing in economic and fiscal
policy “The Sanders-Pope Francis ‘moral economy’ could hurt the income inequality fight” The
Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-sanders-pope-francis-moral-
economy-could-hurt-the-income-inequality-fight/2016/04/13/8007b80a-01ae-11e6-9203-
7b8670959b88_story.html
Opinions The Sanders-Pope Francis ‘moral economy’ could hurt the income inequality fight What Bernie
Sanders and Pope Francis have in common Bernie Sanders is attending Pope Francis's conference on
social, economic and environmental issues in Vatican City. Democratic socialist presidential candidate
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will depart soon for the Vatican, where he’ll speak at the Pontifical Academy
of Social Sciences, a previously obscure body whose ideological leanings are implied by the invitations it
extended to Sanders and two other headliners, the left-wing populist presidents of Bolivia and Ecuador.
In keeping with Pope Francis’s call for a “moral economy,” Sanders has said he’ll discuss “how we
address the massive levels of wealth and income inequality that exist around the world, how we deal
with unemployment, how we deal with poverty and how we create an economy that works for all
people rather than the few.” It’s a long flight from New York to Italy, so let’s hope Sanders uses some of
that time to review the relevant data. What he’ll discover is a vast reduction in poverty and income
inequality worldwide over the past quarter-centur y. Specifically, the world’s Gini coefficient — the most
commonly used measure of income distribution — has fallen from 0.69 in 1988 to 0.63 in 2011. (A
higher Gini coefficient connotes greater inequality, up to a maximum of 1.0.) That may seem modest
until you consider that the estimate’s author, former World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, thinks we
may be witnessing the first period of declining global inequality since the Industrial Revolution.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Note that this hopeful figure applies to the world’s
population as though every individual lived in one big country. When Milanovic assessed the distribution
of income between nations, adjusted for population, the improvement was even more striking: a decline
in the Gini coefficient from 0.60 in 1988 to 0.48 in 2014. The global middle class expanded, as real
income went up between 70 percent and 80 percent for those around the world who were already
earning at or near the global median, including some 200 million Chinese, 90 million Indians and 30
million people each in Indonesia, Egypt and Brazil. Those in the bottom third of the global income
distribution registered real income gains between 40 percent and 70 percent , Milanovic reports. The
share of the world’s population living on $1.25 or less per day — what the World Bank defines as
“absolute poverty” — fell from 44 percent to 23 percent. Did this historic progress, with its
overwhelmingly beneficial consequences for millions of the world’s humblest inhabitants, occur because
everyone finally adopted “democratic socialism”? Was it due to a conscious, organized effort to
construct a “moral economy” as per Vatican standards? To the contrary: The big story after 1988 is the
collapse of communism and the spread of market institutions, albeit imperfect ones, to India, China and
Latin America. This was a process mightily abetted by freer flows of international trade and private
capital, which were, in turn, promoted by a bipartisan succession of U.S. presidents and Congresses.
Capitalism is the single best way to reduce inequality
Ladan 19- Luka Laden is a Catalyst Policy Fellow “Capitalism Remains the Best Way to Combat Extreme
Poverty” Catalyst https://catalyst.independent.org/2019/06/14/capitalism-remains-the-best-way-to-
combat-extreme-poverty/
The 2020 election is heating up, and with it, so are the criticisms of free-market economics. Concerns
about “income inequality” have become a common theme on the campaign trail (yet again), as
presidential candidates blame the wealthy for being too wealthy and blame “the system” for making the
poor so poor. But just how common is extreme poverty in America? Are extreme poverty rates high and
rising, as many claim? Last year, the United Nations published a report suggesting there are more than
18 million Americans living in extreme poverty—roughly the equivalent of Chile’s entire population. As
Philip G. Alston, the author of the report, put it: “[America’s] immense wealth and expertise stand in
shocking contrast with the conditions in which vast numbers of its citizens live. About 40 million live in
poverty, 18.5 million in extreme poverty, and 5.3 million live in Third World conditions of absolute
poverty.” Say it ain’t so! Well, it ain’t really so. More recent research paints a much rosier picture.
According to a May 2019 study co-authored by University of Chicago professors and Census Bureau
researchers, the American experiment may not be perfect, but extreme poverty remains a statistical
anomaly. Specifically analyzing $2-a-day poverty—that is, the number of Americans living on $2 or less
per day—the study’s co-authors found that only 0.11 percent of Americans live in extreme poverty. That
comes out to roughly 336,000 people—still too high, but nowhere near 18 million. Moreover, the study
concludes that the extreme poverty rate for parents—whether single or married—is virtually zero.
Again, America is not perfect. Poverty lingers, even here. But the status quo could be a whole lot worse:
It may be difficult to become a member of the top “one percent,” but it is even harder to fall into
extreme poverty. The good fortunes of most can be traced to the free exchange of goods and services
for mutual gain. While an imperfect system, capitalism remains our most effective weapon in fighting
extreme poverty. As we’ve seen across continents, the freer an economy becomes, the less likely its
people are to become entrapped in extreme poverty. This can be corroborated by tracking the rise of
“economic freedom,” which is related to the openness of a country’s markets and corresponding
increases in living standards. Over the past 25 years, the global average economic freedom score—as
calculated by the right-leaning Heritage Foundation—has increased by 3.2 percentage points, with many
countries joining the ranks of at least the “moderately free.” Indeed, global economic freedom has
experienced a nearly six percent increase since 1995—after the Soviet Union’s collapse. Capitalism is
more commonplace now than ever before. And how have extreme poverty rates fared in that time?
Trending down—way down. During the early 1980s, more than 42 percent of the world’s population
lived in extreme poverty (earning less than $2 a day). In the Soviet Union, for example, 20 percent of the
population—over 43 million people—lived on less than 75 rubles a month (roughly $120). Fast forward
to the 21st century, and less than 10 percent of the world’s population is extremely poor—a 33 percent
decrease. The left-leaning Brookings Institution estimates that someone escapes extreme poverty every
1.2 seconds. Consider it this way: Even though the world’s population has increased by more than two
billion people since 1990, the net number of extremely poor people has been slashed by nearly 1.2
billion. In today’s era of globalization, about 130,000 people rise out of poverty every single day. That’s
like the entire city of New Haven, Connecticut leaving extreme poverty in a day’s time. Or take China,
which has opened many sectors of its economy in recent decades. Since 1995 alone, the Asian country’s
economic freedom score increased from 52 to 58.4 points—outpacing the rest of the world. In roughly
that same period of time, the Chinese economy lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty. That’s
right: 800 million Chinese people—nearly three times the U.S. population. While still far from a “free
economy,” China’s newfound openness to free-market principles is correlated with the most substantial
example of poverty reduction in the history of the world. Even if correlation does not always equal
causation, that accomplishment is difficult to ignore. Granting people the freedom to voluntarily make
mutually beneficial exchanges of goods and services has been the most effective anti-poverty solution to
date. As more of the world allows the exercise of such freedom, expect poverty to decline even further.
Criticisms of Capitalism focus on inequality in the U.S and Europe and ignore the
massive reductions in poverty capitalism leads to across the global South
Zitelmann 19- Rainer Zitelmann is a historian author and journalist “Anti-Capitalists Do Not Care
About The Fate Of The World’s Poorest Countries” Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2019/10/21/anti-capitalists-do-not-care-about-the-fate-
of-the-worlds-poorest-countries/#41f9205856ad
At first glance, the assertion in this article’s headline seems unfair. After all, isn’t it anti-capitalist activists
who are widely regarded as being the most committed advocates for the “exploited countries of the
Third World”? Isn’t it anti-capitalists who are particularly concerned about the fate of the poorest of the
poor and who tirelessly work to increase flows of development aid? And isn’t it left-wing critics of
capitalism who repeatedly appeal to the guilty consciences of Americans and Europeans, whose
prosperity was allegedly founded on colonialism or even slavery? Of course, such topics still play a role
in the argumentation of anti-capitalists, but they have been largely usurped by other issues, namely: 1.
complaints about rising inequality, and 2. efforts to combat climate change. Has Inequality Grown?
Whenever anti-capitalists complain about rising inequality, they are always referring to inequality in the
developed capitalist world, i.e. in the United States or Europe. They cite figures on inequality in an
attempt to prove that the “gap between rich and poor” in capitalist countries has widened—that the
richest are getting richer and leaving the middle and lower classes ever further behind. Whether this is
actually the case or not is a subject for another day. Even if wages did stagnate over an extended period
in countries such as the United States or Germany, it is clear that they have been rising again
significantly in recent years. But that is not the point here. It is far more important to consider the
development of inequality from a global perspective, rather than concentrating solely on developments
in the United States and Europe. And it is undeniable that global inequality has declined. In what used to
be very poor countries—especially in China and India—more than a billion people have been liberated
from extreme poverty. This is a fact that even the most ardent critics of capitalism cannot deny. In a
discussion on this very issue, an Oxfam spokesperson highlighted the decline in global poverty as
evidence that development aid has had a huge positive impact. Therefore, according to Oxfam, Western
countries should increase the amount of money they allocate to development aid. However, Oxfam’s
claims simply do not stack up. One continent has received far more development aid than any other:
Africa. Even so, hunger and poverty across Africa have not decreased anywhere near as much as they
have in Asia, which has received significantly less development aid. It is not development aid that is
responsible for the global reduction in poverty, but the global spread of capitalism. It is economic
growth that has contributed most to reducing poverty in China , where the percentage of people living in
extreme poverty has fallen from 88% in 1981 to less than 1% today. Such staggering declines in extreme
poverty have not been achieved because China has received large amounts of development aid. No, it is
because in the years after the death of Mao Zedong, private property rights were introduced and the
role of the (still powerful) state was curtailed. China owes its economic progress not to its state-owned
enterprises, but to private, capitalist-led enterprises and the strengthening of market forces against the
all-powerful influence of the state. Anti-capitalists complain that inequality has increased since the
1980s, but all the figures they cite to prove this refer to Europe and the United States. It may be that, as
a result of capitalist globalization, 100 middle class United States Americans have dropped into the
lower class and a small number of very rich entrepreneurs become even richer. But at the same time, as
a result of the same development, 1,000 Chinese have risen from poverty to join the middle class. Only a
narrow Euro- or American-centric perspective—an attitude that left-wing anti-capitalists otherwise
criticize so sharply—could ignore these worldwide advances.
Global Capitalism and free trade are the number one drivers in reducing extreme
global poverty
Norberg 18- Johan Norberg is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a writer who focuses on
globalization, entrepreneurship, and individual liberty. “Globalization's Great Triumph: The Death of
Extreme Poverty” Human Progress https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1528
It is the greatest story of our time, and it’s one few have heard of. Mankind is defeating extreme
poverty. The World Bank has just released its latest numbers, and according to them, the proportion of
the world population in extreme poverty, i.e. who consume less than $1.90 a day, adjusted for local
prices, declined from 36 percent in 1990 to 10 percent in 2015. Even though world population increased
by more than two billion people, the number of extremely poor was reduced by almost 1.2 billion. It
means that in the now much-despised era of globalization, almost 130,000 people rose out of poverty
every day. Every one of those 130,000 represents another individual who get closer to a decent life with
basic education, access to health care and opportunities in life. This is the greatest achievement in
human history. At the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in 2000, the world’s countries set the
goal of halving the 1990 incidence of extreme poverty by 2015. This was met more than five years ahead
of deadline. Progress has been fastest in Asia. In East Asia, extreme poverty was reduced from 62 to 2
percent and in South Asia from 47 to 12 percent. But other regions have also seen progress. In Latin
America, poverty was reduced from 14 to 4 percent. The laggard is Sub-Saharan Africa, but even there,
extreme poverty has been reduced, from 54 to 41 percent. That is higher than anywhere else in the
world, but it means that extreme poverty is now more rare in Africa than it was in the world’s richest
countries at the dawn of the industrial revolution. It is fascinating that this progress takes place just as
many in the West are starting to doubt free trade and global capitalism. Because this poverty reduction
happened in the countries that started liberating their markets and began to integrate into the global
economy, like China in the early 1980s and in India and Vietnam in the early 1990s. As the Indian
economist Gurcharan Das says about his country’s progress in the documentary, "India Awakes": “The
principles that brought so much prosperity and freedom to the West are being affirmed in a country that
is in the East." Multinational institutions are good at producing seminars and elaborate plans about how
to create some kind of mythological “pro-poor growth." But the best way of making growth pro-poor is
to make growth high and keep it high. A study of 121 countries over four decades by economists David
Dollar, Tatjana Kleineberg and Aart Kraay showed that most of the cross-country variation in growth in
incomes of the poor is due to growth in average incomes, not changes in distribution. Just at the
moment that both the left and the right give up on global capitalism, it is celebrating its largest
accomplishment. One of the reasons so many despair is that they don’t know about this development.
When Americans were asked what had happened to global poverty the last 20 years, only 5 percent
answered that it had halved; 66 percent thought it had doubled. Another reason is that many believe in
the myth of the zero-sum game: For someone to win, someone else has to lose, and so they think they
are the ones who will have to pay if China or Mexico prospers. But that does not apply to a free market
where no deal ever takes place unless both parties think it will make them better off and where trade
and specialization helps to increase the size of the global pie. But this is a particularly dismal time for the
U.S. to give up on globalization and start trade wars. According to an estimate from the Brookings
Institution, the global middle class grew by 2.3 billion during these 25 years. That’s another 2.3 billion
who are soon consuming what Western middle classes consume and Western companies produce —
fashionable brands, modern transportation, home electronics, medical drugs, entertainment and
financial services. That giant sucking sound we could soon be hearing is from billions of people in the
South and the East, importing whatever goods and services our companies produce. Fortune favors the
brave. Protectionism ruins it for everybody.
2AC – Cap Good – Climate Change
Growth solves the environment and every other impact through tech innovation and
higher incomes. Even if each tech by itself can’t stop warming, they act synergistically
which overcomes their defense. Also, warming doesn’t cause extinction
Bailey 18 [Ronald Bailey, shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities
who have made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology. From 1987 to 1990, Bailey was a
staff writer for Forbes magazine, covering economic, scientific and business topics. His articles and
reviews have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post,
Commentary, The Public Interest, Smithsonian, and many other publications. Prior to joining Reason in
1997, Bailey produced several weekly national public television series including Think Tank and
TechnoPolitics, as well as several documentaries for PBS television and ABC News. In 1993, he was the
Warren T. Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Climate
Change Problems Will Be Solved Through Economic Growth. March 12, 2018.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/12/climate-change-problems-will-be-solved-t]
In an essay for The Breakthrough Journal, Pinker

notes that such optimism "is commonly dismissed as the 'faith that
technology will save us.' In fact, it is a skepticism that the status quo will doom us—that knowledge and
behavior will remain frozen in their current state for perpetuity. Indeed, a naive faith in stasis has
repeatedly led to prophecies of environmental doomsdays that never happened." In his new book, Enlightenment
Now, Pinker points out that "as the world gets richer and more tech-savvy, it dematerializes, decarbonizes, and
densifies, sparing land and species." Economic growth and technological progress are the solutions not
only to climate change but to most of the problems that bedevil humanity.
Boisvert, meanwhile, tackles and rebuts the apocalyptic prophecies made by eco-pessimists like Wallace-Wells, specifically with regard to food production and
availabilty, water supplies, heat waves, and rising seas.
"No, this isn't a denialist screed," Boisvert writes. "Human

greenhouse emissions will warm the planet, raise the seas and
derange the weather, and the resulting heat, flood and drought will be cataclysmic. Cataclysmic—but not
apocalyptic. While the climate upheaval will be large, the consequences for human well-being will be
small. Looked at in the broader context of economic development, climate change will barely slow our
progress in the effort to raise living standards."
Boisvert proceeds to show how a

series of technologies—drought-resistant crops, cheap desalination, widespread adoption of
air-conditioning, modern construction techniques—will ameliorate and overcome the problems caused by rising
temperatures. He is entirely correct when he notes, "The most inexorable feature of climate-change modeling isn't the
advance of the sea but the steady economic growth that will make life better despite global warming."
Horgan, Pinker, and Boisvert are all essentially endorsing what I have called "the progress solution" to climate change. As I wrote in 2009, "It is surely not
unreasonable to argue that if
one wants to help future generations deal with climate change, the best policies
would be those that encourage rapid economic growth. This would endow future generations with the
wealth and superior technologies that could be used to handle whatever comes at them including
climate change." Six years later I added that that "richer is more climate-friendly, especially for developing countries. Why? Because faster growth
means higher incomes, which correlate with lower population growth. Greater wealth also means
higher agricultural productivity, freeing up land for forests to grow as well as speedier progress toward
developing and deploying cheaper non–fossil fuel energy technologies. These trends can act
synergistically to ameliorate man-made climate change."eiss
Growth is good---solves the impacts to the K---transition fails.
Andreas PYKA AND Klaus PRETTNER 18. **Professor of Innovation Economics at the Economics
Institute of the University of Hohenheim. **Professor of Economics, University of Hohenheim.
“Economic Growth, Development, and Innovation: The Transformation Towards a Knowledge-Based
Bioeconomy.” Bioeconomy. Springer. 329-40. Emory Libraries.
11.1 Introduction
The sustainability of modern economic growth, as it developed in the todays Western industrialized economies from the beginning of the
industrial revolution at the end of the eighteenth century, has been questioned at the latest since 1972 when the book The Limits to Growth
was published by the Club of Rome (Meadows et al. 1972). After more than 200 years of industrial production, large parts of the world
population are richer than ever before. However, industrial production in its current form is also closely linked with the exploitation of natural
resources and the strong accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, endangering human survival. In
economics two
fundamentally different solution strategies are discussed as a reaction on man-made climate change and
irreversible environmental damages: (1) conservation of resources by growth abstinence and (2) decoupling
of growth and exploitation of resources. In this chapter, we show that the first perspective with its emphasis on the efficiency of
price competition is not suited to conceive a transformation of the production system towards a knowledge-
based bioeconomy. Only the emphasis of the superiority of innovation competition, inherent to the
second perspective, allows for the inclusion of the required transformative perspective . The supporters
of the first approach (e.g., Blewitt and Cunningham 2014; Kallis et al. 2014), summarized under the headings of
abstinence and downscaling, claim a renunciation of our lifestyles based on consumption and increasing
deployment of resources. This is considered the only way to enable a sustainable and environment-friendly lifestyle and form of economic
activity. At first sight, it might look surprising that these
growth-hostile approaches are strictly in line with the thinking
put forward in mainstream neoclassical growth theories . This follows from the fact that the standard neoclassical
approach relies on the assumption of stable economic structures and an understanding of economic
growth as a continuous increase in the quantity of the goods that are produced . Figure 11.1 depicts the
impressive growth performance of the German economy, where—in particular in the period of the so-called Wirtschaftswunder after 1945—
income per head skyrocketed: at the beginning of the twenty-first century, per capita GDP is approximately four times higher than three
generations earlier. But does this mean that German consumers today have four Volkswagen Beatles in their garages? Obviously not! Today
we have completely different goods and services in our consumption baskets, we acquire different
competences in universities, we work in different jobs , etc. Restricting economic growth analysis to a
quantitative dimension only dismisses these most important qualitative dimensions . Such an analysis can
only serve for a very short-term observation . The alternative approach of neo-Schumpeterian economics (e.g.,
Hanusch and Pyka 2007) challenges this quantitative orientation and instead emphasizes the importance of
qualitative aspects, which make fundamental changes of economic structures over longer periods
visible. Without the consideration of the qualitative levels of economic growth, the quantitative figures
cannot tell much about the massive technological and socioeconomic developments. The neo-Schumpeterian
approach highlights that innovations, market forces, structural change, and urban ways of life are both part of
the problem and part of the solution to the sustainability problem. Innovation-triggered development
generates both quantitative, i.e., income-increasing growth, and qualitative, i.e., structure-changing
development. Only the creative solutions characteristic for capitalistic-organized economies will enable
to reform our future economy in the sense of sustainability, thereby supporting the UN’s sustainability goals and
simultaneously ensuring growth and development (Mazzucato and Perez 2015). The central role of innovation in neo-
Schumpeterian economics highlights that abstinence in the sense of economic downscaling is neither the first nor the only
solution. This does not mean that all ideas of the proponents of the camp are rejected: in perfect accordance, certain past patterns like the
high energy intensity of production because of too low oil prices not covering the total environmental costs or so-called planned obsolescence
in consumption require urgent adjustments. Especially concepts resulting in a more intensive use of goods and therefore contributing to the
economization of resources like the sharing economy or displacing physical goods by digital goods are promising. The same applies for closed-
loop material cycles, recycling systems, and intelligent waste avoidance and treatment. These concepts are perfectly applicable to foster
learning and behavioral changes on the supply and the demand side. The core idea of neo-Schumpeterian economics, however, is the supply
of and demand for new technological solutions within a comprehensive economic transformation
process (Geels 2002), i.e., different goods and services are produced and demanded in different, namely, sustainable ways. Exploring and
exploiting the technological possibilities of the bioeconomy not only creates new investment opportunities but is also
the condition sine qua non for the required socioeconomic and cultural changes. The consumers’
acceptance of bio-based products and their demand are indispensable for a successful transformation.
Innovations and changed consumer attitudes are complementary conditions for the creation of a
sustainable production system. Change can be either of an incremental type in terms of small improvements step-by-step along
well-known technological trajectories, or it can be fundamental, leading to structural changes and the emergence of new and the
disappearance of old industries. To simplify, we assume in this chapter that incremental technological changes are based on existing
technological solutions, whereas radical technological changes question major existing production processes. They
might lead to
massive upheaval in the global production system in the sense of creative destruction (Schumpeter 1943).
Because this chapter deals with the fundamental transformation of current production systems, radical technological innovations
are in the spotlight which encompass the overcoming of the lock-in situation in fossil fuels (Unruh 2000) and the
establishment of a knowledge-based bioeconomy (Pyka 2017; Pyka and Buchmann 2016). Without doubt this
transformation process is radical, qualitative, and long term . It was already in Business Cycles, published in 1939, when
Schumpeter revitalized Kondratieff’s theory of long waves in order to explain such processes as regular processes in long-term economic
development. His illustration of the discontinuous nature of economic development is famous: “Add successively as many mail coaches as you
please, you will never get a railway thereby” (Schumpeter 1934, p. 64). So far, the literature highlights five long waves: The beginning
industrialization around the year 1800 represented the first long wave and was fueled by the steam engine and by cotton processing. Then,
starting around the year 1850, the widespread availability of steel and the diffusion of railways constituted a second long wave. Again, in the
early twentieth century, this Kondratieff cycle was replaced by electricity and chemicals. In the postwar period, the third long wave gained
momentum by mass production and the automobile as well as the petrochemical industries. Since then, manufacturing activities built on oil as
a second fossil fuel apart from coal. From the 1980s, one refers to the fifth long wave, which is reflected in the fast and ubiquitous diffusion and
application of information and communication technology. Now, at
the beginning of the twenty-first century, another
paradigmatic change is in the air, being characterized , however, by one major difference to previous
situations of radical change: whereas previous cycles were driven by technological bottlenecks and their
overcoming, in the twentyfirst century, we face the vital question of how to restore environmental
sustainability of economic activities . The knowledge-based bioeconomy plays a key role in this transformation process which, of
course, like previous radical changes, still is confronted by fundamental uncertainty (Knight 1921). The literature provides many alternative
terms for the massive change, shaking global production systems: Freeman (1991) and Dosi (1982) call them techno-economic paradigm
changes; Sahal (1985) uses cartographic analogies and refers to technological guideposts that are pointing to technological avenues. All authors
highlight the confrontation with profound changes economic systems are faced with over longer periods of time, which question all established
production approaches. Not a single technology is responsible for this phenomenon but several
complementary developments that include, apart from a package of mutually dependent technologies
(e.g., combustion engine, petrochemistry, assembly line production), numerous infrastructural developments (e.g., road
structure, filling station network), behavioral changes (e.g., suburbs and commuter flow, shopping malls outside the city centers), as
well as institutional changes (e.g., spatial planning and commuter allowance, etc.). The old paradigm will not be replaced by the new
one until all these elements interact. The neo-Schumpeterian approach provides us with crucial hints on the process of the forthcoming change.
For this purpose, we discuss in the following section how innovations are supported by the discovery and successful diffusion of new
knowledge. Knowledge-based economies organize innovation systems composed of different actors which
establish a creative environment for mutual learning and knowledge creation . No innovation would have
ever been established if it had not attracted consumers’ interest and if it had not been leveraged by
their purchasing power. We will focus on these questions in Sect. 11.3. Knowledge-based societies consider new
concepts in the sense of responsible innovation that are decisive in bringing an entire economy on a
new sustainable path-shaping growth and development . Section 11.4 deals with the massive economic impacts originating
from these technological and knowledge-driven changes. It requires, besides technological change, also institutional change in a coevolutionary
fashion, if new sustainable technologies are to achieve the aspired transformation of the economic system. 11.2 Innovation Systems and
Knowledge Neo-Schumpeterian scholars (e.g., Dosi et al. 1988; Lundvall 1992, 1998; Nelson 1993) strongly emphasize the systemic character of
innovation processes. So-called innovation systems are composed of different actors (companies, research institutions, political actors,
consumers, etc.) and linkages between these actors (flows of goods, R&D cooperation, knowledge transfer relationships, user-producer
relationships, etc.). These linkages are required to ensure mutual learning and common knowledge development to solve complex innovation
challenges. Such systems are characterized by their dynamic and coevolutionary nature and are thus enormously complex, as both actors and
their knowledge and linkages and interactions between actors may change over time. Dosi (1982) takes this systemic conception as a starting
point in defining technological paradigms as “[...] set of procedures, or a definition of the ‘relevant’ problems and of the specific knowledge
related to their solution.” Transferred to the knowledge-based bioeconomy, the core idea is substitution , i.e.,
replacing carbon-based materials and energy with bio-based materials and energy . This can only be
achieved by applying a variety of technological processes in the entire breadth and depth of the value-
added chain. In this process the exploration of economic complementarities in terms of crossfertilization of different knowledge fields
matters. For example, to a large extent, digitalization allows for an extension of value chains by increasing the
added value in new sustainable production sectors in a CO2-neutral way (e.g., by electric mobility based on
renewables, by establishing so-called smart grids, etc.). The concept of technological paradigms also illustrates that a paradigm shift is not
possible at any time. A window of opportunity will only occasionally be opened and allow for a paradigm shift when several interconnected
technologies are established and the creation of conducive demand side and institutional conditions happens simultaneously. This, of course,
also holds for the emergence of a new bioeconomic innovation system and requires a sound balance of the various actors and their activities.
For this reason, we introduce the notion of a dedicated innovation system. The theory of industrial life cycles, which emphasizes the strong
dynamics in the emergence and decline of industries, gives a first hint on the meaning of the development of a dedicated innovation system
supporting the transformation towards a knowledge-based bioeconomy. Typically, industrial development is divided into four stages: (1) a
development phase (new knowledge creates prerequisites for innovation), (2) an entrepreneurial and growth phase (many market entries of
smaller innovative firms), (3) a saturation and consolidation phase (formation of industrial standards, mergers, and acquisitions as well as
market exits), and (4) a downturn phase (oligopolistic competition in only less innovative industries) (e.g., Audretsch and Feldman 1996).
Although the bioeconomy does not represent a well-defined industrial sector, understanding the theory of industrial life cycles is of crucial
importance to govern the transformation process towards the knowledge-based bioeconomy. Without doubt, the bioeconomy has to be
characterized as cross sectional. On the one hand, several new sectors will emerge, e.g., in the fields of bioplastic, waste management, or
biorefineries. On the other hand, already existing sectors in the fields of vehicle construction, battery technology, pharmaceuticals, etc. will gain
new momentum by the arrival of bioeconomic approaches. Therefore, we argue that newsectors will emerge by establishing
bioeconomic technologies and development dynamics of some already existing industries will receive
new impetus at the same time. Adjustments of old and development of new institutions (e.g., in Germany the
Renewable Energy Act, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Law, etc.), adjustments of consumer habits, and the
emergence of new educational opportunities in terms of coevolution will accompany these processes
and establish the institutional, the industrial, and the consumer pillars of a dedicated innovation system .
The patterns and nature of new businesses in the bioeconomy are thus strongly influenced by national institutions and organizations (Casper et
al. 1999; Whitley 1999). Institutions are defined as “a set of rules, formal or informal, that actors generally follow, whether for normative,
cognitive, or material reasons.” “Organizations are durable entities with formally recognized members, whose rules also contribute to the
institutions of the political economy” (North 1990; Hall and Soskice 2001). In this interplay between organizations and institutions, the
knowledge base of an economy is created by the education and research system and represents one of the most important prerequisites for
the transformation towards a bioeconomic production system (Geels 2002). This automatically relates to a high level of uncertainty in particular
concerning the required future competences. In this complex process, numerous individual knowledge fields are potentially relevant for the
transformation and are already identified, e.g., synthetic chemistry, process engineering, genetic engineering, food technology, or informatics.
It is decisive to understand the dynamics of these knowledge fields and the possibilities of their recombination with other knowledge fields and
adequate actors in order to create an innovation system. In many cases, linkages of different knowledge fields (cross-fertilization) are
responsible for the emergence of extensive technological opportunities: for instance, a complete new industry, bioinformatics, has been
initiated by the fusion of two so far unrelated knowledge fields, database technology and molecular biology. Because linking different
knowledge fields is highly uncertain, private actors might not start and governmental innovation policies matter. Knowledge about future
potentials, therefore, is essential for supporting research and innovation policies: the analysis of knowledge and network dynamics allows for
the identification of development trajectories showing sectors requiring public attention and support concerning research and development in
order to close existing knowledge gaps and build bridges between various knowledge domains (Burt 2004; Zaheer and Bell 2005). 11.3
Innovation in Knowledge-Based Societies It has already been mentioned that also consumer knowledge plays an important role for the
development and establishment of sustainable consumption patterns in a knowledge-based bioeconomy (Geels 2002). Therefore, the analysis
of the transformation process has to include the interaction of technological development, demand, and acceptance of innovative solutions as
well as sociological variables. The latter include education, age, income, and gender. All are important explanatory factors determining
attention and readiness to deal with bioeconomic issues. A bioeconomic innovation will only be successful when consumers accept it. The
direction of the transformation process is, comparable to the importance of the policy realm, determined by consumers, i.e., an important
question has to address consumers’ openness to the bioeconomy and its products. Finally, (real and virtual) social networks matter for the
establishment of new consumption patterns. They can contribute significantly to a diffusion of consumers’ behavioral patterns and values
(Robertson et al. 1996; Valente 1996; Nyblom et al. 2003; Deffuant et al. 2005). Recent studies show that attitudes are substantial for the
development of social relationships and that, in turn, social relationships considerably influence behavior and attitudes. In the field of
renewable energies, for example, the initiative of municipal utilities’ customers has led in many cases to a “green” orientation of regional power
supply. In some cases, citizens’ networks finally transformed to investment companies that are engaged in wind farms. Critical issues are to be
dealt with in democratic processes in order to be widely accepted. Not everything that is technically possible is also socially desirable. In the
field of the bioeconomy, this may, for instance, include the use of genetically modified organisms in agriculture. In fact, these organisms
promise efficiency advantages with regard to the consumption of land and water, etc., but their long-term health and environmental risks
cannot be completely (as with any new technology) anticipated. Accordingly, technological developments require consumers’ acceptance and
thus depend on the level of education in an economy. This raises the question of a society’s openness towards innovations that are
fundamentally associated with uncertainty. The concept of responsible innovation summarizes the future-oriented organization of
development and is currently discussed with a high priority by European policy makers and institutions. A comprehensive working definition has
been developed by Von Schomberg (2011). He describes responsible innovation as “a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors
and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the
innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society).”
This means that innovations are not exclusively evaluated by their economic efficiency, but different aspects (e.g., consumer protection or
ecological aspects; see Schlaile et al. 2017) also matter and are to be evaluated. Discussions on biofuels (“fuel vs. food”) show that both a pure
economic and a one-dimensional ethical perspective are not sufficient. The quality of these discussions depends on the discussants’ mutual
understanding which in turn depends on the participants’ level of knowledge. Modern plant breeding and production of seeds are bioeconomy
fields of innovation in which issues of responsibility are discussed frequently and controversially. German consumers are skeptical about
interference with the genome of food crops, but individual points of criticism remain unclear. New breeding techniques introduced, e.g.,
genome editing, enable scientists to selectively modify DNA strands of crop plants. These techniques are considered innovative as they may
allow breeding of potentially efficient plants in fast and cheap ways. Species developed this way hardly differ from those of conventional
breeding. The Central Advisory Committee for Biological Safety does not classify these techniques as genetic engineering, especially because no
new combinations of genetic material are made. As the Genetic Engineering Act does not explicitly address these techniques, legal clarification
is still necessary as to whether these techniques are classified as genetic engineering at all. Dissemination potential and acceptance are
influenced by this result. Here again, the necessity to include education and information policies becomes evident to support the
transformation towards a knowledge-based bioeconomy. The concept of social innovation (e.g., Hanusch and Pyka 2013) emphasizes the
importance of active citizenship in innovation. Thus, according to the understanding of the European Commission, this term includes
innovations that are social, both in relation to their objective and their instruments. In particular, this includes innovations referring to the
development and the application of new ideas (for products, services, and models), covering at the same time social demand and creating new
social relationships or collaborations. The whole society should benefit and contribute to generate new impetus for improvement. Social
innovations can make a major contribution to rural development and promote economic resilience in these regions by strengthening
cooperative behavior. Rural cooperatives (e.g., regional producer and marketing associations, winegrowers’ cooperatives, tourism associations,
etc.) can help to develop regional competitiveness considering ecological and social aspects. As a consequence, within the framework of a
bioeconomy, rural regions that are notably affected by the already imminent demographic change and subsequent depopulation receive new
opportunities for economic development. 11.4 The Economics of Change The sections above illustrate that a transformation of the prevailing
economic system towards a bioeconomy is an extremely complex process. Various different actors participating in different roles are
contributing different pieces of knowledge. In this process, innovative adjustments in already existing industries as well as the emergence of
new and the disappearance of mature industries can be observed simultaneously. In addition to the substitutive relations of new bio-based
industries to traditional oil-based industries, there are numerous essential complementary relations giving further momentum for the
transformation process. First and foremost, there are the possibilities and application fields of digitalization. Digitalization allows to replace
many oil-based products and energyintensive services simply by bits and bytes. Simultaneously, digitalization offers a wide
range of opportunities by coordinating decentralized and very detailed bioeconomic technologies and
processes such as energy production and distribution . This affects the composition of individual sectors where a coexistence
of large diversified companies and small highspecialized technology companies is a likely solution. Finally, digitalization also offers
consumer platforms to efficiently organize “sharing economy” approaches . Finally, successful knowledge generation
and diffusion of relevant bioeconomic knowledge depends on dynamic innovation networks (Pyka 2002) in which different actors jointly share
and create new knowledge. The consumers, represented, for example, by consumer associations or politics, will play a key role in these
innovation networks and will help to establish networks in early stages of technology development. In
a knowledge-based
bioeconomy, investment and economic growth still represent a crucial element for employment,
international competitiveness, and income generation . The bioeconomy can make important
contributions to accelerate investments by providing new investment opportunities generated by
fundamental innovations and thereby bringing currently available large quantities of liquidity to a
productive use. This, in turn, accelerates the technological paradigm shift (Pe´rez 2010). The time path of the
transformation process represents another critical component and has been explored only partially so far. On the one hand, it is high time to
reduce carbon-based production methods. On the other hand, there will be frictions in the transformation process being caused, for example,
by a lack of specialists and required competences. In this context, the so-called sailing ship effects (Howells 2002), frequently observed with
radical innovations, could be made of good use. In the middle of the nineteenth century, when the existence of the established sailing ship
technology was threatened by the arrival of new steam ships, shipbuilders—not having changed their technologies for many decades, if not
centuries—began to innovate again. Due to the threat of innovative technologies, adjustment reactions in predecessor technologies can be
observed with the aim to prevent the ancient technologies to be quickly replaced. Such adjustment reactions are, for example, fuel-efficient
combustion engines and hybrid technologies as a reaction to the emergence of electric vehicles. These adjustments are advantageous since
they pursue the same environmental objectives (e.g., inner-city fine dust and noise reduction, etc.) and thus provide more time to develop new
technologies. Accordingly, the transformation process will for longer periods of time feature a coexistence of traditional and bio-based
industries. Furthermore, it will be important to concurrently steer the relevant innovation processes in traditional technologies. This
coexistence further increases complexity. At the same time, innovation policy is given room for maneuver and yet insufficiently developed
technologies are prevented from being introduced prematurely which might cause promising approaches to fail. Distributional effects of the
transformation process are important for social acceptance. A bio-based economy on an industrial scale will largely represent a knowledge-
based economy. Consequently, additional demand for highskilled workers arises whereas opportunities for low-skilled workers decrease. This
means a potential loss of jobs for less skilled workers in traditional industrial production. But apart from that, there will be demand for different
goods and services whose compensation potential with regard to added value and employment is still unclear. Moreover, it remains open to
what extent companies are prepared for this transformation into the bioeconomy. Transformation processes will lead to a devaluation of
competences so far responsible for economic success. How do established companies deal with the so-called not-invented-here syndrome,
overcome operational blindness, and shape transformation processes actively in order to obtain added value at their established locations?
From this follows that distributional effects have an important regional dimension: does the bioeconomy strengthen divergence processes
between regions or does it help to achieve more convergence? The approach of creating networks in the sense of the so-called smart
specialization principle (Foray et al. 2009), connecting regional strengths along value-added chains in the best possible way, is promising but
only sparsely implemented so far. Thus, in general, polarization tendencies leading to economic as well as political and cultural concentration of
power and resulting in strong center-periphery structures can be avoided. But it still remains unclear, how strong and operational meaningful
politically induced networks are in comparison to self-organized networks and how policy might exert influence. First findings indicate signs of a
potential disintegration of the networks when political support is withdrawn (Green et al. 2013). Transformation
towards a
knowledge-based bioeconomic production system is supposed to terminate the existing negative
relations between economic growth and environmental pollution, use of resources, climate change, and
energy consumption and to promote a sustainable economy. The following questions are closely linked to the basic
uncertainty of innovation and cannot be answered ex ante: “which contributions are to be made by individual sectors?,” “what complex
feedbacks for national and international competitiveness are to be expected?,” and “do the so-called rebound effects possibly reduce or even
overcompensate the positive effects of the transformation?” Institutional rules, such as a self-commitment of oil-producing countries to reduce
their outputs due to the declining demand caused by bioeconomics, are a way to reduce these uncertainties, at least partly. It remains
necessary for the leading actors, companies, households, and policy makers to refrain from optimization approaches and profit maximization in
this transformation process. The complexity and uncertainty of this process requires the awareness of all actors to experimental behavior (trial
and error) which always also includes the possibility of failure.
Innovation through capitalism and free markets is the only way to solve for climate
change
Smith 19- Noah Smith is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at
Stony Brook University “Dumping Capitalism Won’t Save the Planet” Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-05/capitalism-is-more-likely-to-limit-climate-
change-than-socialism
It has become fashionable on social media and in certain publications to argue that capitalism is killing
the planet. Even renowned investor Jeremy Grantham, hardly a radical, made that assertion last year.
The basic idea is that the profit motive drives the private sector to spew carbon into the air with reckless
abandon. Though many economists and some climate activists believe that the problem is best
addressed by modifying market incentives with a carbon tax, many activists believe that the problem
can’t be addressed without rebuilding the economy along centrally planned lines.
The climate threat is certainly dire, and carbon taxes are unlikely to be enough to solve the problem. But
eco-socialism is probably not going to be an effective method of addressing that threat. Dismantling an
entire economic system is never easy, and probably would touch off armed conflict and major political
upheaval. In the scramble to win those battles, even the socialists would almost certainly abandon their
limitation on fossil-fuel use — either to support military efforts, or to keep the population from turning
against them. The precedent here is the Soviet Union, whose multidecade effort to reshape its economy
by force amid confrontation with the West led to profound environmental degradation. The world's
climate does not have several decades to spare.
Even without international conflict, there’s little guarantee that moving away from capitalism would
mitigate our impact on the environment. Since socialist leader Evo Morales took power in Bolivia, living
standards have improved substantially for the average Bolivian, which is great. But this has come at the
cost of higher emissions. Meanwhile, the capitalist U.S managed to decrease its per capita emissions a
bit during this same period (though since the U.S. is a rich country, its absolute level of emissions is
much higher).
In other words, in terms of economic growth and carbon emissions, Bolivia looks similar to more
capitalist developing countries. That suggests that faced with a choice of enriching their people or
helping to save the climate, even socialist leaders will often choose the former. And that same political
calculus will probably hold in China and the U.S., the world’s top carbon emitters — leaders who
demand draconian cuts in living standards in pursuit of environmental goals will have trouble staying in
power.
The best hope for the climate therefore lies in reducing the tradeoff between material prosperity and
carbon emissions. That requires technology — solar, wind and nuclear power, energy storage, electric
cars and other vehicles, carbon-free cement production and so on. The best climate policy plans all
involve technological improvement as a key feature.
Recent developments show that the technology-centered approach can work. A recent report by
Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyzed about 7000 projects in 46 countries, and found that large
drops in the cost of solar power from photovoltaic systems, wind power and lithium-ion batteries have
made utility-scale renewable electricity competitive with fossil fuels. A 76 percent decline in the cost of
energy for short-term battery storage since 2012 is especially important.
In a blog post, futurist and energy writer Ramez Naam underscores the significance of these
developments. Naam notes the important difference between renewables being cheap enough to
outprice new fossil-fuel plants, and being inexpensive enough to undercut existing plants. The former is
already the case across much of the world, which is among the reasons for an 84 percent decrease in
the number of new coal-fired plants worldwide since 2015.
But when it becomes cheaper to scrap existing fossil-fuel plants and build renewables in their place, it
will allow renewables to start replacing coal and gas much more quickly. Naam cites examples from
Florida and Indiana where this is already being done. He cites industry predictions that replacing existing
fossil-fuel plants with renewables will be economically efficient almost everywhere at some point in the
next decade.
Electricity is far from the only source of carbon emissions — there’s also transportation, manufacturing
(especially of steel and cement), home and office heating, and agriculture to worry about. But the rapid
advance of solar technology is a huge victory in the struggle against climate change, because it will allow
people all over the world to have electricity without cooking the planet.
And how was this victory achieved? A combination of smart government policy and private industry.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers Goksin Kavlak, James McNerney and Jessika Trancik
in a recent paper evaluated the factors behind the solar-price decline from 1980 to 2012. They
concluded that from 1980 to 2001, government-funded research and development was the main factor
in bringing down costs, but from 2001 to 2012, the biggest factor was economies of scale. These
economies of scale were driven by private industry increasing output, but with government subsidies
helping to increase the incentive to ramp up production.
It’s apparent, therefore, that both government and profit-seeking enterprises have their roles to play.
Government funds the development of early-stage technology and then helps push the private sector
toward adopting those technologies, while private companies compete to find ever-cheaper methods of
implementation. Instead of eco-socialism, it’s eco-industrialism . If there’s any system that can beat
climate change, this looks like it.
The transition is inevitable and gradual but growth now is key to prevent a crash. Also,
their cards lack robust studies
Weiss 17 [Martin Weiss, European Commission – Joint Research Centre, Directorate C – Energy,
Transport and Climate, Sustainable Transport Unit. Also Written by Claudio Cattaneo, Autonomous
University of Barcelona, Barcelona Institute of Regional and Metropolitan Studies. Degrowth – Taking
Stock and Reviewing an Emerging Academic Paradigm. March 15, 2017.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916305900]
With the methodological limitations sketched in Section 2, the outcome of our review suggests that the
history, concept, and rationale for
degrowth are well explained. Yet, the largely descriptive academic discourse lacks rigid hypotheses
testing through modelling and empirical assessments. By addressing the research questions and hypotheses identified in Section 5,
the academic degrowth discourse could make an important contribution to the debate around a sustainable post-growth development (see also Escobar, 2015).
We expect that degrowth may only receive broader public support if the marginal benefits of the status
quo become smaller than those of the next best degrowth scenario for large parts of the population . The
degrowth discourse has qualitatively discussed the deficiencies of the status quo but spent little effort to quantify the costs of continued economic growth as well as
the well-being benefits of degrowth.
Moreover, growth
policies may not necessarily be abandoned on a finite planet earth. Instead, such policies
may allow making maximum use of available resources (be it through expanded resource extraction,
technological innovation, or increased commodification of society) in the short term, while in parallel
enabling the development of means to cope with environmental limits in the long term. Drought in California
arguably forced residential water consumption to decrease in 2014 by some 30% (Reese, 2015) without causing major social disruptions. Such a decrease may not
have been achievable by appealing to voluntary frugality nor may have water-saving policies obtained sufficient public support by pointing out unsustainable water
consumption. The observed water savings might be temporary but show the capacity of humans to adapt in face of acute resource shortage. The case also points to
the importance of technology as a catalyst for factor substitution in production and consumption in response to environmental constraints.
To be successful, degrowth has to identify a concrete and inclusive development perspective (see Schwartzman, 2012) for the affluent and powerful elites and the
marginalized poor. Direct benefits of degrowth might be experienced by consumers in areas where further growth has obviously become undesirable, such as in the
health care industry as illustrated by Missoni (2015), in the food, nutrition and the agricultural sector, or in urban transportation. Degrowth could address
psychological stress related to over consumption, long working hours, and the commodification of social relations and highlight the benefits of a simplified life style
away from positional competition and towards more collaborative community development. Addressing life quality around resonant human interactions (Rosa,
2015) in face of increasing competition and individuation may be a viable angle to highlight the benefits of degrowth. Decreasing working time can mitigate
environmental degradation (Knight et al., 2013; Fitzgerald et al., 2015) and provide a leverage point for virtually all other degrowth proposals. In fact, we would
regard a decrease in working time as the single silver bullet through which degrowth can yield personal welfare gains, increase environmental sustainability,
enhance democracy, and thus obtain the support of larger parts of the population. Yet, to be a fulfilling choice, reduced working time, and degrowth in more
general, may hinge on a wider cultural recognition (see, e.g., Skidelsky and Skidelsky, 2012) that still appears to be hampered under the present societal conditions.
Kallis (2013) argues that societies
have the capacity to steer social processes towards degrowth, thereby
opposing the view of Sorman and Giampietro (2013) who consider that societies are destined to grow, crash, and adapt.
We see a larger and more differentiated space of development to which the degrowth discourse contributes visions for both social and economic adaptation and
the mitigation of environmental impacts. In
a resource-constraint world, degrowth may occur as a gradual and locally-
specific transition (Buch-Hansen, 2014). We argue with Ott (2012) in favor of political prudence through addressing
specific problems with specific policies and against the pursuit of grand new utopias that often come
with unintended consequences.
Capitalism empirically shields the environment

