Tournament: JanFeb | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All
The rest of my prep will be disclosed as I read it.

I have dozens of undisclosed K, etc for specific affs so feel free to contact me asking about things I've read that don't make the wiki for one reason or another.

Tournament: JanFeb | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All

1NC—Silence

Silence on the human exploitative gaze towards non-human animals ensures that anthropocentrism continues

Bell, York University department of education, and Russell, Lakehead University associate professor, 2k (Anne C. and Constance L., department of education, York University, Canada, and Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, "Beyond Human, Beyond Words: Anthropocentrism, Critical Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn," CANADIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION 25, 3 (2000):188–203, http://www.csse-scee.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE25-3/CJE25-3-bell.pdf, p. 192)

We come to critical pedagogy with a background in environmental thought and education. Of
AND
, 2000), anthropocentrism passes unchallenged.1¶ p. 190-192

His/her focus on liberation requires re-affirmation of a distinction between "human" and "animal" – re-entrenches specieism

Kim, UC Irvine political science professor, 2009
(Claire, "Slaying the Beast:  Reflections on Race, Culture, and Species", http://aapf.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/kalfou.pdf)
KIM ’9 - UC Irvine political science professor (Claire, "Slaying the Beast:  Reflections on Race, Culture, and Species", http://aapf.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/kalfou.pdf) 

Dyson gives a perfunctory nod to the animal question and then turns to focus on
AND
saturate our thinking, our discourse, our experience, and our actions. 

Anthropocentrism makes everything extinct

Gottlieb 94 — Roger S. Gottlieb, Professor of Humanities at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Brandeis University, 1994 ("Ethics and Trauma: Levinas, Feminism, and Deep Ecology," Crosscurrents: A Journal of Religion and Intellectual Life, Summer, Available Online at http://www.crosscurrents.org/feministecology.htm, Accessed 07-26-2011)
Here I will at least begin in agreement with Levinas. As he rejects an
AND
neither for our selves nor for the other, but for us all. 

Anthro is the root-cause of Racism. Animal death should be morally equivalent to the death of humans. Suffering and death must be evaluated equally among all beings, failure to do so justifies all forms of oppression

SINGER 2002
 (Peter Singer is the author of Writings on an Ethical Life, Practical Ethics; and Rethinking Life arid Death; among many others. Re is currently the Ira W. De Camp Professor of Bio ethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values Animal Liberation 2002 : P _8-9_)

If a being suffers there cart be no moral justification for refusing to take that
AND
of members of other species. The pattern is identical in each case.

The alternative is to endorse the thought experiment of the voluntary global suicide of humanity – that solves

Kochi and Ordan 8 (Queen’s University, Borderlands journal, http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3_2008/kochiordan_argument.pdf)JFS
For some, guided by the pressure of moral conscience or by a  practice of
AND
no matter  how hard we try to forget, suppress or repress it.

The round should be about the value of competing thought experiments

Kochi 8 (Tarik is a lecturer in the school of Law, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, "An Argument for the Global Suicide of Humanity," December 2008, Vol. 7 No. 3, www.borderlands.net,au-http://www.borderlands.net,au/, http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol7no3_2008/kochiordan_argument.pdf)
Finally, it is important to note that such a standpoint need not fall into
AND
standpoint from which to understand the subject and the scope of moral action.

Tournament: JanFeb | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All
Reject the Affirmative and pursue indigenous land return as a first priority. This act of impossible realism solves the case—Colonization is the root cause of oppression, exploitation and war. Only a return to an indigenous politics can remedy the ills of colonialism.
Ward Churchill 1996 (Professor of Ethnic Studies at University of Colorado, Boulder, BA and MA in Communications from Sangamon State, From A Native Son pgs 85-90)
"The question which inevitably arises" and "Isn’t it time we all worked on attaining it?"
Denying Native American sovereignty claims allow whiteness and whiteness studies to continue to ignore Indigenous oppression by operation outside these structures
Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Geonpul scholar and professor of indigenous studies at Queensland University of Technology, “Writing Off Treaties: White Possession in the United States Critical Whiteness Studies Literature” in Transnational Whiteness Matters, edited by Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Maryrose Casey, Fiona Jean Nicoll, 2008, p. 87
"Within the United States of America the sovereignty" and "individualized rights framework accorded to this subject."
The counterplan is a prior question - The fact there is white possession of Native’s land is Natives are ignored in whiteness studies which predominately focus on the black/white dichotomy – only by giving the land back first can we even have this discussion
Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Geonpul scholar and professor of indigenous studies at Queensland University of Technology, “Writing Off Treaties: White Possession in the United States Critical Whiteness Studies Literature” in Transnational Whiteness Matters, edited by Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Maryrose Casey, Fiona Jean Nicoll, 2008, p. 87
"Indigenous sovereignties within" and "its continued existence."
White possession of native lands produces racism – this is a macro-level issue because failure to prioritize the fact that the US stole indigenous lands causes a sociodiscursive shift in ALL whiteness studies where “race” becomes synonymous with “black” and slavery becomes the proof of whiteness instead of the stolen land, which grants white privilege in the first place
Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Geonpul scholar and professor of indigenous studies at Queensland University of Technology, “Writing Off Treaties: White Possession in the United States Critical Whiteness Studies Literature” in Transnational Whiteness Matters, edited by Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Maryrose Casey, Fiona Jean Nicoll, 2008, p. 90
"Despite the colonial history" and "to produce racism."
White privlidge is based on stolen land – our advocacy is a prerequisite to solve
Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Geonpul scholar and professor of indigenous studies at Queensland University of Technology, “Writing Off Treaties: White Possession in the United States Critical Whiteness Studies Literature” in Transnational Whiteness Matters, edited by Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Maryrose Casey, Fiona Jean Nicoll, 2008, p. 88
"Few Native American scholars" and "inequality and stolen land."

Tournament: JanFeb | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All

K of Center-Model of Academic Space

1NC—Shell

The center-margin model of academic space performed in the 1AC builds a model that excludes non-traditional scholarship and reinforces the pedagogical agenda and institutions of the privileged.

Registering criticism of the aff’s spatial practices is a pre-requisite for developing alternative pedagogical networks.

Shiela HONES Area Studies @ Tokyo University AND Julia LEYDA English Literature @ Sophia University ’5 "Geographies of American Studies" American Quarterly 57 (4) p. 1019-1022

Our argument is made in the tradition of the critical geography of academic knowledge production
AND
interactions between different places and practices, it reinforces a strongly territorial geography.

Tournament: JanFeb | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All
The affirmative interrupts its intriguing study for the moment we’re waiting for: the ADVOCACY. What should we do? We should….
But the “What should we do?” question has the political situation backwards: contemporary governance and capitalism force us to constantly act, taking our impotentiality away from us. The most radical position is to reverse the question: “Can this be an instance of our not doing anything?” The impact is an infinite ressentiment and Eichmann.
Snoek ‘12 (Anke, PhD in Philosophy Department @ Macquarie U., Agamben’s Joyful Kafka)
Given the preceding sketch Agamben … resistance, to reverse political situations.

Rather than attempt to mobilize the productive research of debate into some outward facing advocacy statement that sets its sights on the big ole government out there, we should perform a cautious, continuous study with no goal or end in sight. Only this activates a true politics that breaks with the biopolitical control of the status quo.
Snoek ‘12 (Anke, PhD in Philosophy Department @ Macquarie U., Agamben’s Joyful Kafka)
Study as a strategy
According to Agamben, study is … them from it for good. (SE, 64)

START PLAYING WITH POSSIBILITIES, WHICH OPENS UP A NEW WORLD. THE FAILURE OF THE AFF IS THAT IT ALREADY DETERMINES THAT WORLD.
AGAMBEN ‘8 (Giorgio, Prof. of Aesthetics, Accademia di Architettura, Mendrisio @ Università della Svizzera Italiana, Profanations, pp. 85-86)
It is, however, possible that … old use, rendering it inoperative.

Tournament: JanFeb | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All

1NC—Shell

The alternative is to endorse his/her advocacy within a new discourse.

