Insularity K/FW1. Counter interp Weigh value to life arguments over all else, including topic education and extinction. The ballot is to be used as a teaching mechanism that embraces particular methods of pedagogy, not to test plan competition. Using the debate space to criticize and explore expands the boundaries of our consciousness and creates research practices that are more sensitive to slow, everyday suffering- thats a pre-requisite to making the unseen visible. (Rob, Rachel Carson Professor of English, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor, pgs. 14-16)How do we bring home-and bring emotionally to life-threats that take time to wreak their havoc, threats that never materialize in one spectacular, explosive, cinematic scene? Apprehension is a critical word here, a crossover term that draws together the domains of perception, emotion, and action. To engage slow violence is to confront layered predicaments of apprehension: to apprehend-to arrest, or at least mitigate-often imperceptible threats requires rendering them apprehensible to the senses through the work of scientific and imaginative testimony. An influential lineage of environmental thought gives primacy to immediate sensory apprehension, to sight above all, as foundational for any environmental ethics of place. George Perkins Marsh, the mid-nineteenth-century environmental pioneer, argued in Man and Nature that "the power most important to cultivate and at the same time, hardest to acquire, is that of seeing what is before him." Aldo Leopold similarly insisted that "we can be ethical only toward what we can see.'?' But what happens when we are unsighted, when what extends before us-in the space and time that we most deeply inhabit-remains invisible? How, indeed, are we to act ethically toward human and biotic communities that lie beyond our sensory ken? What then, in the fullest sense of the phrase, is the place of seeing in the world that we now inhabit? What, moreover, is the place of the other senses? How do we both make slow violence visible yet also challenge the privileging of the visible? Such questions have profound consequences for the apprehension of slow violence, whether on a cellular or a transnational scale. Planetary consciousness (a notion that has undergone a host of theoretical formulations) becomes pertinent here, perhaps most usefully in the sense in which Mary Louise Pratt elaborates it, linking questions of power and perspective, keeping front and center the often latent, often invisible violence in the view. Who gets to see, and from where? When and how does such empowered seeing become normative? And what perspectives-not least those of the poor or women or the colonized-do hegemonic sight conventions of visuality obscure? Pratt's formulation of planetary consciousness remains invaluable because it allows us to connect forms of apprehension to forms of imperial violence." Against this backdrop, 1want to introduce the third central concern of this book. Alongside slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor, the chapters that follow are critically concerned with the political, imaginative, and strategic role of environmental writer-activists. Writer-activists can help us apprehend threats imaginatively that remain imperceptible to the senses, either because they are geographically remote, too vast or too minute in scale, or are played out across a time span that exceeds the instance of observation or even the physiological life of the human observer. In a world permeated by insidious, yet unseen or imperceptible violence, imaginative writing can help make the unapparent appear, making it accessible and tangible by humanizing drawn-out threats inaccessible to the immediate senses. Writing can challenge perceptual habits that downplay the damage slow violence inflicts and bring into imaginative focus apprehensions that elude sensory corroboration. The narrative imaginings of writer-activists may thus offer us a different kind of witnessing: of sights unseen. To allay states of apprehension-trepidations, forebodings, shadows cast by the invisible-entails facing the challenge, at once imaginative and scientific, of giving the unapparent a materiality upon which we can act. Yet poor communities, often disproportionately exposed to the force fields of slow violence-be they military residues or imported e-waste or the rising tides of2. All of their topic education arguments are ridiculous, we still gain the same amount of topic education through our advocacy statement. We still advocate for exploring the oceans, the only thing we do not get is imitating US legislators, and that is not the key component to debate. Its whether or not something is a good idea, and accessing critical thinking. 3. Fiat isnt real That means that even if we were to run some pragmatic, topical, policy aff none of the impacts would actually be prevented. This is unlike our advocacy which can spark actual change to end suffering. We dont encourage government or actor to participate because we wish to show that it can be one individually. 4. MALCOLM X PROVES THAT THEORETICAL DEBATE PROVIDES TRAINING IN PERSUASIONTHIS IS CRITICAL TO ACTUAL SOCIAL CHANGE This takes out their Goldstein 13 BRANHAM 1995(Robert, Professor of Rhetoric at Bates College, Argumentation and Advocacy, Winter)Malcolm X spoke to predominantly white audiences and debated white opponents throughout his prison experience and often during his later public career. These encounters in part evidenced what Gambino has termed his "absolute faith in and reliance on the power of communication" to convince even whites of the truth of his position (p. 17). "The truth is so strong and clear," wrote X in a letter in 1954, "that not even the white man himself will deny it once he knows what we know" (Gambino, p. 17). But his expressed desire to "confront the white man" in debate was perhaps not so much designed to convert his adversaries as it was to assert himself and his sense of self-worth, to apply his learning, and, as in his later public appearances, to appeal to the large audience of fellow African American prisoners. "By defeating the white man in debate," writes Wolfenstein, "he was proving, to himself and to other black prisoners, the superiority of his position" (1981, p. 228). To the "concentric" audience of his fellow inmates, such encounters established his leadership and demonstrated the truth and strength of his beliefs (Branham and Pearce, 1987, p. 245). According to Malcolm Jarvis, interviewed in Orlando Bagwell's 1994 documentary, Malcolm X: Make It Plain, it was when Malcolm X began debating that his "name and three started spreading amongst the prison population and that's when the population started to grow at the debating classes. Most of the fellows used to come over out of curiosity, just to hear him speak." Malcolm X began proselytizing for the Nation of Islam while at Norfolk (Gambino, p. 14), and his fame as a debater there helped gain the attention and respect that were prerequisites for successful recruitment. By the time Bender arrived at Norfolk in 1950 or 1951, the prison's Muslim population had separated themselves from the debate team and other prison organizations. After refusing to take a required typhoid innoculation, Malcolm X was transferred to Charlestown Prison on 23 March 1950 (Perry, p. 132). Malcolm X had spent less than two years in Norfolk, yet during his time there he had undergone enormous spiritual, political and intellectual transformation. Malcolm X's prison debating experience represented a crucial transition in his practice as a Muslim and in the development of a public style through which he could bring his thoughts before a larger audience. Through his prison proselytizing and the "polemical confrontations" of his debates, writes Wolfenstein, "Malcolm became fully engaged in a Muslim practice grounded in racial self-identification and mediated through self-productive aggressivity" (p. 229). He had acquired proficiency in techniques of verbal confrontation and a confidence in the possibilities of moral suasion that would inform his speaking activities for the remainder of his life. "It was right there in prison," Malcolm X recalls in his autobiography, "that I made up my mind to devote the rest of my life to telling the white man about himself - or die" (pp. 184-185).5. Neg does not lose any ground, just because they cannot run their ptx disads does not mean anything. Nobody wins on those anyways.