- eight reasons – wealth, democracy, tech development, trade, market adjusting to scarcity,
regulation of externalities, easy compliance, private property
Norberg 3 – MA in History (Johan Norberg, Fellow at Timbro, MA with a focus in economics and
philosophy, In Defense of Global Capitalism, p. 225-237)
All over the world, economic progress and growth are moving hand in hand with intensified
environmental protection. Four researchers who studied these connections found “a very strong,
positive association between our [environmental] indicators and the level of economic development.”
A country that is very poor is too preoccupied with lifting itself out of poverty to bother about the environment at all. Countries usually begin protecting their
natural resources when they can afford to do so. When they grow richer, they start to regulate effluent emissions, and
when they have still more resources they also begin regulating air quality. 19 A number of factors cause environment protection to increase with wealth and
development. Environmental quality is unlikely to be a top priority for people who barely know where their next meal is coming from. Abating misery and
subduing the pangs of hunger takes precedence over conservation. When our standard of living rises we start attaching
importance to the environment and obtaining resources to improve it. Such was the case earlier in
western Europe, and so it is in the developing countries today. Progress of this kind, however, requires that people live in
democracies where they are able and allowed to mobilize opinion; otherwise, their preferences will have no impact. Environmental
destruction is worst in dictatorships. But it is the fact of prosperity no less than a sense of responsibility that makes environmental
protection easier in a wealthy society. A wealthier country can afford to tackle environmental problems; it can develop
environmentally friendly technologies—wastewater and exhaust emission control, for example—and begin to rectify past mistakes.
Global environmental development resembles not so much a race for the bottom as a race to the top , what
we might call a “California effect.” The state of California's Clean Air Acts, first introduced in the 1970s and tightened since, were
stringent emissions regulations that made rigorous demands on car manufacturers. Many prophets
of doom predicted that firms and factories would move to other states, and California would soon be
obliged to repeal its regulations. But instead the opposite happened: other states gradually tightened
up their environmental stipulations. Because car companies needed the wealthy California market, manufacturers all over the United
States were forced to develop new techniques for reducing emissions. Having done so, they could more easily comply with the exacting requirements of other
states, whereupon those states again ratcheted up their requirements. Anti-globalistsusually claim that the profit motive and
free trade together cause businesses to entrap politicians in a race for the bottom. The California
effect implies the opposite: free trade enables politicians to pull profit-hungry corporations along
with them in a race to the top. This phenomenon occurs because compliance with environmental rules accounts
for a very small proportion of most companies' expenditures . What firms are primarily after is a good business environment
—a liberal economy and a skilled workforce— not a bad natural environment. A review of research in this field shows that there
are no clear indications of national environmental rules leading to a diminution of exports or to fewer
companies locating in the countries that pass the rules. 20 This finding undermines both the
arguments put forward by companies against environmental regulations and those advanced by
environmentalists maintaining that globalization has to be restrained for environmental reasons.
Incipient signs of the California effect's race to the top are present all over the world, because
globalization has caused different countries to absorb new techniques more rapidly, and the new techniques
are generally far gentler on the environment. Researchers have investigated steel manufacturing in 50 different
countries and concluded that countries with more open economies took the lead in introducing
cleaner technology. Production in those countries generated almost 20 percent less emissions than
the same production in closed countries. This process is being driven by multinational corporations because they have a lot to gain from
uniform production with uniform technology. Because they are restructured more rapidly, they have more modern machinery. And they prefer assimilating the
latest, most environmentally friendly technology immediately to retrofitting it, at great expense, when environmental regulations are tightened up. Brazil,
Mexico, and China—the three biggest recipients of foreign investment—have followed a very clear
pattern: the more investments they get, the better control they gain over air pollution . The worst forms of air
pollution have diminished in their cities during the period of globalization. When Western companies start up in developing countries, their production is
considerably more environment-friendly than the native production, and they are more willing to comply with environmental legislation, not least because
they have brand images and reputations to protect. Only 30 percent of Indonesian companies comply with the country's environmental regulations, whereas
no fewer than 80 percent of the multinationals do so. One out of every 10 foreign companies maintained a standard clearly superior to that of the regulations.
This development would go faster if economies were more open and, in particular, if the governments of the world were to phase out the incomprehensible
tariffs on environmentally friendly technology. 21 Sometimes one hears it said that, for environmental reasons, the poor countries of the South must not be
allowed to grow as affluent as our countries in the North. For example, in a compilation of essays on Environmentally Significant Consumption published by the
National Academy of Sciences, we find
anthropologist Richard Wilk fretting that: If everyone develops a desire
for the Western high-consumption lifestyle, the relentless growth in consumption, energy use, waste,
and emissions may be disastrous. 22 But studies show this to be colossal misapprehension . On the contrary,
it is in the developing countries that we find the gravest, most harmful environmental problems. In our affluent part of the world, more and more people are
mindful of environmental problems such as endangered green areas. Every day in the developing countries, more than 6,000 people die from air pollution
when using wood, dung, and agricultural waste in their homes as heating and cooking fuel. UNDP estimates that no fewer than 2.2 million people die every
year from polluted indoor air. This result is already “disastrous” and far more destructive than atmospheric pollution and industrial emissions. Tying people
down to that level of development means condemning millions to premature death every year. It
is not true that pollution in the
modern sense increases with growth. Instead, pollution follows an inverted U-curve. When growth in
a very poor country gathers speed and the chimneys begin belching smoke, the environment suffers.
But when prosperity has risen high enough, the environmental indicators show an improvement
instead: emissions are reduced, and air and water show progressively lower concentrations of pollutants. The cities with the worst problems
are not Stockholm, New York, and Zürich, but rather Beijing, Mexico City, and New Delhi. In addition to the factors already mentioned, this is also due to the
economic structure changing from raw-material-intensive to knowledge-intensive production. In a modern economy, heavy, dirty industry is to a great extent
superseded by service enterprises. Banks, consulting firms, and information technology corporations do not have the same environmental impact as old
factories. According to one survey of available environmental data, the turning point generally comes before a country's per capita GDP has reached $8,000. At
$10,000, the researchers found a positive connection between increased growth and better air and water quality. 23 That is roughly the level of prosperity of
Argentina, South Korea, or Slovenia. In the United States, per capita GDP is about $36,300. Here as well, the environment has consistently improved since the
1970s, quite contrary to the picture one gets from the media. In the 1970s there was constant reference to smog in American cities, and rightly so: the air was
judged to be unhealthy for 100–300 days a year. Today it is unhealthy for fewer than 10 days a year, with the exception of Los Angeles. There, the figure is
roughly 80 days, but even that represents a 50 percent reduction in 10 years. 24 The same trend is noticeable in the rest of the affluent world—for example, in
Tokyo, where, a few decades ago, doomsayers believed that oxygen masks would in the future have to be worn all around the city because of the bad air.
Apart from its other positive effects on the developing countries, such as ameliorating hunger and sparing people the horror of watching their children die,
prosperity beyond a certain critical point can improve the environment. What is more, this turning
point is now occurring progressively earlier in the developing countries, because they can learn from
more affluent countries' mistakes and use their superior technology. For example, air quality in the
enormous cities of China, which are the most heavily polluted in the world, has steadied since the
mid-1980s and in several cases has slowly improved. This improvement has coincided with uniquely
rapid growth. Some years ago, the Danish statistician and Greenpeace member Bjørn Lomborg, with about 10 of his students, compiled statistics and
facts about the world's environmental problems. To his astonishment, he found that what he himself had regarded as self-evident, the steady deterioration of
the global environment, did not agree at all with official empirical data. He found instead that air pollution is diminishing, refuse problems are diminishing,
resources are not running out, more people are eating their fill, and people are living longer. Lomborg gathered publicly available data from as many fields as
he could find and published them in the book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. The picture that emerges there is an
important corrective to the general prophesies of doom that can so easily be imbibed from newspaper headlines. Lomborg shows that air pollution and
emissions have been declining in the developed world during recent decades. Heavy metal emissions have been
heavily reduced; nitrogen oxides have diminished by almost 30 percent and sulfur emissions by about 80 percent. Pollution and emission problems are still
growing in the poor developing countries, but at every level of growth annual particle density has diminished by 2 percent in only 14 years. In the developed
world, phosphorus emissions into the seas have declined drastically, and E. coli bacteria concentrations in coastal waters have plummeted, enabling closed
swimming areas to reopen. Lomborg shows that, instead
of large-scale deforestation, the world's forest acreage
increased from 40.24 million to 43.04 million square kilometers between 1950 and 1994 . He finds that there
has never been any large-scale tree death caused by acid rain. The oft-quoted, but erroneous statement about 40,000 species going extinct every year is traced
by Lomborg to its source—a 20-year-old estimate that has been circulating in environmentalist circles ever since. Lomborg thinks it is closer to 1,500 species a
year, and possibly a bit more than that. The
documented cases of extinction during the past 400 years total just
over a thousand species, of which about 95 percent are insects, bacteria, and viruses . As for the problem of
garbage, the next hundred years worth of Danish refuse could be accommodated in a 33-meter-deep pit with an area of three square kilometers, even without
recycling. In addition, Lomborg illustrates how increased prosperity and improved technology can solve the problems
that lie ahead of us. All the fresh water consumed in the world today could be produced by a single desalination plant, powered by solar cells and
occupying 0.4 percent of the Sahara Desert. It is a mistake, then, to believe that growth automatically ruins the
environment. And claims that we would need this or that number of planets for the whole world to
attain a Western standard of consumption—those “ecological footprint” calculations—are equally
untruthful. Such a claim is usually made by environmentalists, and it is concerned, not so much with emissions and pollution, as with resources running
out if everyone were to live as we do in the affluent world. Clearly, certain of the raw materials we use today, in presentday quantities, would not suffice for
the whole world if everyone consumed the same things. But that information is just about as interesting as if a prosperous Stone Age man were to say that, if
everyone attained his level of consumption, there would not be enough stone, salt, and furs to go around. Raw material consumption is not
static. With more and more people achieving a high level of prosperity, we start looking for ways of using other raw materials. Humanity is
constantly improving technology so as to get at raw materials that were previously inaccessible, and
we are attaining a level of prosperity that makes this possible. New innovations make it possible for
old raw materials to be put to better use and for garbage to be turned into new raw materials. A century and a half ago, oil was just
something black and sticky that people preferred not to step in and definitely did not want to find beneath their land. But our interest in finding better energy
sources led to methods being devised for using oil, and today it is one of our prime resources. Sand has never been all that exciting or precious, but today it is a
vital raw material in the most powerful technology of our age, the computer. In the form of silicon—which makes up a quarter of the earth's crust— it is a key
component in computer chips. There is a simple market mechanism that averts shortages. If a certain raw
material comes to be in short supply, its price goes up. This makes everyone more interested in
economizing on that resource, in finding more of it, in reusing it, and in trying to find substitutes for
it. The trend over the last few decades of falling raw material prices is clear. Metals have never been as cheap as they are today. Prices are falling, which
suggests that demand does not exceed supply. In relation to wages, that is, in terms of how long we must work to earn the price of a raw material, natural
resources today are half as expensive as they were 50 years ago and one-fifth as expensive as they were a hundred years ago. In 1900 the price of electricity
was eight times higher, the price of coal seven times higher, and the price of oil five times higher than today. 25 The
risk of shortage is
declining all the time, because new finds and more efficient use keep augmenting the available
reserves. In a world where technology never stops developing, static calculations are uninteresting,
and wrong. By simple mathematics, Lomborg establishes that if we have a raw material with a hundred years' use remaining, a 1 percent annual increase
in demand, and a 2 percent increase in recycling and/or efficiency, that resource will never be exhausted. If shortages do occur, then with the right technology
most substances can be recycled. One-third of the world's steel production, for example, is being reused already. Technological
advance can
outstrip the depletion of resources. Not many years ago, everyone was convinced of the impossibility of the whole Chinese population
having telephones, because that would require several hundred million telephone operators. But the supply of manpower did not run out; technology
developed instead. Then it was declared that nationwide telephony for China was physically impossible because all the world's copper wouldn't suffice for
installing heavy gauge telephone lines all over the country. Before that had time to become a problem, fiber optics and satellites began to supersede copper
wire. The price of copper, a commodity that people believed would run out, has fallen continuously and is now only about a tenth of what it was 200 years ago.
People in most ages have worried about important raw materials becoming exhausted. But on the few occasions when this has happened, it has generally
affected isolated, poor places, not open, affluent ones. To claim that people in Africa, who are dying by the thousand every day from supremely real shortages,
must not be allowed to become as prosperous as we in the West because we can find theoretical risks of shortages occurring is both stupid and unjust. The
environmental question will not resolve itself. Proper rules are needed for the protection of water, soil, and air from
destruction. Systems of emissions fees are needed to give polluters an interest in not damaging the
environment for others. Many environmental issues also require international regulations and
agreements, which confront us with entirely new challenges. Carbon dioxide emissions, for example,
tend to increase rather than diminish when a country grows more affluent. When talking about the
market and the environment, it is important to realize that efforts in this quarter will be facilitated by
a freer, growing economy capable of using the best solution s, from both a natural and a human
viewpoint. In order to meet those challenges, it is better to have resources and advanced science
than not to have them. Very often, environmental improvements are due to the very capitalism so often
blamed for the problems. The introduction of private property creates owners with long-term
interests. Landowners must see to it that there is good soil or forest there tomorrow as well, because otherwise they will have no income later on,
whether they continue using the land or intend to sell it. If the property is collective or government-owned, no one has any such long-term interest. On the
contrary, everyone then has an interest in using up the resources quickly before someone else does. It was because they were common lands that the rain
forests of the Amazon began to be rapidly exploited in the 1960s and 1970s and are still being rapidly exploited today. Only about a 10th of forests are
recognized by the governments as privately owned, even though in practice Indians possess and inhabit large parts of them. It is the absence of definite fishing
rights that causes (heavily subsidized) fishing fleets to try to vacuum the oceans of fish before someone else does. No
wonder, then, that the
most large-scale destruction of environment in history has occurred in the communist dictatorships,
where all ownership was collective. A few years ago, a satellite image was taken of the borders of the
Sahara, where the desert was spreading. Everywhere, the land was parched yellow, after nomads
had overexploited the common lands and then moved on. But in the midst of this desert environment could
be seen a small patch of green. This proved to be an area of privately owned land where the owners
of the farm prevented overexploitation and engaged in cattle farming that was profitable in the long term. 26 Trade and freight are
sometimes criticized for destroying the environment, but the problem can be rectified with more efficient transport and purification techniques, as well as
emissions fees to make the cost of pollution visible through pricing. The biggest environmental problems are associated with production and consumption, and
there trade can make a positive contribution, even aside from the general effect it has on growth. Trade
leads to a country's resources
being used as efficiently as possible. Goods are produced in the places where production entails least
expense and least wear and tear on the environment . That is why the amount of raw materials needed to make a given product
keeps diminishing as productive efficiency improves. With modern production processes, 97 percent less metal is needed for a soft drink can than 30 years ago,
partly because of the use of lighter aluminum. A car today contains only half as much metal as a car of 30 years ago. Therefore, it is better for production to
take place where the technology exists, instead of each country trying to have production of its own, with all the consumption of resources that would entail. It
is more environmentally friendly for a cold northern country to import meat from temperate countries than to waste resources on concentrated feed and the
construction and heating of cattle pens for the purpose of native meat production.
Tech solves warming—India proves.

Srivastav 18 (Sugandha, economist at the Oxford Martin School, Vivid Economics, 4/9, "Green
technology: Can India win the race?"https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/green-technology-can-
india-win-the-race/1126192/)
Humanity is slipping into a precarious position as the environment degrades. Noxious air pollution, the
collapse of natural food systems and extreme weather events have demonstrated the urgency to find
cleaner forms of growth. The realisation that pollution is not just an inconvenient by-product but also a fundamental threat to growth
has led to significant changes in the mind-set and political will. The longstanding narrative that growth and climate goals conflict has slowly, but
surely, begun to shift in favour of convergence as evidence of adverse consequences of the resource-intensive growth model emerges.
Accordingly, the
compulsive and often reflexive focus on the costs of climate action is giving way to business
opportunities from the ‘green economy transition’ . Due to the inevitable rise in demand for clean technologies, countries
that anticipate and develop appropriate skills and industries have much to gain. They can accrue value from
export of clean technologies and gain access to large markets. China has already positioned itself as the world’s leading exporter of affordable
photovoltaic cells, Europe is innovating in wind and Japan and the US are churning out patents in electric vehicles. Countries
that
remain focused on fossil fuel will find themselves losing market share in a world that is transitioning. We
can think of this as a ‘green race’. Due to the time it takes to develop new industries and skills, and the lock-in effects, countries
starting early will have a lasting advantage in the market for green goods/services.
Where does India stand in this green race ? There are several ways to measure green competitiveness, scale, innovation, and
trade. Countries with larger green sectors today have a head-start: they have already acquired some skills and capital to facilitate the transition.
Those that are innovative will be better able to adapt and develop technologies. Trade data can reveal a country’s global competitive position.
In terms of scale, India is in a favourable position. It has a sizable industry in low-carbon environmental goods and services (LCEGS) and the
third-highest LCEGS sales in Asia (second highest in terms of proportion of GDP) . A large existing market for green goods/services has several
advantages, from knowledge spillovers to economies of scale and agglomeration benefits.
In terms of green innovation, India has
room for improvement, but has some important strengths. It famously engages in frugal innovation,
which is immensely useful, but not captured by patent data. If we narrow our focus to high-value, patented inventions, India is in a neutral
position. About 13% of the country’s high-value patents are related to green tech—in line with the world
average. Its patent basket has a higher share of certain green tech when compared to the world average
(see accompanying graphic), reflecting an innovation specialisation. These technologies include green buildings, carbon capture
and storage, climate change mitigation technologies related to production and processing goods, and water-related adaptation technologies.
India’s share of patents in water-related adaptation technologies is four times higher than the world
average, indicating a distinct advantage, as also a grave need. According to recent data, water in the country’s 91
reservoirs is at just 27% of total capacity. India is facing a severe water shortage, and capitalising on the knowhow we have created and
complementary support policies is critical. Overall, India is not a leading inventor, although it performs significantly better than other low- to
middle-income nations. In 2013, India successfully filed 1,140 high-value green patents while Brazil filed 300 and South Africa 150. However,
China filed 16,000. The vast majority of green patents are concentrated across a few nations.
Long-established innovators such as Japan, the US and South Korea account for nearly 60% of the world’s green-tech patents. But, just like
China’s level of patenting shot up over the last 15 years, so can other countries’. India
has already seen a significant rise in its
share of green patents in the last 20 years (see figure 2). Evidence shows that pricing carbon or phasing out fossil
fuel subsidies can boost green innovation, making India more competitive in the industries of tomorrow.
In trade, India specialises in smart grids, wind energy, hydel and biofuels . In India’ export basket, the share of wind
energy is 1.7 times the world average and the share of smart grid technologies is over double the world average. Hydel and biofuels are also
relative strengths, but to a lesser degree. While India enjoys a comparative advantage in these sectors, it is still not a large exporter. In 2013,
India accounted for only 2% of global exports in contrast to China’s 13%. Nevertheless, there is much room for progress. India’s low-carbon
exports have tripled in the period between 2001 and 2013. With
these remarkable growth rates, India can build on
existing advantages to prepare for the green economy transition . In particular, wind energy is a strategic opportunity.
India enjoys 10 GW of wind turbine manufacturing capacity, which is three times higher than domestic demand, providing an export-growth
window. India’s competitors in this space include Europe, although the former’s wind turbines are tailored to slower wind speeds—a unique
niche in the market.
India’s lower labour costs give it an additional competitive edge. It also has domestic scale in wind, with the fourth
largest installed capacity in the world. Tamil Nadu alone produces more wind power than Sweden or Denmark. Such scale in wind signals a
maturing market with relevant expertise. Smart grids also present a significant economic opportunity. India
can capitalise on its
comparative advantage in smart-grid technologies to boost exports. It can also harness innovation in
smart grids to address its own efficiency problems . Currently, transmission and distribution losses are very high: over 20% is
lost in distribution nationally, some states report losses in excess of 40%. Smart grid technologies can help address this problem, saving India
from costly black-outs and power shortages. There
is a promising opportunity that India should not miss. Through
supportive policies encouraging the growth of green sectors , it can strategically build export markets,
attract FDI and leverage its IT prowess to advance smart-grid technologies. The knock-on effects of developing clean
industries are large, especially because they can address water and air pollution issues, which are fated to become worse. We strongly believe
the narrative is no longer about the costs of green growth, but about the immense opportunities. We need to win the green race,
and defy the preordained.
2AC – Cap Good – War
Growth solves war – data
Lin 17 [Oon Yong; 4/23/2017; International Economics at SUNY Buffalo, under the supervision of Dr.
Sandeep Bhakshar, PhD in economics; “Conflict and Trade,”
http://geoeconomics.net/2017/09/13/conflict-and-trade/]
CONFLICT AND TRADE TODAY
In the post-cold war era, actual conflicts are relatively few and far between especially between developed
nations due to advances in military hardware [nuclear options]. Conflicts took on other forms such as economic warfare
and proxy wars. Fortunately, advances in military technology were met with advances in international
relations which led to the founding of intergovernmental organizations in the 20th-century.
Trade in the modern context can be examined through globalization which serves as an all-encompassing word that
represented progress, cultural exchange and increased trade. Development took off in the 1980s to 1990s , most notably from
1990 to 1996, capital inflows to developing countries increased by a massive 600% (Stiglitz, 2006). The World
Trade Organization was formed in 1995, absorbing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT], the organization enabled
countries to have a combined platform to address international trade issues which developed and developing countries would both
benefit in a world that was accelerating quickly in terms of trade.
China’s control of rare earth mineral exports in the global market and the usefulness of the WTO is an example worth observing. China has an
effective 97% control of the rare-earth elements market (Müller, Schweizer, & Seiler, 2016). It posed an issue as the Chinese government
applied export quotas, causing global firms that use these minerals to be fearful of a supply issue due to the concentration of the source. Rare
earth metals were useful in many applications and that contributed to the concern, United States firms used them for several product
developments ranging from technological turbines to lab purposes such as for their magnetic properties. In 2014, an argument was brought up
to the World Trade Organization [WTO] by the European Union, United States, and Japan in 2012 about the control of rare earth exports (World
Trade Organization, 2015). The timing was nearly 11 years after the accession of China to the WTO, the panel concluded in 2014 that China’s
export tariffs on rare earth exports were inconsistent with their WTO obligations. A study conducted by Müller et. al. (2016) begs to differ and
found that U.S. firms could have adopted defensive actions such as stockpiling these materials and that export control effects were not overtly
damaging after China has joined the World Trade Organization. But it remained apparent that the Chinese government did use its policies to
benefit Chinese firms at the expense of non-domestic companies before they had joined the WTO. On 20 May 2015, China responded to the
WTO’s request to conform to its panel’s recommendations and to fulfill its obligations to WTO law. China accepted the panel’s judgment, and
the issue was resolved amicably.
Bilateral agreements that increase cooperation through trade can also help reduce potential conflict. In
2010, a free trade agreement known as the Economic Framework Cooperation Agreement was initiated between
ROC Taiwan and PRC China, details of the agreement were finalized in June 2013. The deal’s results were twofold, firstly Taiwan
benefited from the trade potential that China provided. Secondly, the agreement led to reduced pressure by PRC China on
ROC Taiwan’s agenda of pursuing free trade agreements with New Zealand and Singapore (Kan & Morrison, 2013). The
change in China’s political stance during that time allowed ROC Taiwan to ink deals in quick succession, initially [ANZTEC] with New Zealand on
the 10th of July 2013, and subsequently with Singapore [ASTEP] on 7th November 2013. Bernard Cole
of the National War College
in Washington, DC shares that the possibility of ROC Taiwan and PRC China conflict has been reduced (Navarro,
2016) and the de-escalation can be partially attributed to the constant flow of trade between both countries.
The most revolutionary organization for trade was the formation of the intergovernmental organization known as the
European Union [EU]. The EU was founded after World War II [the deadliest war] to prevent future wars. The EU expressed the
primary motivation for the formation, “The first steps were to foster economic cooperation: the idea being that
countries that trade with one another become economically interdependent and so more likely to
avoid conflict.” (European Union, 2017, para 2). At its founding the EU had six member countries, today it has 28 member countries some
of which are fully committed to its economic and monetary union. Furthermore, the
EU is at the forefront of democratic
thought and champions a broad range of issues such as human rights, internet privacy, and democracy.
In support of the idea for the notion of trade and growth bringing peace to society, A Modern Peace? Schumpeter,
the Decline of Conflict, and the Investment–War Trade-Off Professors Chatagnier and Castelli argues that
To sustain growth (a basic requirement for every industrialized economy), governments and entrepreneurs
must reinvest profits in innovation. Political leaders also benefit, as they can extract more revenue from a
richer society. Within industrialized economies, war threatens this virtuous mechanism of investment, innovation, profits, and taxes,
rendering it materially unprofitable. (Chatagnier & Castelli, 2016)
Their argument was based on the assumptions that industrialized

economies which have grown to generate additional
revenue for society, in general, tends not to prefer wars as it was contrary to the needs of an industrialized economy
(Jentleson, 2007). Advocating that an extra dollar spent on military expenditures is one less dollar spent on
economic growth for the society. They found that over the last fifty years from 2016, wars were not
profitable and that industrialization does indeed reduce a nation’s incentive to enter conflicts due to the
economic changes of industrialization . Additionally, the authors recognized that trade between industrialized
societies potentially leads to peaceful attitudes (Chatagnier & Castelli, 2016).
Growth is good---absolute decoupling and tech solve overshoot---de-growth is

unpopular and hurts the transition.
Blomqvist 18. (Linus; 5/8/2018; Director of Conservation at the Breakthrough Institute, studied geography at Cambridge University in
the UK, worked extensively for conservation organizations in various countries; “Green Growth Is Still Possible A Response to the Decoupling vs.
Degrowth Debate,” https://thebreakthrough.org/voices/decoupling-debate)
In Hickel’s view, the difference in impact between various types of resource use isn’t a big enough difference… to make a difference. But is this
true? Hickel makes no attempt to provide broad, systematic empirical support for this claim, which he mostly
treats as a self-evident truism. As he puts it, “This is the thing about ecology, you see: everything is connected.” He offers a vivid image of an
open pit mine to convince the reader that all resource consumption is bad enough to justify using Hickel’s chosen metric as a proxy for impacts.
I remain unconvinced. Research indicates that different materials vary many orders of magnitude in their
impacts per unit mass — many orders of magnitude. Glossing over the considerable differences in impact between
material resources is a poor empirical foundation for making the kind of categorical assertion that Hickel
wishes to make about the viability of decoupling as a long-term solution to environmental problems.
When one considers individual impacts like land use, absolute

decoupling is far from impossible. In fact, decoupling has
already occured for some significant environmental impacts. I pointed to land use by agriculture as a key example,
which according to FAO data has been in slight decline since the mid 1990s, even as consumption of crops and meat
has increased by 60%. Since agricultural expansion is one of the leading causes of habitat loss, biodiversity
loss, and greenhouse gas emissions, this is quite encouraging. Shouldn’t we be asking how this was achieved, and if/how we can
replicate this success for other impacts? Yes, theoretically speaking, the environmental benefits of increasing agricultural efficiency may even
be fully offset by environmental impacts of agricultural modernization (which I don’t believe is the case, based on the data), but this should be
an empirical question. Hickel’s imprecise analysis and vague appeals to ecological connectedness just aren’t enough.
Now, the issue of Hickel’s proposed solution: slowing GDP growth.
The strongest argument against decoupling as a pathway towards a sustainable human future isn’t that it’s impossible, as Hickel claims, but that
it isn’t occurring quickly enough to prevent unacceptable environmental impacts. On the one hand, we
seem to be moving in the
right direction: GDP growth slows down as countries get richer, as does population growth, and
technology keeps on its steady march towards higher efficiency. Rebounds in consumption do occur as a result of
rising affluence, but research indicates that they do not typically negate the environmental benefits of
modernization. At the same time, one may believe that decoupling trends may be insufficient at their current trajectory.
If one believes that decoupling is occurring too slowly, one may be inclined to also advocate for slowing economic growth in wealthy nations, as
Hickel suggests. “Perhaps Blomqvist – or anyone at the Breakthrough Institute – could explain why they think that rich, high-consuming nations
(like the US, for instance) need to keep growing their GDP (forever?), when we know that additional growth is not generating any better social
outcomes.”
There is substantial reason to doubt that reducing GDP growth in the developed world will have the
environmental benefit that Hickel seemingly believes it must, given that it is in developed countries that the
promising decoupling trends have emerged. Further, in rich countries, GDP and population growth have
already slowed, and demand for many goods has saturated.
What about developing countries? Given Hickel’s fixation on consumption, he should be most concerned about the developing world, where
the great majority of growth in resource use is going to come from. But it’s not clear what his proposal is here. This isn’t surprising.
Intentionally slowing GDP growth in developing countries is a problematic political and ethical
proposition, given how much these countries would benefit from higher incomes , better infrastructure, and
more employment. I would also argue that limiting GDP growth in poor countries is likely to delay the very
transitions we need to achieve peak impact: slower population growth and higher efficiency.
Growth has and will exponentially decouple---reject evidence pre-2016---IEA data,