His/her arguments are appealing but ultimately amount to a reification of fixed identities.  You, as the perpetuator of the conditions that make warming possible are made to feel ethically responsible to the victim.  The ballot won’t heal the aff’s pain and only serves to create a perverse competition for victimhood.  This results in an endless pursuit of revenge, rather than provide emancipation to marginalized populations

Diane ENNS, Associate Professor of Philosophy at McMaster University, 12 ~The Violence of Victimhood, Penn State Press, Google Books, pg. 28-30, (Gender Modified—Sigalos)~

We need to think carefully about what is at stake here. Why is this
AND
are also common in situations of conflict where the stakes are much higher.
We witness here a twofold appeal: otherness discourse in feminism appeals both to the
AND
nonresponse." Let us turn now to an exploration of this third outcome.

This aff is revolutionary tourism—testifying to the reality of warming, but profiting from the same economy of ballots as the rest of us.

Rey CHOW Modern Culture 26 Media @ Brown 98 Ethics After Idealism p. 12-13

For the practitioners of cultural studies to address these issues of power, a type
AND
studies to retain its critical and political impetus in the current intellectual climate. 

The aff turns the political into only the personal—appeals to personal experience replace analysis of group oppression with personal testimony and appeal.  As a result, politics becomes a policing operation—those not in an identity group are denied intellectual access and those within the group who don’t conform to the aff’s terms are excluded.  Over time, this strategy LIMITS politics to ONLY the personal.  This devastates structural change, and turns the case—it demands that political performance assimilate to very limited norms of experience

Joan SCOTT Harold F. Linder Professor at the School of Social Science in the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton 92 ~"Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity" October Summer p. 16-19~

The logic of individualism has structured the approach to multiculturalism in many ways. The
AND
or subaltern) in relation to whatever is taken as majority or dominant.

Tournament: States | Round: Semis | Opponent: Jake Steirn | Judge: Shamica Shim, Fred Ditzian, West Georgia Policy Man
Interpretation: Predictive models should not be used in debate.

B: Plan is predictive
Offense is predictive
Deont offense is predictive

We isolate 4 impacts:

a. Error replication
Srnicek ’07 Nick Srnicek, Doctoral Candidate in IR @ the London School of Economics, 2007, “Assemblage Theory, Complexity and Contentious Politics – The Political Ontology of Gilles Deleuze,” http://lse.academia.edu/documents/0011/3585/Srnicek__Nick.__2007____Assemblage_Theory__Complexity_and_Contentious_Politics.__.pdf

Despite the brief hopefulness of the immediate post-USSR era, our modern world has not seen any major decline in the amount of conflict.258 As Charles Tilly recounts: “For a moment in 1989 it looked as though the aging century might be contemplating retirement from the business of mass destruction. Genocide and politicide seemed to be diminishing. … The downward trend did not last long. In 1990-91, the splintering of Yugoslavia and the Persian Gulf War reversed it, Somalia broke into even more intense factional violence, and civil wars began to sunder Georgia and Azerbaijan. New or renewed conflicts in India, Kuwait, Liberia, Somalia, South Africa and Tibet all thrust above the thousand-death threshold in 1990.” Since then, new popular binaries have arisen between Islam and the West, and smaller battles have continued to erupt around the world (though they are no less violent and destructive for being spatially smaller). The grand, imperial inter-state wars that dominated the twentieth century are giving way to large-scale conflicts between citizens and their governments and even more difficult to manage non-state-based conflicts between “paramilitary forces, guerrilleros, death squads, secret police, and other irregulars.”259 These new forms of conflict have become more complex (often involving relatively amorphous and heterogeneous sets of actors), more intractable (in part, as a result of decentralization from state control) and much less easy to manage. All of this is to point out that violent conflict remains an omnipresent phenomenon in our era of globalization. Moreover, if politics is taken (presumably uncontroversially) to be the resolution or management of the different tensions between individuals, groups and states, then difference becomes the defining feature of political reality. The absence of conflict (which is the extreme form of difference) and the absence of differences would entail the end of politics. With that in mind, the ontology we have developed here is precisely a political ontology designed to account for this ingrained nature of conflict in political reality.260 The notions of difference that undergirds our ontology of the intensive and the virtual is precisely one which functions by tensions, reciprocal interactions, and mutual feedback loops among elements in varying states of individuation.261 It is a notion of difference that refuses the representational choice between identities (and contradictions) and an unnamable chaotic flux, instead seeking to outline how real differences emerge into the identifiable phenomena of the world. It is an ontology which takes contentious actions to be at the heart of politics, rather than to be an aberration to be quickly eliminated. In this way, our ontology has no illusions about utopian ideals of eventual harmony, instead focusing its attention on how best to accommodate and manage irreducibly different differences, and how to compose these differences together in a productive way that increases the potential for new connections. On the other hand, while most knowledgeable commentators are increasingly aware that modern contention entails complex conflicts requiring contextually-nuanced and systemic responses, contemporary political science has largely moved in the opposite direction, tending instead towards specialization and abstract models of hypothetical, rational actors. The era of grand narratives has been declared over, but this end of an era has also seen the loss of many real (and valuable) attempts at systemic theorizing. Certainly it is difficult even to imagine a new, viable teleology that could singlehandedly explain the evolutionary dynamics of the world, yet too often this difficulty has been taken as license to ignore the real systemic dynamics that nevertheless occur. The alternative we have posed here is a non-teleological movement based on the contingent and unpredictable interactions involved in assemblages.262 On the other hand, academics in political science have often remained within the confines of a project seeking to derive generalizable correlations between large-scale events and thereby missing minute, yet significant, details. In many other instances, they seek to do case studies while eschewing the embedded, global context of the cases, and thereby missing the systemic nature of political reality. In part, this avoidance of systemic theorizing is a methodological problem concerning how to analyze large-scale phenomena without doing violence to their inherent complexity. More profoundly though, it is the contention of this thesis that the problems stem in large part from the traditional ontologies that support much of political science and political theory. If our ontologies are themselves limited to characterizing the general “furniture of the world” that are considered relevant to a particular field (as so much of international relations is wont to do), we remain unable to move beyond a type of theorizing that begins by establishing immutable building blocks and then fits them together in various ways in a futile attempt to capture real dynamics. As Deleuze says, “One begins with concepts that, like baggy clothes, are much too big. In such cases the real is recomposed with abstracts. But the concrete will never be attained by combining the inadequacy of one concept with the inadequacy of another. The singular will never be attained by correcting a generality with another generality.”263 Deleuze’s point is that our very concepts of what constitutes an ontology are, at present, woefully inadequate to even map out the complex situations that arise in the modern world, let alone begin to manage them in an intelligent way. The purpose of this thesis, therefore, has been to contribute towards a re-thinking of the ontological basis of contemporary political science in the belief that such self-reflection on our theoretical foundations can open new avenues for thought, practice and policy based upon a theoretical framework capable of articulating complex singular individuals, their relational contexts, and the immanent potentials of a situation. We have attempted to do this by focusing on a number of concepts designed to account for the complexity and systematicity of the political world. The theme of individuation which we presented in this paper not only has strong ties to the history of philosophy and the philosophical problems which various ontologies have had to deal with, but also – through our reconstruction of the concept – allows ontology and theory an entirely unique way of conceptualizing the real ontological individuals which populate political reality. On the basis of individuation, traditional schemas for social science have been shown to be lacking since they never achieve the concrete, instead always remaining at a level of generality that misses precisely the complexity of the singular. Furthermore, past ontologies have neglected to construct a truly realist and materialist concept of ontological dynamics, thereby overlooking the real processes involved in socio-political change. The model presented in this thesis, by contrast, takes change, becoming and evolution as inevitable aspects of reality that must be accounted for explicitly. Individuals are merely temporary coagulations of the ontological processes of individualization that continue unabated beneath the constructed identities. This means that political science must give greater attention to those processes which sustain important organizations of the social. At the same time, it means that activists can take hope from the fact that seemingly immutable givens of the present world will inevitably be altered through time, thereby allowing progressive action to latch onto key catalysts. As is inevitable in any project, there are a number of issues we have unfortunately had to neglect. Foremost among these is a full-fledged analysis of subjectivity. While we briefly pointed towards insights that suggest a possibility of emergent agency, and we recognized the potential to analyze subjects as their own assemblages, the important dynamics involved in the creation of political subjects have largely been left to one side. Similarly, while giving an analysis of ontological dynamics, we have neglected to provide a fully developed philosophy of history capable of accounting for how various regimes constitute their own ideas of the past, present, and future. Jay Lampert’s study264 is an excellent work on this, however, and so we feel justified in largely avoiding this topic. Finally, we have largely avoided the issue of language. This stems from the vast amount of academic work that has been done on the role of language, and our inability to do it any real justice in this paper. This absence is also the result of our own reaction to the dominance of semiotics-influenced political theory. While recognizing the importance of it, we wish to remove it from any position which would give it an all-encompassing status. In this regard, we see recent research on neurology (as in Connolly), affects (as in Massumi), and materialism more generally, as exemplary in battling the reduction of politics to culture, language, and semiotics. That being said, throughout this thesis we have made comments suggestive of what a Deleuzian analysis of language would entail, but we are well aware that for theorists focused on language, our comments will be insufficient. Nevertheless, we believe that what has been presented is not only capable of suggesting potential solutions to these deficiencies, but also of making clear the significance and power of the ontology we have offered. Our ontology’s attention to complexity, emergence, individuation, molecular change, the unique, the new, difference, potentials, conflict, and heterogeneity, makes it a rigorous philosophical and political ontology vastly different from what is presently available to political science. With our era characterized by a multiplication of local, regional, state, and global initiatives, combined with a proliferation of conflicts and the increasingly dense relational networks within which such events are embedded, we believe that it is only through a re-thinking of our ontological presuppositions that political science and policymakers can keep pace with the complexity and dynamism characteristic of the modern world. 