Insularity Alt DA1. It is the normative education that the affirmative advocates for which pushes for a breadth over depth discussion that enforces individuals to cram their heads full of general knowledge without going into deep discussions which morphs people into falsely judging hypocrites and exacerbates suffering. Schopenauer in 1804 (Arthur [philosopher] THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR SCHOPENAUER; STUDIES IN PESSIMISM, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10732/10732-8.txt ACCESSED 8/1/05)The human intellect is said to be so constituted that _general ideas_arise by abstraction from _particular observations_, and thereforecome after them in point of time. If this is what actually occurs, ashappens in the case of a man who has to depend solely upon his ownexperience for what he learns--who has no teacher and no book,--sucha man knows quite well which of his particular observations belong toand are represented by each of his general ideas. He has a perfectacquaintance with both sides of his experience, and accordingly, hetreats everything that comes in his way from a right standpoint. Thismight be called the _natural_ method of education.Contrarily, the _artificial_ method is to hear what other people say, learn and to read, and so to get your head crammed full of generalideas before you have any sort of extended acquaintance with the worldas it is, and as you may see it for yourself. You will be told thatthe particular observations which go to make these general ideas willcome to you later on in the course of experience; but until that timearrives, you apply your general ideas wrongly, you judge men andthings from a wrong standpoint, you see them in a wrong light, andtreat them in a wrong way. So it is that education perverts the mind.

2. Knowledge without a specific understanding can only lead to misuses of words and abusing the verbiage - only a deep understanding to such words can prevent such atrocities from happening. Schopenauer in 1804 (Arthur [philosopher] THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR SCHOPENAUER; STUDIES IN PESSIMISM, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10732/10732-8.txt ACCESSED 8/1/05)