China and the US prove renewables, batteries, and cities will kill fossil fuels.
-2016 saw global GHG emissions decrease during 3% growth, their studies only use data through 2012---proves we hit peak emissions
-China decoupled coal and plateau’d oil after 15 years of growth---that’ll model to the developing world
-tech solves---battery and solar ends coal and electric transport ends oil---AND that’ll accelerate because green innovation is the next business
frontier---investment is 2:1 renewables:fossil fuels because it’s a safe long-term investment---means no intermittence
-cities solve---no transportation, decoupled in largest 15 cities
Newman 17. (Curtis; 6/6/2017; Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University, served on the Board of Infrastructure Australia and as a
Lead Author for Transport on the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report, awarded the Sidney Luker medal by the Planning Institute of Australia (NSW)
for his contribution to the science and practice of town planning in Australia, and in 2014 he was awarded an Order of Australia for his
contributions to urban design and sustainable transport, author of numerous books including People Cities and The End of Automobile
Dependence; “Decoupling Economic Growth from Fossil Fuels,” https://file.scirp.org/pdf/ME_2017060715461068.pdf) *many charts
omitted*
3. Evidence In
2016 the International Energy Agency announced that the world had changed. For the first time in hundreds of years
the world was producing less greenhouse emissions than the year before without this being caused by
an economic crisis [5]. In 2015 the amount of GHG emitted to the world’s atmosphere decreased by around
0.5% whilst economic growth continued at more than 3%. A few scientists had predicted this but mostly the fossil fuel
lobby had been in complete denial over its possibility [6].
Figure 1 shows that for the first time the industrial world was producing wealth without this meaning more fossil fuels and more emissions.
Despite its huge implications for a world that has faced down the global climate issue for decades without much good news, the world’s
media were virtually silent. Perhaps this was because the EIA (from the US Government Energy Information Administration)
were more sanguine predicting a continued growth in GHG of 1%, though their data were only up to
2012 and in reality, they did not consider the possibility of major changes often picked up by groups such as Carbon Tracker [7] [8]. Indeed,
Carbon Tracker has shown that the new trends in GHG are following the kind of projections made by the
IPCC’s carbon emissions targets much more closely than any other conservative projections.
The decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from wealth (usually measured as GDP or GNI, gross national income) has been a UN
agenda for several decades [2] [3]. The
first signs of decoupling began in the 1990’s as Figure 1 indicates and their
trajectories have been separating out quite rapidly for most of the 21st century. For many commentators and
scientists, such as the IPCC, this relative decoupling was not significant enough for a world needing less total GHG until the actual decline in
global emissions began. Now we
appear to have reached a point where this can be seen in a peak in global
greenhouse emissions. We now have absolute decoupling for the first time
3.1. Understanding the Causes The simplest explanation for decoupling is to see the mathematical relationship between GHG and GDP as: GHG
GDP GHG Energy Energy GDP = × GHG/Energy is called the carbon intensity and Energy/GDP is called the energy intensity. GHG/GDP will lower
as the national carbon intensity decreases from greater use of renewables and natural gas; energy intensity will decrease as energy efficiency
increases. Thus the
increased use of renewables and the increased energy efficiency result in a relative
decoupling of GHG from wealth. This relative decoupling was set as the basis for many national goals rather than seeking actual
absolute reductions in GHG, especially if the countries were growing fast economically (like China and India) and were expected to have low but
rapidly expanding GHG. This was seen by coal companies as the reason why coal consumption would continue to rise [9] [10].
This paper will show some of the rationale for why this is happening faster than expected but in particular that it is being driven by the world’s
cities. Because
cities are rapidly growing we can expect decoupling will continue to rapidly phase out the
world’s dependence on fossil fuels and continue its goals in ending poverty.
Figure 1 shows that Gross National Income (a way of measuring global wealth) has decoupled from greenhouse gas
emissions. The notion of decoupling is based on the same idea as the economic theory of Environmental Kuznets Curves (EKC) which shows
that as wealth grows people begin to choose environmental quality increasingly once their basic needs have been met. Decoupling is
however happening earlier than expected in many parts of the world and indicates that there is more
to this process than just simply getting wealthier . Perhaps one very key finding by a 2012 ADB report [11] is that the EKC was
related to how quickly urbanization is happening as it is in cities that the phenomenon is most easily observed.
In Figure 2 we have begun to breakdown the GHG into its main components by looking at consumption of coal and oil which are the largest
causes of GHG. The spurt in global coal growth in recent times was mostly due to China but as can be seen in Figure 3 that era is
over and China declined in its coal consumption in 2015 for the first time. Oil has also begun to plateau
in China. The driving forces behind this will be outlined later but it is important to see that the growth in China’s economy is no
longer dependent on growth in fossil fuels; they are phasing out and yet China is becoming wealthier.
Indeed it is important to see that the reduction in GHG has occurred after an extraordinary 15 years of economic
growth that took China out of its extreme poverty . The global Millenium Goals that were agreed to by the world’s nations in
2000 for the period up to 2015 focused on how development could halve extreme poverty—defined as being less than $1.25 per day. Across
the developing world people living in extreme poverty declined from 47% to 22% between 1990 and
2010—achieving the Millenium Goal 5 years ahead of time [12]. This was mostly due to rapid declines in extreme poverty in China and India
with some improvement in Africa. This process has taken around 1 billion people out of extreme poverty in a 15
year period.
It is also important to see that

the rapid decline in poverty has mostly occurred within cities and that the
extremely rapid urbanization in China (and now in India and Africa) is what fuels this dramatic change. It also clear
that there was not as much concern in this rapid urbanization in the emerging world’s cities for achieving fossil fuel and GHG reductions; these
cities were and are focusing on ending poverty. But the
new trend in China which decoupling is now underway
provides great hope that the process will now spread to the whole emerging world. China is probably
going to show the way to decouple rapidly as they invested $90 billion in renewables in 2015 (more than
60% of their investment in energy) so much of their continuing growth will be based around solar and wind rather than the fossil fuel-based
economic growth of the past 15 years. The
data on developed nations below show that decoupling can be
anticipated in all elements of economic growth as GHG decoupling has set in.
The big question for the world is whether this process of absolute decoupling is likely to continue in places like China and India and Africa as
they develop. In Figures 3-6 we have presented the data on decoupling for Australia, China, Denmark and the United States to show that the
extent of absolute
decoupling is now considerable and this indicates that the global decoupling process is
likely to continue.
The largest decoupling is in Denmark, where the absolute decoupling began back in 1994 and has continued since, with coal and oil in
significant decline without impacting on their overall growth in wealth. The US and Australia are following this pattern though not as
spectacularly as Denmark. Most European nations have similar trajectories to Denmark.
The EIA data in Figure 7 on China and the US, which stops in 2012 and so is not as clear in recent times about absolute decoupling, is certainly
showing the sources of the decoupling. The reduction
in the ratio of GHG over GDP includes both energy efficiency
and growth in renewables leading to a decoupling of GHG and GDP of around 60% over 22 years in
China and nearly 50% in the US. Similar data is available on India, the fourth largest emitter of GHG, and they have made very
significant commitments to solar and to electric rail as well as energy efficiency that could lead to their absolute
decoupling well before EKC theory would have predicted [13].
Although many would not want to say that the battle is over, there is no doubt that the era of fossil fuel dependence is
ending. It obviously needs to keep going and gain exponential decline momentum. Our book is written to help with that momentum through
the powerful forces of change that are potentially available in our cities.
3.2. Causes of Decoupling The three primary sources of change are government, business and the community [14]. Each of these play a part in
any change and will be briefly outlined here before showing how the power of cities to bring these together is what is really driving the world to
decouple from fossil fuels.
3.2.1. Government The Paris agreement in December 2015 (COP21) was an historic accord signed by 196 nations. It was significantly easier for
the nations of the world to sign than in Copenhagen in 2009 (COP15) as the world could now see that the changes being required on them were
already underway without causing a decline in wealth generation, as outlined above in Figure 1 and in national data.
Nevertheless it was
a significant achievement and a lot of lobbying and government activity was required to
demonstrate that it was now possible to commit more heavily to the journey of removing fossil fuel-based economies 100% by 2100. The
follow-up commitments began in New York in April 2016 with a signing by 175 nations to ensure that climate change is “well below” the 2
degrees’ limit accepted by the world’s scientists. Each country must now deliver the ratification from their parliaments and begin the adoption
of annual goals that are meant to be ratcheted up whenever the country feels able to do so.
The role of government in providing regulations and infrastructure to enable higher energy efficiency and low carbon
electricity, fuels, appliances, buildings and vehicles has been a driver of change over the past 30 years. This process is
usually one of being a small step ahead and pushing the system to produce a better low carbon outcome without too much cost or change.
However it is possible, that disruptive innovations will begin to take over markets much quicker than
governments have allowed for. In our view the emergence of solar and battery storage is likely to rapidly
displace coal and the reduction of car dependence and electrification of transport is likely to rapidly
displace oil. This process will depend on whether business and the community can see the changes emerging and accept that new fossil
fuel-free goals are achievable in their cities and towns and how they can use the opportunity to ride this new economic wave rather than try to
prevent the change.
3.2.2. Business There is a lot of evidence that the

next area of growth for business is the green economy and that
there are large groups of businesses partially or totally funding green innovation, products and services as the
basis of their future [15]. The most significant driver in the 21st century leading to the removal of coal (and
gas) for electricity production has been investment in renewables . As shown in Figure 8 below there was a point
around 2004 when investment in renewables by the world’s bankers and financiers outstripped fossil fuel-based power investment. In the most
recent data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance the investment ratio is now 2:1 in favour of renewables .
Business has often been seen to have very short term goals of a year or so in terms of their strategic plans for market gains. But investors
from the financial community look to see how they will make profits right through the lending period
which is usually 20 years. When governments are debating the world’s scientists about how quickly they can remove fossil fuels from
the market place, then it is easy to see why they would not want to invest in potential stranded assets like coal-fired power stations when other
options that governments and scientists want to see, are available.
In the US in the past 5 to 8 years the

phasing out of coal was made easier by the availability of natural gas. At the
same time dramatic growth in solar and wind power was underway and now it is possible to see how the natural gas
limits are being reached as renewables becomes the fuel of choice [17]. The combination of these two forces led
to the collapse of coal consumption in the US and decline and fall of the largest coal company Peabody with many stranded
assets.
In Australia a similar process has been underway with gas as the preferred option over coal but in the past 5 years the dramatic growth in
rooftop solar has created a significant market that was not considered likely for decades. 1.5 million homes purchased roof top solar in 5 years
without any real subsidies like feed-in tariffs and in Perth this reached 25% of households. The 550 MW produced is the largest power station in
Western Australia and has led to the Minister Energy saying growth will inevitably reach 70% of households by 2020 and the utilities will never
again need to purchase a coal or gas-fired power station [18].
The implications for the cities and

towns in Western Australia for how they manage a potentially carbon-free
power future in the next decade are a journey they were not prepared for. Fossil fuel-based power stations are
now likely to be stranded assets and the key questions are about how battery storage can make this transition seamless for
business and households and how it can enable the electricity grid to be maintained as a way of equitably distributing solar electricity. This is
likely to be different in different parts of the city as well as in different types of settlements in rural and remote locations, as will be discussed
later.
3.2.3. Community The reasons why Perth grew so rapidly in adoption of solar include factors like easy access to Chinese mass produced PV cells
(and now batteries) and the high price of electricity, but mostly it was driven by the community. In the 8 years from 2008 there was a significant
economic boom in Western Australia when the rest of the world was frantically adapting to the GFC. For a period Perth
became the
wealthiest city in the world and the new money was flooding into many household bank accounts. Many
chose to put it into a rooftop solar system because of their interest in long term sustainability (over 80%
of the community want to see action on climate change) as well as having an investment that would pay for itself in 5 years.
Community values can easily be underestimated when facing the future and the need to address complex matters like climate change. The
majority of this rooftop solar has gone into the outer suburbs which in Australia are generally less wealthy though they often have bigger
homes with bigger roofs and bigger power bills [19]. The inner suburbs are much higher socio-economically and have higher green intentions
but in reality it was the outer suburbs who have made the majority of the investment in solar. It indicates that the mechanisms for decoupling
economic growth and fossil fuels will vary between cities and within cities [20].
3.3. What about Oil? The reduction in consumption of oil is another example of how cities have begun to drive the change to remove fossil fuels
at a faster rate than many anticipated. It also is a combination of government, business and the community.
The collapse in oil price as well as the collapse in coal price appears to be due to demand issues as well as supply issues. Demand
for coal
will continue to drop as renewables takes over; especially as battery storage becomes cheap. Demand
for oil is expected to decline as vehicle fleets are electrified; however it has already gone down despite there being only a
few percent of electric vehicles. The reason why this has happened appears to be a city issue: for the past 150 years cities have
been moving out as they have followed first trains and trams then automobiles, but now they are coming back in [21].
Our work on cities has shown that there is an exponential relationship between urban density and car use/fuel use as in Figure 9.
If cities
have begun to increase in density rather than decrease then they will drop down the steep curve quite
quickly creating exponential decline in car use. This is what we are now seeing in all the world’s
developed cities and the phenomenon is being called ‘peak car’ as car use per capita has peaked and is in decline. Indeed it is very similar
to the decoupling phenomenon described above. Many cities are now seeing that their economic growth is dependent on them reducing their
car use. Hence cities like Washington DC and Portland, Oregon have demonstrated that their wealth is decoupling from car use (Figure 10). It
should be no surprise that this strong decoupling is associated with cities that have invested in good urban rail
systems in recent decades. The decoupling is closely associated with this as our data also shows that urban traffic is slowing in all the
world’s cities and urban rail is now able to outcompete cars as they can go around, over or under the traffic [21].
Governments play a big part in generating this transition as they are needed to help plan, though not necessarily finance, such large scale
infrastructure. However business and community are also critical as they are responding to a new economic process associated with the
knowledge economy. Many businesses that are part of the new innovation economy are locating in city centres where they can have creative
face-to-face contact with people from various backgrounds and professions [22] [23]. These new jobs are generally for the young Millenials and
also older wealthier professionals. As a result they are the backbone of the social movement that has rediscovered inner and central city living.
The market demand for dense urbanism that is not car dependent has therefore grown dramatically in the 21st century city.
In more recent work the same phenomenon of peak car has been found in Shanghai and Beijing which are now carrying 8 and 9 million
passengers a day on their new Metro systems enabling a significant reduction in the relative use of cars [24]. The rapid change into decoupling
growth in wealth from growth in car use is happening in emerging cities because they have the urban fabric that is not suited to large scale
growth in car use. The
building of 81 electric urban rail systems in Chinese cities and 52 in Indian cities is
indicative of how the switch away from oil is happening before many expected.
3.4. The Future A range of fossil fuel demand forecasts and the forecast just for renewables are set out in Figure 11. The nine organizations they
used include the main fossil fuel companies and the main government-based forecasting bodies of the IEA and the EIA. The average growth
from 2015 to 2050 is 580 EJ to 850 EJ with the oil companies suggesting well above these forecasts. The average for renewables goes from 80 EJ
to 200 EJ with the fossil fuel companies suggesting much less than this.
What this suggests is that based on historical trends global energy demand is forecast simply to grow in line with global population growth and
growth in GDP. Owing to this, fossil fuel companies predict that due to the continued forecasted rise of energy consumption, their products will
meet the majority of this demand with a small though growing proportion of renewables. This is business as usual. However, this
paper
has shown that decoupling of fossil fuel energy from GDP has become firmly established and is being
driven by cities from across the world. What if the trends are setting in to be significantly faster than most of these forecasts dare
to suggest?
What could happen if we took seriously the kind of disruptive innovations in our cities that are likely to lead to rapid decline in fossil fuels and
rapid growth in renewables? In order to separate out the components of GHG growth we have used the Kaye simplification (based on the old
Paul Ehrlich simplification of Impact being a combination population, resource consumption per capita and technology efficiency per unit of
resource consumption):
[FORMULA OMITTED]
The carbon intensity of energy is going down globally and will increase rapidly as renewables increases
its proportion. The decoupling of energy from wealth has been increasing with a 35% decoupling
between 1990 and 2015 and from the above diagrams this will grow even more rapidly as the two separate out.
Wealth per capita is likely to continue its gradual growth and population growth is predicted to continue but slow. The interactions between all
these factors are complex for example urban population growth will help propel the economic processes that enable solar adoption and urban
regeneration as well as being a factor in creating more GHG until these processes enable the phase out. The
scenario considered
most feasible will be something like the IPCC goal of 80% less GHG by 2050 as in Figure 12.
4. Conclusion The
end of fossil fuel dependence is hard to imagine but it is getting easier because the trends show
it is underway. This paper has shown the kind of exponential growth in renewables and decline in fossil fuels
that we have just started to see could in fact decouple economic growth from fossil fuels much more
rapidly than most have forecasted . The continuation of these trends will require a combination of different forms of solar-based
power, different forms of electric transport and different forms of urban fabric. Most of this will be in cities. Government, business and the
community will drive it in different ways in different parts of cities.
Capitalism solves inequality and war
Schramm 6 (Carl J., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a Batten Fellow at the University of Virginia's Darden Graduate School of
Business; and was chairman of the National Advisory, Committee on Measuring Innovation, Department of Commerce, CEO, June 28, 2006, “Capitalism spreads freedom even as democracy
falters,” USA Today, p. np)
How would Presidents George Washington, John Quincy Adams or Thomas Jefferson handle Iraq? Afghanistan? The war
on terror? The search for global peace? One overlooked "founder" offers enduring answers: Adam Smith . Smith
published the Wealth of Nations in 1776, the same year the Continental Congress declared American independence. By the time of the Constitutional
Convention 11 years later, his ideas had been incorporated into the thinking of the new nation's
leaders. Smith's great revelation was that political freedom would most likely emerge and persist
under conditions of economic freedom, what we now call capitalism. Our democratic system as defined in our Constitution
incorporated respect for this economic system. Like Smith's invisible hand in the market, the Framers saw an invisible hand in our politics . They
believed that, if allowed to work freely, these hands together would shape America into the land where
invention, creativity and entrepreneurial activity would flourish. There would be no danger of an
aristocracy of wealth because the instruments of financial success were available to every person . In the
America has become the hope of the oppressed, the
two centuries since then, Smith's proposition has served to advance all of civilization.
"mother of exiles" and the cradle of modern commerce. Twice, America considered turning away
from economic freedom. In the Depression, nationalization was seriously considered , and Presidents Roosevelt and
Truman did attempt to take over several industries. In the late 1970s, in the face of low growth and high inflation, the nation nearly followed the advice of such
economists as Harvard's Wassily Leontief and John Kenneth Galbraith to establish government central planning. Instead, in the 1980s,
we returned to our origins and bet on individual entrepreneurs rather than on government
bureaucrats. The result has been today's extraordinary economic engine — Smith's entrepreneurial
capitalism at work. Indeed, research from the University of Maryland and Census Bureau shows that net
jobs created by businesses less than five years old exceeded 20% per year during the '80s and '90s
(equating to millions of jobs), while jobs created by more mature businesses remained essentially flat.
Even so, what do we do now in the face of a new enemy to freedom, driven by a notion that our democratic way should be eliminated? More than the export of
democracy, it is the export of entrepreneurial capitalism that can produce a new birth of peace and
freedom around our globe . Entrepreneurial capitalism is based on individual invention, and because
wealth comes from one's own initiative, it advances human dignity. And here is the good news. Virtually every country, whatever its
political system, wants to embrace it. They have seen the success of the American economy. It has been said that when goods cross borders, armies don't .
Today, China and India are the world's two largest countries racing toward entrepreneurial capitalism.
They are the example and test of that thesis. Several decades ago, their armies clashed. Now no one
talks of war , only of their economic emergence. Capitalism has promoted peace and, in China, better -- though still
respect for rights. If, with our assistance, Adam Smith's entrepreneurial capitalism were to become
inadequate --
ubiquitous, the cross-border investment in the success of our brothers and sisters around the world,
and theirs in us, would cause people everywhere to see the futility of ancient struggles, whether
based on plunder, conquest or theocratic fervor. In the insight of our invisible founder is the secret
for achieving a future of global peace.
2AC – Cap Good – Racism
Free markets protected but not regulated by the government is undeniably good for
black people.
- Throw this is in the 2AC ONLY IF you have read every other aff answer
Bernstein 1 [Andrew Bernstein, Andrew Bernstein teaches philosophy at Pace University and is
working on a book, The Capitalist Manifesto., 10-1-2001, "Black Innovators and Entrepreneurs Under
Capitalism," Foundation For Economic Education, https://fee.org/articles/black-innovators-and-
entrepreneurs-under-capitalism/, accessed 7-1-2020]LHSBC
Freedom Needed
A despised racial minority needs political and economic freedom, with their concomitant legal
protection of individual rights, even more than members of the majority do, for they are potentially
subject to vicious physical attack by racists. Even if all whites in the country were so irrational as to fear,
hate, and shun blacks, such bigotry would be insufficient to halt black economic progress if the rights of
black individuals were legally protected. Under capitalism, the purpose of the government is to protect
individual rights, including property rights.
Tragically, the Tulsa government failed to operate on this fundamental capitalist principle. The black
producers of Tulsa did not need paternalistic government or even its good will; nor did they require an
end to bigotry. They required only the protection of their legal rights as U.S. citizens; their own
enterprise would take care of the rest. Similarly, in Durham the government itself violated the rights of
these black property owners. The absence of capitalism, of a government exclusively and scrupulously
devoted to the protection of individual rights, was responsible for the destruction of these black
business centers. When the government fails to protect or itself violates individual rights, there is no
hope of economic advancement, especially for members of a persecuted ethnic minority. Statism is
necessary to keep a racial minority oppressed. Under capitalism, most enterprising members of a
minority group can overcome any obstacle.
Further proof of this principle is provided by black Caribbean immigrants. The United States received a
sizable Caribbean immigration in the early twentieth century, and by 1930 Caribbean immigrants
constituted roughly 1 percent of the U.S. black population. Those immigrants, like virtually all American
immigrants, tended to be hard-working, entrepreneurial, and frugal.
Based on the still-significant element of freedom in the American mixed economy of that era, many
Caribbean immigrants opened and operated successful businesses. As Thomas Sowell wrote, “As early as
1901, [the immigrants] owned 20 percent of all black businesses in Manhattan, although they were only
10 percent of the black population there.” Despite the existence of anti-black prejudice, by the 1980s
Caribbean immigrants had an average income roughly equal to whites, and the second generation had
a standard of living greater than the average white American.10
Racists Oppose Free Markets
Because racists recognize that the ethnic minorities they oppose will flourish under the political and
economic freedom of capitalism, they conduct a relentless war against the free-market system. The
antebellum South not only created and supported a legal system that sanctioned the enslavement of
blacks, but also mandated that blacks be kept illiterate. Indeed, Sowell wrote, “many Southern states
not only refused to educate free Negroes but made it a crime for them even to attend private schools at
their own expense.” In the postbellum South, Jim Crow legislation made it illegal for blacks to attend the
better schools, be hired for the best jobs, or live in white neighborhoods, no matter how qualified the
individual.11 Bigots know that without the coercive power of the state to enforce their prejudices, they
are powerless to prevent the advancement of the ethnic minorities they fear. Capitalism is the bigot’s
worst enemy.
Additional evidence is shown by the varying rates of black economic progress over the past 60 years.
Black Americans moved heavily into the northern cities during World War II and the postwar years. The
years between 1940 and 1970 were a relatively free period for America’s mixed economy. Because the
majority of blacks had lived in the Jim Crow south, where legal restrictions impeded their advancement,
the percentage of black families subsisting below the official poverty line was 87 percent in 1940. In the
freer North, with better schools and jobs open to blacks, their rise into middle-class prosperity began. By
1960 the number of poor black families had dropped to 47 percent; by 1970, to 30 percent.
Then came massive government intervention in the form of the Great Society welfare state, which
Marxist intellectuals and politicians directed heavily toward blacks because of their still-disproportionate
poverty. After 1970 expensive government programs proliferated. With increasing numbers of poor
urban blacks being seduced onto the dole, the result was predictable: black economic progress slowed
drastically. Twenty-nine percent of black families were below the poverty line in 1980; 26 percent in
1995. Today, roughly 50 percent of black Americans are in the middle class, greater than 40 percent live
in homes they own and more than 30 percent live in the suburbs. Given the rise of government
intervention and the decline of freedom over the past 30 years, one can only wonder how much higher
these figures would have been if the freedom of the earlier period had been allowed to continue or be
expanded.12
There is a prevalent belief today that the success of blacks and other minorities requires elimination of
racism. This is false. Though the end of all forms of bigotry is an undiluted good toward which all rational
men should strive, it is not a necessary condition of an ethnic or racial minority’s success. What is
necessary is the legal protection of individual rights, including the right to property, provided by
capitalism.
In the past, white racists’ fears explained the absence of recognition accorded to the great black
innovators and entrepreneurs. But today the statist media and intellectuals claim to support “black
empowerment.” What then is the current cause of the bizarre public silence regarding the
entrepreneurial success achieved by numerous black Americans? Anti-Western, ostensibly pro-black
intellectuals have promulgated the myth that Western civilization is a stolen legacy of African culture. In
the name of “black pride,” they relentlessly push this fantasy while ignoring magnificent black achievers
right under their noses. Why?
Because their prejudices prevent them from acknowledging the existence of successful black capitalists.
In the mythical universe they inhabit, white Western capitalists are exploitative of the poor, the
minorities, the Third World. An entire class of successful black American entrepreneurs is worse than
impossible in their view. It shatters the Marxist delusions they cling to and brings them face to face with
the enormous benevolence of capitalism.
In the name of justice, the prejudices of both white racists and Marxist intellectuals must be swept
aside. Capitalism is the Great Liberator.
2AC – Cap Good – Space Col
Cap is the only way to colonize space – solves sustainability.
Ashworth 10 (Stephen, long-standing Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society. He works in academic publishing in the Voltaire
Foundation, part of Oxford University – Towards the Sociology of the Universe, part 2 – 18 December 2010 –
http://www.astronist.demon.co.uk/space-age/essays/Sociology2.html)
The point here is that, while the resources of Earth are limited, those of the Solar System are very much
greater. Growth in population sizes and in the usage of energy and raw materials may therefore
continue for a number of centuries into the future, provided that two conditions are met: * Material growth on Earth
levels off; * Material growth in space and on other planets takes over the upward trend . Is this not equivalent to
saying that Earth must settle down with a zero-growth society before space development begins? No, so long as the terrestrial and
extraterrestrial economies are linked. While this remains true, it will be possible for investors on Earth to invest capital in extraterrestrial
development, and receive dividends back from that development. While most Earth-dwelling people will remain on the mother planet, there
will also be flows of people, goods and ideas between Earth and her colonies, which must also have a profound economic effect. A net inflow of
value to Earth is in any case necessary in order that terrestrial investment in outer space does not merely produce inflation in the home
economy. But that inflow need not be of material goods, and is more likely to consist of energy (solar power delivered on microwaves or lasers)
and information (software and product development). But surely ultimately the limits of the Solar System will be reached, and the
interplanetary civilisation have to settle down as a zero-growth society? Yes, granted. But this differs from a zero-growth planet Earth due to
the immense size of the Solar System, which is larger than Earth by between four and six orders of magnitude, depending how far out one
wants to go – to the distance of Mars, say, or to the Oort comet cloud far beyond Pluto. An
interplanetary industrial civilisation
is secure for the long term in a way that a monoplanetary one is not, because it is too large to form a
unity, either politically or environmentally, and because it is forced to adapt to a wide range of hostile
environmental conditions. It will therefore be secure against any conceivable environmental or military
disaster, because such a disaster can only affect a single planet , or at most a limited region of the
system. Climate change or world war on Earth has no effect on Mars , and vice versa. And with the majority of the
population in orbiting artificial space colonies, even a major change in solar luminosity could be tolerated (though such a change is not
expected to have a noticeable effect for hundreds of millions of years yet). With
interplanetary civilisation, the social system
as a whole can tolerate decline and collapse in particular locations, because they can then be
recolonised from outside. Once humanity achieves interstellar status, this security factor is clearly vastly
enhanced. However, in order for interplanetary growth to occur in the first place, an economic mechanism
must be in place to drive it. The most suitable economic mechanism that has been demonstrated so far
is capitalism. Its need for continuous expansion makes it highly appropriate as an economic system for a
society colonising its local planetary system. It is not clear whether an economic system based on ideology could
perform this function of capitalism. If the ideology was growth-oriented, then it would have no reason to conflict with the existing capitalist
order, but would rather work in concert with it. But in the more plausible case that it was oriented towards socialstability and
economic stagnation, particularly in view of the environmentalist, anti-growth or anti-consumerist
agendas it might very likely serve, then it would not want to promote disruptive new technologies such
as those of access to space. The idea of a socially just socialist society (if such a hypothetical entity is possible)
expanding into space is therefore a questionable one. If Earth remained divided among competing centres of power, then
they might make the leap to interplanetary capability even without the driving force of capitalist economics. However, the competitive
Moon-race of the 1960s showed, firstly, that if one competitor drops out, the other may well lose interest to the point of
abandoning capabilities developed for that competition, and secondly, that an ideologically based collectivist society is
unlikely to make a good showing in the technologies required. Economic growth, however, has a vested
interest in preserving and extending gains made . Given that the opportunities for growth in space are so
large, it seems unlikely that the present burst of growth will reach a plateau until space has been
colonised. There is in fact an inconsistency about the idea of an industrial civilisation which does not
move beyond its home planet – like a lone tree in the middle of a fertile plain. Such a tree will either die
off, or it will naturally reproduce until it has engendered a whole forest, in which a far greater variety of
life is possible than on the unsheltered plain.
Space col solves black swan extinction.

Kharpal 17 (Arjun Kharpal – Reporter at CNBC. <TMS> “Stephen Hawking says humans must colonize
another planet in 100 years or face extinction,” CNBC, May 5 2017. DOA: 6/30/20.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/05/stephen-hawking-human-extinction-colonize-planet.html)
Humans need to colonize another planet within 100 years or face the threat of extinction, high-profile physicist
Stephen Hawking has warned.
In a new BBC documentary called “Stephen Hawking: Expedition New Earth” set to air later this year, the professor will “present his predictions
that the human race only has 100 years before we need to colonize another planet ,” a press release from earlier
this week said.
“With climatechange, overdue asteroid strikes, epidemics and population growth , our own planet is
increasingly precarious.”
Previously, Hawking theorized that humanity probably has around 1,000 years left before it becomes extinct. His
timeline appears
now to have shortened. The famous physicist has issued a number of warnings about the future over the past few years.
At the start of 2016, Hawking warned about the dangers from nuclear war, global warming, genetically-engineered
viruses and artificial intelligence (AI).
“Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in the
next thousand or ten thousand years,” Hawking told the BBC in an interview at the time.
“Bythat time we should have spread out into space, and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not
mean the end of the human race,” he added. “However, we will not establish self-sustaining colonies in
space for at least the next hundred years, so we have to be very careful in this period .”
Hawking is not
the only major figure in the technology and science world that has warned about the threat
to human existence. Earlier this year, billionaire Elon Musk said or risk becoming irrelevant in the age of AI. The and SpaceX founder is
working on a company called Neuralink to do just that.
founder Jack Ma, meanwhile, also recently warned that society could because of the disruption caused by new technology and the internet.
2AC – No Impact – Generic
No impact—neoliberalism checks itself through democratic institutions.
Johnston and Glasmeier 7 [Johnston, Ron, Professor of Geography, University of Bristol and Amy
Glasmeier, professor of Economic Geography and Regional Planning, MIT. "Neo-Liberalism, Democracy
and the State: Temporal and Spatial Constraints to Globalisation." Space and Polity 11.1 (2007): 1-33.]
SW 7/13/2016
Globalisation, according to its proponents, does not have the negative impacts claimed by those who
argue against the neo-liberal agenda. It does not accentuate poverty; it does not worsen the plight of
women in developing countries or sustain the use of child labour there; it does not erode local cultures,
lead to environmental degradation, or undermine democracy (Sheppard and Nagar, 2004). Instead, as Bhagwati (2004)
claims, its agenda, if and when fully implemented, will achieve the exact opposite. All will benefit, and none will be able to resist: it is, according
to a former head of the WTO, “a force that is anyway beyond their direct control” (Moore, 2003, p. 16). That
neo-liberal agenda is
promoted as key to universal prosperity and governments are pressed —by advisors and others—to
introduce policies that will advance it. Some governments have been convinced and have implemented
such policies. Many more do so because they are, in effect, bribed to by economic neo-imperialists
working through international financial institutions. However, in the small minority of countries which
have the greatest power to resist the pressure, the agenda is sometimes more respected in the rhetoric
than the practice when its own interests suggest alternative policy directions . In such countries— basically those
in the ‘developed world’ core spanning the North Atlantic—neoliberal goals may be subordinated to others which are, in effect, more
selfseeking for the governments concerned, although they are usually defended as being in the (short-term at least) interests of the country as
a whole. In
such circumstances, globalisation is delayed and short-term, spatially focused, protectionist
policies prevail as illustrated here with respect to labour movement, production subsidies and the
‘offshoring’ of jobs. The rationale for this short-termism is often electoral. The prime purpose of any
democratic government is to ensure its own re-election , a goal which introduces significant temporal
and spatial constraints to many of its political actions. Policies that might have short-term deleterious
impacts on the well-being of substantial groups of voters may be avoided, especially if those impacts
could be felt in the period preceding an election, and particularly so if they will affect people
concentrated in key spatially defined constituencies. Such failures, according to Moore have been caused by bad
governance, lack of transparency and the shortsightedness and greed of business and political leaders. Progress can be stalled, we will
experience new shocks in old clothing, but the historical trend line must make us optimistic (Moore, 2003, p. 41). For Moore, these aberrations
will fall to “the self-correcting advantages of democracy”. However, many government actions are taken to promote re-election chances, which
are geographically structured within their national territories and are not globally ‘self-correcting’. Furthermore, that geographical structuring
of their internal representative democracy is linked to many of their international actions: protecting their electoral heartlands at home
strongly influences how they play away. As Massey (2005) has argued, illustrated in the quotation at the start of this essay, the
concept of
globalisation is associated with calls for freedom which imply that space should be unbounded. Yet
states that promote globalisation often bound rather than unbound their territories : they promote “the
imagination of defensible places, of the rights of ‘local people’ to their own ‘local places’, of a world divided by difference and the smack of firm
boundaries, a geographical imagination of nationalisms” (Massey, 2005, p. 86). This
deployment of territorialisation strategies
reflects certain constraints on state action—which are themselves spatially bounded. Short-term considerations
associated with electoral concerns (which are spatially as well as temporally structured) are drawn upon to justify policies that impede the long-
term goals of freedom of movement for all factors of production and trade. Those controlling the state apparatus put the local before the
global and thereby the short term before the long term.
2AC – No Impact – Facism
Facism could not rise in America – a strong and big government checks that and the
plan does nothing to trigger it.
Cowen 18, Tyler Cowen; May 1, 2018; “No, Fascism Can’t Happen Here” Politico Magazine
Could it ever happen here? Fascism, that is. That question is a standard refrain from American history,
dating back at least to the 1930s and also related to the classic Sinclair Lewis novel It Can’t Happen Here.
It was asked with increasing frequency after the ascent and election of Donald Trump, both on the left
and by “Never Trump” commentators on the right, and has continued to be raised as Trump has
governed. But I would like to hazard a prediction that no, it cannot happen here. I won’t claim it could
never happen over the centuries, rather that it can’t happen in anything recognizably like the America of
today. My argument is pretty simple: American fascism cannot happen anymore because the American
government is so large and unwieldy. It is simply too hard for the fascists , or for that matter other
radical groups, to seize control of. No matter who is elected, the fascists cannot control the bureaucracy ,
they cannot control all the branches of American government, they cannot control the judiciary, they
cannot control semi-independent institutions such as the Federal Reserve, and they cannot control what
is sometimes called “the deep state.” The net result is they simply can’t control enough of the modern
state to steer it in a fascist direction. This yields a new defense of Big Government, which is harder to
take over, and harder to “turn bad,” than many a smaller government. Surely it ought to give us pause
that the major instances of Western fascism came right after a time when government was relatively
small, and not too long after the heyday of classical liberalism in Europe, namely the late 19th century.
No, I am not blaming classical liberalism for Nazism, but it is simply a fact that it is easier to take over a
smaller and simpler state than it is to commandeer one of today’s sprawling bureaucracies. I commonly
hear arguments from classical liberals suggesting that a “night watchman state” (or some slightly
expanded version thereof) focused narrowly on upholding the rule of law provides government with
greater efficacy and focus. If government is concentrating on its essential functions, and what it can do
well, maybe it does a better job. Imagine, for instance, a government that doesn’t try so hard to regulate
broccoli stems, but delivers on limiting crime and providing speedy and fair trials to the accused. Yet the
greater focus of the night watchman state, for all its virtues, is part of the reason why it is easy to take
over. There is a clearly defined center of power and a clearly defined set of lines of authority;
furthermore, the main activity of the state is to enforce property rights through violence or the threat of
violence. That means such a state will predominantly comprise policemen, soldiers, possibly border
authorities, Coast Guard employees and others in related support services. The culture and ethos of
such a state is likely to be relatively masculine and also relatively martial and tolerant of a certain
amount of risk, and indeed violence. The state will be full of people who are used to the idea of applying
force to achieve social ends, even if, under night watchman assumptions, those deployments of force
are for the most part justified.
2AC – No Root Cause
No root cause
Sharpe 10, lecturer, philosophy and psychoanalytic studies, and Goucher, senior lecturer, literary and
psychoanalytic studies – Deakin University, ‘10
(Matthew and Geoff, Žižek and Politics: An Introduction, p. 231 – 233)