b. Ontology
Gurri ’11 (September 6, 2011. Martin Gurri, former US foreign media analyst. http://thefifthwave.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/analyzing-events/)

Readers of Duncan Watts’ Everything Is Obvious know that most attempts to analyze human events are shot through with fallacy and error.  This is true of ordinary persons watching the evening news, but also of the professional analysts in CIA and academia.  The great experts in world politics have been wrong often enough to put in doubt the whole concept of expertise, as Philip Tetlock’sremarkable studies have shown.  Analyzing events is, in principle, problematic.  We know much less than we think. I won’t dwell on the reasons produced by Watts to explain this delusion.  In brief, we love to stretch common sense and Newtonian (or billiard-ball) causation beyond the breaking point.  When we fail, we take it for granted it was because of insufficient information.  This too is a failure of understanding. It’s not that we lack enough information, it’s that no amount of information can ever be enough.Human events unfold within complex systems governed by weird, nonlinear dynamics.  Prediction by means of billiard-ball mechanics is impossible, in principle.  Because each complex system develops in unique ways, events are also rarely susceptible to probabilistic analysis.  Rightly considered, a question like “Who will win the 2012 presidential elections?” refers to a single token.  There have been no previous 2012 presidential elections to average out with this one.Of course, analysts persist in making predictions.  They are addicted to prophecy.  Tetlock proved that they guess right about as often as the flip of a coin, but it doesn’t matter.  This is what analysts do:  who they are.  The robe of the magus fits strangely on the scientist’s lab coat, but the point is clear.  These are the people who see into the future.  Unfortunately, to keep up the pose – to validate their expertise – they must insist that the future resemble the past.  They freeze yesterday, and imagine it’s tomorrow.  With an election, they point to polls.  They say things like, “Since FDR, no president has been re-elected with an unemployment rate of 7.2 percent or higher.”  Prediction, explicit or implied, rests on arbitrary statistics and the assumption that nothing in the future will perturb the infinite number of variables pushing and pulling at the data. Hence the high rate of failure.  If we take seriously what Watts and other deep thinkers like Alicia Juarrero have shown, we must parse human affairs by very different methods than this. An individual person, Juarrerohas demonstrated, behaves like a complex system. In a somewhat analogous manner, we can interpret complex events much like we interpret the actions of a good friend. First, we need familiarity with the dynamics of the system. Expertise does count. Second, we assign a character to certain features of the system, based on a combination of factors but giving priority to the narrative by which the system explains and justifies itself. Narratives capture much of the human intention in the event: the fact that this particular system contains individual agents trying to impose their will. Assigning a character is thus an act of imaginative interpretation. I can say “John is a devout Christian, he won’t come with me to watch the X-rated movie” or “The Cuban regime holds the US responsible for all political opposition, so protesters will be treated like traitors.” On the surface, such statements resemble mechanical predictions, but they are in fact accounts of intention. They recapitulate the logic of the system, against which objective factors, like actual behavior, must be measured. In fact, John may be false to his principles and watch the X-rated movie. The Cuban regime, from weakness or calculation, may ignore or tolerate opposition. The analyst must abandon the pretense that the future is a tableau vivant reenactment of the past, and embark on an exploration of the dynamics tugging at an event. All complex systems are inherently unstable and tend toward disequilibrium. Small perturbations can lead to great turbulence; sustained turbulence can result in phase change, a large-scale reconfiguration of the system and its dynamics. The analyst’s job should be to call out potential drivers of disequilibrium – that is, of change – at every stage. Perturbations are objective shocks which the system must account for. A perturbation can be a “newsworthy” event like a military defeat and a sharp economic downturn, or a hidden development like a demographic imbalance and the slow decline of wealth. Because the flow of causation in complex systems is nonlinear, a seemingly insignificant blip on the radar can be magnified into a transformative force. Five years ago, a few dozen opposition bloggers in Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt appeared to be little more than political background noise.By January of this year, Facebook groups with hundreds of thousands of members coordinated the mass protests which overthrew Mubarak.The rise of Egypt’s online opposition was not predictable, yet in hindsight assumed greater significance than many more attention-grabbing geopolitical developments.This suggests that the analyst, instead of pursuing the obvious, must become a scout of the improbable, exploring change on the margins of the system.Turbulence is perturbation gone pandemic and approaching disequilibrium. As with all things complex, the causes are mysterious. Some factors are objective, but among the most decisive, I suspect, is the perceived inadequacy of a master narrative to account for perturbing events. Whether a regime can explain and justify its actions in the face of events, more than the events themselves, will determine the extent of the impact. The horrendous March 2011 earthquake in Japan, for example, caused minor political aftershocks; while the less severe (though still devastating) 1972 earthquake in Nicaragua, because it reinforced popular perceptions of the Somoza regime’s callousness, helped drive that political system past turbulence into phase change. Analytically, the fate of the ruling narrative looms even larger than usual at this stage. On rare occasions,turbulence crosses the line to disequilibrium, ending in phase change.The dynamics of the system are radically reconfigured.An old regime dies.A new one arises on its ashes.This process is beyond mysterious:it’s inexplicable.The classic example is the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which caught most sovietologists by surprise – and the causes of which, proximate and ultimate, are still hotly debated.Such disputes, Watts would argue, are sterile. Phase change shows complex systems at their most nonlinear: for all we know, the beating of a butterfly’s wing in Siberia caused the fall of the Soviet empire. The analyst should turn the page and focus on the objective and narrative elements – including accounts of the transformation – competing for primacy in the still-turbulent environment. His aim must be to gain sufficient familiarity with the emerging dynamics of the new system that he can begin to assign a character to some of them. To sum up:analysis of events, as conducted by professionals in places like CIA and the news media, has been theoretically confused and, on the evidence, a failure in practice. If we accept the world described by Watts, a new model of analysis must replace the old: one that is at once more modest and more adventurous. Modesty pertains to prediction and probability. We should give up the illusion that human events are like the orbit of Halley’s comet, and accept them as complex, historical, and brimming with group and individual intentions: understandable, if at all, from within their own internal logic, their narratives of themselves, their character. Adventure pertains to the nature of complex systems, which force the analyst to abandon tableaux vivant prophetic productions and become a rider on the open range of improbability, tracking the sources of change. Implicit in this new model of analysis is a narrative form of communication. Quantitative data must fit within a qualitative interpretation. The analyst can explain an event only by imaginatively recapitulating its dynamics: the eccentricities of the system, the “strange attractors,” constitute the plot of the tale. This raises an interesting problem. If the arguments put forward by Christian Smith are correct – and I am convinced they are – shared narratives must reflect the “moral order” embedded in every culture, institution, group, and person. Nothing human is value free. For the analyst of events, this means that familiarity with a system will entangle him in the moral assumptions of his subject matter about what is good, true, important, etc. Of course, the analyst’s own insights and narratives will be entangled in a different set of assumptions. Analyst and event, explanation and the thing explained – both are beset and constrained by value judgments intrinsic to every human system. The ideal of an Olympian “objectivity,” we must finally agree, is puffery and self-delusion. The typically Western belief that one can stand, like God, above events, is false and thus destructive of sound analysis. The only way out of the dilemma requires large doses of honesty and humility. To the extent moral and ideological constraints are made manifest in his description of events, the analyst will approach the only possible ideal of intellectual integrity.