It follows that an attempt should be made to find out the strictlynatural course of knowledge, so that education may proceedmethodically by keeping to it; and that children may become acquaintedwith the ways of the world, without getting wrong ideas into theirheads, which very often cannot be got out again. If this plan wereadopted, special care would have to be taken to prevent childrenfrom using words without clearly understanding their meaning andapplication. The fatal tendency to be satisfied with words instead oftrying to understand things--to learn phrases by heart, so thatthey may prove a refuge in time of need, exists, as a rule, even inchildren; and the tendency lasts on into manhood, making the knowledgeof many learned persons to consist in mere verbiage.3. Role playing and constructing ourselves as imaginary people destroys critical education and ignores the suffering of innocents--- This framework will only replicate the harms they try to avoid and foreclose any education goalsGordon Mitchell (Associate professor at Pittsburg) 1998 Pedagogical Possibilities for Argumentative Agency in Academic Debate Argumentation and Advocacy Vol. 25While an isolated academic space that affords students an opportunity to learn in a protected environment has significant pedagogical value (see e.g. Coverstone 1995, p. 8-9), the notion of the academic debate tournament as a sterile laboratory carries with it some disturbing implications, when the metaphor is extended to its limit. To the extent that the academic space begins to take on characteristics of a laboratory, the barriers demarcating such a space from other spheres of deliberation beyond the school grow taller and less permeable. When such barriers reach insurmountable dimensions, argumentation in the academic setting unfolds on a purely simulated plane, with students practicing critical thinking and advocacy skills in strictly hypothetical thought-spaces. Although they may research and track public argument as it unfolds outside the confines of the laboratory for research purposes, in this approach, students witness argumentation beyond the walls of the academy as spectators, with little or no apparent recourse to directly participate or alter the course of events (see Mitchell 1995; 1998). The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" (in the technical parlance of debate-speak). Murchland categorizes cultivation of this "spectator" mentality as one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary education: "Educational institutions have failed even more grievously to provide the kind of civic forums we need. In fact, one could easily conclude that the principle purposes of our schools is to deprive successor generations of their civic voice, to turn them into mute and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life" (1991, p. 8). Complete reliance on the laboratory metaphor to guide pedagogical practice can result in the unfortunate foreclosure of crucial learning opportunities. These opportunities, which will be discussed in more detail in the later sections of this piece, center around the process of argumentative engagement with wider public spheres of deliberation. In the strictly preparatory model of argument pedagogy, such direct engagement is an activity that is appropriately pursued following the completion of academic debate training (see e.g. Coverstone 1995, p. 8). Preparatory study of argumentation, undertaken in the confines of the academic laboratory, is conducted on the plane of simulation and is designed to pave the way for eventual application of critical thinking and oral advocacy skills in "realworld" contexts.

4. Their framework ignores the problems inherent in their perspectives -- making them inevitable, reject it. Nayar 99 (Jayan, Critical Theorist, 9 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 599, Lexis)Rightly, we are concerned with the question of what can be done to alleviate the sufferings that prevail. But there are necessary prerequisites to answering the "what do we do?" question. We must first ask the intimately connected questions of "about what?" and "toward what end?" These questions, obviously, impinge on our vision and judgment. When we attempt to imagine transformations toward preferred human futures, we engage in the difficult task of judging the present. This is difficult not because we are oblivious to violence or that we are numb to the resulting suffering, but because, outrage with "events" of violence aside, processes of violence embroil and implicate our familiarities in ways that defy the simplicities of straightforward imputability. Despite our best efforts at categorizing violence into convenient compartments--into "disciplines" of study and analysis such as "development" and "security" (health, environment, population, being other examples of such compartmentalization)--the encroachments of order(ing) function at more pervasive levels. And without doubt, the perspectives of the observer, commentator, and actor become crucial determinants. It is necessary, I believe, to question this, "our," perspective, to reflect upon a perspective of violence which not only locates violence as a happening "out there" while we stand as detached observers and critics, but is also one in which we are ourselves implicated in the violence of ordered worlds where we stand very much as participants. For this purpose of a critique of critique, it is necessary to consider the "technologies" of ordering.This Disad serves as a turn on the K/Framework debate.

Perf Con

Interpretation: Negative teams should be allowed to have conditional options, but not unrestrained conditionality in argumentation.(Solt 03)Roger Solt, debate coach supreme, policy debate coach for 26 years, The Disposition of Counterplans and Permutations: The case for Logical, Limited Conditionality 2003 - Mental Health Policies: Escape from Bedlam?But if advocacy and analysis are both important, how does one proceed? The two involve, as I have suggested, differences in emphasis. And it may well be that in the end different judges and debate theorists will simply emphasize one or the other based on their own interests and temperamental dispositions. Still, I do have a suggestion for anyone interested in a middle ground. Hold the affirmative to strict advocacy standards-one plan which they must defend from the beginning to the end. But hold the negative to looser advocacy standards. Still require that they ADVOCATE the rejection of the affirmative plan, but let them do so while incorporating at least limited elements of conditional logic into their arguments. In sum, let them approach the debate as analysts and inquirers, as devil's advocates rather than as the fully committed partisans of a specific policy alternative. This is not an argument for complete critical license, nor is it a defense of negation theory. It is legitimate, I think, to hold the negative to the same degree of policy specificity as the affirmative. I am simply arguing that the negative should get more than one policy alternative.