We realise that this argument, which we propose as a new ‘quilting’ framework to explain Žižek’s theoretical oscillations and political
prescriptions, raises some large issues of its own. While this is not the place to further that discussion, we think its analytic force leads into a
much wider critique of ‘Theory’ in parts of the latertwentieth- century academy, which emerged following the ‘cultural turn’ of the 1960s and
1970s in the wake of the collapse of Marxism. Žižek’s paradigm to try to generate all his theory of culture, subjectivity,
ideology, politics and religion is psychoanalysis. But a similar criticism would apply, for instance, to theorists
who feel that the method Jacques Derrida developed for criticising philosophical texts can meaningfully supplant the
methodologies of political science, philosophy, economics, sociology and so forth, when it comes to
thinking about ‘the political’. Or, differently, thinkers who opt for Deleuze (or Deleuze’s and Guattari’s)
Nietzschean Spinozism as a new metaphysics to explain ethics, politics, aesthetics, ontology and so forth, seem to
us candidates for the same type of criticism, as a reductive passing over the empirical and analytic
distinctness of the different object fields in complex societies. In truth, we feel that Theory, and the continuing line
of ‘master thinkers’ who regularly appear particularly in the English- speaking world, is the last gasp of what used to be called First
Philosophy. The philosopher ascends out of the city, Plato tells us, from whence she can espie the Higher Truth, which she
must then bring back down to political earth. From outside the city, we can well imagine that she can see much more widely than
her benighted political contemporaries. But from these philosophical heights, we can equally suspect that the ‘master thinker’
is also always in danger of passing over the salient differences and features of political life – differences only too
evident to people ‘on the ground’. Political life, after all, is always a more complex affair than a
bunch of ideologically duped fools staring at and enacting a wall (or ‘politically correct screen’) of ideologically produced
illusions, from Plato’s timeless cave allegory to Žižek’s theory of ideology. We know that Theory largely understands itself as avowedly ‘post-
metaphysical’. It aims to erect its new claims on the gravestone of First Philosophy as the West has known it. But it also tells us that people very
often do not know what they do. And so it seems to us that too many of its proponents and their followers are mourners who remain in
the graveyard, propping up the gravestone of Western philosophy under the sign of some totalising
account of absolutely everything – enjoyment, différance, biopower . . . Perhaps the time has come, we
would argue, less for one more would- be global, allpurpose existential and political Theory than for a multi-
dimensional and interdisciplinary critical theory that would challenge the chaotic specialisation neoliberalism speeds up in
academe, which mirrors and accelerates the splintering of the Left over the last four decades. This would mean that we would have to
shun the hope that one method, one perspective, or one master thinker could single- handedly decipher all the
complexity of socio- political life, the concerns of really existing social movements – which specifi cally does not mean
mindlessly celebrating difference, marginalisation and multiplicity as if they could be suffi cient ends for a new politics. It would
be to reopen critical theory and non- analytic philosophy to the other intellectual disciplines , most of
whom today pointedly reject Theory’s legitimacy, neither reading it nor taking it seriously.
2AC – Alt Fails – Generic
Neolib is too entrenched – the alt can’t solve
Comaroff 11
(September, John, Harold H. Swift Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago,
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, “The End of Neoliberalism? “What
Is Left of the Left,” p. 142-146)
While the world economic crisis of 2008–2009 might have killed off neoliberalism as a global ideological project—patently, in the noun form—it is highly likely to leave the capillaries of the
the “meltdown” and its aftermath may see the planet less, not more, open to
beast, less Leviathan than Great White Shark, largely intact. Indeed,
alternatives to the neoliberal tendency, albeit with significant “corrections” as some economists were already calling them more than a year back. I am
reminded here, simultaneously, of Reinhart Koselleck and the Manchester School of Anthropology in Central Africa. Koselleck, in his study of the Enlightenment and the pathogenesis of
modern society, drew attention to the dialectics of crisis, critique, and correction; for its part, the Manchester School demonstrated the capacity of cycles of rupture and their repair to
reproduce social systems and the order of values on which they are predicated (see, for example, Gluckman 2004; Turner 1996). Crisis, self-evidently, is always
reproductive. But it frequently is. As Mike Davis (1995) once noted, “apocalypse” is often absorbed quickly into the history of the everyday, a process he describes as the “dialectic
of ordinary disaster.” As talk has grown of “green shoots” sprouting in the wake of the economic devastation of the past two years or so, there have been signs of both crisis-driven critique in
pursuit of “correction” and a return to the “ordinary.” Discourses of correction have come from both liberal and conservative sources. In a special edition of Harper’s in 2008, James Galbraith,
Joseph Stiglitz, and others—most of them with impeccable liberal credentials—suggested a range of strategies to ensure that capitalism might reemerge relatively unscathed. They prescribed
cures such as reforming the tax system, banning stock options as incentives, bringing into line the self-interest of the banking sector with those of the economy and society at large, and finding
regulatory means to harness both the risk-laden excesses of the finance industry and the tendency to favor short-run profiteering over longer- term wealth production. Only one contributor to
the debate, Eric Janszen— ironically, a venture capitalist—took a more radical line. He argued for a return to industrial capitalism, pointing out that all recent bubbles and busts are owed to
government creating conditions for mammoth, “metastasiz[ing]” markets in financial speculation. Janszen apart, these efforts to “save capitalism” were symptomatic of a rush of similar liberal
writings on the topic. Few of them—the notable exception being Gillian Tett’s extraordinary Fool’s Gold (2009)—delved deeply into the archaeol- ogy of the crisis itself or, more generally, into
the inner workings of a global political economy whose complexity has increased exponentially over the past couple of decades. As a result, most have sought solutions along its outer surfaces.
They have posited adjustments that might limit the material excesses of the neoliberal tendency and, in particular, the market instabilities and conflicts of interest to which those excesses
give rise. This, itself, is a function of the pervasive practice of explaining all economic processes these days by recourse to one or another kind of utilitarian theory, which is why the four
causes of the apocalypse, as John Lanchester (2009) has pointed out, are almost invariably taken to be “greed, stupidity, government, and the banks,” not anything in the structure of
contemporary capitalism itself. The pursuit of explanations and panaceas in such terms, as we might expect, has its parallel on the Right, most notably perhaps in Richard Posner’s A Failure of
Capitalism (2009), a salvo from the H alls of Friedmania. Note that Posner did not title the book “the failure”—using a definite article—but merely “a failure.” Posner, predictably and—in light
of Tett’s account—spuriously, argues that individuals in the finance industry acted rationally in the years before the crisis. That crisis, in his view a fully fledged “depression,” is blamed, again
predictably, on bad government and ill-considered, perfectible forms of deregulation. His “corrections,” though, belong to the same genus as those proffered by liberal economists: establish
new forms of regulation that reduce the conflict between the rational self-interest of economic actors and the commonweal—the invisible old hand here, of course, being the economist of
invisible hands, Adam Smith. In the final analysis, from this vantage, the point is to perfect free market economies by establishing the regulatory environment most conducive to a successfully
deregulated world. In the meantime—and this is where the “dialectic of the ordinary” becomes salient—for all the talk of the urgent need for “correction,” we have seen a tangible return to
business as usual, even bad-faith business. This is in spite of the fact that deeper crises appear inevitable, that employment statistics are worsening, that rates of poverty and inequality are
rapidly rising, and so on. The buzzword in the City of London, in late June 2009, was “BAB”: “bonuses are back.” And, with them, the forms of finance capital from which they emanate. As
Jonathan Freedland (2009), also commenting on Britain, wrote, “Nine months ago”—in 2008—“the financial crisis seemed certain to bring a revolution in our economy. . . . Change had to be
despite
on the way.” But now “look what has happened. . . . [Just] when the world seemed ready to bury the neoliberal regime . . . we have returned to [its ways and means].” In sum,
the stream of assertions during 2010 that the crisis would have deep transformative effects, putting an end to
the “neoliberal regime,” most indicators suggest otherwise . For one thing, the massive infusions of money
into the banking industry and mega-business on the part of national governments have occurred without the regulatory
initiatives that were promised to follow. Yet again, public funds are being diverted into the private sector, underscoring the fact that capital continues to take its
profits but not shoulder its losses, a curious, perverse denouement to the rise of Ulrich Beck’s Risk Society (1992). To be sure, state intervention in the U.S. economy after 2008
has never pointed in the direction of a “New New Deal,” as some Panglossian commentators on the Left thought it might. Just the reverse. It has been intended to save
the corporate world, not secure civil society or ordinary citizens from the predations of the market; the pledge of measures that might protect those
citizens immiserated by the crash, measures never substantial to begin with, has gone largely unrealized. We are plainly not witnessing a return to social
democracy, let alone the genesis of a new age of nationalization; note, in this respect, how many of the nation-states of the global North are
moving (further) to the right . Which may be why there have been so few legislative enactments anywhere promulgated to curb the practices that sparked the meltdown in
the first place: per contra, while market forces have made it harder to negotiate toxic assets and to take some of the more extravagant gambles in the business of finance, the investment
industry is widely reported not merely to have returned to its old ways, but to be inventing new “products” without palpable constraint. The derivatives trade , it seems, is
rising again. So, too, are the ramparts around “economic liberalism.” A recent article in The Economist (2009) argues that, notwithstanding “the biggest economic calamity in 80
years . . . the free-market paradigm . . . deserves a robust defence.” These are not the only signs that the capillaries of the neoliberal tendency and the “free-market
paradigm” continue to embrace us. There are many others. Some are obvious, like the continuing dominance of the corporate
sector : its relative immunity from most legal challenge, even when its enterprises violate the being, bodies, belongings, or bioenvironment of
ordinary citizens; its enjoyment of favorable taxation regimes and, increasingly, the use of laws of eminent domain to
expand its horizons; the protection of its physical, financial, and intellectual property , sometimes by recourse to police violence, as an ostensible
capacity to influence the disposition of the public treasury and public policy and, reciprocally, to have insurgent action directed
function of the collective good; its
the
against it prosecuted as common crime—for example, in mass protests against the privatization of such “natural” assets as water and land. Other signs are less obvious, like
growing hegemony of legal orders, founded on constitutions of distinctly neoliberal design, that favor individual rights over
collective well-being; that limit the responsibility of government to protect or provision its citizens; that
tend to criminalize race, poverty, and counterpolitics, in part by outlawing the salience of social cause or consequence; that subject what were once
everyday democratic processes to the finality of judicial action, thereby juridifying politics to the exclusion of other forms of social action; that displace the “hot” sovereignty of the people
into the “cold” sovereignty of the law; and that treat all citizens as rational, self-interested, rights-bearing actors and the world as a
community of contract. (For more on neoliberal constitutionalism, see, for example, Schneiderman [2000] and Comaroff and Comaroff [2006].) I could go on in this vein. To do so, however,
would be to risk stating the obvious. But allow me one observation. Perhaps the most significant capillaries of the neoliberal that remain with us have to do with the state and governance.
Foucauldians would prefer “governmentality” here; they have a point. Broadly speaking, neoliberal etatism seems to be surviving well, even strengthening, in most places. As Foucault
explained in The Birth of Biopolitics (2008), the rise of neoliberalism—his use of the noun—marked a radical transformation: whereas before, the state, among its various bureaucratic
operations, “monitored” the workings of the economy, its “organizing principle” is now the market. Government actually has become business. And nation-states have
become holding companies in and for themselves. In the upshot, the categorical distinction between politics and economics, that classical liberal fiction, is largely erased.
Effective governance, in turn, is measured with reference to asset management, to the attraction of enterprise, to the facilitation of the entrepreneurial activities of the citizen as homo
heads of state begin to resemble, and often

economicus, and to the capacity to foster the accumulation—but not the redistribution—of wealth. Under these conditions,
actually are, CEOs who treat the population as a body of shareholders; vide the likes of Silvio Berlusconi, who explicitly speaks of Italy as a company, or
Dmitri Medvedev, head of Gazprom, Russia’s mightiest business and a major instrument of the country’s foreign policy. There is a more profound point here. Once upon a time, antineoliberal
theory posited an opposition between the state and the free market, arguing that the antidote to the latter lay in the active intervention of the former. But the opposition is false, just
As states become mega-corporations (Kremlin, Inc.; Britain, PLC; South Africa, Pty Ltd.; Dubai,
another piece of the detri- tus of the modern history of capital.
all of them, incidentally, branded and legally incorporated—they become inextricably part of the workings of the market and, hence, no
Inc.)—
longer an “outside,” an antidote, or an antithesis from which to rethink or reconstruct “the neoliberal paradigm.” This, in part, is
why government is increasingly reduced to an exercise in the technical management of capital, why
ideologically founded politics appear dead, replaced by the politics of interest and entitlement and identity—three counterpoints of a single triangle. And
this is why the capillaries of neoliberal governance seem so firmly entrenched in the cartography of our
everyday lives, there to remain for the foreseeable future —to the degree that any future is
foreseeable.
Neoliberal policies don’t prop up neoliberal systems

Kirsten Bell & Judith Green 16. Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia AND
Faculty of Public Health & Policy, Department of Health Services Research & Policy, London School of
Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. 05/26/2016. “On the Perils of Invoking Neoliberalism in Public Health
Critique.” Critical Public Health, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 239–243.
Introduction Read any issue of Critical

Public Health and you’re more likely than not to see the concept of
‘neoliberalism’ invoked at some point. Inputting it as a keyword in the journal brings up 93 papers, and it features prominently in the
title of three articles on our ‘most cited’ list: ‘Understanding health promotion in a neoliberal climate and the making of health conscious
citizens’ (Ayo, 2012), ‘Neoliberalism, public health, and the moral perils of fatness’ (LeBesco, 2011) and ‘Aboriginal mothering, FAS prevention
and the contestations of neoliberal citizenship’ (Salmon, 2011). The growing frequency with which the concept is invoked amongst authors
publishing in CPH has led us to joke, on more than one occasion, that perhaps we should modify our name to Critical Public
Health: the Negative Impacts of Neoliberalism. In light of the growing prominence accorded to the
concept of neoliberalism in (and of course beyond) the journal, it therefore seems like a good time to take stock of
our conceptual equipment to ensure that it does what we think it does and want it do. Reminded of Latour’s
(2004) injunction to think critically about critique, in this editorial we simply want to do ‘what every good military officer, at regular periods,
would do: retest the linkages between the new threats he or she has to face and the equipment and
training he or she should have in order to meet them’ (p. 231). Indeed, we can’t help but notice that much
like the concept of ‘society’ before it, when the term neoliberalism is invoked it is often used to jump
straight ahead to connect vast arrays of life and history, to mobilize gigantic forces, to detect dramatic
patterns emerging out of confusing interactions, to see everywhere in the cases at hand yet more
examples of well-known types, to reveal behind the scenes some dark powers pulling the strings. (Latour,
2005, p. 22) What is ‘neoliberalism’? Broadly speaking, neoliberalism refers to the capitalist restructuring that has occurred around the globe
since the 1970s in the name of a ‘post-Cold War, post-welfare state model of social order that celebrates unhindered markets as the most
effective means of achieving economic growth and public welfare’ (Maskovsky & Kingfisher, 2001, p. 105). Thatcherism in the UK and
Reaganism in the USA are often highlighted as prototypical manifestations of neoliberalism; however, policies informed by a similar market-
centric logic were introduced in a more moderate form in a variety of social democracies (e.g. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden)
(Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Maskovsky & Kingfisher, 2001; Ward & England, 2007). They were also exported to the Global South through the
structural adjustment and fiscal austerity pro- grammes enforced by institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
(Brenner & Theodore, 2002). In its strictest sense, neoliberalism refers to a macro-economic doctrine , but there is
huge variation in the ways the term is employed in contemporary scholarship (Ferguson, 2010). Although its conceptual intelligibility is often
taken for granted (Garland & Harper, 2012), neoliberalism is variously used as: a sloppy synonym for capitalism itself, or as a kind of shorthand
for the world economy and its inequalities … a kind of abstract causal force that comes in from outside to decimate local livelihoods … [or] a
broad, global cultural formation characteristic of a new era of ‘millennial capitalism’ – a kind of global meta-culture, characteristic of our newly
deregulated, insecure, and speculative times. And finally, ‘neoliberalism’ can be indexed to a sort of ‘ rationality’ in the
Foucauldian sense, linked less to economic dogmas or class projects than to specific mechanisms of
government, and recognizable modes of creating subjects. (Ferguson, 2010, p. 171) Indeed, Ward and England
(2007) have identified four distinct understandings of neoliberalism in the social sciences : (1) neoliberalism
as an ideological hegemonic project; (2) neoliberalism as policy and programme (e.g. policies enacted under the
banner of privatization, deregulation, liberalization, etc.); (3) neoliberalism as state form – i.e. the ‘rolling back’ and ‘rolling out’ of
state formations in the name of reform; and (4) neoliberalism as governmentality – the ways in which the relations among and
between peoples and things are reimagined, reinterpreted and reassembled to effect governing at a distance. In light of this eclectic
usage, scholars are now examining the relationships between neoliberalism and everything from ‘cities
to citizenship, sexuality to subjectivity, and development to discourse to name but a few’ (Springer, 2012, p.
135). Although these versions of neoliberalism often intersect with each other, they can also lead to very
different readings of the same phenomena. For example, taking a political economy perspective, Otero, Pechlaner, Liberman,
and Gürcan (2015, p. 48) use the term ‘neoliberal diet’ to characterize the high levels of consumption of energy-dense, low-nutrition ‘pseudo
foods’ amongst the working class; however, Foucauldian governmentality perspectives are more likely to characterize a neoliberal diet as
precisely the opposite of this – as one that encourages the individual to take responsibility for his or her health by consuming more fruits and
vegetables (e.g. Ayo, 2012). When a concept can be used to describe such an extraordinary – and even
downright contradictory – array of phenomena, questions can clearly be asked about how useful it
actually is. Perhaps a larger issue is the reductive ways neoliberalism often tends to be used. As Phelan
(2007) observes, in a number of accounts its effects are so totalizing and monolithic that it starts to assume causal
properties in its own right; ‘that is, it becomes the “it” which does the explaining, rather than the
political phenomenon that needs to be explained’ (Phelan, 2007, p. 328). Consider, for example, neoliberalism as
governmentality – one of the more common ways the term is employed by CPH authors. As Kipnis (2008) observes, the key defining features of
this variant of neoliberalism: governing from a distance; the emphasis on calculability; and the promotion of self-activating, disciplined,
individuated subjects, can be found in a variety of contexts that are historically and culturally distant from Western neoliberal or liberal
governing philosophies. In his words, ‘These three categories correspond to broad human potentialities that have been imagined in a wide
variety of ways in a broad range of settings and that have become more prevalent in all state-governed and industrial societies’ (p. 284, 240
Editorial emphasis added). Thus, characterizing such features exclusively in terms of neoliberalism runs the risk of
exaggerating its scope by reifying it into a globally dominant force or stage of history (Kipnis, 2008). It also
runs the risk of eliding other processes that deserve analytic attention in their own right. For such
reasons, there have been growing calls to explore neoliberalism in terms of ‘concrete projects that
account for specific people, institutions and places’ (Kingfisher & Maskovsky, 2008, p. 118) – what Brenner and
Theodore (2002) refer to as ‘actually existing neoliberalism’ . Some suggestions for the way forward Theoretical
concepts such as neoliberalism clearly have their uses: they signal to readers the kind of argument a writer is
making, and act as a shorthand to summarize complex configurations of economic, political and cultural change that do, arguably, have
some commonalities across different contexts. It is the role of theory to provide abstracted explanations that hold across
time and place, and the concept of neoliberalism has been a fruitful one for thinking about some general implications of
contemporary social change. However, over-extension has its risks, and there are now diminishing returns in
simply documenting how technologies, policies or products ‘illustrate’ neoliberalism . To advance our
understanding of how, specifically, public health is imbricated in the various manifestations of
neoliberalism requires a more critical, nuanced and reflexive approach. First, we need far more clarity on
how the term is being used, rather than taking its meaning for granted . With the over-extension of
‘neoliberal’ to describe everything from welfare cuts to wearable health monitors, scholars need to unpack more carefully the
particular processes to which they are referring . Rather than assume a deterministic role for those
processes, the nature of the links between, say, welfare change and the impact on subjectivities needs
to be explicated. As Meershoek and Hortsman (2016) note in this issue, merely reporting how health promotion
reflects or contributes to neoliberalism does little to untangle the ‘material, technical and practical
dimensions’ of how what kinds of health, and whose, are prioritized . Taking the commodification of workplace
health promotion technologies as their case, they unpack how policies emphasizing employee health become legitimated within networks that
include knowledge institutes and private companies, but not the workers themselves. Importantly, this focus
on the process itself
enables their analysis to point to not only the potential negative effects for public health of such
commodification, but also ways forward, in political mobilization through workers’ organizations to incorporate
different frameworks of well-being. Second, we need more nuance and specificity in accounts. The question is not so
much ‘what forms do public health outputs or technologies take in neoliberal times?’ but ‘how, where
and in what forms do the various processes of neoliberalism impact public health?’ Two papers in this issue
illustrate the value of more specificity. Hervik and Thurston (2016), in their account of how Norwegian men discuss their responsibilities for
health, note that the specificities of the welfare state in Norway configure assumptions embedded in talk about ‘responsibility’. Rather than
simply reading off the espousal of ‘personal responsibility for health’ as another reflection of neoliberal hegemony, Hervik and Thurston note
that in this context, responsibility for health is rooted in a participatory model of the welfare state, in which principles of egalitarianism and
social democracy may have very different implications for public health than in welfare states where the focus is on individual choice and self-
sufficiency. Similarly, Nourpanah Editorial 241 and Martin (2016) delineate both parallels and divergences between the discursive framings of
health promotion described in Western states and those they document in Iran, where there is an absence of focus on consumption, despite
similar orientations towards individual choice. In general, rather than reifying neoliberalism as a monolithic entity, it
may be more productive to speak of ‘neoliberalization’ as an always partial and incomplete process
(Ward & England, 2007). This raises potentially fruitful questions around when, where, and in what ways the
economic, political and cultural intersect with health. We need also to be reflexive about claims to
neoliberalism, in that of course our critique is inevitably embroiled in the very processes it seeks to
analyze. Indeed, it may be productive to think of neoliberalism as a discourse as much as a reality (Springer,
2012). In sum, we are not calling for the abandonment of the concept – paraphrasing Clifford (1988) on yet another
troubled notion (‘culture’), neoliberalism seems to be a deeply compromised idea we cannot yet do without. Thus, being more careful
and mindful of how we use it seems a good place to start.
No mindset shift
Heinberg, 15—Senior Fellow-in-Residence of the Post Carbon Institute (Richard, “The Anthropocene:
It’s Not All About Us”, http://www.postcarbon.org/the-anthropocene-its-not-all-about-us/, dml)
It’s hard to convince people to voluntarily reduce consumption and curb reproduction. That’s not because humans are
unusually pushy, greedy creatures; all living organisms tend to maximize their population size and rate of
collective energy use. Inject a colony of bacteria into a suitable growth medium in a petri dish and watch what happens. Hummingbirds,
mice, leopards, oarfish, redwood trees, or giraffes: in each instance the principle remains inviolate—every species
maximizes population and energy consumption within nature’s limits . Systems ecologist Howard T. Odum called this
rule the Maximum Power Principle: throughout nature, “system designs develop and prevail that maximize power intake, energy transformation,
and those uses that reinforce production and efficiency.”
In addition to our innate propensity to maximize population and consumption, we
humans also have difficulty making
sacrifices in the present in order to reduce future costs. We’re genetically hardwired to respond to
immediate threats with fight-or-flight responses, while distant hazards matter much less to us. It’s not that we
don’t think about the future at all; rather, we unconsciously apply a discount rate based on the amount of time
likely to elapse before a menace has to be faced .
True, there is some variation in future-anticipating behavior among individual humans. A
small percentage of the population
may change behavior now to reduce risks to forthcoming generations, while the great majority is less
likely to do so. If that small percentage could oversee our collective future planning, we might have much
less to worry about. But that’s tough to arrange in democracies, where people, politicians, corporations, and even
nonprofit organizations get ahead by promising immediate rewards, usually in the form of more economic
growth. If none of these can organize a proactive response to long-range threats like climate change, the actions of a
few individuals and communities may not be so effective at mitigating the hazard.
This pessimistic expectation is borne out by experience. The general outlines of the 21st century ecological
crisis have been apparent since the 1970s. Yet not much has actually been accomplished through
efforts to avert that crisis. It is possible to point to hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions of
imaginative, courageous programs to reduce, recycle, and reuse—yet the overall trajectory of industrial
civilization remains relatively unchanged.
2AC – Alt Fails – Socialism
Socialism was founded by racists and has expanded to advocate for “inclusive
genocide,”
Tupy 17 (Marian L. Tupy – the editor of HumanProgress.org and a senior policy analyst at the Center
for Global Liberty and Prosperity. <TMS> “Anti-Racists Should Think Twice about Allying with Socialism,”
FEE, November 14 2017. DOA: 6/30/20. https://fee.org/articles/anti-racists-should-think-twice-about-
allying-with-socialism/)\
Speaking to the Los Angeles Times last August, the co-founder of Black Lives Matter, Patrisse Cullors, stated that BLM would not sit at the table
with President Trump because he “is literally the epitome of evil, all the evils of this country—be it racism, capitalism, sexism, homophobia”.
Trump’s views and actions aside, calling

capitalism evil and conflating it with racism is noteworthy. The same goes
for the increasing tendency among racial justice advocates to embrace the left-wing economic agenda.
So much so that Ryan Cooper, a columnist for The Week, wrote a column titled, "Is Black Lives Matter turning socialist?" As Cooper approvingly
noted, BLM has adopted a “hugely aggressive—and firmly leftist—economic program”.
On the other side of the Atlantic, Natalie

Jeffers, who cofounded BLM in the United Kingdom, urged her followers to: “Fight
racism with solidarity. Fight capitalism with socialism. We must organize—dedicate ourselves to
revolutionary politic power.”
The Black Lives Matter Movement, a separate British organization, was founded by Gary McFarlane, a representative of the Socialist Workers
Party, who writes for the Socialist Review and the Socialist Worker, and claims that “Capitalism is racist from the top to the bottom.” His
cofounders, including Kate Hurford, Harold Wilson, and Naima Omar, have also written for those two publications
There is, in other words, a growing assumption among racial justice advocates that more socialism would
result in less racism and, even, that socialism is, in itself, anti-racist. There is, in fact, no such necessary
connection between socialism and anti-racism, as a closer look at early socialist writings amply shows.
Socialists Had a Lot to Say About Race
To begin, it is important to note that the meaning of the word “race” changed over time. Today, most people think of races in terms of color, as
in “black” and “white.” Historically, however, race was also a synonym for a nation or , even, a family. In his 1933 book,
Marlborough: His Life and Times, Winston Churchill noted: “Deep in the heart of the Prussian state and race lay the antagonism to France.” The
English artist Mary Granville, in turn, referred to Churchill’s family as the “Marlborough race” in her 1861 book, Autobiography and
Correspondence.
Race was always a part of socialist thought.

But race, whether narrowly (black and white) or broadly (skin color, nation, and family) understood, was always a part of socialist thought. In
1894, for example, Friedrich Engels wrote a letter to the German economist Walther Borgius. In it, Engels
noted, “We regard
economic conditions as that which ultimately determines historical development, but race is in itself an
economic factor.”
In his 1877 Notes to Anti-Dühring, Engels

elaborated on the subject of race, observing “that the inheritance of
acquired characteristics extended … from the individual to the species.” He went on, “If, for instance,
among us mathematical axioms seem self-evident to every eight-year-old child and in no need of proof
from evidence that is solely the result of ‘accumulated inheritance.’ It would be difficult to teach them
by proof to a bushman or to an Australian Negro.”
It is noteworthy that Engels wrote those words 16 years before Francis Galton, writing in Macmillan’s Magazine, urged humanity to take control
of its own evolution by means of “good breeding” or eugenics. Speaking of which, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who were both
socialists and eugenicists, bemoaned the falling birthrates among so-called higher races in the New Statesman in 1913. They
warned that “a new social order [would be] developed by one or other of the colored races, the Negro,
the Kaffir or the Chinese”.
Che Guevara, the Argentine revolutionary and friend of the Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, offered his views on race in his 1952
memoir The Motorcycle Diaries, writing, “The Negro is indolent and lazy and spends his money on frivolities,
whereas the European is forward-looking, organized and intelligent.”
Karl Marx came close to advocating genocide.
Socialists Are Historically Pro-Genocide
In addition to racism, early socialist writings contained explicit calls for genocide of backward peoples. The
toxic mix of those two illiberal ideas would result in at least 80 million deaths during the course of the 20th century.
In the New York Tribune in 1853, Karl Marx came close to advocating genocide , writing, “The classes and the races, too weak
to master the new conditions of life, must give way.” His friend and collaborator, Engels, was more explicit.
In 1849, Engels published an article in Marx’s newspaper, Neue Rheinische Zeitung. In it, Engels condemned the rural populations of the
Austrian Empire for failing enthusiastically to partake in the revolution of 1848. This was a seminal moment, the importance of which cannot be
overstated.
“From Engels' article in 1849 down to the death of Hitler,” George Watson
wrote in his 1998 book The Lost Literature of Socialism,
“everyone who advocated genocide called himself a socialist.”
So, what did Engels write?
Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their
vitality—the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All
the other large and small nationalities
and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they
are now counter-revolutionary."
“The Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav
barbarians,” he continued. “The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth
not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a
step forward.”
Here Engels clearly foreshadows the genocides of the 20th-century totalitarianism in general and the Soviet regime in particular. In fact, Joseph
Stalin loved Engels’ article and commended it to his followers in The Foundations of Leninism in 1924. He then proceeded to
suppress Soviet ethnic minorities, including the Jews, Crimean Tatars, and Ukrainians
It is unsurprising that Nazi Germany, with its concentration camps and omnipresent secret police, came so close to resembling the Soviet Union.
Adolf Hitler, who admired Stalin for his ruthlessness and called him a “genius,” was also heavily
influenced by Marx. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism,” Hitler said, “as I do not hesitate to admit.” Throughout his youth, Hitler
“never shunned the company of Marxists” and believed that while the “petit bourgeois Social Democrat … will never make a National Socialist
… the Communist always will.”
Hitler’s “differences with the communists ”, argued Watson, “were less ideological than tactical”. Hitler
embraced German nationalism so as not to “compete with Marxism on its own ground,” but explicitly
acknowledged that “‘the whole of national socialism’ was based on Marx.” It is, therefore, unsurprising that Nazi
Germany, with its concentration camps and omnipresent secret police, came so close to resembling the Soviet Union.
How much did the Nazis learn from the Soviets?

In his 1947 memoir Commandant of Auschwitz: The Autobiography of Rudolf Hoess, Hoess recalled that the Germans knew of the Soviet
program of extermination of the enemies of the state through forced labor as early as 1939. “If, for example, in building a canal, the inmates of
a [Soviet] camp were used up, thousands of fresh kulaks or other unreliable elements were called in who, in their turn, would be used up.” The
Nazis would use the same tactic on the Jewish slave laborers in, for example, munition factories.
Following their invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, wrote Watson, the Germans collected information on the immense scale of the Soviet
camp system and were impressed by the “Soviet readiness to destroy whole categories of people through
forced labor.”
Communist terror continues to be shrouded in ontological fog.
After the war ended, Stalin was deeply worried about what the Germans knew with regard to the Soviet camp system and the crimes that the
Soviets committed in the territories they conquered following the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. He sent Andrey Vyshinsky, the
mastermind of Stalin’s Great Purge (1936-1938), to Nuremberg to steer the war crimes tribunal away from inconvenient lines of inquiry.
Today we are familiar with the aggregate numbers of people who died as a result of the socialist
experiment, but communist terror continues to be shrouded in ontological fog . As such, the Nazi
extermination of the Jews is generally condemned as an example of race hatred. The Soviet
extermination of specific groups of people, in contrast, is generally seen as part of a much less toxic
“class struggle.”
The Strange Separation of "Race Hate" and "Class Struggle"
The Marxist theory of history focused on class struggle and posited that feudalism was destined to be
superseded by capitalism. Capitalism, in turn, was destined to give way to communism. Marx saw himself
chiefly as a scientist and thought that he had discovered an immutable law of evolution of human institutions, from barbarism at the
one end to communism at the other end. (Hence the idea of “scientific socialism ” that Engels promoted after
Marx’s death.)
Peoples stuck in feudalism, like the Slavs, “as well as Basques, Bretons and Scottish Highlanders”, could not progress
straight from feudalism to communism. They would have to be exterminated—so as not to keep
everyone else back! Watson noted, “They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history.”
How, then, are

we to think of socialism and race, and does the answer to that question have any bearing on
the distinction that has been drawn between the Nazi and communist atrocities?
The best that can be said of the socialists is that their victims were more varied than those of Hitler.
In his 1902 Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human life and Thought, H.G. Wells wrote, “There is
a disposition in the world, which the French share, to grossly undervalue the prospects of all things French, derived, so far as I can gather, from
the facts that
the French were beaten by the Germans in 1870, and that they do not breed with the
abandon of rabbits or negroes.”
“I must confess,” he continued, that “I do not see the Negro and the poor Irishman and all the emigrant
sweepings of Europe, which constitute the bulk of the American Abyss, uniting to form that great
Socialist party.”
Note the ease with which the socialist author of such best-sellers as The Time Machine (1895), The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896), The
Invisible Man (1897), and The War of the Worlds(1898), conflates backward whites and backward blacks.
To Wells, both were primitive and, consequently, unsuited to be the torchbearers of socialism. That’s perfectly consonant with Marx’s theory of
history, which was, by definition, universal in applicability. Creation
of a socialist utopia, therefore, depended on the
extermination of all races, broadly understood, who stood in the way of socialist revolution. As such, it
included black “Bushmen” and white Bretons.
In contrast to Marx, Hitler’s utopia was not universal . Hitler, the leader of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party
(Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), wanted to create socialism in only one country, Germany. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews, for
example, was partly rooted in his belief that capitalism and international Jewry were two sides of the same coin. As he once famously
asked, “How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-Semite ?”
The old distinction between the crimes of National Socialism and socialism proper seems to be
untenable
To achieve their socialist goals, wrote Götz Aly in his 2008 book Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare
State, the Germans confiscated gold, food, clothing, and machinery throughout the territories they
conquered. They also put the conquered peoples to work in German slave labor and extermination camps and
factories.
In conclusion, the
old distinction between the crimes of National Socialism (as purely racist) and socialism
proper (as lacking a racial component) seems to be untenable . Both the perpetrators of Nazi atrocities (ie, the Germans)
and their victims, including the Jews and the Slavs, were white. As such, Nazi atrocities make little sense on the narrow definition of racism (i.e.,
black versus white). They do make sense in the broader context—the perceived necessity to exterminate all peoples who stood in the way of
achieving Hitler’s utopian ideal.
But the same can be said of communist atrocities. The early socialists certainly toyed with the idea of racial inferiority
of the darker races (i.e., narrow definition of racism), but ultimately embraced a program of genocide that was
more encompassing. The best that can be said of the socialists, therefore, is that their victims were , in
accordance with the universal aspirations of Marxism, more varied than those of Hitler . Let us hope that’s not the sort of inclusivity
that Black Lives Matter on both sides of the Atlantic strives for.2
AFROPESSIMISM K
2AC – Afropessmism K – T/L
evaluate arguments.
2AC – Not Ontological
Antiblackness is not ontological—
1 – Neurological, racial bias is flexible and determined by coalitional habit forming in
the brain---orienting groups around institutional change best breaks down bias. This is
offense because their theory rejects these solutions.
Cikara and Van Bavel 15. (Mina Cikara is an Assistant Professor of Psychology and Director of the
Intergroup Neuroscience Lab at Harvard University. Her research examines the conditions under which
groups and individuals are denied social value, agency, and empathy. Jay Van Bavel is an Assistant
Professor of Psychology and Director of the Social Perception and Evaluation Laboratory at New York
University. The Flexibility of Racial Bias: Research suggests that racism is not hard wired, offering hope
on one of America’s enduring problems. June 2, 2015. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-
flexibility-of-racial-bias/)
The city of Baltimore was rocked by protests and riots over the death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old African American man who died in police custody. Tragically, Gray’s death was only one of a
recent in a series of racially-charged, often violent, incidents. On April 4th, Walter Scott was fatally shot by a police officer after fleeing from a routine traffic stop. On March 8th, Sigma Alpha
Epsilon fraternity members were caught on camera gleefully chanting, “There Will Never Be A N***** In SAE.” On March 1st, a homeless Black man was shot in broad daylight by a Los Angeles
police officer. And these are not isolated incidents, of course.Institutional and systemic racism reinforce discrimination in countless
situations, including hiring, sentencing, housing, and even mortgage lending . It would be easy to see in
all this powerful evidence that racism is a permanent fixture in America’s social fabric and even, perhaps, an
inevitable aspect of human nature. Indeed, the mere act of labeling others according to their age, gender, or race is a reflexive habit of the human mind. Social
categories, like race, impact our thinking quickly, often outside of our awareness. Extensive research has found that these implicit racial
biases—negative thoughts and feelings about people from other races—are automatic, pervasive, and
difficult to suppress. Neuroscientists have also explored racial prejudice by exposing people to images of faces while scanning their brains in fMRI machines. Early
studies found that when people viewed faces of another race, the amount of activity in the amygdala—a
small brain structure associated with experiencing emotions, including fear—was associated with
individual differences on implicit measures of racial bias . This work has led many to conclude that racial biases might be part of a primitive—and
possibly hard-wired—neural fear response to racial out-groups. There is little question that categories such as race, gender, and age play a major role
in shaping the biases and stereotypes that people bring to bear in their judgments of others . However,
research has shown that how people categorize themselves may be just as fundamental to
understanding prejudice as how they categorize others . When people categorize themselves as part of a group, their self-concept shifts from the
individual (“I”) to the collective level (“us”). People form groups rapidly and favor members of their own group even when groups are formed on arbitrary grounds, such as the simple flip of a
findings highlight the remarkable ease with which humans form coalitions . Recent research
coin. These
confirms that coalition-based preferences trump race-based preferences. For example, both Democrats and
Republicans favor the resumes of those affiliated with their political party much more than they favor
those who share their race. These coalition-based preferences remain powerful even in the absence of the
animosity present in electoral politics. Our research has shown that the simple act of placing people on a
mixed-race team can diminish their automatic racial bias. In a series of experiments, White participants who were
randomly placed on a mixed-race team—the Tigers or Lions—showed little evidence of implicit racial
bias. Merely belonging to a mixed-race team trigged positive automatic associations with all of the
members of their own group, irrespective of race . Being a part of one of these seemingly trivial mixed-
race groups produced similar effects on brain activity—the amygdala responded to team membership
rather than race. Taken together, these studies indicate that momentary changes in group membership can
override the influence of race on the way we see, think about, and feel toward people who are different
from ourselves. Although these coalition-based distinctions might be the most basic building block of bias, they say little about the other factors that cause group conflict. Why do
some groups get ignored while others get attacked? Whenever we encounter a new person or group we are motivated to answer two questions as quickly as possible: “is this person a friend
or foe?” and “are they capable of enacting their intentions toward me?” In other words, once we have determined that someone is a member of an out-group, we need to determine what
kind? The nature of the relations between groups—are we cooperative, competitive, or neither?—and their relative status—do you have access to resources?—largely determine the course of
intergroup interactions. Groups that are seen as competitive with one’s interests, and capable of enacting their nasty intentions, are much more likely to be targets of hostility than more
benevolent (e.g., elderly) or powerless (e.g., homeless) groups. This is one reason why sports rivalries have such psychological potency. For instance, fans of the Boston Red Sox are more likely
to feel pleasure, and exhibit reward-related neural responses, at the misfortunes of the archrival New York Yankees than other baseball teams (and vice versa)—especially in the midst of a
Just as a
tight playoff race. (How much fans take pleasure in the misfortunes of their rivals is also linked to how likely they would be to harm fans from the other team.)
particular person’s group membership can be flexible, so too are the relations between groups. Groups
that have previously had cordial relations may become rivals (and vice versa) . Indeed, psychological and
biological responses to out-group members can change, depending on whether or not that out-group is perceived as threatening. For example,
people exhibit greater pleasure—they smile—in response to the misfortunes of stereotypically competitive groups (e.g., investment bankers); however, this malicious pleasure is reduced when
you provide participants with counter-stereotypic information (e.g., “investment bankers are working with small companies to help them weather the economic downturn). Competition
between “us” and “them” can even distort our judgments of distance, making threatening out-groups seem much closer than they really are. These distorted perceptions can serve to amplify
all out-groups are treated the same:

intergroup discrimination: the more different and distant “they” are, the easier it is to disrespect and harm them. Thus, not
some elicit indifference whereas others become targets of antipathy. Stereotypically threatening groups
are especially likely to be targeted with violence, but those stereotypes can be tempered with other
information. If perceptions of intergroup relations can be changed, individuals may overcome hostility
toward perceived foes and become more responsive to one another’s grievances. The flexible nature of
both group membership and intergroup relations offers reason to be cautiously optimistic about the
potential for greater cooperation among groups in conflict (be they black versus white or citizens versus police). One strategy is
to bring multiple groups together around a common goal. For example, during the fiercely contested 2008 Democratic presidential primary
process, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters gave more money to strangers who supported the same primary candidate (compared to the rival candidate). Two months later, after
creating a
the Democratic National Convention, the supporters of both candidates coalesced around the party nominee—Barack Obama—and this bias disappeared. In fact, merely
sense of cohesion between two competitive groups can increase empathy for the suffering of our rivals.
These sorts of strategies can help reduce aggression toward hostile out-groups, which is critical for creating
more opportunities for constructive dialogue addressing greater social injustices. Of course, instilling a sense of common
identity and cooperation is extremely difficult in entrenched intergroup conflicts, but when it happens, the benefits are obvious. Consider how the community leaders in New York City and
Ferguson responded differently to protests against police brutality—in NYC political leaders expressed grief and concern over police brutality and moved quickly to make policy changes in
policing, whereas the leaders and police in Ferguson responded with high-tech military vehicles and riot gear. In the first case, multiple groups came together with a common goal—to increase
the safety of everyone in the community; in the latter case, the actions of the police likely reinforced the “us” and “them” distinctions. Tragically, these types of conflicts continue to roil the
country. Understanding the psychology and neuroscience of social identity and intergroup relations cannot undo the effects of systemic racism and discriminatory practices; however, it can
Even in cases where it isn’t

offer insights into the psychological processes responsible for escalating the tension between, for example, civilians and police officers.
possible to create a common identity among groups in conflict, it may be possible to blur the boundaries
between groups. In one recent experiment, we sorted participants into groups—red versus blue team—competing for a cash prize. Half of the participants were randomly
assigned to see a picture of a segregated social network of all the players, in which red dots clustered together, blue dots clustered together, and the two clusters were separated by white
space. The other half of the participants saw an integrated social network in which the red and blue dots were mixed together in one large cluster. Participants who thought the two teams
were interconnected with one another reported greater empathy for the out-group players compared to those who had seen the segregated network. Thus, reminding people that individuals
could be connected to one another despite being from different groups may be another way to build trust and understanding among them. A mere month before Freddie Gray died in police
custody, President Obama addressed the nation on the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma: “We do a disservice to the cause of justice by intimating that bias and discrimination are
immutable, or that racial division is inherent to America. To deny…progress – our progress – would be to rob us of our own agency; our responsibility to do what we can to make America
we, as a society, have a responsibility to reduce prejudice and discrimination . These recent
better." The president was saying that
findings from psychology and neuroscience indicate that we, as individuals, possess this capacity . Of course
this capacity is not sufficient to usher in racial equality or peace. Even when the level of prejudice against particular out-groups decreases, it does not imply that the level of institutional
Ultimately, only collective action and institutional evolution can

discrimination against these or other groups will necessarily improve.
address systemic racism. The science is clear on one thing, though: individual bias and discrimination
are changeable. Race-based prejudice and discrimination, in particular, are created and reinforced by
many social factors, but they are not inevitable consequences of our biology. Perhaps understanding how coalitional thinking
impacts
2 – Ontologizing blackness destroys alt solvency and homogenizes black bodies.