c. Solvency
Lehrer 11 (Jonah Lehrer, science reporter writing for Wired Magazine. August 4, 2011. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/08/do-political-experts-know-what-theyre-talking-about/ )

Philip Tetlock is one of my favorite social scientists. I often joke that every cable news show should be forced to display a disclaimer, streaming in a loop at the bottom of the screen. The disclaimer would read: “These talking heads have been scientifically proven to not know what they are talking about. Their blather is for entertainment purposes only.” The viewer would then be referred to Tetlock’s most famous research project, which began in 1984. At the time, the cold war was flaring up again?Reagan was talking tough to the “Evil Empire”?and political pundits were sharply divided on the wisdom of American foreign policy. The “doves” thought Reagan was needlessly antagonizing the Soviets, while the “hawks” were convinced that the USSR needed to be aggressively contained. Tetlock was curious which group of pundits would turn out to be right, and so he began monitoring their predictions. A few years later, after Reagan left office, Tetlock revisited the opinions of the pundits. His conclusion was sobering: everyone was wrong. The doves assumed that Reagan’s bellicose stance would exacerbate Cold War tensions. They predicted a breakdown in diplomacy, as the USSR hardened its geopolitical stance. The reality, of course, was that the exact opposite happened. By 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev was in power. The Soviet Union began implementing a stunning series of internal reforms. The “evil empire” was undergoing glasnost. But the hawks didn’t do much better. Even after Gorbachev began the liberalizing process, hawks tended to disparage changes to the Soviet system. They said the evil empire was still evil; Gorbachev was just a tool of the Politurbo. Hawks couldn’t imagine that a sincere reformer might actually emerge from a totalitarian state.

d. Education and Agency
Tetlock 11 (SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT EXPERT POLITICAL JUDGMENT: REPLY TO THE SYMPOSIUM, Philip E. Tetlock, Critical Review, Vol. 22, Iss. 4, 2011)

Whereas Quirk worries that I went too far in impugning existing epistemic communities, Steve Fuller is concerned that I did not go far enough. I have a schizoid reaction to these clashing critiques: both are, in certain senses, right. I agree with Quirk that careless metaphors such as “dart-throwing chimps” fuel mindless populism. But I suspect that Fuller is right that the foundations of our knowledge are shakier than most of us, including I, care to admit.¶ Fuller offers a more radical critique of expertise than does EPJ in two respects. First, EPJ assumes that expert forecasters at least care about accuracy-and are trying to get things right (albeit with wiggle room allowed for value adjustments that treat certain mistakes as more important to avoid than others). By contrast, Fuller views expertise in sociological rather than epistemological terms. Expertise is a social construction: An expert is “someone whose word is presumed by other people to decide matters of a certain kind.” It follows that expertise is also a potentially powerful weapon. Each side in policy debates feels obliged to draw on its stables of professorial and scientific talent because “expertise is the most potent nonviolent form of power available.” Once one side plays the expert card, the other side must somehow match the credentials of the opposing expert and mobilize resistance via legitimate epistemic means, such as logical arguments and empirical findings capable of getting published in peer-reviewed journals.Fuller's argument is neo-Clausewitzian: Politics is the continuation of war by other means, and expert opining is the continuation of politics by other means. The opinionated hedgehogs who “lost” the epistemic game I set up in EPJ were actually playing an altogether different game than I thought. Indeed, they were not Isaiah-Berlinian hedgehogs at all; they were Machiavellian lions whose goal was prevailing in struggles for power. In modern, media-dominated democracies, that struggle requires crafting compellingly simplistic sound bites that win the exposure that is a necessary if not sufficient condition for prevailing. Fuller puts it well: “Thus, Tetlock may be guilty of misreading the mass media's preference for pundits who are hedgehogs rather than foxes. These hedgehogs may be lions in disguise-that is, pundits whose predictions are themselves meant to be interventions that reinforce or subvert existing political tendencies. Here the media may be not so much reporting politics as participating in it, however inadvertently.” In turn, EPJ itself is better viewed not as a free-standing, purely scientific effort to get to the truth but rather as a “counter move” in the endless struggle for influence, a counter move “designed precisely to inhibit the hedgehog's more leonine tendencies by luring pundits from their epistemic comfort zones, thereby revealing the limits of their expertise. It is clear that of the two species of pundit, Tetlock prefers the fox, not least because its more self-consciously limited horizons give it less capacity of causing lasting damage.” Again my best defense is to concede a good portion of the point-and retreat to EPJ. In a section of the book devoted to “defending hedgehogs,” I noted that it would be silly to criticize experts for being flawed intuitive scientists if they were playing a radically different game, a political game of destroying opponents and advancing an agenda. Hedgehogs' subjective probability judgments-be they about North Korean politics or unconscious bias-should not be judged by how closely they correspond with reality, but rather by how effectively they change the terms of political debate.Fuller is also more radical than EPJ in another respect: in how he approaches expert reasoning about historical counterfactuals. EPJ tacitly assumes, for the most part, that experts are again playing an epistemic game and at least trying to untangle webs of causation by gauging the relative plausibility of what-if scenarios: Would the Soviet Union have folded just as quickly if Reagan had not pressed the defense build-up and “Star Wars” research? Did Barack Obama really prevent a repetition of the economic collapse of 1930 in 2009? … Fuller's sociological perspective reminds us that the stakes in counterfactual debates are not just, or even primarily, scholastic. The counterfactual beliefs that we endorse play key roles in justifying policy postures and worldviews. Indeed, counterfactuals that undercut the superhuman status of certain categories of leaders are often classified as heretical (Tetlock et al. 2000)-and they can mobilize furious resistance, triggering efforts at character assassination and even physical assassination (ask Salman Rushdie).¶ When we observe ideologically self-serving double standards in counterfactual reasoning-especially among hedgehogs-we err if we treat the observations purely as evidence that these experts are impure applied scientists. Such experts are playing the role of mindguards striving to protect a social order-whether fundamentalist Islam or a sanitized (Whig) historical account of a scientific discipline. If these “experts” succeed, they immunize their knowledge claims from attack and thereby advance their policy agenda.“Climate-gate,” for instance, caused such a stir because it threatened to de-immunize climate science.

Voter for education, future impacts and deterrence

Tournament: States | Round: 1 | Opponent: NA | Judge: NA
Because the obligation of a government to its own citizens is the primary source of political authority, I negate. “Resolved: Placing political conditions on humanitarian aid is unjust.”

The value is Justice, because the resolution is a question of just state action.

Justice in a governmental sense is necessarily linked to the obligations that government has to its citizens.  In order for a government to be just, it must derive power from the consent of the governed within a social contract. Without the contractual basis for government, there can be no legitimate political authority.
As Professor of Philosophy At the University of Virginia, John Simmons, explains John Simmons, “Locke and the Right to Punish,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 311-349
Locke and other philosophers in the natural rights tradition have normally wanted to claim that all political authority (or ‘power’) is artificial. Governments have rights to limit our liberty, for instance, only insofar as they have been granted those rights by us; we, however, possess these rights naturally (or, rather, are ‘born to’ a basic set of moral rights). Governmental rights, then, are simply composed of the natural rights of those who become citizens, transferred to government by some voluntary undertaking (e.g. contract, consent, or the granting of a trust). This transfer of rights may go unobserved by some (as when consent is ‘tacit’ only), but it must take place if government is to have any de jure power. However beneficial and fair the practices and policies a government enforces, it has no right or authority to enforce them against an uncommitted ‘independent’. 