ViolationThe line is drawn at the performative contradiction. The Negative performs a rhetorical contradiction because1. In their chow K they say imitating us policy makers is bad because it sets us up on a pedestal, and makes us view others as inferior. This has two implications. a. Their cp engages in USFG actionb. The first K advocates that we imitate US legislators. 2. Their Hester 13 evidence indicates a lot about how we need to be pragmatic or all else debate will die off, but they ran 3 off, with two kritiks.Thisis an independent voter for multiple reasons.

(Fiori 11) Director of Policy Debate Bronx Science High School, Perfomative Contradictions in policy debate: the limit(lessness) of negative conditionality. http://utdebatecamp.com/2011/perfomative-contradictions-in-policy-debate-the-limitlessness-of-negative-conditionality/

I feel comfortable in speculating that the most popular Kritik on the military presence topic has been some iteration of the Security K. Something along the lines of, the drive to securitize/stabilize/control various predicted threat scenarios is a mode of biopolitical control/technological thought/enlightenment rationality that should be rejected in favor of a multifaceted epistemology of the international system, or interrogation of our ontology etc. These type of Kritiks almost invariably argue that the drive to war, or political violence, is driven by the ontology/methodology of security and securitization and that these scenarios of risk, their discursive utterance, produces regimes of truth that make the playing out of those scenarios highly likely. These arguments, presented in the 1NC, often times have alternative texts that advocate the absolute, or at least in the instance of the 1AC rejection of the criticized, logic/discourse. Moreover, this kritik cannot argue that it is the plan action that it disagrees with since most authors writing critically of American foreign policy would advocate a reduction in overseas military presence. Rather, teams that read the security K must argue that it is the representations/methodology/ontology of the affirmative that should be rejected. Yet, despite this vehement rejection of securitization, on the next flow I often find myself jotting down the outline of some form of the deterrence disadvantage. The disad will argue that only the preservation of the US military deterrent force in the region can prevent some hostile threats to national security from mustering the will to start and all-out war. So in one breath, the negative argues that all forms of securitization should be rejected and then engages in first-rate securitization of their own. The negative is committing the same rhetorical sins of the affirmative and they know it. This is the problem of the performative contradiction, an argument not new to debate by any stretch of the imagination, but one, I think, conditionality theory debate will know that allowing the negative to argue contradictory positions puts the affirmative in the position of making answers to one argument that are links to the other, contradictory, position. When the negative decides that they no longer want to advocate the terrible six party talks counterplan, they can use all the arguments about why international dialogue fails and only changes in military positioning can solve North Korean conflict as realism links to the security K. Moreover, the negative gets the block, which means while the 2ac may have only been able to allocate 2-3 minutes to answer the K, the negative gets 13 minutes to respond. It is possible to argue that performative contradictions are unfair and are a reason to vote affirmative. It is not entirely obvious that the sides need to be more balanced. I think it is relatively easy to make the case that allowing contradictions gives the negative too much ground. And considering the move toward the negative on other practices I mentioned, sides maybe need to be re-balanced back toward the affirmative. More importantly, the theoretical considerations of these contradictions seem to defy the most basic tenant of the kritik: that what is said and how it is said matters as much or more than the tangible outcome of a policy. If it is true that the utterance of the reality of security threats produces them as real in our conscious, shouldnt the negative also have produced some security truths as well? Particularly when the kritik argues for a representations as opposed to ontological or methodological framework, it is fairly persuasive argue that the contradiction is unfair. I think this stems from a pre-deposition as a critic to see the effect of each sides utterances as equally reasons to reject. The reality, however, is that this argument is hard to win, except for with some particular critics. This is an unfortunate fact I feel, considering the truth of the problem with this contradiction at the philosophical level the affirmative should be able to win more of these debates. The first step to changing this norm is to go for this argument more often and spend more time thinking of arguments you want to make. I will continue this discussion of negative conditionality with advice on how to both go for performative contradictions bad and how to answer this argument soon.

Standards Brightline- line between contradict and multiple worlds

We clearly delineate what violates the academic advocate interpretation. Our interp is coming from warrants from experts in the High School policy debate field. The Negative cant articulate a theoretical justification for worldview conditionality and performative contradictions.Critical Depth-

If we choose to debate about core underlying assumptions or about fundamental worldviews, we should attempt to do so in as much depth as possible, especially if Kritiks are the most important thing to talk about, Worldview Conditionality prevents this from happening. Prefer our interp of debate because it prevents critical superficiality.