David KLINE, Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Religion at Rice University, 17 [“The Pragmatics of
Resistance: Framing Anti-Blackness and the Limits of Political Ontology,” Critical Philosophy of Race, Vol.
5, No. 1, 2017, p. 51-69, Accessed Online through Emory Libraries]
Focusing on Wilderson, his absolute prioritization of a political onto-logical structure in which the law relegates Black
being into the singular position of social death happens, I contend, at the expense of two significant things that I am hesitant to bracket for the
sake of prioritizing political ontology as the sole frame of reference for both analyzing anti-Black racism and thinking resistance within the
racialized world. First, it short-circuits
an analysis of power that might reveal not only how the practices,
forms, and apparatuses of anti-Black racism have historically developed , changed, and
reassembled/reterritorialized in relation to state power, national identity, philosophical discourse,
biological discourse, political discourse, and so on—changes that, despite Wilderson’s claim that
focusing on these things only “mystify” the question of ontology (Wilderson 2010, 10), surely have implications for how
racial positioning is both thought and resisted in differing historical and socio-political contexts. To the extent that Blackness equals a singular
ontological position within a macropolitical structure of antagonism, there is almost no room to bring in the spectrum and flow of social
difference and contingency that no doubt spans across Black identity as a legitimate issue of analysis and as a site/sight for the possibility of a
range of resisting practices. This bracketing of difference leads him to make some rather sweeping and opaquely abstract claims. For example,
discussing a main character’s abortion in a prison cell in the 1976 film Bush Mama, Wilderson says, “Dorothy will abort her baby at the clinic or
on the floor of her prison cell, not because she fights for—and either wins [End Page 58] or loses—the right to do so, but because she is one of
35 million accumulated and fungible (owned and exchangeable) objects living among 230 million subjects—which is to say, her will is always
already subsumed by the will of civil society” (Wilderson 2010, 128, italics mine). What I want to press here is how Wilderson’s statement,
totalizing political ontology overshadowing all other levels of sociality, flattens out
made in the sole frame of a
the social difference within, and even the possibility of, a micropolitical social field of 35 million Black
people living in the United States. Such a flattening reduces the optic of anti-Black racism as well as Black
sociality to the frame of political ontology where Blackness remains stuck in a singular position of
abjection. The result is a severe analytical limitation in terms of the way Blackness (as well as other racial
positions) exists across an extremely wide field of sociality that is comprised of differing intensities of
forces and relational modes between various institutional, political, socio-economic, religious, sexual,
and other social conjunctures. Within Wilderson’s political ontological frame, it seems that these conjunctures are
excluded—or at least bracketed—as having any bearing at all on how anti-Black power functions and is
resisted across highly differentiated contexts. There is only the binary ontological distinction of Black
and Human being; only a macropolitics of sedimented abjection .
3 – Reform is possible – Batson v. Kentucky outlawed lynchings. Strader v. West

Virginia let black people be in juries.
2AC – AT: Ontology
Anti-blackness is structural—dynamic and constantly changing. Dominant groups
reiterate ideas based on their goals of dominance, building a structure of anti-
blackness with policies and ideologies. We know this system matters because no one
would care about racists without it. Thus, individuals are predisposed to accept an
ideology, not predetermined. Effective resistance needs to understand antiblackness
as symptoms of power and status, rather than essentializations of history. That’s
Gordon.
1AR – Ontology DAs
Ontology is bad – there are [ ] independent DAs that turn the case.
We can win on this argument separate from topicality.
1 – Flattening DA – Ontology flattens distinct manifestations of racism and creates a
dangerous sameness that leaves no room for analyzing contingent differences in
actions. there are degrees of racism, but the alt prevents prioritization. The Flint
Water Crisis and George Floyd’s death are vastly different, so political resistance
should be geared towards different goals, but ontology ignores the implications of
material suffering – CX proves. The impact is anti-black violence. Their link arguments
produce an overstretching of anti-blackness that prevents fighting it where it matters
most. No one can fight everywhere, all the time, the same. This creates a failed form
of analysis and the inability to act which calcifies dominant structures of
antiblackness. That’s Kline and Reed.
2 – Resignation DA – if actions are predetermined then protests are useless – the alt
would tell MLK Jr to stop fighting against segregation – it’s the worst form of politics
that tells black students to accept militarism or accept being targeted in schools – that
causes them to internalize racist assumptions – turns the aff. The alt creates a self-
fulfilling prophecy – fatalism accepts the totalizing nature of anti-blackness, lending
the system legitimacy. Ontology is a tactic of white supremacy.
3 – Fracturing DA – seeing racism as immutable fractures solidarity in radical
movements since elites deploy it to systematically undermine social struggles. The
alternative feeds into capitalist divide and conquer strategies that centralize elite
control – the impact is poverty and the destruction of anti-racist coalitions which
dooms alt solvency – that’s Taylor.
1AR – AT: Middle Passage
Focus solely on slavery is wrong. Modernity isn’t only the result of the Middle
Passage. They assume that anti-black animus is a transhistorical force, but it’s caught
up in a broader web of historical power relationships like Islamophobia and
orientalism that historically precede and structure anti-blackness. Their account is
ahistorical and can’t account for our aff, which is [].
1AR – Reform Good
They are wrong about history – reform is possible and effective at improving lives.
The status quo is mutable.
- 60 percent of employed black women worked as domestic servants; today it’s 2.2
percent.
- Loving v. Virginia that declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional
- 13th amendment abolished slavery
- 14th amendment established equal protection
- 15th amendment protected voting rights
- 1970 ended separate but equal
- 1964 Civil Rights Act forbade racial discrimination in privately owned places
- The 1968 Fair Housing Act addressed racial exclusion
- Batson v. Kentucky outlawed lynchings.
- Strader v. West Virginia let black people be in juries.
- The LIHEAP program gives resources to inner-city people.
None of these reforms solved racism but material conditions are dramatically better
than before – each reform is a victory in of itself. public attitudes, law, and customs
are always in flux and ever changing and not set in stone. Don’t let perfect be the
enemy of the good.
Material conditions are more important than social conditions –

The ability to live is a prerequisite to value – feeding families, equal access to jobs
Social conditions are unquantifiable but you can know that black people are living
longer
1AR – Bacon’s Rebellion
Bacon’s rebellion is an instance that disproves their ontological claims –
It proves the possibility of black agency - black people united with poor and
indentured Europeans in fighting Native Americans and challenged the elite control of
governor Berkeley.
It disproves their historical understanding of antiblackness – racialized chattel slavery
was a deliberate choice that English elites came to over time. English elites feared
class unity across racial lines so they imposed different standards when punishing
rebels.
It proves that ontology is insufficient to explain antiblack policies - race wasn’t
predetermined but was an ongoing process by which the need for increasing control
of pliant labor led to the implementation of hardened racial lines – that’s all Kuani
We only have to prove one instance where black people had agency to disprove their
ontology claims – it proves its too totalizing and that contingent policies can be good –
their theory collapses under its own totalizing logic.
PSYCHOANALYSIS K
2AC – Framework
Debate is politicizing --- the attempt to engage overcomes alienation even if the goal
isn’t achieved. The aff doesn’t deny flux.
Shmuel LEDERMAN 14, PhD from the University of Haifa, Israel, teaches at The Open University of
Israel [“Agonism and Deliberation in Arendt,” Constellations, Vol. 21, Issue 3, September 2014, p. 327-
337, Accessed Online through Emory Libraries]
It is fairly obvious why Villa does not “recognize” this utopia. His “agonist” interpretation of Arendt excludes attributing
special importance to citizens’ participation in government. Indeed, to his mind believing that Arendt offers us a possible
recovery of action in fact involves a failure to take seriously Arendt's analysis of the modern world and the almost non-existent (according to
Villa) prospects for action within it.92 This seems to be also the case for Sandra and Lewis Hinchman, who argue that Arendt's political ideal
finally became the philosopher as a public figure, and not the citizen who speaks to his fellow citizens.93
For Arendt, however, participation in government, with its obvious “deliberative” elements (exchanging
opinions, agreeing and acting with others), is essential to the experience of freedom itself. As I explained
above, politics in its Arendtian sense grows out of the desire of individuals to appear in the public sphere ,
to claim their place in the common world. The space of appearance into which we enter when we take part in the
public realm provides us with an opportunity for actualizing ourselves, our unique identity, which receives
concreteness and intensiveness when it is disclosed to others. It also provides us with an actualization of the world itself:
“For without a space of appearance and without trusting in action and speech as a mode of being together,
neither the reality of one's self, of one's own identity, nor the reality of the surrounding world can be
established beyond doubt […] this actualization resides and comes to pass in those activities that exist
only in sheer actuality.”94
The same actualization of the self and the world, I would like to stress, is achieved by common speech, namely
the exchange of opinions in light of the necessity to agree on joint decisions and actions. As was already pointed out,
opinions reflect the place from which people see the world, their standpoint .95 When one exchanges one's
opinions with fellow citizens, one makes explicit the way the world is seen from his or her particular standpoint in it,96 while discovering how
the world is seen through the eyes of those others. This
ability to see the world through the eyes of others is for Arendt
the political insight par excellence.97 Through the exchange of opinions we achieve a more complete
understanding of the world, and what Curtis called “our sense of the real”98 becomes stronger and deeper,
thereby reducing our alienation from the world.
Seen from this perspective, to discuss things with others and to cooperate with them is essentially not
at all different from appearing and trying to excel before them. These are aspects of the same activity,
whose meaning is the overcoming of alienation, and the restoration—at least partially—of the sense of
being “at home in the world.” In this sense, Arendt continues the fundamental realization common to both Heidegger and Jaspers,
despite the differences between their philosophical projects: “‘man is, in Dasein, possible existence’ […] [he] achieves reality only to the extent
that he acts out of his own freedom rooted in spontaneity.”99 Politics, Arendt suggests, is a central human sphere in which these human
possibilities can be realized. The
individuals acting and speaking in politics ultimately achieve neither interest,
nor virtue nor some common good, but a new existential meaning.
This does not mean that those individuals intentionally aim for this meaning when they act in the public sphere.
Meanings for Arendt are the kinds of things that cannot be aimed at: instead we discover them while
performing activities that are aimed at certain concrete goals. This is why when Entreves, for example, warns us against seeing Arendt's
politics as an existential need, since such a need is concentrated on the self and not on the world,100 he misses, in my opinion, Arendt's
intention. In all her descriptions of political action, the acting individuals seek to achieve specific goals, being concerned with whatever is taking
place in their public sphere. But while acting for the world they discover that “acting is fun.” 101 Arendt explains what
she means by that when she relates to the student movement of the 1960s: “This generation discovered what the eighteen century called
‘public happiness’, which means that when
man takes part in public life he opens up for himself a dimension of
human experience that otherwise remains closed to him and that in some way constitute a part of
complete ‘happiness.’”102 This dimension of human experience that opens up in action and speech is
the existential meaning citizens can experience only in the public realm , that is, only when they
participate in government.
2AC – Suffering Reps
Images of suffering are necessary --- don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good ---
the alt risks silence, which is infinitely worse.
Kleinman and Kleinman 97 (Arthur, Maude and Lillian Presley Professor of Medical Anthropology, and Joan, sinologist, Research Associate, Medical
Anthropology Program at Harvard, “The appeal of experience; the dismay of images: Cultural appropriations of suffering in our times,” Social Suffering, pg. 16-18,
google books)//a-berg
It is necessary to balance the account of the globalization of commercial and professional images with a
vastly different and even more dangerous cultural process of appropriation: the totalitarian state's erasure of
social experiences of suffering through the suppression of images. Here the possibility of moral appeal
through images of human misery is prevented , and it is their absence that is the source of existential
dismay. Such is the case with the massive starvation in China from 1959 to 1961. This story was not reported at the time even though more than thirty million
Chinese died in the aftermath of the ruinous policies of the Great Leap Forward, the perverse effect of Mao's impossible dream of forcing immediate
industrialization on peasants. Accounts of this, the world's most devastating famine, were totally suppressed; no stories or pictures of the starving or the dead were
published. An internal report on the famine was made by an investigating team for the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. It was based on a
detailed survey of an extremely poor region of Anwei Province that was particularly brutally affected. The report includes this numbing statement by Wei Wu-ji, a
local peasant leader from Anwei: Originally there were 5,000 people in our commune, now only 3,200 remain. When the Japanese invaded we did not lose this
many: we at least could save ourselves by running away! This year there's no escape. We die shut up in our own houses. Of my 6 family members, 5 are already
dead, and I am left to starve, and I'll not be able to stave off death for long.(30) Wei Wu-ji continued: Wang Jia-feng from West Springs County reported that cases
of eating human meat were discovered. Zhang Sheng-jiu said, "Only an evil man could do such a thing!" Wang Jia-feng said, "In 1960, there were 20 in our
household, ten of them died last year. My son told his mother 'I'll die of hunger in a few days.'" And indeed he did.(31) The report also includes a graphic image by Li
Qin-ming, from Wudian County, Shanwang Brigade: In 1959, we were prescheduled to deliver 58,000 jin of grain to the State, but only 35,000 jin were harvested,
hence we only turned over 33,000 jin, which left 2,000 jin for the commune. We really have nothing to eat. The peasants eat hemp leaves, anything they can
possibly eat. In my last report after I wrote, "We have nothing to eat," the Party told me they wanted to remove my name from the Party Roster. Out of a
population of 280, 170 died. In our family of five, four of us have died leaving only myself. Should I say that I'm not broken hearted?(32) Chen Zhang-yu, from
Guanyu County, offered the investigators this terrible image: Last spring the phenomenon of cannibalism appeared. Since Comrade Chao Wu-chu could not come up
with any good ways of prohibiting it, he put out the order to secretly imprison those who seemed to be at death's door to combat the rumors. He secretly
imprisoned 63 people from the entire country. Thirty-three died in prison.(33) The official report is thorough and detailed. It is classified neibu, restricted use only.
To distribute it is to reveal state secrets. Presented publicly it would have been, especially if it had been published in the 1960s, a fundamental critique of the Great
Leap, and a moral and political delegitimation of the Chinese Communist Party's claim to have improved the life of poor peasants. Even today the authorities regard
it as dangerous. The official silence is another form of appropriation. It prevents public witnessing. It forges a
secret history, an act of political resistance through keeping alive the memory of things denied.34 The
totalitarian state rules by collective forgetting, by denying the collective experience of suffering, and thus
creates a culture of terror. The absent image is also a form of political appropriation; public silence is
perhaps more terrifying than being overwhelmed by public images of atrocity . Taken together the two
modes of appropriation delimit the extremes in this cultural process .(35) Our critique of appropriations of
suffering that do harm does not mean that no appropriations are valid. To conclude that would be to
undermine any attempt to respond to human misery . It would be much more destructive than the problem we
have identified; it would paralyze social action. We must draw upon the images of human suffering in order to
identify human needs and to craft humane responses.
Representations of violence and suffering mobilize emotional responses — crucial to

effective political action.
Dentan 2k — Robert Knox Dentan, Professor of American Studies and Anthropology at the SUNY-
Buffalo, 2000 ("Trying to Tell the Truth about Violence: Some Difficulties," The HFG Review, Volume 4,
Number 1, Spring, Available Online at http://hfg.org/html.pages/mag4/dentan.htm, Accessed 10-10-
2003)
But "academic debates...often privilege the textual and find 'pornography' in texts many others would
consider too dreary to read" (Wicke 1991:75). Teaching about violence becomes suspect. You lay
yourself open to all sorts of accusations, by colleagues and students alike, although the chance that a
scholarly lecture is going to titillate potential consumers of the pornography of violence seems
"minimal" ( Russell 1993:xii).
Amidst the flood of violent imagery—every day on TV, on the newsstands and in the drugstores,
everywhere—this academic prudery seems like combing your hair in a tornado. Depicting violence may
upset or offend people: it should, I think. Violence, in fact, is revolting. An accurate depiction must be
that, too. If not, it depersonalizes both the perpetrators and, especially, the victims of violence. Years
ago George Orwell pointed out how convenient denaturing academese is for violent oppressors (1956).
What is the difference between talking about slaving, which makes women and children objects of
sexual and physical abuse, as "servility" (Cohen 1970:165-166) or "recruitment to relations of
dependence" (Sullivan 1982) and talking about "the liquidation of the kulaks" or "the final solution to
the Jewish problem"? Phrases like these reflect, maintain, or hide the oppressors' insensitivity to the
plight of the people they hurt. The "fiction of critical distance produces further fictions of closure," as if
the violence were over (Hebard 1997:88). Now that's "coarsening people's sensibilities and implicitly
encouraging violence." In this sense, the social scientific language metapornographers favor is also
pornography, feeding consumers' coldness.
And declaring violence off limits doesn't help the victims, though it may let faculty and students feel
good about ourselves by obviating the need to assess our own complicated responses to cruelty . One
thing I've learned from twice teaching a course on violence is that anyone who has ever suffered cruelty
—and most people have—responds ambivalently to its representation. More positively, trying to
recreate the experience of violence, rather than describing it from a safe academic distance, might—just
might—mobilize emotional responses with the same sort of reformist political potential as the
associated conceptual responses (Nordstrom 1997:xvii-xviii).
2AC – Psychoanalysis bad
Psychoanalysis is tautological and relies on unsound logic – every single warrant they
have for why psychoanalysis is true or why the lack exists relies on the prior
assumption that there is indeed a lack – their rhetorical critique equates to presuming
there is a lack, cherry picking lines of evidence, and then using those lines to
demonstrate that we as debaters are lacking – this is CONFIRMATION BIAS at its
finest, the formulation of an assumption and then seeking out any and everything that
can serve to confirm it – that’s a terrible way of going about proving your claim –
anything can get interpreted in any way once you make a primary assumption of the
psychological state that it’s coming from, but they have given no independent reason
for why their totalizing theory of the psyche is true
There are numerous counterexamples to psychoanalysis – indigenous societies that
aren’t patriarchal, don’t have a conception of the “father,” don’t have a conception of
death, black Oedipus, potlatch festivals, etc. – all of these disprove the claim that the
psyche is always bound by lack – they have posited a totalizing and all encompassing
theory that claims to explain all human action – we only need one counterexample to
disprove this because it demonstrates that they don’t account for the way all humans
operate
2AC – No Link
Perm do both – the affirmative isn’t mutually exclusive. Psychoanalyzing and then still
implementing the policy solves.
Psycho can’t explain the aff – there’s no reason why us reading this aff specifically
means we would be disappointed when it doesn’t happen.
Sweeping psychological generalizations have no explanatory power for politics. They

represent the worst of non-falsifiable hindsight thinking.
Andrew SAMUELS 93, Training Analyst of the Society of Analytical Psychology, and a Science Associate
of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis [“The mirror and the hammer: depth psychology and
political transformation,” Free Associations: Psychoanalysis and Culture, Media, Groups, Politics, Vol. 3,
1993, p. 545-593, Accessed Online through Emory Libraries]
The paper is about the depth psychology of political processes, focusing on processes of political change. It
is a contribution to the
longstanding ambition of depth psychology to develop a form of political and cultural analysis that will, in
Freud's words, ‘understand the riddles of the world’ . It has to be admitted that there is an equally longstanding reluctance in the
non-psychological community to accept the many and varied ideas and suggestions concerning political matters that have been offered by
analysts of all persuasions. I do not believe this can all be put down to resistance. There
is something offensive above reductive
interpretations of complex socio-political problems in exclusively psychological terms . The tendency to
panpsychism on the part of some depth psychologists has led me to wonder if an adequate
methodology and ethos actually exists with which to make an engagement of depth psychology with the public sphere possible.
By ‘politics’ I mean the arrangements within a culture for the organization and distribution of power,
especially economic power, and the way in which power is deployed to maintain the survival and enhance the quality of human life.
Economic and political power includes control of processes of information and representation as well as the use of physical force and
possession of vital resources such as land, food and water. On a more personal level, political power reflects the ability to choose freely
whether to act and what action to take in a given situation. ‘Politics’ refers to the interplay between the personal and public dimensions of
power. That is, there is an articulation between public, economic power and power as expressed on the personal, private level. This articulation
is demonstrated in family organization, gender and race relations, and in religious and artistic assumptions as they affect the life of individuals.
(I have also tried to be consistent in my use of the terms ‘culture’, ‘society’ and ‘collective’.)1
Here is an example of the difficulty with psychological reductionism to which I am referring. At a conference I attended in London in 1990, a
distinguished psychoanalyst referred to the revolutionary students in Paris in 1968 as ‘functioning as a
regressive group’. Now, for a large group of students to be said to regress, there must be, in the speaker's mind, some sort of normative
developmental starting point for them to regress to. The social group is supposed to have a babyhood , as it were. Similarly,
the speaker must have had in mind the possibility of a healthier, progressive group process — what a more mature group of revolutionary
students would have looked like. But
complex social and political phenomena do not conform to the
individualistic, chronological, moralistic, pathologizing framework that is often imported.
The problem stems from treating the entire culture, or large chunks of it, as if it were an individual or,
worse, as if it were a baby. Psychoanalysts project a version of personality development couched in
judgemental terms onto a collective cultural and political process. If we look in this manner for
pathology in the culture, we will surely find it. As we are looking with a psychological theory in mind,
then, lo and behold, the theory will explain the pathology . But this is a retrospective prophecy (to use a
phrase of Freud's), twenty—twenty hindsight. In this psychoanalytic tautologizing there is really nothing much to get
excited about. Too much psychological writing on the culture, my own included, has suffered from this kind of
smug ‘correctness’ when the ‘material’ proves the theoretical point . Of course it does! If we are interested in envy or
greed, then we will find envy or greed in capitalistic organization. If we set out to demonstrate the presence of archetypal
patterns, such as projection of the shadow, in geopolitical relations, then, without a doubt, they will seem to leap out at us. We
influence what we analyse and so psychological reflection on culture and politics needs to be muted; there is not
so much ‘aha!’ as one hoped.
Psychoanalysis does not disprove our factual claims—the burden of proof is on the
Neg
Yudkowsky 06 (Eliezer, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, “Cognitive biases potentially
affecting judgment of global risks,” forthcoming in Global Catastrophic Risks, August 31)
Every true idea which discomforts you will seem to match the pattern of at least one psychological error. Robert Pirsig said: "The world's biggest fool can say the sun
is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out." If
you believe someone is guilty of a psychological error, then demonstrate
your competence by first demolishing their consequential factual errors. If there are no factual errors, then what matters the psychology?
The temptation of psychology is that, knowing a little psychology, we can meddle in arguments where we have no
technical expertise instead sagely analyzing the psychology of the disputants. If someone wrote a novel about an asteroid strike
destroying modern civilization, then someone might criticize that novel as extreme, dystopian, apocalyptic; symptomatic of the author's
naive inability to deal with a complex technological society. We should recognize this as a literary criticism, not a scientific one ;
it is about good or bad novels, not good or bad hypotheses. To quantify the annual probability of an asteroid strike in real life, one must study astronomy and the
historical record: no amount of literary criticism can put a number on it. Garreau (2005) seems to hold that a scenario of a mind slowly increasing in capability, is
more mature and sophisticated than a scenario of extremely rapid intelligence increase. But that's a technical question, not a matter of taste; no
amount of psychologizing can tell you the exact slope of that curve. It's harder to abuse heuristics and biases than psychoanalysis. Accusing someone
of conjunction fallacy leads naturally into listing the specific details that you think are burdensome and drive down the joint probability. Even so, do not lose track of
the real-world facts of primary interest; do not let the argument become about psychology. Despite all dangers and temptations, it is better to know about
psychological biases than to not know. Otherwise we will walk directly into the whirling helicopter blades of life. But be very careful not to have too much fun
accusing others of biases. That is the road that leads to becoming a sophisticated arguer someone who, faced with any discomforting argument, finds at once a bias
in it. The one whom you must watch above all is yourself. Jerry Cleaver said: "What does you in is not failure to apply some high-level, intricate, complicated
technique. It's overlooking the basics. Not keeping your eye on the ball." Analyses should finally center on testable real-world assertions.
Do not take your eye off the ball.
Their focus on the psyche as a starting point for their analysis ignores behaviors of
large groups which disproves their impacts, cedes the political, and doesn’t explain
state based behavior.
Volkan 03 – Vamik D. Volkan is the Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia.
(“Psychoanalysis in International Relations and International Relations in Psychoanalysis”,
http://www.vamikvolkan.com/Psychoanalysis-and-International-Relations-and-International-Relations-
in-Psychoanalysis.php)
Other difficulties that complicate

collaboration between psychoanalysts and practitioners and scholars of politics
and international relations come from psychoanalysis itself. I sensed these difficulties myself as I became more and more involved in collaborative
work with scholars and practitioners of other disciplines. I noted that the difficulties within psychoanalytic discipline that hindered collaboration between
psychoanalysis and diplomacy could be divided into various inter-related categories. As expected, at first it was difficult for me to realize these obstacles and define
them. But slowly I was able to “free” myself from some established psychoanalytic assumptions. Politics
and diplomacy necessarily deal with the
psychology of large groups, the psychology of leader-followers, and the psychology of relationships between enemy groups and
their leaders. Sigmund Freud was interested in these topics, but he also left a legacy that discouraged his followers from pursuing
them. In his letter to Albert Einstein, Freud (1932) was pessimistic about human nature and the role of psychoanalysis in
preventing wars or war-like situations. Although Jacob Arlow (1973) later suggested some optimism in some of Freud’s writings on this subject, Freud’s
pessimism, I believe, played a role in the limited psychoanalytic contributions to the fields of politics and
diplomacy. There were, of course, exceptions (Glower, 1947 and Fornari, 1966). However, those exceptions followed Freud’s lead in another area, and this too
blocked the potential influence of psychoanalysis on politics and diplomacy: these writers, like Freud, focused on individuals’
unconscious perceptions of what the image of political leaders and the mental representations of a large
group symbolically stand for, instead of on large-group psychology and leader-follower relations in their own right.
Psychoanalysis remained primarily an investigative tool of an individual’s internal world and massive
human movements were examined according to individual psychology that brings people together and
not according to the psychology of large-group rituals and interactions . It was all right to study the internal motivations of
political leaders as they influence their followers, but psychoanalysis largely failed to consider how mental representations of societal
processes influenced the personality development of individuals belonging to the same large group and changed that group’s
historical or political movements. Only relatively recently a handful of historians with psychoanalytic training are focusing on this phenomenon. For example, Peter
Loewenberg (1991, 1995) described the history of the Weimer Republic, its humiliation and its economic collapse as a major factor in creating shared personality
characteristics among the German youth and their welcoming the Nazi ideology. Freud’s (1921) well-known theory of large-group psychology reflects a theme that
mainly focuses on the understanding of the individual: the members of the group sublimate their aggression toward the leader and turn it into loyalty in a process
that is similar to that of a son turning his negative feelings toward his Oedipal father. In turn, the members of a large group idealize the leader,
identify with each other, and rally around the leader . Freud’s theory is based on a “male-oriented” psychological process. More
importantly, as Waelder (1971) noted, Freud was speaking only of regressed groups. Given such shortcomings, some psychoanalysts
who study large groups and their leaders shifted their approach in the last decade or so from
emphasizing the image of the leader to focusing on the mental representation of the large group itself
as experienced by the individual. For example, Didier Anzieu (1971, 1984) Janine Chassequet-Smirgel (1984), and Otto Kernberg (1980, 1989)
wrote about shared fantasies of members of a large group. They suggested that large groups represent idealized mothers (breast mothers) who repair all narcissistic
injuries. I, (Volkan, 2004) added that idealized but unintegrated self images accompany idealized mother images in members’ experience of the large group in which
they belong. But, again, these theories primarily focus on individuals’ perceptions. It is assumed that external
processes that threaten the
group members’ image of an idealized mother can initiate political processes and influence international
affairs. Nevertheless, an approach that focuses on individuals’ perceptions does not offer specificity
concerning a political or diplomatic process. Thus, it does not excite practitioners of politics and diplomacy or receive much attention from
political scientists. I came to realize that what the psychoanalytic tradition lacks is the study of both large-group psychology in its own right and the specific
elements of various mass movements.
Pyschoanalysis is non-falsifiable hindsight thinking

Samuels 93—Training Analyst – Society of Analytical Psychology and Science Associate – American
Academy of Psychoanalysis (Andrew, Free Associations, “The mirror and the hammer: depth psychology
and political transformation”, Vol. 3D, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing)
The paper is about the depth psychology of political processes, focusing on processes of political change. It is a contribution to the longstanding ambition of depth
psychology to develop a form of political and cultural analysis that will, in Freud's words, 'under-stand the riddles of the world'. It has to be admitted that there is an
equally longstanding reluctance in the non-psychological commun¬ity to accept the many and varied ideas and suggestions concerning political matters that have
been offered by analysts of all persua¬sions. I do not believe this can all be put down to resistance. There
is something offensive above
reductive interpretations of complex socio-political problems in exclusively psychological terms. The
tendency to panpsychism on the part of some depth psychologists has led me to wonder if an adequate methodology and
ethos actually exists with which to make an engagement of depth psychology with the public sphere possible .¶
By 'politics' I mean the arrangements within a culture for the organization and distribution of power, especially
economic power, and the way in which power is deployed to maintain the survival and enhance the quality of human life. Economic and political power includes
control of processes of information and representation as well as the use of physical force and possession of vital resources such as land, food and water. On a more
personal level, political power reflects the ability to choose freely whether to act and what action to take in a given situation. 'Politics' refers to the
interplay between the personal and public dimensions of power. That is, there is an articulation between public, economic
power and power as expressed on the personal, private level. This articulation is demonstrated in family organization, gender and race relations, and in religious and
artistic assumptions as they affect the life of individuals. (I have also tried to be consistent in my use of the terms 'culture', 'society' and 'collective'.)' ¶ Here is an
example of the difficulty with psychological rcduc-tionism to which I am referring. At a conference 1 attended in London in 1990, a distinguished psychoanalyst
referred to the revolutionary students in Paris in 1968 as 'functioning as a regressive group'. Now, for a large group of students to be said to regress, there must be,
in the speaker's mind, some sort of normative developmental starting point for them to regress to. The social group is supposed to have a babyhood, as it were.
Similarly, the speaker must have had in mind the possibility of a healthier, progressive group process — what a more mature group of revolutionary students would
have looked like. But complex social and political phenomena do not conform to the individualistic,
chronological, moralistic, pathologizing framework that is often imported .¶ The problem stems from
treating the entire culture, or large chunks of it, as if it were an individual or, worse, as if it were a baby.
Psychoanalysts project a version of personality development couched in judgemental terms onto a
collective cultural and political process. If we look in this manner for pathology in the culture, we will surely
find it. As we are looking with a psychological theory in mind , then, lo and behold, the theory will explain
the pathology, but this is a retrospective prophecy (to use a phrase of Freud's), twenty-twenty hindsight. In this
psychoanalytic tautologizing there is really nothing much to get excited about. Too much psychological writing on the culture, my
own included, has suffered from this kind of smug 'correctness' when the 'material' proves the theoretical point. Of course it does! If we are interested in envy or
greed, then we will find envy or greed in capitalistic organization. If we set out to demonstrate the presence of archetypal patterns, such as projection of the
shadow, in geopolitical relations, then, without a doubt, they will seem to leap out at us. We influence what we analyse and so psychological reflection on culture
and politics needs to be muted- there is not so much 'aha!' as one hoped.
2AC – Baurdrillard – AT: Meaning
Meaning is possible and participation in politics is inevitable---the alt naturalizes
oppression by conflating existing conditions with meaning per se
Andy Robinson 4, Zizek hater, Baudrillard, Zizek and Laclau on "common sense" - a critique,
http://andyrobinsontheoryblog.blogspot.com/2004/11/baudrillard-zizek-and-laclau-on-common.html
Baudrillard thinks his account of the masses is confirmed by disinterest in politics and "public" debates (12-13),
and that this is a resistance to political manipulation (SSM 39). He is wrong. This disinterest is relative: at the
time of The Consumer Society, Baudrillard still recognised that this disinterest can be shattered by
sudden uprisings. Further, it is quite possible to explain such disinterest without falling back on the crude kind of theories of mystification
Baudrillard cites as the only alternative to his view (SSM 12-13). Brinton, and Albert and Hahnel, for instance, have analysed disinterest as an
insulation built into authoritarian character-structures which enables people to cope with capitalism. Baudrillard's earlier work similarly
involves a model of how the consumer society produces disinterest. Furthermore, political
manipulation is, as Gramsci and others
show, closely intertwined
with the supposedly "meaningless", "apolitical" discourses of everyday life . It is
simply not possible to withdraw from politics; one always participates in practices which influence
social outcomes and others' actions, so that the illusion of withdrawal from politics is actually a naturalisation
of a particular kind of political system. Baudrillard's explicitly stated view that everyday practice is beyond representation and the
politics (SSM 39) is therefore wholly mistaken and leads him to effectively endorse the naturalisation of politics (even though he tries to avoid
ENDORSING something he sees as meaningless and therefore not endorsable - 40-1. Actually he does endorse indirectly via loaded language).
He also misses the dimension of political INTRUSION into everyday life - for instance, the aggressive police presence which blights so many
inner-city communities, and the linked phenomenon of a politicised fear of "crime". At this point, in contradiction to Vaneigem, Reich and
Foucault as well as his earlier work,
Baudrillard also wants to deny a liberatory potential to resistance in everyday
life (SSM 40-1).¶ Baudrillard sometimes substitutes his own views for evidence, as when he discusses what
"we" the audience experience (GW 39). ¶ Baudrillard's claim that the masses are "dumb", silent and conduct any and all beliefs (SSM
28) and "the reversion of any social" (SSM 49) is problematised by the persistence of subcultures and countercultures, while his claim that any
remark could be attributed to the masses (SSM 29) hardly proves that it lacks its own demands or beliefs. He is leaping far too quickly
from the confused and contradictory nature of mass beliefs to the idea that the masses lack - or even
reject - meaning per se. He wants to portray the masses as disinterested in meaning, instinctual and
"above and beyond all meaning" (SSM 11), lacking even conformist beliefs (87-8) and without a language of
their own (22). This is contradicted by extensive evidence on the construction of meaning in everyday life ,
from Hoggart on working class culture to Becker, Lemert, Goffman and others on deviance. Even in the sphere of
media effects, the evidence from research on audiences, such a s Ang on Dallas viewers and Morley on the Nationwide
audience, suggests an active construction of meaning by members of the masses, negotiating with or even
opposing dominant codes of meaning. This may well show a decline of that kind of meaning promoted
by the status quo - but it hardly shows a rejection of meaning per se. When the masses act stupid, it may well be due to what radical
education theorists term "reactive stupidity" - an adaptive response to avoid being falsified and "beaten" by acting stupid. Baudrillard
again wrongly conflates the dominant system with meaning as such . Indeed, Baudrillard seems to have
changed his mind AGAIN by the time of the Gulf War essays, when he refers to the MEDIA, not the
masses, as in control (GW 75), and to stupidity as a result of "mental deterrence" (GW 67-8), which produces a "suffocating atmosphere
of deception and stupidity" (GW 68) and a control through the violence of consensus (GW 84).
AT: Death Drive
Death drive is false.
Andrew ROBINSON 5. PhD in Political Theory, Nottingham. “The Political Theory of Constitutive Lack:
A Critique.” Theory & Event 8(1). Emory Libraries.
'Psychoanalysis transforms and deforms the