Therefore, All governments exist as a social contract between individuals endowed out of the state of nature to protect them from the injustices of anarchy. Thus, a government’s priority must be to protect the wellbeing of their citizens, because governments are established to promote such welfare, and are contractually obligated to do so because citizens sacrifice certain freedoms to the government to achieve that end. 

Thus, the criterion is Upholding Government Contractual Obligations. 

This is a prerequisite for any evaluation of government action because if a state doesn’t adhere to the primary obligations for which it was created for then the government is no longer legitimate. Governments thus have a primary obligation to their own citizens as they were created to act in their citizens’ name according to the social contract where the government derives its sovereign power.

The sole contention of the negative case is that a state is justified in taking whatever political action it believes will benefit its citizens. 

Subpoint A:
Because the sovereign power of government is limited by the will of its citizens, governments don’t have the right to impose external and universal moral obligations upon themselves.
As International Relations Theorist, Hans Morgenthau explains Hans J. Morgenthau. “Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace.” McGraw Hill. 1993.
Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place. The individual may say for himself: “Fiat justitia, pereat mundus (Let justice be done, even if the world perish),” but the state has no right to say so in the name of those who are in its care. Both individual and state must judge political action by universal moral principles, such as that of liberty. Yet while the individual has a moral right to sacrifice himself in defense of such a moral principle, the state has no right to let its moral disapprobation of the infringement of liberty get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of national survival. There can be no political morality without prudence; that is, without consideration of the political consequences of seemingly moral action. Realism, then, considers prudence-the weighing of the consequences of alternative political actions¬¬¬¬¬¬-to be the supreme virtue in politics. Ethics in the abstract judges action by its conformity with the moral law; political ethics judges action by its political consequences.
Because all legitimate political authority is derived from the consent of the governed within the social contract, any action taken by the government contrary to the protection of its own citizens would be a rejection of the fundamental obligation government has to its own citizens. Thus, because state sovereignty is based upon the sacrifices of particular rights by its citizens in return for a long term protection of greater rights, a government’s primary obligation is to its own citizens and thus, by extension its own national interest. 

Subpoint B:  
Furthermore, even if jurisdictional boundaries are arbitrary, a state’s primary obligation is ALWAYS to its own citizens.
Professor of law at New York University, Thomas Nagel Thomas Nagel (Professor of Law @ NYU) “The Problem with Global Justice” Spring 2005. Philosophy and Public Affairs

Every state has the boundaries and population it has for all sorts of accidental and historical reasons; but given that it exercises sovereign power over its citizens and in their name, those citizens have a duty of justice toward one another through the legal, social, and economic institutions that sovereign power makes possible. This duty is sui generis, and is not owed to everyone in the world, nor is it an indirect consequence of any other duty that may be owed to everyone in the world, such as a duty of humanity. Justice is something we owe through our shared institutions only to those with whom we stand in a strong political relation. It is, in the standard terminology, an associative obligation. Furthermore, though the obligations of justice arise as a result of a special relation, there is no obligation to enter into that relation with those to whom we do not yet have it, thereby acquiring those obligations toward them. If we ?nd ourselves in such a relation, then we must accept the obligations, but we do not have to seek them out, and may even try to avoid incurring them, as with other contingent obligations of a more personal kind: one does not have to marry and have children, for example. If one takes this political view, one will not ?nd the absence of global justice a cause for distress. There is a lot else to be distressed about: world misery, for example, and also the egregious internal injustice of so many of the world’s sovereign states. Someone who accepts the political conception of justice may even hold that there is a secondary duty to promote just institutions for societies that do not have them. But the requirements of justice themselves do not, on this view, apply to the world as a whole, unless and until, as a result of historical developments not required by justice, the world comes to be governed by a uni?ed  sovereign power. The political conception of justice therefore arrives, by a different route, at the same conclusion as Hobbes: The full standards of justice, though they can be known by moral reasoning, apply only within the boundaries of a sovereign state, however arbitrary those boundaries may be. Internationally, there may well be standards, but they do not merit the full name of justice.

Hence, despite the arbitrary nature of jurisdictional boundaries, individual governments still derive sovereign power from their own citizens. The obligation that ties a government to a specific set of individuals may be random, but such an obligation is, nonetheless, the primary source of political power under the social contract.
Thus I negate.

Tournament: NovDec | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All

Columbus PTX Takeouts—11.22.13

Affirmative: CIR Frontlines

Not Unique—filibuster rule change tanks Obama’s agenda

Hunter and Litvan, 11-22-13, San Francisco Gate, Senate Rules Shift on Nominees Puts Legislative Progress at Risk, ~Kathleen; Laura~, p. http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Senate-Rules-Shift-on-Nominees-Puts-Legislative-5001168.php-http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Senate-Rules-Shift-on-Nominees-Puts-Legislative-5001168.php**
The first change in three decades in how the Senate approves presidential nominees could make one of the least productive Congresses even more gridlocked, endangering efforts to raise the nation’s debt -http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Senate-Rules-Shift-on-Nominees-Puts-Legislative-5001168.php ceiling and fund the government, Republicans say. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s move to end filibusters for most executive nominations yesterday led to an escalation of partisan warfare that risks the success of spending talks as well as defense and farm policy legislation

Budget and farm bill displace CIR from the agenda this year

Matthews, 11-20-13, International Business Times, House Could Have 7 Or 8 Immigration Reform Bills, ~Laura~, p. http://www.ibtimes.com/house-could-have-7-or-8-immigration-reform-bills-1477830**
The chances of immigration reform passing Congress befor

Tournament: NovDec | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All

A) To allow truth seeking, the Supreme Court would have to overturn major precedent—the sudden change constitutes judicial review

~Judish ’13~ Julia E., Stephen S. Asay-http://www.pillsburylaw.com/stephen-asay Federal Court Sets Guidelines for Denying Attorney-Client Privilege on Communications 
http://www.pillsburylaw.com/publications/federal-court-sets-guidelines-for-denying-attorney-client-privilege-http://www.pillsburylaw.com/publications/federal-court-sets-guidelines-for-denying-attorney-client-privilege. 3/11/2013
The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld the importance of attorney-
AND
purpose of the communications and developed a number of bright-line rules.¶ 

B) Rulings ending attorney-client privilege violate recent unanimous constitutional decisions.

~Judish ’13~ Julia E., Stephen S. Asay-http://www.pillsburylaw.com/stephen-asay Federal Court Sets Guidelines for Denying Attorney-Client Privilege on Communications 
http://www.pillsburylaw.com/publications/federal-court-sets-guidelines-for-denying-attorney-client-privilege-http://www.pillsburylaw.com/publications/federal-court-sets-guidelines-for-denying-attorney-client-privilege. 3/11/2013
The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld the importance of attorney-
AND
purpose of the communications and developed a number of bright-line rules.¶ 

AND, ACP has been constitutionally supported since the founding, there is no grounds for it ending, and rulings supporting a switch to truth-seeking will be perceived as the epitome of judicial review.

~OPTIONAL~ ~Cornell Law ’13~ Cornell University Law School. Rule 502. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver¶ http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_502**
The attorney-client privilege is the oldest privilege recognized by Anglo-American jurisprudence
AND
Suggestions to change attorney client privilege interrupt a long trend of court deference.

C) Congress will backlash by freezing judicial salaries

Milligan, 2010, Georgia Law Review, CONGRESSIONAL END-RUN: THE IGNORED CONSTRAINT ON JUDICIAL REVIEW, Fall, ~Assistant Professor of Law, University of Louisville School of Law; Luke~, p. 233-4
One traditional constraint on judicial review is known as the congressional curb. A "
AND
~~ the number of votes needed to exercise the power of judicial review." 