Critical Truth- philosophers look for the truth, not win a debate round

Other arguments that are run under the same advocacy discourse that contradict the Kritik or Alternative contaminate the K. They make the kritik disingenuous because Kritiks indict the methodology or the discourse of an action, if the NEG operates under the same methodology or uses the same discourse it weakens the argument and links them to the position. You shouldnt eat at the restaurant you are picketing, even if you say the food is bad.

VotersFairness- The damage has already been done, cant throw out K Rejecting the argument is not enough. The time skew involved with multiple off case including multiple worldview wrecks AFF prep and strategy. If NEG concedes this position to get out of the offense they are just re-linking to the position because they a further skew prep and strategy. Hold the negative to the 1NC when it comes to worldview conditionality because it is uniquely abusive. Were disclosing the 1AC, which is giving them their links, but theres no reciprocity because we dont get prep for their 2NR. Worldview conditionality multiplies the issue of conditionality and makes it nearly impossible for AFF teams to pick up.Education- Prefer Education over competition, you can do both, but Edu always comes first The negative has to prove one of two things. Either theyre not preferring competition over education or that sacrificing education for competition is good. They read multiple off case positions not for the sake of having dialogue about each issue, but for exploiting weaknesses of the Affirmative team. We grant that debate is a game, but they cant get out of the fact that its an educational one first. Favoring competition over education leaves the debate up to only the person who can read aloud the fastest.

Critical Education-Disingenious advocacy of critical literature is a misinterpretation of the literature itself. Kritik literature is unique to all forms of literature in that it discusses the use of discourse and methodology, rather than results, implications or outcomes, this means that if a team advocates one critical philosophy, but then contradicts in the next position they violate the tenets of the literature. The academic advocate position is the best for critical education because it allows for more in depth debate about critical literature, but also best prepares debaters for real life discussions about the tenets of the philosophy they advocate.

Deterrence- NEG teams will not contradict again

Simply conceding this position to get out of the offense is not enough. Judge, use the ballot as a mechanism to deter the Negative from preferring this strategy. The power of the ballot is the only thing that will dissuade teams from employing theoretically unfair, anti-educational debate strategies. Only a one in the loss column grants true solvency on this issue

Chow K1. No Link- The link card is incredibly deceptive, while it may seem to link to my aff because of a few buzz words, the fact is, its not specific to the way my case solves suffering. We realize that we all suffer differently, but we also realize that we can be reprieved from our anguish, that at the epitome of our being suffering is inherent, and the ways that we can transgress from it is through astheticism and appreciating the beauty of the world through the eyes of the brute. ALSO, no where in their evidence does it even mention suffering, it simply states that white people speak for others sometimes, that bolsters the no link argument.

2. Impact Extend across my Schopenhauer in 1804 card fourth down from the 1AC, this card indicates that trying to solve for future problems will only exacerbate suffering because it changes the ways we live our daily lives.

3. The first Chow 6 evidence is drastically underhighlighted The only thing he read was that militarism causes genocide, they provided no warrant as to how that links back to my case and provides them with a shady internal link story.

4. lt The alt wont solve. When we walk outside of this round will white people continue to talk for others? Yes, the ballot wont change anything but discourage me and my partner from wanting to do policy debate, a vote for the neg will literally do nothing but embrace the suffering of our existence.

CP1. The CP does not meet the ROB, the ROB is whoever can ethically solve suffering, ending the world with a nuclear was is NOT ethical in any way. We would all die for one, and would then have left the planet in such a shape it would collapse, which is in no way ethical. 2. Secondly, we solve better because we actually stay living. They may solve, but the fact remains is that there is no point in solving suffering if we do not get to access any of the benefits of us defeating our greatest enemy. The fact still remains that we solve ethically, and better all around than the cp. 3. The first piece of Schopenhauer evidence read was misinterpreted that piece of evidence is indicative to Schopenhauers ideaology of giving up all worldly self-interests, and meaning. He believes suicide is a way you can prove that, but there are other methodologies to solving suffering. CaseThem running this argument proves they still dont understand the aff nor Schopenhauers thesis for a few reasons. 1. Their evidence indicates a few key things, that misfortune will happen, (which the aff does not deny) and that misfortune causes massacres. a. This is first of all wrong on the level that we dont deny that misfortune will happen, rather what it comes down to is how we deal with our suffering, and what procedures we can take to stop that suffering (astheticism, thats the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 12 ev.)b. Schopenhauer does not believe it is misfortune that causes mass war and genocide like claimed, it is boredom. That of which that the affirmative also solves for through astheticism. This evidence indicates that when men can no longer find what to do with themselves the exploit others, and we take that out at the root cause and solve for boredom through astheticism.