Guattari's critique of psychoanalysis makes clear the myths which underlie it.
unconscious by forcing it to pass through the grid of its system of inscription and representation . For
psychoanalysis, the unconscious is always already there, genetically programmed, structured, and finalized on objectives of conformity to social norms'104.
Similarly, Reich has already exposed a predecessor of the idea of "constitutive lack" - the Freudian "death instinct" - as a denial that
"I don't know". It is, he says, a metaphysical attempt to explain as yet inexplicable phenomena , an attempt which gets
in the way of fact-finding about these phenomena. He provides a detailed clinical rebuttal of the idea of the "death instinct"
which is equally apt as an attack on Lacanians (who seem unaware of Reich's intervention). In Reich's view, the masochistic
tendencies Freud associates with the "death instinct" are secondary drives arising from anxiety, and are attributable to 'the disastrous
effect of social conditions on the biopsychic apparatus. This entailed the necessity of criticizing the social conditions which created the neuroses - a
necessity which the hypothesis of a biological will to suffer had circumvented'106. The idea of the "death instinct" leads to a cultural
philosophy in which suffering is assumed to be inevitable, whereas Reich's alternative - to attribute neurosis
to frustrations with origins in the social system - leads to a critical sociological stance. ¶ The relevance of Reich's critique to the political
theory of constitutive lack is striking. The "death instinct" is connected to an idea of primordial masochism which, in the form of "aphanisis" or "subjective
destitution", recurs throughout Lacanian political theory. Zizek
in particular advocates masochism, in the guise of "shooting
at" or "beating" oneself, as a radical gesture which reveals the essence of the self and breaks the constraints of an
oppressive reality108, although the masochistic gesture is present in all Lacanian theorists. The death instinct is typified by Zizek as a pathological (in the
Kantian sense), contingent attitude which finds satisfaction in the process of self-blockage109. It is identical with the Lacanian concept of jouissance or enjoyment.
For him, 'enjoyment (jouissance) is not to be equated with pleasure: enjoyment is precisely "pleasure in unpleasure"; it designates the
paradoxical satisfaction procured by a painful encounter with a Thing that perturbs the equilibrium of the pleasure
principle. In other words, enjoyment is located "beyond the pleasure principle"'110. It is also the core of the self, since enjoyment is 'the only "substance"
acknowledged by psychoanalysis', and 'the subject fully "exists" only through enjoyment'111. Primordial masochism is therefore central to the Lacanian concept of
the Real, which depends on there being a universal moment at which active desire - sometimes given the slightly misleading name of the "pleasure principle" - is
suspended, not for a greater or delayed pleasure, but out of a direct desire for unpleasure (i.e. a primary reactive desire). Furthermore, this reactive desire is
supposed to be ontologically prior to active desire. Dominick LaCapra offers a similar but distinct critique to my own, claiming that Lacanian and similar theories
induce a post-traumatic compulsion repetition or an 'endless, quasi-transcendental grieving that may be indistinguishable from interminable melancholy'112.
Reich has already provided a rebuttal of "primordial masochism", which, paradoxically given Zizek's claims to radicalism, was denounced by orthodox Freudians as
communist propaganda. In Reich's view, masochism operates as a relief at a lesser pain which operates as armouring against anxiety about an underlying
trauma113. Regardless of what one thinks of Reich's specific account of the origins of masochism, what is crucial is his critique of the idea of a death drive.
'Such hypotheses as are criticised here are often only a sign of therapeutic failure. For if one explains masochism by a death instinct, one confirms to the
patient his [sic] alleged will to suffer'114. Thus, Lacanian metaphysics conceal Lacanians' encouragement of a variety of neurosis complicit with oppressive social
Politically, the thesis of primordial masochism provides a mystifying cover for the social forces which cause and
realities.
benefit from the contingent emergence of masochistic attachments (i.e. sadistic power apparatuses). One could compare this
remark to Butler's claim that Zizek 'defends the trauma of the real... over and against a different kind of threat'115.
The death drive’s a useless label

Havi Carel 6, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of the West of England, “Life and Death in
Freud and Heidegger”, googlebooks
Freud introduces the death drive in order to explain all behaviour that is not in accordance with the
pleasure principle. He does so by offering a theoretical construct in the form of an aggressive drive but also posits the Nirvana principle
as the aim of all organic systems to rid themselves of excitation and strive towards complete rest. This leads to contradictory
formulations of the death drive. Part of the function of the death drive is to unify a variety of aggressive
phenomena such as destructiveness, sadism, masochism and hate. But Freud is also proposing a more
general metaphysical speculation about life as a conflict between life and death drives. This position
raises serious problems: 1. Positing the death drive reduces all forms of aggression to one source . Could
a single drive explain all types of aggression and destructiveness? Or are there vital details in the individual
origins and characteristics of each aggressive phenomenon that are subsumed by the reductive hypothesis of the death
drive? 2. Even if we were to accept such a reductive concept, its explanatory value is not clear . What
does the notion of the death drive add to the already unifying concept of aggression ? Assembling
various forces under the auspices of the death drive makes it an unstable category whose meaning
can only be derived from the specific context of its application. The death drive has no autonomous
meaning. Since the death drive derives its meaning from the concrete situation, it does not contribute to
an understanding of the given phenomenon (aggression or destructiveness). Rather, it is the death drive that gets
explained by its instances, but it ultimately lacks autonomous content. Freud subsumes under the concept of the
death drive two essentially contradictory tendencies: the Nirvana principle striving to eliminate all tension, and aggression creating tension.
How can the death drive explain both the tendency towards elimination of tension and aggression that
increases tension? A more specific problem is that of masochism (discussed in The Economic Problem of Masochism). If masochism is a
manifestation of the death drive as self-directed aggression aiming at unpleasure, how does that square with Freud's view that the death drive
is equivalent to the Nirvana principle, which aims to discharge all tension? Freud's
attempts to posit a two-drive model arc
unsuccessful both theoretically and empirically. Is there really a difference between Eros and Thanatos?
If so, why do they keep collapsing into one another ?
It also results in genocide

Lear 2000 Jonathan Lear, Philosophy Professor at the University of Chicago, 2000
Happiness, Death, and the Remainder of Life, Page 131-132
By 1920 Freud is ready to break up what he has come to see as a fantasized unity of mental functioning. The mind can no longer be understood
in terms of the pleasure principle, but instead of living with the gap, he posits a “beyond.” It is in this way that Freud takes himself to be
explaining aggression. Aggression
is now interpreted as the death drive diverted outward. It is precisely this
move which locks us into an inescapably negative teleogy. Let us just assume (for the sake of argument, though I think it
true) that humans are aggressive animals, and that dealing with human aggression is a serious psychological and social problem. The question
remains: how might one deal with it? But if, as Freud does, one interprets aggression as the most obvious
manifestation of one of the two primordial forces in the universe, the answer would seem to be: there is no
successful way. My first inclination is to say that this leads to a pessimistic view of the human condition ; but this isn’t
really the issue. My second inclination is to say it leads to a limited view of the human condition ; but even this doesn’t get to
the heart of the problem. The point here is not to endorse an ontic optimism – that if we didn’t adopt this view,
we could shape life in nonaggressive ways – but to confront an ontological insight: that Freud’s
interpretation is an instance of bad faith. The metaphysical basicness of the death drive implies a kind of
metaphysical intractability to the phenomenon of human aggression . As a matter of empirical fact, humans may be
aggressive animals – and the fact of human aggression may be difficult to deal with. It may be experienced as intractable . But to raise this
purported intractability to a metaphysical principle is to obliterate the question of responsibility . And it
is to cover over – by precluding – what might turn out to be a significant empirical possibilities.
AT: Alt
The alternative fails –
The alternative destroys real action by scapegoating real progress on engaging

theoretical signifiers
Johnston 05 – Adrian Johnston is the Professor of Philosophy at the University of New Mexico.
(“The Cynic’s Fetish: Slavoj Zizek And The Dynamis of Belief”, 1005,
http://zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/article/viewFile/8/24)
However, the absence of this type of Lacan-underwritten argument in Zizek's sociopolitical thought indicates something important. Following Lacan, Zizek describes
instances of the tactic of 'lying in the guise of truth" and points to late-capitalist cynicism as a key example of this (here, cynically knowing the truth that 'the
System" is a vacuous sham produces no real change in behavior, no decision to stop acting as if this big Other is something with genuine substantiality). Zizek
proclaims that, "the starting point of the critique of ideology has to be full acknowledgement of the fact that it is easily possible to lie in the guise of truth."
Although the Lacanian blurring of the boundary between theoretical thinking and practical action might
very well be completely true, accepting it as true inevitably risks strengthening a convenient alibi —the creation of this alibi has
long been a fait accompli for which Lacan alone could hardly be held responsible— for the worst sort of intellectualized avoidance of praxis.
Academics can convincingly reassure themselves that their inaccessible, abstract musings, the publications of which are perused only
by their tiny self-enclosed circle of "ivory lower" colleagues, aren't irrelevant obscurities made possible by tacit complicity with a certain socio-
economic status quo, but, rather, radical political interventions that promise sweeping changes of the predominating situation.
If working on signifiers is the same as working in the streets, then why dirty one's hands bothering with
the latter? Consequently, if Zizek is to avoid allowing for a lapse into this comfortable academic illusion, an illusion for which Lacan could all too easily be
perverted into offering rationalizing excuses, he must eventually stipulate a series of "naive" extra-theoretical/extra-discursive actions (actions that will hopefully
become acts after their enactment) as part of a coherent political platform for the embattled Left His rejection of Marx's positive prescriptive program as
anachronistic is quite justified. But, in the wake of Zizeks clearing of the ground for something New in politics, there is still much to be done A brief remark by Zizek
hints that, despite his somewhat pessimistic assessment of traditional Marxism, he basically agrees with the Marxist conviction that the demise of capitalism is an
inevitable, unavoidable historical necessity—"The ultimate answer to the reproach that the radical Left proposals are Utopian should thus be that, today, the true
Utopia is the belief that the present liberal-democratic capitalist consensus could go on indefinitely, without radical changes."" This hurling of the charge of
utopianism back at those making it is quite convincing. In fact, any system proclaiming to be the embodiment of 'the end of history" invariably appears to be
Utopian. Given what is known about the merciless march of history, believing that an ultimate, unsurpassable socio-political arrangement finally has arrived is
almost impossible. So, one should indeed accept as true the unlikelihood of capitalism continuing on indefinitely; it must eventually give way to something else,
even if this "x" cannot be envisioned clearly from within the present context. Nonetheless, Zizek's own theorizing calls for a great deal of cautious reservation about
the consequences of embracing this outlook as true, of falling into the trap of (to invoke this motif once more) lying in the guise of truth. Just as the combination of
a purely negative, critical Marxism with the
anticipation of the event of the act-miracle threatens to turn into an
intellectual fetish (in the Zizekian ideological sense of something that renders the present reality bearable), so too might acknowledging the truth of
capitalism's finitude have the same unfortunate side-effect. One can tolerate today's capitalism, because one knows that it cannot last forever; one can passively
and patiently wait it out (at one point. Zizek
identifies this anticipation of indeterminate change-yet-to-come as a disempowering
lure, although he doesn't explicitly acknowledge that his own work on ideology sometimes appears to be
enthralled by just such a lure). In both cases, the danger is that the very analyses developed by Zizek in his assault upon late-capitalist ideology
might serve to facilitate the sustenance of the cynical distance whose underlying complicity with the present state of affairs he describes so well.
CARCERAL GEOGRAPHY K
2AC – Political Variegation DA
Political Variegation DA – effectively mapping carceral space requires nuance and
granularity in the context of criminal justice policy analysis. Blanket rejection of state
engagement in favor of nebulous alternatives is worse than the squo.
Hayward, 16—Professor of Criminology at the School of Law, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
(Keith, “The future of (spatial) criminology and research about public space,” Order and Conflict in Public
Space, Chapter 11, pg 208-212, dml)
If we look at these new sites of spatial analysis and concern in the round, what is most evident is their shared
concern with specificity, granularity, and detail. Their goal, in a word, is nuance, and thus both empirically and
intellectually they represent almost the polar opposite of economy of scale. In terms of analyzing public space, then, concepts like
‘parafunctionality’ (Papastergiadis, 2002) or ideas such as ‘drift’ allow us to counter the (all- too-often) blunt homogeneity of Situational Crime
Prevention through Environmental Design (CPtED), and challenge the imposition of intrusive surveillance and control features that shape social
interactions and turn public spaces into ‘non places’ devoid of social enrichment and cultural specificity. But it’s
not all about
countering. Spatial nuance can also be employed to develop alternative policy approaches to, say,
homelessness (Amster, 2008), riots and urban unrest, prostitution (Crofts et al., 2013), or even alternative policing practices. But
whether it’s turning back the tide of CPtED or developing new theoretical concepts and empirical approaches that highlight the ways in which
public space is being ‘hollowed out’, we
must equally be careful not to develop a spatial criminology that is itself
homogenous or critically one-dimensional. Put another way, nuanced and reflexive forms of spatial analysis
must also be politically nuanced.
This is a point taken up by Elaine Campbell in an article about the role that politics plays within the
spatial analyses of cultural
criminology.1 In a thoughtful augmentation, Campbell’s starting position is that cultural criminology ‘tends to gloss over the
political dynamics of spatial contestation, and assumes an urban politics which is relatively fixed and
static and is locked into a dichotomy of control and resistance’ (2013: 18). According to Campbell, although this
work ‘significantly advances criminological understandings of urban life’, it is limited in that it fails to consider a wider
range of political and social relations:
To be sure, Hayward (and others) talk

of the oppositional, resistance and subversive practices of
(counter-)cultural actors, but how far (and whether) this constitutes political action is more asserted
than demonstrated. It is not so much that the city emerges as a depoliticized milieu, but that a particular kind of political
field is imagined – one that is polarized around capitalist usage and spatial management on the one hand
and its re-appropriation by political actors engaged in antagonistic urban practices on the other. In this
scenario, politics is predicated on conflict, control and governance; lost from view is a myriad of
alternative political engagements . . . (Ibid.: 20)
To a certain degree Campbell is correct. Since its inception, one

of cultural criminology’s primary goals has been to
identify, challenge, and potentially disrupt spaces where unjust social practices exist and exploitative
class relations are reinforced (e.g., Ferrell 2001, 2006) – a vital process that, of course, must continue. But as I
have asserted elsewhere (Hayward, 2016), cultural criminology is not solely about resistance or anarchic
intervention, especially when one considers that, on occasion, the term ‘resistance’ has been employed haphazardly and erroneously
(Hayward and Schuilenburg, 2014). In this sense, Campbell’s attempt to widen the political horizon by ‘mobilizing’ alternative (positive)
engagements such as ‘relationships of trust, mutuality, concern, care, compromise, despair, even outrage’ (Campbell, 2013: 20) is to be
welcomed. But while it’s hard to argue with such a laudable list of political aspirations, here again a degree of caution is required.
Alongside its absolute and formal geographic qualities, space is also seen – rightly or wrongly – as open and relational. It is these
latter qualities that make it such a beguiling subject for many in the social sciences. In particular, space can draw in researchers
who, in their rush to emphasize nuance and heterogeneity, simply end up prioritizing forms of political
variegation and ‘multiplicity’ that do little if anything to encourage or enhance the development of the
public sphere. Let us once again consider Elaine Campbell’s recent article: while Campbell is correct to challenge readings of space based
solely on what she describes as a ‘binary schema’ of inclusion/exclusion, might it not be the case that the proposed prescription is
more problematic than the malaise?
Campbell’s aim, drawing on Judith Butler’s concept of performativity, is to develop alternative ‘political positionalities’ based on ‘connective sensibilities’ such as ‘affective plurality’, performance, and ‘choreographic power’;
nothing intrinsically wrong with that, of course, as long as these areas of interest are employed – as is the case with Campbell – for the purposes of interrogating and expanding ‘the boundaries of the ethicality and sociality of
space’ (ibid.: 35). However, problems surface when these more abstract, discursive themes start to become less about spatial nuance, and more about individualized concerns and the personal feelings and private relations
associated with the metaphysic of ‘identity’. As the culture wars of the last few decades have shown, the overvalorization of identity politics, and its associated self- interested minority groups, is an approach fraught with
ontological and political shortcomings; not least of which has been the flight from the type of collective action that historically has been the driver of meaningful, incremental social change (see Hall and Winlow, 2015). In the
context of space, this is obviously problematic. For example, what will the future of public space look like if its (albeit imperfect) universality has to accommodate the polysemic epistemologies associated with identity politics and
standpoint theory? Indeed, if you factor in some of the more socially deleterious forms of auto- segregation that are now appearing on the fringes of many Western cities, does it even have a future?
The issue of what happens to public space (and concordantly the notion of ‘public subjectivity’) when epistemic or privatized moral concerns transcend those of the wider society, is explored by Thomas Raymen in a recent edition
of the British Journal of Criminology (2015). It is important to stress that Raymen’s concern in this paper is not overtly with forms of criminological knowledge that favor the development of alternative epistemological
positionalities and ‘connective sensibilities’, but rather with how today’s hyper- regulated, ‘post- political’ spaces (both public and private) perpetuate and exacerbate forms of social competitiveness that result in the emergence of
‘asocial subjectivities’. Logically, however, both tendencies essentially produce the same result. Drawing on de Cauter’s (2003) view of contemporary society as a ‘capsular civilization’ in which ‘the individual self is considered a
precious commodity to be protected delicately’, Raymen illustrates how in today’s urban spaces established notions of the public realm are being eroded by a new individualized moral order based on ‘the individualistic identity
project of consumerism’:
All these practices involve a retreat into the individualistic interests of the self – be they consumption- based or
otherwise – without creating communal social spaces based upon a collective sense of sociability which is
concerned with challenging neoliberal capitalism’s ubiquitous control over the process of urbanization, how the city is shaped and how we
interact and relate to one another. (Raymen, 2015: 9, emphasis added)
In other words, how

are we to construct different, better public spaces when the very concept of ‘being in
public’ is increasingly filtered through the narrow conceits of self- transformation or the solipsistic
politics of single-issue action groups?2
If one of the goals of spatial criminology is to think seriously about the future of public space, then we
must face up to the fact that, sadly, for many in the social sciences, the ideal of collective public solidarity has
become problematic, an outmoded relic of a by- gone era – or as Raymen puts it: ‘The liberal-postmodern renunciation
of any governing ideology, codes, rules or traditions has led to a deep cynicism and skepticism of any
forms of collective identity’ (ibid.: 12). At the base of this ‘liberal- postmodern renunciation’, of course, is a nebulous
rejection of the (Western) state – a critical position that presumably also rejects the many successful
public spaces that are also the by-products of modern Western democracies. Such anti-statist thinking is
increasingly common among academics working on space. Indeed, it is even expressed by my fellow epilogist. In ‘Diss and
ditch?: what to do with public space’, Myriam HoussayHolzschuch adopts an almost entirely negative view of contemporary public space,
dismissing it as a ‘Western myth’, an outdated confection of bourgeois nineteenth- century West European and North American ideals and the
‘mythicized’ values of ‘Ancient Greece and Italian Renaissance cities’. For HoussayHolzschuch, the ‘stato- centricity of the adjective “public” ’
means that public space is state space, and therefore cannot be considered outside of ‘gender (heteropatriarchy) relations’ and the now
inevitable concerns about ‘Western colonization’, and post-colonial ‘pacification’. Rather
than work to improve our public
spaces we are instead urged to ‘ditch the notion altogether’ and in its place embrace ‘radical
openness’, ‘looseness’, and ‘unpredictability’. In short, Houssay- Holzschuch’s message is that we should let ‘chaos’ reign
within (her preferred concept of ) ‘the common’, because, after all, the concept of ‘Kaos’ itself ‘might not be such a bad condition from which to
understand what public space should be’.
Maybe, but exactly what type of chaos/Kaos does Houssay- Holzschuch have in mind? Nothing practical or empirical is
ventured, but to be fair that’s not the purpose of her epilogue (or mine either for that matter). Instead, her argument exists solely within
the discursive realm; her goal being to challenge established (modernist) ‘binaries’ that ‘situate and frame our knowledge of public space’. Her
solution is equally theoretically abstract: stato-centricity must be challenged (‘dissed’) by ever-more
diversity, presumably as imagined through the unchallenged orthodoxies of multiculturalism. But can public space really be
enhanced in this way, or is it likely to experience even more profound fractures as universality
continues to be replaced by the increasing demands of diverse groups or particular interests? And let us
not forget that elsewhere in the world there are already plenty of examples of what happens when
‘unpredictability’ and ‘Kaos’ triumph over state control; but, of course, the ‘binaries’ that emerge in these
instances are seldom afforded the luxury of discursive analysis by post-structural intellectuals .
Instead of chaos, then, perhaps we should just focus on developing better public spaces in a way that doesn’t
require the total rejection of the state as an organizing or governing principle. Spatial criminology can
help with this process by critiquing state practices that do not have universality and inclusivity at their
core, and challenging forms of urban governance and architectural design that limit spontaneity and conviviality and turn
public (and semi-public) spaces into non-places . Here again, however, we must be wary of a tendency to
frame space via yet another ‘binary schema’ (to use Campbell’s phrase); this time one that views the state solely as
an ideological construct in which territory is static and unbounded and where socio-spatiality is the
product of a single political-economic dimension. Instead, as MacLeavy and Harrison (2010) make clear in their work on
‘new state spatialities’, for all its power, the geographical conception of the state is not ‘pre-given or pre-
formed’, but something subject to ‘continuous redefinition’:
While the network of institutional arrangements and political practice that forms the material substance of the state is diffuse and ambiguously
defined at its edges, the popular conception of the state as an ideological construct is more coherent. This presents a challenge for
theory building, because an overly rigid conception of the state – derived from the idea of the state as a free standing
entity – risks misrepresenting the incoherence of state practice, and its constitution in social and
economic processes. Understanding the state idea as emergent from techniques that enable mundane practices to
take on the appearance of an abstract non- material form permits us to view the terrain of the state as forged through
ongoing engagements between agents, institutions and concrete political and policy circumstances.
This identifies the state as a contingent development: changing over time and in different geographical
contexts in accordance with social, economic and political circumstances. (2010: 1037–1038)
2AC – Alt Fails
Imaginative resistance strengthens power – without a material connection to
alterations in broader structures, it is reabsorbed into the complex.
Rigakos and Law, 9—Assistant Professor of Law at Carleton University AND PhD, Legal Studies,
Carleton University (George and Alexandra “Risk, Realism and the Politics of Resistance,” Critical
Sociology 35(1) 79-103, dml)
McCann and March (1996: 244) next set out the ‘justification for treating everyday practices as significant’ suggested by
the above literature. First, the works studied are concerned with proving people are not ‘ duped’ by their
surroundings. At the level of consciousness, subjects ‘are ironic, critical, realistic, even
sophisticated’ (1996: 225). But McCann and March remind us that earlier radical or Left theorists have made similar
arguments without resorting to stories of everyday resistance in order to do so. Second, everyday
resistance on a discursive level is said to reaffirm the subject’s dignity. But this too causes a problem for
the authors because they:
query why subversive ‘assertions of self’ should bring dignity and psychological empowerment when
they produce no greater material benefits or changes in relational power … By standards of ‘realism’, … subjects
given to avoidance and ‘lumping it’ may be the most sophisticated of all. (1996: 227)
Thus, their criticism boils down to two main points. First, everyday

resistance fails to tell us any more about so-
called false consciousness than was already known among earlier Left theorists; and second, that a focus on discursive
resistance ignores the role of material conditions in helping to shape identity .
Indeed, absent a broader political struggle or chance at effective resistance it would seem to the authors that
‘powerlessness is learned out of the accumulated experiences of futility and entrapment’ (1996: 228). A
lamentable prospect, but nonetheless a source of closure for the governmentality theorist. In his own meta-analysis of studies on resistance,
Rubin (1996: 242) finds that ‘discursive practices that neither
alter material conditions
nor directly challenge broad structures are nevertheless’ considered by the authors he examined ‘the stuff out
of which power is made and remade’. If this sounds familiar, it is because the authors studied by McCann, March and Rubin found
their claims about everyday resistance on the same understanding of power and government employed by postmodern theorists of
risk. Arguing against celebrating forms of resistance that fail to alter broader power relations or material
conditions is, in part, recognizing the continued ‘real’ existence of identifiable, powerful groups (classes). In
downplaying the worth of everyday forms of resistance (arguing that these acts are not as worthy of the label as
those acts which bring about lasting social change), Rubin appears to be taking issue with a locally focused vision
of power and identity that denies the possibility of opposing domination at the level of ‘constructs’ such as
class.
Rubin (1996: 242) makes another argument about celebratory accounts of everyday resistance that bears consideration:
[T]hese authors generally do
not differentiate between practices that reproduce power and those that alter
power. [The former] might involve pressing that power to become more adept at domination or to
dominate differently, or it might mean precluding alternative acts that would more successfully
challenge power. … [I]t is necessary to do more than show that such discursive acts speak to, or engage
with, power. It must also be demonstrated that such acts add up to or engender broader changes.
In other words, some
of the acts of everyday resistance may in the real world, through their absorption into
mechanisms of power, reinforce the localized domination that they supposedly oppose. The implications of
this argument can be further clarified when we study the way ‘resistance’ is dealt with in a risk society.
Risk theorists already understand that every administrative system has holes which can be exploited by those who learn about them. That is
what makes governmentality work: the supposed governor is in turn governed – in part through the noncompliance of
subjects (Foucault, 1991a; Rose and Miller, 1992). For example, where employees demonstrate unwillingness to embrace technological
changes in the workplace, management consultants can create:
a point of entry, but also a ‘problem’ that their ‘packages’ are designed to resolve. … In short, consultants readily constitute certain forms of
conduct as ‘resistance to technology’ as this gives them some purchase on its reform by identifying a space in which expertise can be brought to
bear in the exercise of power. Resistance consequently plays
the role of continuously provoking extensions,
revisions and refinements of those same practices which it confronts. (Knights and Vurdubakis, 1994: 80)
This appears to be a very different kind of resistance from that contemplated by Rubin, but perhaps not so different from that of the authors
whom he and McCann and March critique: those whose analysis ends at the discursive production of
noncompliance. Instead, the above account is of a resistance that almost invariably helps power to work better.
A conclusion in the present day that ominously foreshadows the futuristic, dystopic risk assemblage described by Bogard (1996).
Another example of the ‘resolution’ of resistance proposed above is the institution of a tool library described by Shearing (2001: 204–5). In this
parable, a business deals with the issue of tool theft on the part of workers by installing a ‘lending library’ of tools instead of engaging in
vigorous prosecution and jeopardizing worker morale. While the parable is meant to indicate a difference between actuarial and more
traditional (moral) forms of justice, it also demonstrates how an
act that may be considered ‘resistant’ is incorporated
without conflict into the workplace loss-prevention scheme – an eminently preferable, ‘forward-looking’ solution
within the logic of risk management. The same is possible in the case of more discursive forms of resistance. If I do not see myself
as a Guinness man, for example, market researchers will do their best to adapt Guinness to the way I do see myself (Miller and Rose, 1997). The
end result, of course, is that I purchase the beer. As manifested in a form of justice (Shearing and Johnston, 2005), it always consolidates,
tempers emotions, cools the analysis, reconciles factions, and always relentlessly moves forward, assimilating as it grows. In this sense,
therefore, Bogard’s ‘social science fiction’ actually pre-supposes and logically extends Shearing’s (2001) rather cheery and benevolent rendering
of risk thinking. In
this context of governmentality theory – as self-described and lauded for its political non-
prescription by its own pundits – the acts or attitudes described as resistant are, in the end, absorbed by
those who govern. Resistance as an oppositional force – that pushes against or has the potential to
take power – is theoretically and politically neutralized. In the neutralization process, power is
reproduced.
So, along with McCann and March’s observations that everyday resistance adds little to our understanding of false consciousness and
that it denies the role of material factors in shaping identity, we can add Rubin’s two main criticisms of everyday resistance: it relies on an
inaccurate understanding of power, and acts of resistance which supposedly emancipate actually may
reinforce domination. All four of these criticisms demand the same thing: to know what is really going on, to
get an adequate grasp of the social.
CRITICAL RACE THEORY K

2AC – Alt Fails
The alt fails – storytelling is deceptive, and it skirts real issues by sanctioning
important reforms – only filtering stories through legal doctrine solves
Litowitz 99 [Douglas E. Litowitz is a veteran finance lawyer and law professor whose works include
Postmodern Philosophy and Law (Kansas) and The Destruction of Young Lawyers. “Some Critical
Thoughts on Critical Race Theory,” Notre Dame Law Review, 6/1/1999,
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1844&context=ndlr] //SL
C. The Trouble with Storytelling Much of CRT revolves around personal stories which are drawn from the experiences of
minority law professors, detailing not only negative experiences such as name calling and ostracism, but also positive aspects of their heritage,
such as racial solidarity, the importance of tradition and honor, and the struggle against oppression. In a useful contribution to the anthology,
Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry identify three features of the new storytelling: First, the storytellers view narratives as central to scholarship,
while de-emphasizing conventional analytic methods. Second, they particularly value "stories from the bottom"-stories by women and people
of color about their oppression. Third, they are less concerned than conventional scholars about whether stories are either typical or
descriptively accurate, and they place more emphasis on the aesthetic and emotional dimensions of narration. 49 This approach is borne out in
many selections from the anthology, including Patricia Williams's story about renting an apartment in New York City,50 Margaret Montoya's
reminiscences of braiding her hair in the Latina style,5' and Jennifer Russell's explanation of how she feels like a "gorilla in your midst" as a black
female in the legal academy (in a nauseating act of racism, a photograph of a gorilla was placed in her mailbox).52 In a representative article on
the power of narratives, Richard Delgado describes the hiring procedure at a law school which rejects a candidate of color, recasting the story
from three different perspectives-the "stock story" of the white professor on the hiring committee, and two "counterstories" from a radical
activist of color and an anonymous commentator. 53 All of this storytelling is interesting, even fascinating, but I think it
can be dangerous as well. As lawyers, we seek doctrinal solutions to problems, and indeed this is
precisely what distinguishes us from the public at large. For example, the general public is free to see a
criminal trial (OJ. Simpson's, say) as a story about good and evil, black and white, or love and hate, whereas
lawyers see it through the filter of the law-in terms of probable cause, hearsay exceptions, burdens of
proof, permissible jury insti-uctions, rights to suppress evidence, and so on. We are lawyers precisely
because we do something more than listen to stories: we filter stories through the framework of legal
doctrine. While it may be useful for lawyers to see the facts of a case as a narrative construction, or even to think of the law itself as a work
of fiction,54 lawyers must look beyond stories to questions of doctrine, policy, and argument. There is a
danger in storytelling precisely because it can lead in any and every direction, politically speaking. It is
true that narratives about oppressed groups often lead to left-leaning social reform for the simple
reason that narratives tend to humanize people whom we would otherwise consider outsiders. For
example, when we read in the anthology about the experiences of minority CRT scholars struggling against racism, we begin to identify with
them, and, frankly, we start rooting for them. Of course, if one identifies with people of color or with women, it is possible that one will be
more likely to understand their side of an issue. But
this cuts both ways. If one set of narratives can make us more
sympathetic to people of color, it stands to reason that a different set of narratives can make us less
sensitive. Indeed, Delgado contributes an article55 to the collection which recognizes that black thinkers like Shelby Steele and Stephen
Carter make use of stories, irony, and humor to send a conservative message that contrasts with the narratives offered by CRT scholars Derrick
Bell and Patricia Williams. We
can easily imagine the emergence of narratives and stories in which white
authors describe the experience of being denied entry into professional schools when they would have
been accepted had they been black or female. In extreme cases it might be imagined that such authors
would use storytelling to glorify a white utopian society without minorities . The error by CRT is to think
that storytelling is inherently liberating when in fact it is inherently neutral-neither liberal nor
conservative, neither constraining nor freeing. Another danger of legal storytelling is that it plays
upon emotion, instead of reason, and therefore it can convince people to adopt a position without
giving them a doctrinal basis for it. Suppose you were uncommitted in the last presidential election, and I wanted to persuade
you to vote for Bill Clinton. One method that I might use would be to cite Clinton's accomplishments, his attempt to balance the budget, his
health-care proposal, or his record of judicial appointments. These are all relevant points because they bear directly on his ability to serve the
country. But now suppose that I suddenly realize that these arguments, while relevant, may not work; in fact, you stand ready to present some
counter-evidence against my points. In that case, I might switch tactics and try to convince you by telling a story. I might tell you about what it
was like for Clinton to grow up as a poor child in the rural South, how he struggled from humble beginnings to realize the American dream of
becoming President. My goal would be to move you emotionally so that you undergo a psychological conversion in which you find yourself
voting for him even though you remain unconvinced of his qualifications. The
problem with convincing people in this way is
that it is circuitous and skirts the real issues; it is a way of convincing people at any cost, in order to
serve a higher cause. CRT sometimes works similarly, where issues that should be decided on doctrinal
grounds by looking at federal law (issues like affirmative action, free speech, and criminal sentencing)
are determined by stories, personal accounts, and other miscellanea. It is somewhat difficult to make
sense of CRT's turn away from doctrine. In this anthology we find Alan Freeman praising Derrick Bell for his lack of doctrinal
argument: Bell's approach to legal doctrine is unabashedly instrumental. The only important question is
whether doctrinal developments have improved, worsened, or left unchanged the actual lives of
American blacks .... Bell eschews the realm of abstract, ahistorical, normative debate; he focuses instead
on the relationships between doctrine and concrete change, and the extent to which doctrine can be
manipulated to produce more change. 56 I am disturbed by the notion that doctrine (constitutional doctrine, no less) is
understood by Bell to be merely "instrumental" and something to be "manipulated" to satisfy the all-important test of black empowerment.
After all, if
the law is to be judged simply as an instrument for black empowerment, then the best legal
system would be one which helps blacks at any cost, for example, by "manipulating" legal doctrine
through "instrumental" measures like exempting blacks from income tax, requiring whites to give a tithe
to the NAACP, redistributing white pensions to blacks, and appointing only blacks to the judiciary. But
these changes in the law would violate deeply held notions of fairness, property, and due process. Bell's
self-professed "racial realism" seems to be radical and tough-minded, but it sanctions some irresponsible
legal reforms.
DELEUZE K
2AC – Deleuze
The permutation solves the critique - the stratified thinking which they condemn also
contain lines of flight whereas their alternative is also subjected to despotism and
arborescence - challenging one dualism with another is inevitable and ultimately good
Deleuze and Guattari 87 Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, “A Thousand Plateaus,” University of
Minnesota Press, pgs. 20-21, 1987, Google Scholar/
At the same time, we are on the wrong track with all these geographical distributions. An impasse. So much the better. If it is a
question of showing that rhizomes also have their own, even more rigid, despotism and hierarchy, then
fine and good: for there is no dualism, no ontological dualism between here and there, no axiological
dualism between good and bad, no blend or American synthesis. There are knots of arborescence in rhizomes, and
rhizomatic offshoots in roots. Moreover, there are despotic formations of immanence and channelization
specific to rhizomes, just as there are anarchic deformations in the transcendent system of trees,
aerial roots, and subterranean stems. The important point is that the root-tree and canal-rhizome are not two opposed models: the
first operates as a transcendent model and tracing, even if it engenders its own escapes; the second operates as an immanent process
It
that overturns the model and outlines a map, even if it constitutes its own hierarchies, even if it gives rise to a despotic channel.
is not a question of this or that place on earth, or of a given moment in history, still less of this or
that category of thought. It is a question of a model that is perpetually in construction or
collapsing, and of a process that is perpetually prolonging itself, breaking off and starting up again. No, this
is not a new or different dualism. The problem of writing: in order to designate something exactly, anexact
expressions are utterly unavoidable. Not at all because it is a necessary step, or because one can
only advance by approximations: anexactitude is in no way an approximation; on the contrary, it is the exact passage of
that which is under way. We invoke one dualism only in order to challenge another. We employ a
dualism of models only in order to arrive at a process that challenges all models. Each time,
mental correctives are necessary to undo the dualisms we had no wish to construct but through
which we pass. Arrive at the magic formula we all seek—PLURALISM = MONISM—via all the dualisms that are the enemy, an
entirely necessary enemy, the furniture we are forever rearranging.
Deleuze and Guattari’s alternative fails and leads to authoritarian oppression.