D) Impact

Adequate funding for the judiciary is key to the rule of law and judicial independence—US actions are modeled abroad

Kennedy, 2007, Testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Judicial Security and Independence February 14, ~US Supreme Court Justice; Anthony~, p. http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=252626wit_id=6070**
The provision of judicial resources by Congress over the years is admirable in most respects
AND
of views. Please permit me to make some remarks on the subject. 

judicial salaries are key to economic growth—studies prove

Feld 26 Voig, 2003, European Journal of Political Economy, Economic growth and judicial independence: cross-country evidence using a new set of indicators, ~Public Finance Group, Philipps-University of Marburg; Department of Economics, University of Kassel; Lars, Stefan~, p. 516
Using two new indicators of judicial independence, a de iure and a de facto
AND
judges appear to be more important for economic growth than de iure independence.

Economic growth reduces deforestation—consensus of studies

Ewers, 2006, Global Environmental Change, May, ~Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Robert~, p. 164
It is clear from this analysis that economic wealth has a direct effect on deforestation
AND
inclusion of environmental protection laws in public policies (Koop and Tole, 2001

Deforestation will cause runaway global warming

Wyler, 2009, Deep Green: Forests: Carbon Sink or Carbon Bombs? May 29, ~Greenpeace, Rex~, p.http://www.greenpeace.org/international/cn/about/deep-green/deep-green-apr-09/**
Forests represent vast stores of carbon. Forest destru

Tournament: NovDec | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All

1NC--Shell

My opponents framework for debate is mired in totalitarian ideology—the privileging of "oppressed" voices over and against that of "oppressors" buys into a dangerously homogenizing world view which authorizes genocidal violence against all world views that are not sufficiently "liberatory."

~Gur Ze’ev 1~ "Toward a non-repressive critical pedagogy." Ilan Gur Ze’ev http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~~ilangz/Critpe39.html-http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~ilangz/Critpe39.html NAnderson ?
Freire’s Critical Pedagogy is foundationalist and positivist, in contrast to his explicit negation of
AND
American colleges so as to be successful in the present order of things. 

Vote for me to negate my opponents strategically oriented praxis. Your ballot can be used as form of counter-education which is able to challenge my opponents dangerous utopianism while mounting a more effective challenge to dominant knowledge production regimes precisely because it refuses to ascribe normative standards for what makes a strategy "emancipatory." The Alternative is to reject his criticism on face and instead embrace a non-repressive critical pedagogy.

~Gur Ze’ev 2~  "Toward a non-repressive critical pedagogy." Ilan Gur Ze’ev http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~~ilangz/Critpe39.html-http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~ilangz/Critpe39.html NAnderson ?
Critical Theory is committed to universal emancipation, in the sense I have presented,
AND
only non-repressive form of hope possible in such an educational project.

Tournament: NovDec | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All

1NC: Shell

Farm bill will pass now, but PC is still key to negotiate a compromise

~Thuman 12-5-13~. ABC News 12-5-13. "Farm Bill Hands in the Balance as Crucial Deadline Looms". Scott Thuman.
While much of the nation has been focusing on President Barack Obama’s health care bill
AND
farm bill passes through Congress is a question of Obama’s support and power.

A push against attorney-client privilege would be overwhelmingly unpopular with today’s Congress and DRAIN Obama’s political capital—Congress views attorney-client privilege as the BACKBONE of the legal system
~Bondi ’10~ (Bradley J. counsel to a commissioner at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center and George Mason University School of Law, "No Secrets Allowed: Congress’s Treatment and Mistreatment of the Attorney-Client Privilege and the Work-Product Protection in Congressional Investigations and Contempt Proceedings", Journal of Law and Politics, March 8 2010,

Actions in recent years by Congress seem to signify a growing respect for the attorney
AND
by some members of Congress suggests a growing respect for these important concepts.

2 Links: Massive partisan fights, and statutory approach implicates Obama, both kill capital.

~Salkin ’06~ THE TUNNEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (06)¶ PATRICIA E. SALKIN* ALLYSON PHILLIPS¶ * Associate Dean, Professor of Law, and Director of the Government Law Center of Albany Law School.
The fifth factor in Wigmore’s analysis, which states that the privilege is assertable "
AND
and codes of attorney professional responsibility that have been adopted by each state.

Fights spillover to kill Obama’s agenda, the aff is a partisan loss.

Kriner, 2010, After the Rubicon: Congress, Presidents, and the Politics of Waging War, ~Assistant Profess of Political Science at Boston University; Douglas~, p. 67-69
Raising or Lowering Political Costs by Affecting Presidential Political Capital Shaping both real and anticipated
AND
stands to derail other elements of his agenda, all else being equal.

Obama’s agenda is limited to one or two bills and interp of a truth-seeking mandate kills agenda —- prefer ev: cites the opinion of presidential insiders about the unique nature of the second term

Page, 2013, USA Today, "How Obama can avoid the second-term curse," 1-15-13, ~Susan~, p. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/14/obama-second-term-curse/1834765/**
"By the time a second term rolls around, the illusions about a president
AND
, but not everything. Fighting too many battles would mean winning none.

Political capital is key —- overcomes partisanship

Lederman 26 Kuhnhenn, 10/18/13, "No safe bets for Obama despite toned-down agenda," US News and World Report, ~reporters for the Associated Press; Josh; Jim~, p. http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2013/10/18/no-safe-bets-for-obama-despite-toned-down-agenda**
WASHINGTON (AP) — Regrouping after a feud with Congress stalled his agenda,
AND
the year if our focus is on what’s good for the American people."

SHORT IMPACT

New farm bill key to prevent a food price spike

Nelson 10/17/13, ~Joe Nelson, writer for WEAU news, "Obama, ag industry waiting for new Farm bill," http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/Obama-ag-industry-waiting-for-new-Farm-Bill-228259521.html~~
With the government shutdown over, farmers are still waiting for a deal to be
AND
could cut down profits or even force some farmers to quit or retire.

Food price spikes kill billions from starvation

Tampa Tribune in’ 96
("Grain Shortage Growing Problem", January 20, L/N)
"Even if they are merely blips, higher international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food," he said. "Rising prices can also quickly put food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less."
"he" is Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the Internation

Tournament: NovDec | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All
1NC Shell: Iran Politics
Iranian nuclear deal will succeed now, sanctions still derail the deal, Obama capital key—deal key to prevent world war.
~Associated Press 11/24/13~ US, Iran nuclear deal spurs bipartisan concern in Congress. Published in Fox.
Congress expressed bipartisan concern Sunday about the deal the United States and allies reached overnight
AND
low-enriched uranium. Its supply is nearly enough for one bomb.

~A push against attorney-client privilege would be overwhelmingly
AND
and Contempt Proceedings", Journal of Law and Politics, March 8 2010,
Actions in recent years by Congress seem to signify a growing respect for the attorney
AND
by some members of Congress suggests a growing respect for these important concepts.

2 Links: Massive partisan fights, and statutory approach implicates Obama, both kill capital.

~Salkin ’06~ THE TUNNEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (06)¶ PATRICIA E. SALKIN* ALLYSON PHILLIPS¶ * Associate Dean, Professor of Law, and Director of the Government Law Center of Albany Law School.
The fifth factor in Wigmore’s analysis, which states that the privilege is assertable "
AND
and codes of attorney professional responsibility that have been adopted by each state.

Even if Obama isn’t specifically implicated, political fights spillover to kill Obama’s capital and agenda.

Kriner, 2010, After the Rubicon: Congress, Presidents, and the Politics of Waging War, ~Assistant Profess of Political Science at Boston University; Douglas~, p. 67-69
Raising or Lowering Political Costs by Affecting Presidential Political Capital Shaping both real and anticipated
AND
stands to derail other elements of his agenda, all else being equal.

Gitmo proves backlash against any violation of attorney-client privilege.

~Vlahos 12~ Kelly Vlahos , "More Shame for Gitmo - and On Obama" July 25, 2012  http://www.theamericanconservative.com/more-shame-for-gitmo-and-on-obama/-http://www.theamericanconservative.com/more-shame-for-gitmo-and-on-obama/ 
One of the biggest disappointments among progressives who helped elect President Obama has been his
AND
his own terms. Silly us who thought he stood for anything different.

Obama Polcap and agenda are the only things holding back sanctions on Iran.