Barbrook 98 (Richard, coordinator of the Hypermedia Research Centre at the University of
Westminster, 8/27, http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9808/msg00091.html)
Techno-nomad TJs are attracted by the uncompromising theoretical radicalism expressed by Deleuze and Guattari. However, far from
succumbing to an outside conspiracy, Frequence Libre imploded because of the particular New Left politics which inspired A Thousand Plateaus
Deleuze
and the other sacred texts. Unwilling to connect abstract theory with its practical application, the techno-nomads cannot see how
and Guattari's celebration of direct democracy was simultaneously a justification for intellectual elitism.
This elitism was no accident. Because of their very different life experiences, many young people in the sixties experienced a pronounced
'generation gap' between themselves and their parents. Feeling so isolated, they believed that society could only be changed
by a revolutionary vanguard composed of themselves and their comrades. This is why many young
radicals simultaneously believed in two contradictory concepts. First, the revolution would create mass
participation in running society. Second, the revolution could only be organised by a committed
minority.<14> The New Left militants were reliving an old problem in a new form. Back in the 1790s, Robespierre had argued that the
democratic republic could only be created by a revolutionary dictatorship. During the 1917 Russian revolution , Lenin had advocated
direct democracy while simultaneously instituting the totalitarian rule of the Bolsheviks. As their 'free radio'
experience showed, Deleuze and Guattari never escaped from this fundamental contradiction of
revolutionary politics. The absence of the Leninist party did not prevent the continuation of vanguard
politics. As in other social movements, Fr=E9quence Libre was dominated by a few charismatic individuals: the holy prophets of the anarcho-
communist revolution.<15> In Deleuze and Guattari's writings, this deep authoritarianism found its theoretical
expression in their methodology: semiotic structuralism. Despite rejecting its 'wooden language', the two
philosophers never really abandoned Stalinism in theory. Above all, they retained its most fundamental premise: the
minds of the majority of the population were controlled by bourgeois ideologies.< 16> During the sixties, this
elitist theory was updated through the addition of Lacanian structuralism by Louis Althusser, the chief philosopher of the French Communist
party.<17> For Deleuze and Guattari, Althusser had explained why only a revolutionary minority supported the New Left. Brainwashed by the
semiotic 'machinic assemblages' of the family, media, language and psychoanalysis, most people supposedly desired fascism rather than
anarcho-communism. This authoritarian methodology clearly contradicted the libertarian rhetoric within Deleuze and Guattari's writings. Yet,
as the rappers who wanted to make a show for Frequence Libre discovered, Deleuzoguattarian anarcho-communism even included the
censorship of music. By adopting an Althusserian analysis, Deleuze and Guattari were tacitly privileging their own role as intellectuals: the
Just like their Stalinist elders, the two philosophers believed that only the
producers of semiotic systems.
vanguard of intellectuals had the right to lead the masses - without any formal consent from them - in the
fight against capitalism.
NECRO POLITICS K
2AC – Necro Politics
Their K oversimplifies—biopower is not a one-way street—it produces equivalent
resistances that check the impact.
Campbell, 98 - professor of international politics at the University of Newcastle - 1998 (David,
“Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity,” pg. 204-205)
The political possibilities enabled by this permanent provocation of power and freedom can be specified in more detail by thinking in terms of
the predominance of the “bio-power” discussed above. In this sense, because
the governmental practices of biopolitics in
Western nations have been increasingly directed toward modes of being and forms of life — such that sexual
conduct has become an object of concern, individual health has been figured as a domain of discipline, and the family has been transformed
into an instrument of government— theongoing agonism between those practices and the free dom they seek to
contain means that individuals have articulated a series of counterdemands drawn from those new
fields of concern. For example, as the state continues to prosecute people according to sexual orientation, human rights activists have
proclaimed the right of gays to enter into formal marriages, adopt children, and receive the same health and insurance benefits granted to their
straight counterparts. These
claims are a consequence of the permanent provocation of power and freedom in
biopolitics, and stand as testament to the “strategic reversibility” of power relations: if the terms of
governmental practices can be made into focal points for resistances, then the “history of government
as the ‘conduct of conduct’ is interwoven with the history of dissenting ‘counterconducts.” ’39 Indeed, the
emergence of the state as the major articulation of “the political” has involved an unceasing agonism between those in office and those they
rule.
State intervention in everyday life has long incited popular collective action, the result of which has
been both resistance to the state and new claims upon the state. In particular, “the core of what we now call
‘citizenship’ consists of multiple bargains hammered out by rulers and ruled in the course of their struggles over the means of state action,
especially the making of war.” In more recent times, constituencies associated with women’s, youth, ecological, and
peace movements (among others) have also issued claims on society. These resistances are evidence that
the break with the discursive/nondiscursive dichotomy central to the logic of interpretation
undergirding this analysis is (to put it in conventional terms) not only theoretically licensed; it is
empirically warranted. Indeed, expanding the interpretive imagination so as to enlarge the categories through which we understand
the constitution of “the political” has been a necessary precondition for making sense of Foreign Policy’s concern for the ethical borders of
identity in America. Accordingly, there are manifest political implications that flow from theorizing identity. As Judith Butler concluded: “The
deconstruction of identity is not the deconstruction of politics; rather, it establishes as political the very terms through which identity is
articulated.”
The kritik doesn’t exclude the need for pragmatic politics – prefer the perm
De-Shalit, 2000. Avner, Professor of Political Theory at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and
Associate Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Environment, Ethics, and Society, Mansfield College, Oxford
University. “The Environment: Between Theory and Practice,” p. 36, Questia.
Before continuing, I would like point out a possible challenge to my argument so far. I
have claimed that environmental
philosophers should decide how to persuade the public of the need for environmental policies . It could,
however, be argued that many of these philosophers are convinced that animals have rights, or that there is intrinsic value in
nature (I discuss this idea in depth in the next chapter), and they may feel they have to discuss this, as a mission. They don't want to give up
persuading people about animal rights or intrinsic value, and they don't want to 'sell out' just in order to persuade . It seems
(the argument would continue) that I might expect these philosophers to suppress their ideas and feelings. However, philosophers should be
loyal to their ideas and thoughts as well: they should be authentic; their role is not merely to persuade for the sake of forming a majority of
well-informed citizens. I need of course to emphasize that this is not what I expect philosophers to do. Indeed, I think that a place does
exist for environmental ethics and meta-ethics and that there is also a time to discuss issues bearing no
relation to policies. However, environmental philosophers cannot escape the need to engage in real-
life public deliberation because what they discuss is not wholly 'academic' . 18 The issues at stake are
crucial both to human beings and their welfare, and to ecosystems and the state of the environment .
The ecological crisis is not a question that can be discussed in tranquillity, and one cannot experiment
with thinking about it for too long. There is a strong and urgent need for some thoughts and theories
that are oriented towards institutions and policies. So, while accepting that environmental ethics and
meta-ethics reflect sincere and authentic concerns, and that these concerns should be voiced, as an
important part of this debate, I would stress that these cannot replace political theory concerning the
environment. Such theory is vital for obvious reasons.
Util is key to check empathy bias amongst policymakers and judges

Bloom 14 [Paul Bloom, Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology & Cognitive Science at Yale
University, “Against Empathy, Boston Review, September 13, 2014,
http://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy]
When asked what I am working on, I often say I am writing a book about empathy. People tend to smile and nod, and then I add,
“I’m against it.” This usually gets an uncomfortable laugh. This reaction surprised me at first, but I’ve come to realize that taking a position
against empathy is like announcing that you hate kittens—a statement so outlandish it can only be a joke. And so I’ve learned to clarify, to
explain that I am not against morality, compassion, kindness, love, being a good neighbor, doing the right thing, and making the world a better
place. My claim is actually the opposite: if you want to be good and do good, empathy is a poor guide. The word “empathy” is used in many
ways, but here I am adopting its most common meaning, which corresponds to what eighteenth-century philosophers such as Adam Smith
called “sympathy.” It refers
to the process of experiencing the world as others do, or at least as you think they
do. To empathize with someone is to put yourself in her shoes, to feel her pain . Some researchers also use the
term to encompass the more coldblooded process of assessing what other people are thinking, their motivations, their plans, what they
believe. This is sometimes called “cognitive,” as opposed to “emotional,” empathy. I will follow this convention here, but we should keep in
mind that the two are distinct—they emerge from different brain processes; you can have a lot of one and a little of the other—and that most
of the discussion of the moral implications of empathy focuses on its emotional side. Some degree of
emotional empathy is bred in the bone. The sight and sound of another’s suffering is unpleasant for
babies and, as soon as they are mobile enough, they try to help, patting and soothing others in distress. This is not
uniquely human: the primatologist Frans de Waal notes that chimps will often put their arms around the victim of an attack and pat her or
groom her. Empathy can occur automatically, even involuntarily . Smith describes how “persons of delicate fibres” who
notice a beggar’s sores and ulcers “are apt to feel an itching or uneasy sensation in the correspondent part of their own bodies.” John Updike
writes, “My grandmother would have choking fits at the kitchen table, and my own throat would feel narrow in sympathy.” And empathy
can be extended through the imagination . In a speech before he became president, Barack Obama stressed how important it is
to see the world through the eyes of those who are different from us—the child who’s hungry, the steelworker who’s been laid off, the family
who lost the entire life they built together when the storm came to town. . . . When you think like this—when you choose to broaden your
ambit of concern and empathize with the plight of others, whether they are close friends or distant strangers—it becomes harder not to act,
harder not to help. Obama is right about this last part; there is considerable support for what the psychologist C. Daniel Batson calls “the
empathy-altruism hypothesis”: when you empathize with others, you are more likely to help them. In general, empathy serves to dissolve the
boundaries between one person and another; it is a force against selfishness and indifference. It is easy to see, then, how empathy can be a
moral good, and it has many champions. Obama talks frequently about empathy; witness his recent claim, after his first meeting with Pope
Francis, that “it’s the lack of empathy that makes it very easy for us to plunge into wars. It’s the lack of empathy that allows us to ignore the
homeless on the streets.” In The Empathetic Civilization (2009) Jeremy Rifkin argues that the only way our species will survive war,
environmental degradation, and economic collapse is through the enhancement of “global empathy.” This past June, Bill and Melinda Gates
concluded their Stanford commencement address by asking students to nurture and expand their empathetic powers, essential for a better
world. Most people see the benefits of empathy as akin to the evils of racism: too obvious to require justification. I think this is a mistake. I have
argued elsewhere that certain
features of empathy make it a poor guide to social policy. Empathy is biased; we
are more prone to feel empathy for attractive people and for those who look like us or share our ethnic
or national background. And empathy is narrow; it connects us to particular individuals, real or imagined,
but is insensitive to numerical differences and statistical data. As Mother Teresa put it, “If I look at the mass I will never
act. If I look at the one, I will.” Laboratory studies find that we really do care more about the one than about the
mass, so long as we have personal information about the one . In light of these features, our public decisions
will be fairer and more moral once we put empathy aside. Our policies are improved when we
appreciate that a hundred deaths are worse than one, even if we know the name of the one, and when
we acknowledge that the life of someone in a faraway country is worth as much as the life a neighbor,
even if our emotions pull us in a different direction . Without empathy, we are better able to grasp the
importance of vaccinating children and responding to climate change . These acts impose costs on real
people in the here and now for the sake of abstract future benefits, so tackling them may require
overriding empathetic responses that favor the comfort and well-being of individuals today . We can
rethink humanitarian aid and the criminal justice system, choosing to draw on a reasoned , even counter-
empathetic, analysis of moral obligation and likely consequences .
FIAT K
2AC – Fiat is Good
Fiat is good.
Three reasons -
Fairness – debate is a game – comparing visions of the world is necessary to achieve

the game in its totality. Chess with words, debate tests students’ knowledge of the
world, and their ability to apply it. This is a procedural and comes before any
substantive reasons fiat is bad.
Problem Posing – asking questions about how we relate to the world and how we
imagine an alternative vision is emancipatory and overcomes otherwise bankrupt
educational practices.
Advocacy Skills – failure to advocate concrete policy options results in LEFTIST

ABSTRACTIONS that change NOTHING and FEED THE RIGHT BY giving them someone
to laugh at—turns their framework and proves the alt fails.
They obviously cannot literally do the alt - so even under their fw - debate is just a
space for theoretical inquiry where we should ask interesting questions and discuss
them and the aff is an important question that we shouldn't bracket out.
2AC – A2 Fiat is Illusory
Fiat is illusory but still valuable because it teaches portable decision-making skills –
outweighs education about content
Smith 07 (Ross, director of debate @ WFU, 1-4, http://www.mail-
archive.com/edebate@www.ndtceda.com/msg01011.html)
Policy: a course of action undertaken by an agent. We are all policy makers every time we decide to undertake a course of action. Most
policies are non-governmental. We have an obligation to ourselves and others to be good policy makers
and advocates of good policies when dealing with others in our spheres of influence . Policy Deliberation and Debate: a
METHOD for making and advocating better policy decisions. Intercollegiate debate about PUBLIC policy: a useful way of
teachingx the SKILLS needed for successful use of a METHOD of making and advocating good
decisions. Public policy topics are especially useful because the research base is public. While we could
debate about private actions by private agents, we have no way of poviding equal access to the kinds of
information that would help make those debates good ones. There is a side benefit that some of what we learn about the
public policy topics sometimes informs our later lives as citizens engaged in public deliberation regarding
those same policies, but that is not the primary reason that public policy topics are necessary. Andy Ellis is a policy
maker. He makes decisions about courses of action for himself and for/with others. But a topic about what
Andy Ellis should do is inaccessable and, frankly, largely none of our business. But Andy Ellis has been well served by
having the training in one of the better methods of choosing among and advocating whatever policies he is responsible for. That method is
policy debate. Debate
about public policy is a subset of debate about policy, a subset that is "debatable"
because there is a common research base. The fact that the subject matter is at a remove from us
personnally while still residing in the "public sphere" is a feature, not a bug.
IMPLEMENT CP
2AC – Implement CP – TL – S
2AC – Implement CP – TL – L
Can’t solve –
1 – Backlash – congresspersons react with backlash AND politically sequester
advocates speaking Nommo – they’ll pass it off as not legitimate
2 – Translation – the counterplan fiats that it’s exclusively in Nommo which makes it
unintelligible to other speakers – that kills modelling or enforcement
Perm do the CP – competition is solely based off the text AND function of the plan:
1 – Implementation is identical – OR differences are effectual – which we can permute.
2 – Even if – Implementation of the aff doesn’t require a set process
US Legal, no date. “Implement Law and Legal Definition,”
https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/implement/
According to 7 USCS § 6991 (Title 7, Agriculture; Chapter 98, Department of Agriculture Reorganization; National Appeals Division), the term
"implement" refers to “those actions necessary to effectuate fully and promptly a final determination of the Division
not later than 30 calendar days after the effective date of the final determination.”
3 – Not textually competitive – being distinct is NOT competition – the translation of

Nommo’s identical to the plan in English – that’s CX.
4 – No performative competition – it’s a regressive model of politics that assumes all
speeches are acts of transferrable labor – turns the ballot into a market of ideas which
causes commodification and turns their O.
Vernacular as an axis of competition makes no sense – [Japan] would hear the plan in
[Japanese]. They can’t understand it if it’s proposed in Nommo and if the neg fiats
translation, then it’s the same as the aff because everyone would read the bill in
whatever language they spoke
Perm do both – it solves.

1 – Different vernaculars for different people – non-black people speaking in Nommo
is violent – the perm combines linguistic advocacy to avoid cooption.
2 – Solves kinship linkages – black people relate to the plan in Nommo, whites in
English, Hispanic populations in Spanish, and Asian debaters in Hindi, Chinese, or any
number of languages – the 1AC advocated the plan in our vernacular, but did NOT
advocate their vernacular.
L2nb – The CP will be translated.
Hiskey ’12 (“THE UNITED STATES DOESN’T HAVE AN OFFICIAL LANGUAGE”,
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/08/the-united-states-doesnt-have-an-official-
language///JC)
We’ll set aside the fact that declaring an official language would likely have no effect whatsoever on what people spoke in their daily lives (only
directly affecting official
documents written by the U.S. government’s various offices and branches, which
already always include an English edition) and we’ll set aside that second bit of the above statement, which I highly doubt he
actually believes (or anyone who’s ever actually even glanced at a history book… or, you know, even just the world news today would be
sufficient to refute it). He was more probably just trying to be ultra-dramatic in such a way as to help polarize people, in fine political form
practiced by politicians of every creed the world over. Although, King did once say in reference to putting up a fence between the U.S. and
Mexico, “use a livestock fence to keep out human livestock…” so… hmmmm…
Monolingualism DA – their cultural homogenization encourages authenticity policing

and is commodified by the academy.
Persuasion DA – mainstream English is key to buy-in AND strengthen political

coalitions that lobby for the aff
Legalism DA – public support behind reforms to institutional details and legal tinkering
energizes movements to [reform the CJS] AND builds the political vocabulary
necessary to train students to[]
Counterplans that fiat the possibility of the plan OR PIC out of words are a voting issue
– no comparative literature, discourages research and topic-education, and nuke aff
fairness because we can’t leverage the 1AC as offense – any block interpretations will
be arbitrary and self-serving, justifying “read the plan in Portuguese” or “advocate the
1AC silently” as neg ground – reading Nommo as a language K solves.
1AR – Monoligualism
Monolingualism DA – their cultural homogenization encourages authenticity policing
and is commodified by the academy.
Viego 7 – professor of ethnic studies @ Duke (Antonio, Dead Subjects, pp. 70-1)
When Chow writes, ‘‘the level at which the
ethnic person is expected to come to resemble what is recognizably
ethnic. . . toresemble and replicate the very banal preconceptions that have been appended to them, a process
in which they are expected to objectify themselves in accordance with the already seen and thus to authenticate the familiar imaginings of
them as ethnics’’to diagnose a contemporary dilemma for ethnic-racialized subjects in the United States, how can we not hear in it the same
charge and diagnosis in Lacan’s critique above: ‘‘But to reduce one’s function to one’s difference is to give in to a miragethat is internal to the
function itself, a mirage that grounds the function in this difference’’? If the
culture of assimilation in North America has
changed somewhat in the time between Lacan’s remarks and Chow’s, it is with respect to what is to be assimilated. Instead of the
1950s edict ‘‘turn white or disappear,’’ it’s more like ‘‘ turn mottled or disappear’’at the beginning of the twenty-first
century in the United States. According to both Lacan’s and Chow’s diagnoses, these coercive assimilatory imperatives operate on the condition
that the subject be confused with the ego and that whatever conflicts present themselves are to be remedied with the strengthening of the
ego.If Lacan can be said to link the confusion of the subject with the ego in ego-psychological theory—the sine qua non, according to him, of
the distortion of Freudian theory—to certain North American assimilatory imperatives with which the ego psychologists had to contend, then
we can say that Chow illustrates the outcome of this confusion—of the subject with the ego—in a contemporary situation as the price to be
paid for ethnic-racialized subjects to be legible subjects in the United States.In the passage from ‘‘The Freudian Thing,’’ we also have what
qualifies as a commentary on the ‘‘privileged marginal,’’ to use John Champagne’s resonant term: ‘‘privileged members of
cultural minorities whose disciplinary role is to contain the threat of a much more radical deployment of
difference that might destabilize homogeneous intellectual culture.” The “privileged marginal” I have in mind, depending
on the particular vicissitudes of his experience in an institution where he has been entrusted with the task of disseminating
the knowledge of cultural differences—for example, as a representative of Latino studies—will have, no doubt, been coerced
or compelled to reduce his function to his difference. He sells out.He needs the job. He is a diversity manager of souls?A
manager of diversified souls? A diversifier of managed souls? Prior to his involvement in the university’s elaboration of the discourses on multi-
culturalismand diversity, what will be defined as ‘‘diversity’’ will
have already been subjected to a kind of
management,so that diversity, now inoculated, can be dispersed and dispensed safely.The concern with
safety comes from the desire to safeguard the university from any real transformation in the politics of
knowledge productionthat a more infectious, more generatively noxious, unsafe notion of diversity might compel. How might the ‘‘privileged
marginal’’subject craft more transgressive uses of her difference, to which her function has been reduced, given that the dictates of ‘‘coercive
mimeticism’’have already worked her over in lending her pedagogical authority to begin with?Lacan might be said to have at least once
referred to something like multiculturalism: ‘‘With our jouissance going off the track, only the Other is able to mark its position, but only insofar
as we are separated from this Other. Whence certain fantasies—unheard of before the melting pot. Leaving the Other to his own mode of
jouissance, that would only be possible by not imposing our ownon him, by not thinking of him as underdeveloped.” Dylan Evans’s gloss on this
passage is revealing: “But as soon as we are forced to have recourse to the Other in order to mark the position of our own jouissance . . . a
curious paradox results. On the one hand, we need to preserve the jouissance of the Other in order to be able to
define our own; but on the other hand, we seek to destroy that Other enjoyment because we suspect it may be more superabundant
than our own.’’ We are left with a vicious Imaginary a-dynamic: on the one hand, a ruthless refusal to grant
psychical complexity to ethnic-racialized subjects, which is to say, the refusal of the lack that generates desire and the subject’s
incalculability that springs from the human subject’s inscription in language, coupled withthe weird generosity — the compensatory
psychical act of those in power—that offers a pure, riotous Beingness followed by a kind of disgust and shame for the ethnic-racialized subject’s
perceived unbounded pleasure, which, in turn, necessitates strategies to circumscribe and destroy those very lives.
T – EMBODIMENT
2AC – T Embodiment – TL
Procedurals with no resolutional basis wreck fairness and education---arbitrarily shifts
the goal post and deletes the 1AC.
We meet – we use people of the USFG to advocate for criminal justice reform
C/I – the aff can defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan
First, offense
1 – Advocacy Skills – Focus on personal location forecloses collective struggle –
prevents broader social change.
Myers 13—Associate Professor of political science and gender studies at the University of Utah [Ella,
Worldly Ethics: Democratic Politics and Care for the World, p. 46-49]
The therapeutic ethics advanced by Foucault and Connolly resonate strongly with dominant features of American
culture. In particular, therapeutic ethics echoes a widely held popular belief, captured in this chapter's second epigraph,
that working on oneself is the path to broader social change . This view is expressed quite clearly today in the doctrine of
ethical consumerism, which holds that individuals should critically reflect on their consumption practices, making changes in themselves and in
their personal conduct (namely, in what they buy) in order to generate collective change. In addition to expressing the striking and disturbing
conviction that a primary way of shaping the self and becoming a better person is through purchasing commodities, this
orientation
rests on the belief that each individual's action will additively amount to something greater , producing
transformation on a large scale. This is a more simplistic model than Connolly's in that it recognizes no difference between micropolitics and
macropolitics, treating the latter as simply the cumulative result of the former. There are, nonetheless, real similarities between Foucauldian
inspired ethics and the more generalized conviction that transforming oneself is the most important and even the most politically significant
project a person can undertake. Even though Foucault's and Connolly's accounts of ethics may not intend to further the prevalent popular
belief that you change the world by changing yourself, conceptualizing ethics primarily in terms of self intervention is
dangerous in the context of an American cultural environment that can fairly be described as narcissistic.1l5
There is no doubt that the Foucauldian-inspired arts of the self Connolly advocates are meant to challenge reigning
ways of being and to transform individuals in ways that enable them to engage more effectively in
collective projects, including critical and oppositional endeavors that aim to alter status quo arrangements. Yet the massive
popularity of self-help programs disseminating the view that worldly events are the direct result of one's
personal thoughts, in conjunction with capitalist ideologies that tend to reduce the aesthetics of
existence to the acquisition of a lifestyle through shopping , along with many other cultural influences that promote
questionable techniques of the self, should make one hesitate before embracing an ethics that focuses so heavily
on concern with oneself.1l6 Even Connolly's version of therapeutic ethics, which he wants to demarcate
from unappealing forms of self-indulgence, runs the risk of being captured by prevailing habits and
beliefs that can render arts of the self nondemocratic, even antidemocratic. Some of Connolly's own formulations bring this
danger into relief. For example, Connolly sometimes uses the term micropolitics to refer not only to the self's reflexive
tactics but also to small-scale intersubjective relations and projects that might not typically be
recognized as political in nature but which Connolly maintains can support and enhance macropolitics P7
Micropolitics of this sort are already "ubiquitous," but they can be developed, readers are told , in ways that are
"more or less conducive to democratic politics."1l8 This dimension of micropolitics is sometimes depicted by Connolly as a bridge
connecting concentrated work on the self to organized forms of collective citizen action . But the
concrete examples of micropolitical activity that he gives, even those that extend beyond the self's relation to
itself, raise new doubts about how resistant or transformative such activity really is. Indeed, some of what
Connolly has in mind seems depressingly adaptive to contemporary arrangements , considering how focused his examples
are on individual lifestyle choices rather than on the admittedly more difficult problem of how to mobilize energies for more collaborative,
oppositional, and inventive endeavors. Writing of micropolitics, Connolly counsels, "If you are in the middle class, buy a Prius or a Volt and
explain to your friends and neighbors why you did; write in a blog; attend a pivotal rally; ride your bike to work more often; consider solar
panels; introduce new topics at your church." While
these things may be worth doing, it is not clear why one should
believe they will foster an urge to "participate in larger political assemblages in more robust ways," as Connolly
wagers.ll9 Indeed, these recommendations seem to reinforce the belief that political change is a happy by-
product of small decisions made by each individual . Despite Connolly's best intentions and his ambitious calls
for broad transformation in the direction of deepening pluralization, greater economic equality, and less vengeful
foreign policy-the therapeutic ethics he endorses is too easily absorbed, even co-opted, by a dominant culture
that rewards forms of preoccupation with the self that do little to facilitate associative democracy. This point
seems to be unwittingly made, in a slightly different context, by Cressida Heyes's Self-Transformations: Foucault, Ethics, and Normalized Bodies.
Heyes's stated objective is to rescue Foucault's work on ethics from misreadings that liken self-care to self-indulgence, in order to defend the
importance of "somaesthetics," in which the self strives to cultivate a body in ways that are resistant to
normalization. Yet although Heyes is devoted to the idea that ethical self-diSCipline, performed by the self on the self, can be an "art of
living with greater embodied freedom," the vast majority of the book is spent investigating, in great detail, case studies involving contemporary
practices of askesis (sex reassignment surgery, Weight Watchers, and cosmetic surgery), which, Heyes convinc-. inglyargues, help to produce
"docile bodies."12o So although Heyes continues to hold out the hopethat concentrated work on the self, and specifically on
one's body, can serve as a site of resistance against normalizing power, the overwhelming sense
conveyed by her research is how readily and thoroughly care for the self is promoted and practiced in
conformist, "self-absorbed" ways.l21 There is little acknowledgment of the difficulty her examples pose to
her celebration of a transgressive, liberating somaesthetics. What does it mean to endorse an ethics focused on rapport
asoi and on "somatic askesis" in particular, in the context of a society that , by Heyes's own account, obsessively and
successfully markets forms of selfcare that produce compliant and often solipsistic selves ? Why should one
believe that Heyes's preferred example of good somatic self-discipline, yoga, is somehow safe from the normalizing influences so well
documented in her treatments of sex reassignment surgery, organized weight loss, and cosmetic surgery? Like Connolly, Heyes seems to
neglect the way in which eventhe best-intentioned calls for care of the self may still be too complicit with an
American culture that celebrates and aggressively markets depoliticizing modes of self-care . Still, the
appeal of therapeutic ethics is undeniable. It soothes with the promise that one need not get tangled up
in the messy, fraught world of intersubjective political struggle in order to engage in politically
meaningful action. Whether tending to the self is seen as synonymous with politics, as in the
popularized version of therapeutic ethics, or whether it is understood as a precursor to collective endeavors, as
in Connolly's view, the suggestion that one ought to begin with focused attention on oneself is comforting. It spares one the
challenges of attempting to address a public problem by acting in solidarity with and in opposition to
other citizens, where there may be no assurance of success and when fatigue, disappointment, and
frustration are likely. When the political landscape looks bleak-because there are few opportunities for ordinary citizens
to govern themselves, because of growing corporate influence over politics at all levels, or because of any number of other depressing facts-
therapeutic ethics reassures with the idea that one can be an engaged citizen all by oneself .
2 – Violent Policing – we shouldn’t have to out our connections to the criminal justice
system – they force debaters to disclose dangerous info like sexual orientation or
immigration status.
3 – Paternalism – forcing everyone to read identity affs because the underprivileged
can’t access expert vernacular pathologizes and stigmatizes them as constantly in
need of help.
4 – Moral Referendum – their interp forces the judge to make moral judgements on
people’s identities – it’s bad for any white judges in privileged positions to be making
decisions about high schoolers
Access is non-unique and no link – resource and coach disparities
People talk about personal experience outside of debate