Pace, 11-27-13, Obama faces worry at home, abroad over Iran nuclear talks, ~Associated Press; Julie~, p. http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20131127/obama-faces-worry-at-home-abroad-over-iran-nuclear-talks**
President Barack Obama’s hopes for a nuclear deal with Iran now depend in part on
AND
Wednesday to implore the Senate Banking Committee to pause the legislation once again. 

Negotiation failure triggers Israeli strikes

Ross, 9/9/13,  Blocking action on Syria makes an attack on Iran more likely" Washington Post, ~counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, was a senior Middle East adviser to President Obama from 2009 to 2011, Director of Policy Planning for the State Department under George H.W. Bush, the Special Middle East coordinator under Clinton; Dennis~,  p. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/blocking-action-on-syria-makes-an-attack-on-iran-more-likely/2013/09/09/dd655466-1963-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html-http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/blocking-action-on-syria-makes-an-attack-on-iran-more-likely/2013/09/09/dd655466-1963-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html**
Still, for the opponents of authorization, these arguments are portrayed as abstractions.
AND
the United States, but maybe it will — and maybe it should.

An Israeli strike fails, but triggers World War 3, collapses heg and the global economy

Reuveny, 2010, Gazette Xtra,  August 7, Unilateral strike could trigger World War III, global depression, ~professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University; Rafael~, p.  http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/07/con-unilateral-strike-could-trigger-world-war-iii-/~~23sthash.ec4zqu8o.dpuf-http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/07/con-unilateral-strik

Tournament: NovDec | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All

1NC Shell—Court legitimacy: overruling precedents

Roberts Court is adhering to stare decisis

Jost, 9-28-2012, CQ Researcher, Supreme Court Controversies: Has Chief Justice Roberts led an activist court? ~graduated from Harvard College-http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2012092814 and Georgetown University Law Center; Kenneth~, p. http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2012092800 
Adler, the Case Western professor, insists, however, that the Roberts Court’s
AND
the answer to that," he says. "Only time will tell."

To allow truth seeking, the Supreme Court would have to overturn major precedent.

~Judish ’13~ Julia E., Stephen S. Asay-http://www.pillsburylaw.com/stephen-asay Federal Court Sets Guidelines for Denying Attorney-Client Privilege on Communications 
http://www.pillsburylaw.com/publications/federal-court-sets-guidelines-for-denying-attorney-client-privilege-http://www.pillsburylaw.com/publications/federal-court-sets-guidelines-for-denying-attorney-client-privilege. 3/11/2013
The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld the importance of attorney-
AND
purpose of the communications and developed a number of bright-line rules.¶ 

Attorney-Client Privilege, is the oldest and most sacrosanct of all court precedents.

~OPTIONAL~ ~Cornell Law ’13~ Cornell University Law School. Rule 502. Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver¶ http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_502**
The attorney-client privilege is the oldest privilege recognized by Anglo-American jurisprudence
AND
Suggestions to change attorney client privilege interrupt a long trend of court deference.

Overruling precedent destroys stare decisis and legitimacy

Banks, 1999, Akron Law Review, Reversals of Precedent and Judicial Policy-Making: How Judicial Conceptions of Stare Decisis in the U.S. Supreme Court Influence Social Change, ~Assistant Professor of Political Science, Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences, The University of Akron; Christopher~, p. 234-5
A typical discussion of stare decisis and its impact on precedent often begins with posing
AND
opinion was wrong." To do otherwise would completely nullify the doctrine’s effect. 

Activism destroys rights and snowballs—one decision opens the floodgates to tyranny

Wolfe, 1997, Judicial Activism, ~political science professor, Marquette; Christopher~, p. 44-45
This difficulty in obtaining the necessary national consensus may seem at first to be a
AND
by the new lineup of the Supreme Court in the 1970s and 1980s.

Each invasion of Liberty must be resisted

Petro, 1974, University of Toledo Law Review, CIVIL LIBERTY, SYNDICALISM, AND
THE NLRA, Spring, ~Wake Forest law professor; Sylvester~, p. 480
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway-"I believe in only
AND
every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.

Tournament: NovDec | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All

Shell

A. Interpretation:

To take precedence over means to be chosen when options conflict, implies a tradeoff between Attorney Client Privilege and Truth Seeking

Collins Legal Dictionary, "Take Precedence Over: Legal Idiom"

Take Precedence Over: ~is defined as to~ take priority over, come before when options conflict

Prefer this definition because of its nuanced legal context—it is defined as an idiom the way it is used in LEGAL DOCUMENTS.

B. Violation: ~INSERT HERE~

C. Vote Neg:

1. Limits—the aff’s use of the word precedence allows any aff which in any way increases truth seeking, even if this is unrelated to or doesn’t come at the expense of ACP, EXPLODES AFF GROUND and kills predictability, creates infinite unpredictable affs that can surface from any number of slight statutory or judicial changes. Limits are key to fairness because they preserve the basis for predictable argumentation.

2. Neg Ground – tradeoff ground is the locus of neg prep – his/her interpretation jacks all core disads and deon FWs – all of these discuss the necessity of protection and legitimacy in the legal system which the aff’s interp avoids. Ground is key to fairness bc it’s the basis for substantive argumentation.

3. Bidirectionality – Aff interp justifies actually increasing ACP so long as truth seeking in other areas were increased more, kills CP ground and debatibability which controls all internal links.

Tournament: PF | Round: Finals | Opponent: All | Judge: All
Act 1 is the debate-space.

Not only is the broader political, cultural and socio-economic context in which we live White Supremacist, but also the debate community. We are taught to argue as if the world is given the luxury of treating life and death as a game. This abstraction from systematic problems teaches us to ignore the voices of the marginalized. The only solution is to infuse the debate community with perspectives and voices form the underside of history. Wise:

Wise, anti-racist activist and speaker, 2008. (Tim., B.A. from Tulane University in political science., White Like Me: Reflections on Race From a Privileged Son., pg 32-36). From Andrew Meleta

The reason I call this process a white one is because whites (and especially affluent ones), much more so than folks of color, have the luxury of looking at life or death issues of war, peace, famine, unemployment, or criminal justice as a game, as a mere exercise in intellectual and rhetorical banter. For me to get up and debate, for example, whether or not full employment is a good idea, presupposes that my folks are not likely out of work as I go about the task. To debate whether racial profiling is legitimate likewise presupposing that I, the debater, am not likely to be someone who was confronted by the practice as my team drove to the debate tournament that day, or as we pass through security at the airport. In this way, competitive debate reinforces whiteness and affluence as normative conditions, and makes the process more attractive to affluent white students. Kids of color and working-class youth of all colors are simply not as likely to gravitate to an activity which pretty much half the time they'll be forced to take positions that, if implemented in the real world, might devastate their families and communities. Because debaters are encouraged to think about life or death matters as if they had little consequence beyond a given debate round, the fact that those who have come through the activity go on to hold a disproportion share of powerful political and legal positions—something about which l National Forensics League has long bragged—is a matter that should a concern us all. Being primed to think of serious issues as abstractions increases the risk that the person who has been so primed will reduce everything to a brutal cost-benefit analysis, which rarely prioritizes the needs and interests of society's less powerful. Rather, it becomes easier at that point to support policies that benefit the haves at the expense of the have-nots, because the damage will be felt by others whom the ex-debaters never met and never had to take seriously Unless debate is fundamentally transformed—and at this point the only forces for real change are the squads from Urban Debate Leagues who are clamoring for different styles of argumentation and different evidentiary standards—it will continue to serve as a staging ground for those whose interests are mostly the interests of the powerful. Until the voices of economically and racially marginalized persons are given equal weight in debate rounds with those of affluent white experts (whose expertise is only presumed because other whites published what they had to say in the first place), the ideas that shape our world will continue to be those of the elite, no matter how destructive these ideas have proven to be for the vast majority of the planet's inhabitants. Until debate is substantially diversified, so that previously ignored voices will have a chance to be heard on their own terms, and in their own styles, little will change. What debate needs most is an infusion of persons who because of their life experiences are almost guaranteed to be less naive; people who know full well that the system is anything but fair. Such persons have a right to be heard, and white, upper-middle-class, and affluent debaters need to hear them. They need to know how power works, and they will never gain an understanding of that by listening over and over to the voices of others like themselves. But debate will never change in this way unless the gatekeepers of the activity are prepared to step up and demand it, not just with their words but with their actions, their money, their judging criteria, and even their ballots. Folks of color and working-class folks won't join an activity if they feel their wisdom isn't going to be taken seriously. If they wanted to be ignored, they would hardly need to get dressed up and travel to debate tournaments in a hot van to do it. They could stay home and be ignored, because the powerful ignore them every day anyway. Understand, this is no mere ethical plea for inclusion. Continuing to ignore the voices of the marginalized carries great risks for us all, because it is precisely such persons who so often view the world differently and far more accurately than the privileged. As a case in point, the polls taken right before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003 indicated broad white support for going to war, but almost nonexistent support among blacks. Most white folks were convinced not only of the war's moral legitimacy, but were sure that everything would go swimmingly, because other white people like Rumsfeld and Cheney said so. But black folks knew better. Those with privilege had the luxury of thinking they would be greeted as liberators. But black folks know that invaders rarely bring true freedom—they've been there, done that. For the sake of us all, and to slow down the rate at which blood is spilled across the globe, we desperately need to listen to those who live without the luxury of blinders. Privilege makes its recipients oblivious to certain things, and debate, as an activity, is one of its many transmission belts—one that I was able to access, to great effect in my life. Lucky for me that I went to a school that offered it, that I had parents who somehow managed to afford it, and that its game-playing format wasn't yet a problem for me, ethically speaking. Lucky for me, in other words, that I was white.

By voting neg, you aren’t only voting to reject the supreme courts decision. You are voting for a change in the way we view debate as privileged individuals. I am calling for a change in the way we perceive debate and the world around us. 

Racism is the worst evil that is not only fraught within our society and elections but also in debate, which is why the way you should decide what it meant for the supreme court to rightly decide on section 4 of the voting rights act is to reject all forms of racism.

Act 2 is the contention.

We contend that section 4 was an important part of a provision that fostered progress towards racial equality.

Removing section 4 shuts down section 5 of the voting rights act, which it vital to voting equality.
Peralta, Neuman, and Memmott write in 2013
Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Provision Of Voting Rights Law
by EYDER PERALTA, SCOTT NEUMAN and MARK MEMMOTT
June 25, 201310:12 AMhttp://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/25/195506795/supreme-court-strikes-down-key-provision-of-voting-rights-law

Update at 11:27 a.m. ET. 'A Setback To Our Democracy':

In a statement, Wade Henderson, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, called today's the decision a "setback to our democracy and the voting rights of real Americans."

Henderson added:

"We can't allow discrimination at the ballot box and must prevent minorities from having their votes purged, packed, gerrymandered, and redistricted away. No one should be fooled by the Pollyannaish fantasy that voting discrimination no longer exists . As the Court acknowledged, voting discrimination still exists and Congress may draft another coverage formula. We urge Congress to act with urgency and on a bipartisan basis to protect voting rights for minorities."
Update at 11:17 a.m. ET. Most Successful Provision:

NPR's Nina Totenberg tells Morning Edition that Section 5 of the VRA is perhaps its most successful provision. It stated that areas that discriminated against minorities must have any changes to voting procedures approved by the federal government before they go into effect.

The areas covered by that provision were determined by a "coverage formula" that was last updated in 1972.

Nina says the majority said some states were "being forced to endure current burdens based on old conditions."

Chief Justice Roberts pointed to Mississippi: In 1965, only 7 percent of African Americans voted. In 2004, 76 percent of African Americans voted. 

And, don’t let our opponents get up and say it was outdated. After the law was passed, incredible success was shown, as is empirically proven by Mississippi! Likewise, they could say the coverage formula didn’t make any sense, and that it was outdated, but that is empirically false as well, considering almost every state that was formerly covered before the decision instituted restrictive voting laws, which are racially biased.

Our first example is North Carolina.
Luippold 13 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/daily-show-gop-spokesman-voter-id-laws-racist_n_4158125.html The Huffington Post  |  By Ross Luippold Posted: 10/24/2013 2:16 pm EDT  |  Updated: 10/25/2013 12:52 am EDT
The Justice Department filed suit against North Carolina's voter ID law in September. “Allowing limits on voting rights that disproportionately exclude minority voters would be inconsistent with our ideals as a nation,” Attorney General Eric Holder said at the time.

Our second example is Virginia.
Rashid 13 By Qasim Rashid  November 5, 2013 http://www.policymic.com/articles/71947/virginia-s-racist-voter-id-law-is-a-chilling-step-towards-jim-crow-america
Consider that as a result of the GOP controlled Virginia Board of Election’s unilateral decision to purge what they deem ineligible Virginians, nearly 40,000 otherwise eligible voters are now unable to participate in this election. Despite attempts to remedy the situation by legal means, tens of thousands of blue collar Virginians will be turned away at the voting booth for matters entirely out of their control. Virginia’s returning citizens, individuals with past felony convictions, remain disfranchised. Accompanied only by Florida, Virginia is the only other state in the Union that refuses to return voting rights to returning citizens, even after they’ve served their time. In fact, of the 350,000 returning citizens in Virginia, 242,000 are African Americans. This means that while Black Virginians comprise only 19.6 of Virginia’s population, they represent a disheartening 69 of disfranchised returning citizens. A shocking one in five Black Virginians are unable to vote in this election due to discriminatory voting laws.

Thus, it is empirically proven by certain states that were formerly covered in the coverage formula, however, comprehensive studies have concluded that voter ID laws within formerly covered states are empirically exclusionary of women and African Americans.
Mckay 2013 http://www.salon.com/2013/12/21/study_confirms_every_bad_thing_you_suspected_about_voter_id_laws_partner/ TOM MCKAY SATURDAY, DEC 21, 2013 10:00 AM EST
According to new research by University of Massachusetts Boston sociologist Keith Bentele and political scientist Erin O’Brien Found that, the states that have enacted tougher voter ID laws in the past few years are also the same states where both minority and lower-income voter turnout had increased in recent years. Focusing further analysis on just 2011, when the vast majority of voter ID regulations were passed, the researchers found that states which passed the legislation were highly likely to have Republicans in control of both houses of the state legislature and the governorship. Strong probabilities of being swing states in the 2012 elections. Minority turnout which was higher in the 2008 election and with high proportions of African-American voters. Larger numbers of allegations of fraud in 2004, though these had a “much smaller substantive impact relative to partisan and racial factors” The authors note that the study’s results carry ominous implications and demonstrate voter ID laws have “an uncomfortable relationship to the political activism of blacks and the poor.” Their paper further situates voter ID within a realm of policies that “collectively reduce electoral access among the socially marginalized.”In other words: Their research adds substantial support to the claim popular among the left and even some former Republicans that stricter voter ID requirements has little to do with purported voter fraud and everything to do with preserving GOP majorities in election results against widening opposition. The fact of the matter is that voter ID laws overwhelmingly affect minorities and the poor. Even a study preferred by the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky foundthat “registered voters without photo IDs tended to be female, African-American, and Democrat.”

Finally, the voting rights act wasn’t unconstitutional in any way. There are two warrants. First, the necessary and proper clause gives the government all powers it needs to maintain those powers and rights enumerated in the constitution, if some groups of people are being disadvantaged, the government has the constitutional right to take any action needed to rectify it. Second, the government has the ability to set general guidelines on the election process, because otherwise the states would be too disorganized and it would be impossible to work with elections.

AND, PLEASE ENGAGE THE CASE. WE'LL SPEAK FIRST, AND HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THE MANY TURNS TO THE CASE ON THE INTERNET IF YOU JUST GOOGLE THE RESOLUTION WITH THE WORD RACISM.

(TURN)
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/08/getting-it-wrong-on-voter-id
Getting it Wrong on Voter ID By Hans A. von Spakovsky
Reporter Emily Schultheis opens with the claim that “at least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.”
Schultheis also says, as if it is a proven fact, that these “laws tend to disproportionately affect young voters and minorities.” Really? Based on what evidence? Another Brennan Center study? The actual turnout of Democratic and minority voters went up, not down, in Georgia and Indiana after their voter-ID laws went into effect, and those increases were larger than in many states without voter-ID laws.

Discussions=Good