P – PRESUMPTION
2AC – P-Presumption – TL
Reality exists independent of discourse
Wendt, 99
Alexander Wendt, Professor of International Security at Ohio State University, 1999, “Social theory of
international politics,” gbooks
The effects of holding a relational theory of meaning on theorizing about world politics are apparent in David
Campbell's provocative
study of US foreign policy, which shows how the threats posed by the Soviets, immigration, drugs, and so on, were constructed
out of US national security discourse.29 The book clearly shows that material things in the world did not force US decision-makers to have
particular representations of them - the picture theory of reference does not hold. In so doing it highlights the discursive aspects of truth and
reference, the sense in which objects are relationally "constructed."30 On
the other hand, while emphasizing several times
that he is not denying the reality of, for example, Soviet actions, he specifically eschews (p. 4) any
attempt to assess the extent to which they caused US representations. Thus he cannot address the
extent to which US representations of the Soviet threat were accurate or true (questions of correspondence).
He can only focus on the nature and consequences of the representations .31 Of course, there is nothing in the
social science rule book which requires an interest in causal questions, and the nature and consequences of representations are important
questions. In the terms discussed below he is engaging in a constitutive rather than causal inquiry. However, I
suspect Campbell thinks that any attempt to assess the correspondence of discourse to reality is
inherently pointless. According to the relational theory of reference we simply have no access to what the Soviet
threat "really" was, and as such its truth is established entirely within discourse , not by the latter's
correspondence to an extra-discursive reality 32 The main problem with the relational theory of reference is that it cannot
account for the resistance of the world to certain representations, and thus for representational
failures or m/'sinterpretations. Worldly resistance is most obvious in nature: whether our discourse says so or not, pigs can't fly.
But examples abound in society too. In 1519 Montezuma faced the same kind of epistemological problem facing
social scientists today: how to refer to people who, in his case, called themselves Spaniards. Many
representations were conceivable, and no doubt the one he chose - that they were gods - drew on the discursive
materials available to him. So why was he killed and his empire destroyed by an army hundreds of
times smaller than his own? The realist answer is that Montezuma was simply wrong: the Spaniards were not
gods, and had come instead to conquer his empire. Had Montezuma adopted this alternative
representation of what the Spanish were, he might have prevented this outcome because that
representation would have corresponded more to reality. The reality of the conquistadores did not
force him to have a true representation , as the picture theory of reference would claim, but it did have certain
effects - whether his discourse allowed them or not. The external world to which we ostensibly lack
access, in other words. often frustrates or penalizes representations. Postmodernism gives us no insight
into why this is so, and indeed, rejects the question altogether.33 The description theory of reference favored by
empiricists focuses on sense-data in the mind while the relational theory of the postmoderns emphasizes relations among words,
but they are similar in at least one crucial respect: neither grounds meaning and truth in an external
world that regulates their content.34 Both privilege epistemology over ontology. What is needed is a
theory of reference that takes account of the contribution of mind and language yet is anchored to
external reality. The realist answer is the causal theory of reference. According to the causal theory the
meaning of terms is determined by a two-stage process.35 First there is a "baptism/' in which some new
referent in the environment (say, a previously unknown animal) is given a name; then this connection of
thing-to-term is handed down a chain of speakers to contemporary speakers. Both stages are causal, the
first because the referent impressed itself upon someone's senses in such a way that they were induced
to give it a name, the second because the handing down of meanings is a causal process of imitation and
social learning. Both stages allow discourse to affect meaning, and as such do not preclude a role for
"difference" as posited by the relational theory. Theory is underdetermined by reality, and as such the
causal theory is not a picture theory of reference. However, conceding these points does not mean that
meaning is entirely socially or mentally constructed. In the realist view beliefs are determined by
discourse and nature.36 This solves the key problems of the description and relational theories: our ability to refer to the same
object even if our descriptions are different or change, and the resistance of the world to certain representations. Mind and language
help determine meaning, but meaning is also regulated by a mind-independent, extra-linguistic world.
Take a leap of faith – we should actively attempt to build meaning and truth in life
even if it’s all simulation
Fawver, 8
[Kurt, Master of Arts Engilsh – Cleveland State University, “ DESTRUCTION IN SEARCH OF HOPE:
BAUDRILLARD, SIMULATION, AND CHUCK PALAHNIUK’S CHOKE,” August 2008,
http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Fawver%20Kurt%20D.pdf?csu1219269969]
If Palahniuk’s Choke was merely an excellent resource for understanding Baudrillardian theory, it would still be a valuable text. As it stands,
however, Choke expands on the ideas of simulation and mediation and struggles to free itself from the snares of Baudrillard’s ultimate
unreality. Through a regime of breakdown and disorder, the text fights to emerge from “the end or disappearance of… the real, the social,
history, and other key features of modernity” (Best 133). It attempts to create a meaningful correspondence between signifiers and signifieds,
between images and meanings. While Baudrillard posits that “everything can and has been done, and all we can do is
to assemble the… pieces of our culture and proceed to its extremitie s,” Choke resists such reasoning and, in fact,
runs through stages of assembly and extremism to demonstrate how utterly futile and pointless they are (Best 137).
Choke seeks to blow apart those very reproductions that Baudrillard claims cause the implosion of meaning. Essentially, the text advocates
a clean sweep of communication, a discarding of all mediated reality . In Choke, as in many other Palahniuk novels, the
flow of true meaning can only return to society and individuals once all mediated, simulated, reproduced
“meanings” are razed. Thus, the text does glorify destruction, but it is destruction in search of hope, destruction that will, presumably,
lead to creation. Victor’s eventual identity collapse, and his subsequent rebuilding, is paradigmatic of Choke’s anti-Baudrillardian philosophy.
Victor begins by compiling the persona of a dysfunctional, perpetually orphaned child-cum-adult from mediated symbols of “dysfunction.” His
sex addiction and his compulsion to simulate choking in restaurants are symptoms of this poor attempt at constructing a workable identity.
When the “traumatized child-now-in-adulthood” simulation fails, Victor turns to new mediated identities: Christ and Antichrist. These personas
also lack any depth or connection to Victor’s core being and are, subsequently, discarded. As the text progresses, Victor drops all attempts at
creating his identity from the palette of society’s mass-produced conceptions. He pleads for someone to “just show me one thing in this world
that is what you’d think” (Choke 205). But, as no inherent realness exists in contemporary society, no one can show Victor a thing or an
individual with inherent meaning. Therefore, his only option is to extricate himself from the culture of simulation by cutting himself off from his
own history and other individuals’ mediated perceptions of his past. In a moment of clarity, Victor realizes that he must reduce his
identity to its simplest, most immediate terms because “There’s no way you can get the past right . You can pretend.
You can delude yourself, but you can’t re-create what’s over” (Choke 273). Thus, by the end of the novel, Victor is more a blank page than a
fully fleshed character. Rather than continuing to allow his identity to be an ever-evolving reactive simulation that forms in reference to
external mediation, he becomes a clean slate on which he can write his own self-generated identity. He slakes off most of the factors that
traditionally 26 inform self; familial expectation, personal history, and even conventional emotion are all missing from his identity at the text’s
close. As Victor explains, “For the first time in longer than I can remember, I feel peaceful. Not happy. Not sad. Not anxious. Not horny. Just all
the higher parts of my brain closing up shop…. I’m simplifying myself” (Choke 282). The implication is that, in order to escape simulation, Victor
must revert to a more primitive state. His thoughts are of an essentially basic order; he no longer seeks out “deeper”
meanings or alternate referentials. Instead, events, feelings, people, and things simply are what they appear to be,
without connection to external mediation. For Victor, the universe of multiple signified meanings for any given
signifier is no longer relevant. He has destroyed his perception of alternate reference and, therefore, has limited his field
of meaning to exclusively intrinsic values. Such perception comes at a price, however. Victor has to sacrifice a world of possibility, of
variable signification, for concrete meaning. He can no longer ponder whether an image means one thing or another; rather, an image will, to
Victor, always be fixed to one referent. In a sense, then, he has given up the parts of his “higher brain,” namely a rigorous intellect and
boundless creativity, in order to gain a foothold into solid reality and flee Baudrillard’s infinite simulatory spiral. Whereas Baudrillard
“critiques… representational thought which is confident that it is describing reality as it is,” Victor embraces such thoughts with open arms (Best
140). Victor is intelligent enough to understand that choosing a path of selfimposed communicative primitivism is the only
measure of prevention against accruing a new body of simulacra. The polar opposite of Victor is Tracy, the woman to
whom he loses his virginity. She is the prime example of an individual forever lost in Baudrillardian pos t27 structuralism,
representing everything that Victor, or any person, may become when nihilistic acceptance of simulation has infiltrated every aspect of self.
Victor meets her on an airplane, in an unlocked bathroom. She takes flights, enters the restroom, leaves the door unlocked, then waits until
someone walks in on her and attempts to engage them in a sexual encounter. When Victor questions her aberrant behavior, she replies that
“the answer is there is no answer… when you think about it, there’s no good reason to do anything. There is no point… people… don’t want an
orgasm as much as they just want to forget. Everything.” (Choke 256-7). Clearly, life in the Baudrillardian void has taken its toll on this woman.
Tracy ponders “Why do I do anything? …I’m educated enough to talk myself out of any plan. To deconstruct any fantasy. Explain away any goal.
I’m so smart I can negate any dream.” (Choke 257). She is the essence of Baudrillard’s postconstructionist theory; in her, the text introduces an
embodiment of hyper-intellectualism that has cut away all the joy, fulfillment, and meaning from life and reality and, subsequently, sees only a
vacuum underlying all existence. Her nihilism leads into a quest for extrication from the ultimate emptiness and, thus, works as the catalyst for
her sexual addiction. She wants to find meaning and absolute reality but will always be forced, due to her
intelligence and her deconstructive ability, to undermine the very goal she is trying to achieve . For Tracy, meaning
is impossible not because it has objectively disappeared, but because she cannot accept simple truths or non-
multiplicitous signifiers. She thrives on the complexity of reality and, therefore, will never be satisfied by a simplistic interpretation, even
if the simplistic interpretation is that for which she yearns. Through Tracy’s unsatisfied, perpetually-wandering nature, the text puts forth the
implication that 28 maintaining such an unflinching post-constructionist mindset has no future other than
disappointment, dysfunction, and existential despair. Indeed, Choke implicitly attacks Baudrillard’s blasé acceptance of
simulation and attempts to show the ramifications of such acceptance. Hence, while the critical perspective from which
Baudrillard’s theory stems is akin to a scalpel, cutting deeper and deeper into the body of reality to reveal
unending layers of nothingness, Choke advocates a return to a bandaged surface ; it strives toward the
revitalization of easily accessible signifieds, and, thus, shuns Tracy’s (see also Baudrillard’s) system of thought that only seeks to
forever prove the disappearance of meaning. Therefore, the text is ultimately moving beyond Baudrillard by “emphasizing
creation over destruction” and promoting the deemphasization of post-constructionist critical inquiry as a
means of understanding reality (Kavadlo 12). To further illustrate the resurrection of meaningful signifiers and images, the text
introduces Denny, Victor’s best friend. Denny is a recovering sex addict who, throughout the text, earnestly seeks rehabilitation. As sex
addictions in Choke seem to be symptomatic of a fatalistic surrender to the simulatory world, Denny is the one
character who consistently seeks out a means of resistance . Strangely enough, this resistance takes the form of
thousands of rocks. As the novel progresses, Denny builds an enormous rock collection and, with those rocks, embarks on the construction
of a mystery structure in an empty field. He enlists Victor’s help and, when a local reporter comes to interview Victor and Denny about the
construction project, Victor’s responses are veiled in a haze of ignorance. Victor recalls the dialogue between himself and the reporter, saying
that she asked: “‘This structure you’re building, is it a house?’ And I say we don’t know. 29 ‘Is it a church of some kind?’ We don’t know. …‘What
are you building, then?’ We won’t know until the very last rock is set. ‘But when will that be?’ We don’t know.” (Choke 263-4). Victor’s
reticence with the reporter is not due to any particular stigma or grudge against the media. Rather, his unforthcoming answers are a result of a
new (or perhaps ancient) mode of perception and, thus, communication. Instead of focusing on the possibilities of the stone structure or its
eventual outcome, Denny instructs Victor to focus on the process of building, alone. He says that “the longer we can keep building, the longer
we can keep creating, the more will be possible. The longer we can tolerate being incomplete,” the better (Choke 264). Initially, this statement
appears to echo Baudrillard’s sentiments, with a perpetual process of building that leads nowhere and creation that actually creates nothing.
Yet, precisely the opposite is true. By compelling the rock structure to remain a work-in-progress without a definitive
end, Denny has squashed any simulatory nature the building may possess. He and Victor are not putting stones
atop one another to create any of the long-mediated structures of society. The stone building is not a house or a
church or any other structure of convention and, therefore, is not founded upon any previous referent. Denny’s
rock building is not trying to simulate any other structure; it is simply allowed to rise and become whatever it eventually
becomes. With the stone structure, Denny is attempting to introduce a product that holds inherent, unmediated
meaning. As soon as Denny or Victor would conclude that the building is a house or a church, then it would,
necessarily, begin to take on aspects of those structures. It would begin to simulate a house or a church. But, by
allowing the structure to grow almost organically, Denny has set the 30 groundwork for a signifier that may
finally be connected with an inherent meaning, with a concrete undeniable reality . The price for cultivating an
unmediated, unsimulatory reality is high, however. Both Denny and Victor must discard the realm of speculation and conjecture. In order to
maintain a sense of the real, all possibility outside a thing’s readily apparent meaning must vanish. Denny and Victor do not know what the
stone building will be because they don’t want to know until it is finished. They choose a path of ignorance so that realness may reassert itself
within the structure without being crushed by external mediated “reality.” Basically, Denny and Victor must become simple, single-
minded individuals who have no need for multiplicitous signs and no desire for a constant outgrowth of
discourse. Theirs is a reality that requires no mediation, no simulation, and, hence, no emptiness . Such a lifestyle
choice flies in the face of our contemporary world, where formulating variable meanings for signifiers and expanding the possible field of
referentials for images is second-nature. The very fiber of critical theory, or of practically any academic discipline, hinges on
increased speculation, on infinitely sprawling discourses, and on the complication of texts, signifiers, and reality itself. Choke’s
solution for escaping Baudrillard’s simulation is to escape that same incisively critical manner of thinking. In doing
so, Denny and Victor become primitive postpostmodern men. The duo simultaneously evolve and devolve communication; they usher reality
back into a signifier but cause the collapse of complexity. Indeed, “many of the seemingly random transgressive acts perpetrated by the
characters in Palahniuk’s fiction,” such as Denny and Victor’s intentional ignorance, “fall within an understanding of entropy as a force for
renewal and meaning” (Sartain 32). Thus, while Denny may 31 have set society on a course for a neo-stone age, his rock structure may actually
be something that simply “is what it is.” Victor’s mother, Ida, is an individual who also manages to cut ties with simulation, but in a much
different, and arguably more destructive, manner. Her perspective on reality, like the neo-primitivism of Victor and Denny, strives to attain
communion with a long-lost realness. However, Ida takes a much more direct and assertive approach. She uses drugs to “simplify” her state of
mind. As Ida explains, “Trichloroethane… All my extensive testing has shown this to be the best treatment for a dangerous excess of human
knowledge” (Choke 148). She is attempting to clear away the debris of contemporary society’s all-consuming media (and with it mediation and
simulation) by chemically altering her consciousness, thus allowing her to ignore its multiplicity of disembodied voices and images that would,
otherwise, crush her unmediated, individual perception of reality. Ida claims that she can see things as they truly are when she is on drugs. She
says that the trichloroethane makes the world appear “without the framework of language. Without the cage of associations… without looking
through the lens of everything she knew was true…” (Choke 149). Through her druginduced highs, Ida is stripping away mediation and,
therefore, making simulation impossible. Without a vast body of mediated meanings to draw upon, Ida is forced to view the world as it actually
is, in its simplest terms. She has rid herself of simulation and allowed realness to seep back into images. However, the reality is fleeting and
dissipates back into the cacophony of Baudrillard’s simulatory universe as soon as Ida is clean once more. Even worse, the constant drug use
takes its toll on Ida; over the course of the text, she ends up with a perpetual bloody nose and, ultimately, is reduced to a 32 feeble, emaciated
skeleton. Idea proves that, while escaping Baudrillard’s simulation may be possible in a number of ways, the return to reality can come at an
indescribably steep price. Ida is also critical to understanding Choke’s postulation on the manner in which society may be galvanized into
forsaking simulation. It is “Ida’s ideology of adventure, her belief in the restorative power of chaos [that] serves to unbalance comfortable
homogeneity. She… seeks to create meaning and potential for change through random chaotic acts” (Sartain 33). Ida vandalizes merchandise in
stores, kidnaps children, and causes public disturbances all in the service of disrupting complacent adherence to mediated reality. She knows
that “a fire alarm is never about a fire, anymore” and tries to disseminate this knowledge across society, albeit obliquely and illegally (Choke
161). Ida challenges simulation by creating real panic and real excitement . Her acts of destruction are aimed
squarely at bringing a sense of reality back into a populace that, normally, experiences events and emotions in a
heavily mediated environment. Ida causes people to feel true fear, to experience events that are precisely what they appear to be:
actual, unsimulated danger. However, there is no proof that Ida’s regime of philosophy-based crime alters the perception or behavior of
anyone but Victor over the long term. For a brief moment, the victims of Ida’s crimes may experience a true,
unmediated, unsimulated event, but as soon as the danger has been resolved, the contemporary culture of mass
media creeps back in and continues to suffocate with its hollow signifiers . Therefore, Ida’s attempts to empower
society may be entirely pointless. While her personal freedom from Baudrillard’s simulatory world is assured,
she cannot force others to choose the same path of informed, intelligible ignorance . 33 Indeed, Ida’s failure to enact
social change exhibits the textual implication that release from simulation must begin in the most intensely personal and
introspective realms and radiate outward. Perhaps meaning can be reconnected with images, but, as Choke demonstrates, such
reconnection must be instituted at the individual level long before it can solidify into an absolute reality upon
which everyone agrees. If Choke’s resolution to the Baudrillardian dilemma seems somewhat perfunctory or abrupt, it would be in
keeping with the theoretical concerns of the text. In a simulatory reality, where all information is produced and mediated
to individuals at a hyperkinetic speed, it would be logical for a solution or paradigmatic rebellion to arise just as
quickly, given that this solution would still, necessarily, have a point of emergence within a system that is unable
to slow the production of information, images, and signifiers . Thus, the text’s resolution – an idea that works as a competing
perception of reality – appears as quickly and as suddenly as any other random image or information structure; the system of mindless, endless
generation has unwittingly generated its own demise. That Choke ends without much exploration of its resolution to simulatory reality is also
reasonable, given that such an open-ended future is antithetical to the very principle of Baudrillardian nihilism. The text fights despair
and a defeated acceptance of missing reality with unabashed romanticism. With the novel ending shortly after the
characters have lain in place their newfound adherence to knowing ignorance, the future is uncertain. Anything could happen to reality
following the close of the text; a reunion of images and meaning is as possible as the continuation of hollow simulation.
Victor and Denny’s plan for identity-formation and reality-perception may lead to the eventual destruction of all simulacra or it may be entirely
useless. The reader is left in a state of 34 unknowing, of hope for meaning-filled future. Such a conclusion is impossible in a
Baudrillardian scheme of reality. Under Baudrillard’s critical eye, the world has reached a point where struggle
against the forces of simulation is impossible. In Baudrillardian theory, there is no hope for the retrieval of
meaning; rather, the process of simulacra will continue, unabated. In answer to this bleak nihilistic view, Choke presents an
open space, an ending that is more the beginning of a competing discourse than a summation of all that has come before it. There is no
definite success at the end of the text, nor is there assured defeat. The text’s concluding indeterminacy, its
allowance for hope, separates it from Baudrillard’s nihilism and reinforces the supposition that escape from
simulation is, in fact, possible.
Images of suffering are necessary --- don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good ---
the alt risks silence, which is infinitely worse.
Kleinman and Kleinman 97 (Arthur, Maude and Lillian Presley Professor of Medical Anthropology,
and Joan, sinologist, Research Associate, Medical Anthropology Program at Harvard, “The appeal of
experience; the dismay of images: Cultural appropriations of suffering in our times,” Social Suffering, pg.
16-18, google books)//a-berg
It is necessary to balance the account of the globalization of commercial and professional images with a
vastly different and even more dangerous cultural process of appropriation: the totalitarian state's erasure of
social experiences of suffering through the suppression of images. Here the possibility of moral appeal
through images of human misery is prevented, and it is their absence that is the source of existential
dismay. Such is the case with the massive starvation in China from 1959 to 1961. This story was not reported at the time even though more than thirty million
Chinese died in the aftermath of the ruinous policies of the Great Leap Forward, the perverse effect of Mao's impossible dream of forcing immediate
industrialization on peasants. Accounts of this, the world's most devastating famine, were totally suppressed; no stories or pictures of the starving or the dead were
published. An internal report on the famine was made by an investigating team for the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. It was based on a
detailed survey of an extremely poor region of Anwei Province that was particularly brutally affected. The report includes this numbing statement by Wei Wu-ji, a
local peasant leader from Anwei: Originally there were 5,000 people in our commune, now only 3,200 remain. When the Japanese invaded we did not lose this
many: we at least could save ourselves by running away! This year there's no escape. We die shut up in our own houses. Of my 6 family members, 5 are already
dead, and I am left to starve, and I'll not be able to stave off death for long.(30) Wei Wu-ji continued: Wang Jia-feng from West Springs County reported that cases
of eating human meat were discovered. Zhang Sheng-jiu said, "Only an evil man could do such a thing!" Wang Jia-feng said, "In 1960, there were 20 in our
household, ten of them died last year. My son told his mother 'I'll die of hunger in a few days.'" And indeed he did.(31) The report also includes a graphic image by Li
Qin-ming, from Wudian County, Shanwang Brigade: In 1959, we were prescheduled to deliver 58,000 jin of grain to the State, but only 35,000 jin were harvested,
hence we only turned over 33,000 jin, which left 2,000 jin for the commune. We really have nothing to eat. The peasants eat hemp leaves, anything they can
possibly eat. In my last report after I wrote, "We have nothing to eat," the Party told me they wanted to remove my name from the Party Roster. Out of a
population of 280, 170 died. In our family of five, four of us have died leaving only myself. Should I say that I'm not broken hearted?(32) Chen Zhang-yu, from
Guanyu County, offered the investigators this terrible image: Last spring the phenomenon of cannibalism appeared. Since Comrade Chao Wu-chu could not come up
with any good ways of prohibiting it, he put out the order to secretly imprison those who seemed to be at death's door to combat the rumors. He secretly
imprisoned 63 people from the entire country. Thirty-three died in prison.(33) The official report is thorough and detailed. It is classified neibu, restricted use only.
To distribute it is to reveal state secrets. Presented publicly it would have been, especially if it had been published in the 1960s, a fundamental critique of the Great
Leap, and a moral and political delegitimation of the Chinese Communist Party's claim to have improved the life of poor peasants. Even today the authorities regard
it as dangerous. The official silence is another form of appropriation. It prevents public witnessing. It forges a
secret history, an act of political resistance through keeping alive the memory of things denied .34 The
totalitarian state rules by collective forgetting, by denying the collective experience of suffering, and thus
creates a culture of terror. The absent image is also a form of political appropriation; public silence is
perhaps more terrifying than being overwhelmed by public images of atrocity . Taken together the two
modes of appropriation delimit the extremes in this cultural process .(35) Our critique of appropriations of
suffering that do harm does not mean that no appropriations are valid. To conclude that would be to
undermine any attempt to respond to human misery . It would be much more destructive than the problem we
have identified; it would paralyze social action. We must draw upon the images of human suffering in order to
identify human needs and to craft humane responses.
Their embrace of hyper-reality cedes to the worst excesses of conservatism.

Passavant 10 - Associate Professor of Political Science Habart and William Smith College
(Paul, “Yoo's Law, Sovereignty, and Whatever,” Constellations, 17 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8675.2010.00614.x)
For some on the left, it has become conventional to celebrate, if not cultivate, pluralism, whether this
means multiple forms of being or multiple interpretive possibilities with regard to texts. It has also
become conventional to be critical of “sovereignty” and of “law .” Multiplicity is thought to be a threat to
sovereignty, and this threat is thought to be democratizing or a force that resists oppression. The Italian philosopher
Giorgio Agamben exemplifies these tendencies within contemporary political and legal theory. In some of his earlier and less well-known work, he aspires toward a “coming community” that he calls “whatever
being.” Whatever being embraces the infinite communicative possibilities of language as pure means beyond a
preoccupation with true or false propositions.∂ In his best-known work, Agamben links sovereignty to the production of rightless subjects and the Nazi death camps. He urges
us to rethink the very ontological basis of politics in the West, creating a human being beyond sovereignty or law, in order to avoid perilous outcomes. One key to surpassing the logic of sovereignty, according to Agamben, is
whatever being's positive relation to the singularities of life and the multiplicities of communication.∂ Whatever being is also being outside of law. If “law” persists in this “coming community,” it would be a “law” that has become
deactivated and deposed from its prior purposes. “Law” will have become an object for play – something to be toyed with the way that children might come upon a disused object and play with it by putting it to uses disconnected
from whatever purpose this object might once have had.∂ Why does the fact of playful communicative possibilities lead to either more
democracy or a less brutal world? The most conservative United States Supreme Court justices have
recently embraced the fact that texts are open to multiple interpretations. For example, Samuel Alito has
suggested that the meaning of public monuments is open to multiple interpretations that may shift over time to
avoid a potential First Amendment establishment clause problem over a monument of the Ten
Commandments in a public park .1 Yet, as the late Justice Blackmun has written regarding state endorsement of religion, “government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are
created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.”2 Recognizing the possibility of multiple interpretations , as this instance shows, does not lead
necessarily to outcomes friendly to democracy.∂ In this essay, I investigate how playing with the multiplicity of communicative
possibilities can, contrary to Agamben's expectations, actually facilitate aspirations for unitary sovereign power . My argument unfolds in the
context of the legal arguments put forward by Bush administration lawyer John Yoo, particularly those enabling torturous interrogations.∂ Those, like Agamben,
who favor interpretive pluralism in itself rarely, if ever, have right-wing supporters of unchecked presidentialism
in mind. Reading the scholarship and legal memoranda of John Yoo, formerly in the Bush administration's Office
of Legal Counsel (OLC) and presently a University of California, Berkeley law professor, however, approaches an experience of pure mediality or of
law that has become deposed or disconnected from its purposes. Yoo is well known as the author of the
key legal memoranda asserting the president's discretionary power to make war, to engage in
warrantless surveillance, and, most infamously, justifying torturous methods of interrogation. Some scholars refer to Lewis Carroll's Alice in
Wonderland to describe the experience of reading Yoo's legal memos.3 Is John Yoo an exemplar of the whatever being and pure mediality that Agamben describes and to
which he contends politics should aspire?∂ In this paper, I describe how Yoo gestures toward pure mediality, as he indicates the experience of language
itself as pure communicability or as pure means in his legal work when he emphasizes the openness of law to being exposed to new,
different, flexible, or plural interpretive possibilities. I argue, however, that Yoo is not well described as whatever being. His work repeats too consistently in the
direction of absolute presidential decisionism to be open to whatever.∂ Instead, Yoo's work may capture a broader development within our society
that Agamben describes as the emergence of whatever being. Without saying that there has been no resistance to the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping and policies of torturous interrogations, the contrast between
the response to the Nixon administration and the Bush administration is striking. Richard Nixon resigned one step ahead of impeachment in the midst of mass protests against his presidency. The articles of impeachment, for
instance, addressed how Nixon engaged in warrantless wiretapping, and refused to execute laws passed by Congress faithfully while repeatedly engaging in conduct that violated the constitutional rights of citizens. Congress also
passed major acts of legislation to prevent a president such as Nixon from ever again abusing power the way he had. These laws include the War Powers Act of 1973, the Budget Impoundment and Control Act of 1974, and the
no one seems to have noticed that the Bush administration claimed power to
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.∂ In contrast, almost
make war at the president's sole discretion. Additionally, upon learning that the Bush administration engaged in criminal acts of surveillance, Congress amended FISA in the
summer of 2008 to expand the government's power to spy on Americans, while immunizing from legal accountability non-state actors who collaborated with the then-criminal acts of government officials who followed Bush's
Congress tried to make it impossible for those detained to question , legally, their detention or to bring the torturous
illegal orders.
complicity on the part of

treatment they endured to a court's attention, while allowing the intelligence agencies to continue to engage in torturous acts by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). This
Congress cannot be explained on partisan grounds as many Democrats voted in favor of the MCA , and upon becoming the
majority party in Congress, they have not rescinded it. Indeed, it was a Democratic-controlled Congress that brushed the Bush
administration's illegal surveillance under the rug in 2008 .4 Moreover, upon taking power in 2006, the Democratic leadership immediately stated that they would
not pursue impeachment. Former Reagan administration Department of Justice lawyer Bruce Fein has decried the lack of
outrage at the Bush administration's illegalities by suggesting that the nation has become a collection of
constitutional “illiterates.”5 Perhaps law is being deposed as Agamben suggests.∂ Both Agamben's and Fein's observations may also
indicate a failure of what Michel Foucault would call disciplinary power – the power to constitute subjects capable of exercising power, here the powers of liberal democracy – a failure
that Gilles Deleuze has identified with the emergence of societies of control, and a subjective and ontological diversity that Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri call the “multitude.”6 They also indicate
practices of textual “interpretation ” where interpretative acts extricate legal texts from the narratives
that once oriented their purposes and animated these texts for a republican and anti-monarchical polity .
Robert Cover argues, however, that law is part of a narrative practice constitutive of subjects and a way of life.7 Insofar as interpretive practices become extricated
from the possibility of narrative, then, we may indeed doubt the continuing existence of “law,” as Agamben posits. Psychoanalytic theory also
identifies a loss of a structuring meaning in contemporary society and describes this as the decline of symbolic efficiency.8∂ In sum, there appears to be a phenomenon
emerging in contemporary society that a variety of different theoretical and political perspectives are
struggling to grasp and evaluate. While Agamben welcomes the failures of disciplinary powers as enabling the emergence of whatever being and the “coming community,” it is a
cause for concern among those seeking to keep the faith with republicanism, with liberal democracy, or
with a Constitution representing these aspirations. In this light, we can be more specific than Agamben about the kind of threat that whatever being poses to the state or to sovereignty.
P – FIAT DOUBLE BIND
Don’t give a specific date during CX if they ask.
“We don’t have a specific date, our ev says the risk is high because of whatever.”
2AC – Fiat Double Bind – TL
This at best slightly mitigates our impact—yes, we might have exaggerated for the
purposes of this debate—1AC claims are not capital T truths, but provisional for the
purposes of debate.
Debating about policies in the face of death lets us clash and become better people.
But running towards death is inherently violent and sanctions racism and police
brutality. Per the neg’s logic, the cops should have said “c’mon Floyd, laugh in the face
of death”.
K – SETTLER COLONIALISM
Framework
1 – Procedural fairness – the 1AC is a defense of our epistemology, they can kritik
evaluate arguments.
1) Plan focus is good - theorizing subversion of settler technologies is historically
successful and necessary for decolonization --- and turns their place arguments
Paperson 17 (La Pseudonym of K. Wayne Yang, Associate Professor of Ethnic Studies, UC San Diego,
PhD Social and Cultural Studies, Berkeley, “A Third University Is Possible,” June 2017,
https://manifold.umn.edu/read/7ba69a54-7131-4598-9fec-815890725d91/section/e33f977a-532b-
4b87-b108-f106337d9e53
Even When They Are Dangerous Everywhere land resists and refuses—whales that destroy ships, bees that refuse to work, bombed
islands that reconstitute themselves. The land also resists in the form of people; Indigenous peoples’ resistance is the land’s
resistance. Indigenous people continu to subvert legal and capitalist technologies as part of that
resistance. And technologies and technological beings resist too. Patent law is patently designed to favor
corporations , a legal technology whose colonizing functions are particularly evident when considering how Monsanto and other
GMO producing giants are patenting seeds and genes they “find” throughout the world. Yet Indigenous
communities are fighting this biopiracy by refusing the systems that permit corporations to patent life
and that document knowledge for expropriation in the first place, by creating digital libraries of traditional knowledges, and sometimes by
subverting patent law to claim rights to their own life worlds and knowledges .[35] Treaties are
technologies of colonial coercion and yet also of Indigenous survivance. As Scott Lyon says, an x-mark that signs
the treaty “is a sign of consent in a context of coercion . . . . And yet there is always the possibility of
slippage, indeterminacy, unforeseen consequences, or unintended results; it is always possible , that is,
that an x-mark could result in something good . Why else, we must ask, would someone bother to make it?”[36] Since 1948,
the Oneida Indian Nation has pursued restoration of sovereignty over historical reservation lands via a complex set of
avenues involving treaty law, U.S. courts, casinos, and excise taxes, resulting in a landmark 13,004 acres of
land taken into trust by the Department of the Interior in 2014.[37] Sometimes settlers return land to Indigenous tribes
and nations. Hopefully, they/we might do so without conditions. As I write, the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians are getting
back 688 acres of coastal lands in California.[38] I am not saying wealthy settlers who return land are decolonizing. I am saying that
some colonizing technology has been hotwired; something scyborg is happening. The truth is that any return of land is
not just due to the good graces and benevolence of wealthy settlers; it is a scyborg possibility foretold by an x-mark . About
Hollywood star Johnny Depp’s purported promise to buy land for Comanche, Sonny Skyhawk, a Sicangu Lakota actor and founder of American
Indians in Film and Television, said, “If it’s from the heart, we accept it. If it’s not from the heart, we’ll accept it anyways.”[39] Developed as
weapons of surveillance and assassination, drones are hard to imagine as decolonizing instruments; yet these machines we hate may serve a
function before we discard them. Originally a wind-powered device similar to the childhood wind toys of its Afghani creator Massoud Hassani,
the Mine Kafon drone “can autonomously map, detect, and detonate land mines” and could contribute to demilitarizing mine-filled lands
within a generation.[40] Dynamite, which left Alfred Nobel rich and many dead, and which abetted in U.S. westward imperial expansion, blew
up the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams and restored the Elwha River.[41] A giant, autonomous artificial coastline could assist the ocean to clean
herself of the great Pacific Garbage Patch.[42] Oysters made “plantable” by farming technologies detoxify the Hudson and so become too
poisonous to eat, but because of them, the frogs will return.[43] Wind-powered strandbeests—originally devised to restore Dutch beaches—
now roam almost autonomous, almost free.[44] Toxic and explosive and wind-willed machine animals, you, scyborg, might read about and feel
some odd sense of recognition. Figureout how technologies operate. Use a wrench. Technologies can be disrupted
and reorganized—at least for a machine cycle. Rather than thinking of ourselves as just subjects of those
technologies, think about how we are the drones, the explosives, the toxified, the operative parts of those technologies—and
ideally, how we might operate on ourselves and other technologies and turn these gears into decolonizing
operations. If this sounds easy and obvious, then my writing has failed you. Listen: you will need to remember this when you are accused
of destruction. Attach a pacemaker to the heart of those machines you hate; make it pump for your
decolonizing enterprise; let it tick its own countdown. Ask how, and how otherwise, of the colonizing machines. Even
when they are dangerous.
K proper
AT: “Indian” link
No link -- “Indian” is more legally consistent and no worse than “indigenous”
1 – Native Indians prefer to be referred to by their specific tribe – using the word
“indigenous” is equally as reductive and only slightly more historically accurate
2 – Its legally consistent – Their territory is legally codified as Original Indian territory
and the major organization acting as their political vocality was known as the
American Indian Federation
2) Perm do the aff and the non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt
3) The perm solves – legal pluralist actions to accommodate Indigenous issues are
able to create pragmatic and lasting change -complete disavowal of the state
and human rights approaches dooms movements and prevents a diversity of
tactics
Hendry and Tatum 16 Jennifer Hendry & Melissa L. Tatum, “Human Rights, Indigenous Peoples, and
the Pursuit of Justice”, 34 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev, 2016, Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylpr/vol34/iss2/3, /MegLak
As Abraham Maslow famously stated, “it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”180 In this
Article, we have put forward the argument that the rights-based approach—the hammer, as it were—
contains certain structural biases that can affect its operation in situations concerning minority and
Indigenous justice. Nevertheless, this is not to say that there are not some occasions that specifically call for a
hammer: indeed, even within the CLS movements there have been voices cautioning against throwing the baby out with the rights-
skepticism bathwater, notably from the Critical Race Theory camp. A number of CRT scholars have maintained that legal rights are still
an important tool for minority groups, even in light of their evident shortcomings and the tendency for such
purportedly universal entitlements to preserve the interests of the privileged.181 This Article does not adopt a wholly rights-skeptical position.
On the contrary, we recognize that in certain situations the interests of Indigenous justice are best served
by a rights-based approach, and we offered the Violence Against Women Act of 2013 as a paradigmatic
example of such a success story, although it does urge caution in terms of the apparent myopia engendered by the dominance of
the rights paradigm. While Indigenous peoples should of course take advantage of every tool in the toolbox in
order to achieve the aim of justice, not every situation warrants articulation in the language of rights. This is so regardless of
whether it is better dealt with outside of the legal system, such as with racist sports franchise names and mascots, like those of the Washington
Redskins, where a program of public education is likely to bring more satisfactory and longer-lasting results than one of litigation; whether
because a rights-based approach forces the issue’s articulation in terms or within parameters that cause its distortion; or whether the very
adoption of such an approach locks the rights claimants into a form of interaction that accords to a logic that is essentially “other.” Importantly,
therefore, we
are not arguing in favor of either a complete loss of faith in the potential of rights-based
approaches to achieve justice for Indigenous people/s or a complete cessation of any and all recourse to the rhetoric, for
a, and power of rights. Instead, we recommend acknowledgment that: first, there is no truth to the idea that rights (or law) are intrinsically a
vehicle of social justice; second, rights discourse is not a neutral one but rather comes with its own baggage; and, third, that reliance on rights
discourse is a choice that ought to be made on a case-by-case basis. It
is vital, therefore, that in each situation such a
choice occurs in the full awareness not only that it is a choice but that it ought to be selected on
particular grounds and for particular reasons, namely the suitability of its underpinning logic and
processes.
4) Reifying settler colonialism as transhistorical and inevitable makes resistance
impossible
Corey SNELGROVE ET AL., University of British Columbia; Rita Kaur Dhamoon, University of Victoria;
and Jeff Corntassel, University of Victoria, 14 [“Unsettling settler colonialism: The discourse and politics
of settlers, and solidarity with Indigenous nations,” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, Vol.
3, No. 2, 2014, p. 1-32, http://decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/view/21166/17970]
Rita: Corey, your question is helpful, and Jeff’s response also helps me think through the movement between time-situated and place-based
practices of ‘solidarity’ and ways of thinking about these situated practices in terms of an ethos of ‘unsettled
solidarities’ that moves across time and space, that is a way of being in the world, a set of ongoing relations. Where I,
where we, are never outside of struggle, everyone is ‘structurally implicated’ in the dispossession of
Indigenous lands. Everyone is differentially structurally implicated, where the ideology of presumed consent
underlies settler colonialism.
Jeff: I would add that living on another Indigenous nation’s territory also carries an obligation to support those
defending their homelands. Cheryl Bryce from Songhees First Nation started the “Community Tool Shed” in
2009 to generate support for the restoration of Lekwungen food systems. The Community Tool Shed in
Victoria, British Columbia, is where settlers and Indigenous peoples can come together to rid the land of
invasive species, such as Scottish Broom, and to revitalize traditional plants such as kwetlal or camas. Cheryl’s focus for this
informal group is on reclaiming traditional place names, educating people about the destructiveness of
invasive species, and reinstating Lekwungen food systems. The tool shed meets once per month to pull invasive species
on places that have been managed by Cheryl’s family for generations, such as Meegan (aka, Beacon Hill Park), and Sitchamalth (Willows Beach).
To a ‘resident’ of Lekwungen homelands, the above-mentioned places are public lands. This
demonstrates the urgency of reclaiming Indigenous place names in tandem with the restoration of
Indigenous foodscapes and landscapes. The May 22, 2013 reclamation of the name PKOLS (formerly known as Mount
Douglas) is one of many examples where communities can come together to demand representation on
their own terms. These are everyday acts of resurgence that highlight the terrain of Indigenous
struggles to restore and reconnect a place-based existence .
Corey: And both examples you highlighted Jeff do not foreclose a wide-range of participants. The PKOLS
reclamation led by the W̱ SÁNEĆ peoples, involved participation from Indigenous peoples across Vancouver
Island and across Turtle Island, it involved the university through the Indigenous Governance program, and it
involved local, non-Indigenous, activist groups , most notably Social Coast. The Community Tool Shed, a project that
I’ve also been involved in for the past two years, does something similar. What I find really interesting in this work is that settlers
and Indigenous peoples challenge our environmentally degraded and colonial present simultaneo usly.
Yet, there is still attention paid to the different roles and responsibilities in this work . For instance, non-
Lekwungen people in removing invasive species, and Lekwungen people in managing these lands and in harvesting plants such as camas. So
unlike other stewardship groups around Victoria, those
participating are not seeking to depoliticize this work, nor do
they argue that this work erases their complicity or their potential complicity in colonization . In supporting
Cheryl’s assertion of her roles and responsibilities, they aren’t seeking to restore land in order to claim it for themselves. They aren’t Locke
redux. And, given the nature and extent of Broom here – you find it pretty much everywhere around Southern Vancouver Island, something like
18,000 seeds are produced in a single plant, and those seeds can lie dormant for up to thirty years – pulling broom one time really does not
mean much. So there
is a demand for long- term work, which itself can help build accountability through
such place-based relationships. And since land is the irreducible element of settler colonialism, and that
environmental degradation has often proceeded through and in support of settler colonialism, it
provides an example of non-Indigenous practices with the land that aren’t necessarily colonial. Now I’m not
saying that this is an example of decolonization or that those involved are somehow not settlers. After all, decolonization and the
transformation of settlers requires subjective and objective transformations. Rather it’s
a practice that does not reify
colonization, and thus challenges settler colonial studies construction of settler colonialism as
inevitable and transhistorical.
5) Settler colonialism is inextricably tied to the land – any alt that falls short of
giving back the land will fail
Brown ’14 (Nicholas A., PhD in Landscape Architecture (History & Theory) from the University of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, a MFA degree from UIUC’s School of Art & Design, and a BA from Carleton
College. Previously Brown taught in the American Indian & Native Studies Program and the Department
of Geographical and Sustainability Sciences at the University of Iowa, The logic of settler accumulation in
a landscape of perpetual vanishing, Settler Colonial Studies, 4:1, 1-26, DOI:
10.1080/2201473X.2013.784236)CN
Taking up dispossession as a failed project forces us to move beyond the property paradigm and to
acknowledge what Aileen Moreton-Robinson calls an “ontological relationship to land”, which she also describes as
an “inalienable relation to land” that constitutes an indigenous subject position .54 “Ontological belonging”,
Moreton-Robinson argues, “is omnipresent, and continues to unsettle non-Indigenous belonging based on
illegal dispossession”. 55 In this vein, Eric Cheyfitz defines land not simply as a resource or commodity but as
“the nonfungible matrix of the community ” and “the inalienable ground of the communal”. 56 And for Glen
Coulthard, land functions as “an ontological framework for understanding relationships ”. 57 To
entertain the possibility of failure is thus to recognize indigenous sovereignty as “more than a mere
conferral”. Instead, as Audra Simpson affirms, “it is both inherent and unceded”. 58 To denaturalize dispossession is to
confront “the ontological dilemma indigeneity poses to the colonizing nation-state” . 59 This move
shifts the conversation from assumptions about aboriginal dispossession to questions about white
possession, including its precarity, often signified by anxiety.60 And this shift, in turn, raises a series of new questions about the
relationship between primitive accumulation and settler colonialism. First, would it be more accurate to describe accumulation by dispossession
as accumulation by possession? Where the possessive investment of 6 N.A. Brown settlers
overlays but does not (because it cannot)
extinguish indigenous ties to a landscape, which remains, in a fundamental sense, inalienable . Second, is the
continuous character of primitive accumulation contingent on and enabled by the failure of settler colonialism? In other words, does failure
allow processes of primitive accumulation to endure? Alternately, would settler colonialism, if successful, actually impede the proliferation of
these accumulation practices? Third, is it possible to identify a unique set of processes that we might call settler accumulation? 61 In other
words, does a distinct form of accumulation emerge from the dialectic between primitive accumulation and settler colonialism, which cannot
be reduced to either of its constitutive elements? Finally, given
that primitive accumulation might also be described as
a failed project – in the sense that it, too, remains unfinished – does this recurring double-failure sustain the dialectic
of settler accumulation? In other words, does settler accumulation proliferate by pitting one flexible structure
or “condition of possibility” against another structure? In the abstract, the answers to these questions,
particularly the last two, would seem to be affirmative . In an effort to discern the logic of settler accumulation at work in
the specific context of the Alberta/Montana borderlands, these questions resurface in the concluding sections of this article.

Aff Tribes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aff Tribes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aff

[T]he remaining gaps

II. THE JURISDICTIONAL MAZE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT IN INDIAN COUNTRY

This jurisdictional ambiguity undermines criminal accountability for perpetrators.

*Footnotes 104-106 Start*

*Footnotes 104-106 End*

The first enforcement officials

Because of Oliphant, Native

The result is the descent of Indian country into crisis.

*Begin Footnote 84*

*End Footnote 84*

Studies confirm that jurisdictional ambiguity alone deters reporting.

The 1999 BJS Report also found that the

In addition to methodological challenges in data collection, the

Recent legislation thumps DAs

But those still impinge on tribal autonomy. Transferring sentencing jurisdiction to

Limited grants of jurisdiction still embolden perpetrators and discourage reporting.

Jurisdictional clarity is necessary for all relevant parties.

*Footnote 150 Begins*

*Footnote 150 Ends*

The plan resolves jurisdictional clarity.

Existential risk circles ensconce negative ripple effects, encouraging violence in

The disad begins at a low probability.

Which has has a ceiling of 0.2%/year.

AND, the disads are less likely than you think –

substantial adjective sub·stan·tial | \ səb-ˈstan(t)-shəl \ Definition

Resolved isn’t immediate

5. To express, as an opinion or determination, by resolution and vote; to declare or decide by a formal

“Should” means desirable – this does not have to be a mandate

“Should” doesn’t require certainty

Strong admonition --- not mandatory

Should isn’t binding

Throw out definitions of ‘substantially’—‘Substantial’ is distinct, and merely means of

It's indeterminate—And, toss out definitions from other contexts—Must evaluate it

“Substantial” means considerable.

substantial adjective sub·stan·tial | \ səb-ˈstan(t)-shəl \ Definition

“Substantial” means with substance

imaginary; not elusive; real; solid; true; veritable

NEW AFFS BAD

W/M – we’ll defend links to Congress DAs.

C/I – Enact includes Court action.

Agencies can enact.

3 – Precision. Gideon and a consensus of current jurisprudence AND XOs like

Limits explosion inevitable – the rez is bidirectional AND infinite Congressional

Courts counterplans non-unique research.

Reasonability – voting on a marginal difference between our interps incentivizes

W/M – we’ll defend links to Congress DAs.

C/I – Enact includes Court action.

Limits explosion inevitable – the rez is bidirectional AND infinite Congressional

Courts counterplans non-unique research.

Reasonability – voting on a marginal difference between our interps incentivizes

W/M – we’ll defend links to Congress DAs.

C/I – Agencies can enact.

So can the Executive.

Limits explosion inevitable – the rez is bidirectional AND infinite Congressional

ESR counterplans non-unique research.

Reasonability – voting on a marginal difference between our interps incentivizes

W/M – the plan is “progressive” – we strengthen Indian legal and criminal

Reasonability – voting on a marginal difference between our interps incentivizes

W/M – sentencing guidelines change from federal to tribal.

C/I – “Sentencing reform” refers to a wholesale change in the sentencing process –

Reasonability – voting on a marginal difference between our interps incentivizes

W/M – sentencing guidelines change from federal to tribal.

---no external usage

Footnotes 104-106 Start

Footnotes 104-106 End

Begin Footnote 84

End Footnote 84

Footnote 150 Begins

Footnote 150 Ends

Footnote 277 Ends

Footnotes 117 and 118 Begin

Footnotes 117 and 118 End