Tournament: CPS | Round: 2 | Opponent: san marino i think | Judge: aweseome judge
My aff case is an anthro k aff that endorses deep ecology
Cites are given in the open source file (I realize that I didn't provide the exact words the way that other people do, so if you need to see the text of specific cards, or just want more information, email me at jay08jog@gmail.com)

Tournament: Stanford | Round: Quads | Opponent: all | Judge: all
Chapter 1 is don’t cheat
My interpretations are that:

1. Neg must defend resource extraction:
   2. Neg can’t have conditional arguments:
   3. Neg can’t have a plan inclusive advocacy:
   4. Neg kritiks must prove how my specific instance is bad—
   5. Aff gets RVIs on I meets
   6. If neg wins a violation on T, don’t drop the debater, and re-evaluate the argument under new interp:
   Voters because: 
2. fairness
   2. education
   Prefer reasonable aff interp and prefer aff theory over neg theory

Chapter 2 is Framework

1. Environmental Protection necessitates resisting an anthropocentric framework; valuing nature is a prerequisite to real change
   Katz and Oechsli 93 (Eric, Vice President of the International Society for Environmental Ethics, and Lauren, Biology at Columbia, Environmental Ethics, vol 15 no 1, 1993 “Moving beyond Anthropocentrism: Environmental Ethics, Development, and the Amazon”)
   Can an environmentalist
   AND
   moment at least.

2. Thus the role of the ballot is to resist anthropocentrism. Critical pedagogy needs to challenge the human sphere—not doing so supports an educational practice that sustains anthropocentric ordering of world; resisting anthropocentrism is a prerequisite for any other critical pedagogy
Bell and Russell 2K (Anne C. by graduate students in the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University and Constance L. a graduate student at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Beyond Human, Beyond Words: Anthropocentrism, Critical Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn, http://www.csse-scee.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE25-3/CJE25-3-bell.pdf)//RSW
So far, however
AND
moment at least.

3. Anthropocentric epistemology is flawed—it takes human primacy as a given while ignoring the implications of this viewpoint
Bell and Russell, 2K (Anne C. by graduate students in the Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University and Constance L. a graduate student at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Beyond Human, Beyond Words: Anthropocentrism, Critical Pedagogy, and the Poststructuralist Turn, http://www.csse-scee.ca/CJE/Articles/FullText/CJE25-3/CJE25-3-bell.pdf)
For this reason
AND
anthropocentrism passes unchallenged. 1

4. The validity of one’s method of knowledge is critically important—if you have a false understanding of the problem, your solution will fail. Thus, epistemology comes logically prior to all other parts of the debate
Smith ’96 Steve, Professor of International Politics at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, “Positivism and Beyond,” International theory: Positivism and beyond, New York: Cambridge University Press, 12-1 3
But the stakes
AND
be the case.

Thus, if an affirmative ballot has even a risk of solving the flawed epistemology, then you vote aff because epistemology comes first. 

5. Any framework that makes decisions based on human wants is anthropocentric- its myopic viewpoint and means of valuation ONLY include human considerations, which is detrimental to the environment and non-humans.
Katz, 97 Eric, New Jersey Institute of Technology, 1997 (Nature As Subject: Human Obligation and Natural Community)
I argue that
AND
the preservationist argument.  

6. Depictions of human death and extinction don’t matter—Nature has value and must be preserved even in the event of human extinction
Keekok Lee, Visiting Chair in Philosophy at Lancaster University, 99
The Natural and the Artefactual p. 175

1. The genesis of
   AND
   independent of us. 

7. Discourse doesn’t shape reality
Roskoski and Peabody, Asst. General Counsel at Latham and Watkins, 94
(Matthew, Joe, 26 Oct 1994, Florida State University, “A Linguistic and Philosophical Critique of Language ‘Arguments’”, http://debate.uvm.edu/Library/DebateTheoryLibrary/RoskoskiandPeabody-LangCritiques, RJ)
Initially, it is
AND
of a few words.1 

Chapter 3 is the Advocacy

1. Resource extraction entrenches the ideals of anthropocentrism and detaches us from the environment
   Berry 95 (Thomas, Ph.D. from the Catholic University of America in European intellectual history  “The viable human” in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions)
   Ecologists recognize that
   AND
   any natural object.

2. These flawed methods of knowledge are the root cause of all social and ecological crises and alienation; returning to ecocentrism is key
Nayeri 13(Kamran Nayeri, Researcher¶ UC Berkeley¶ Political Economist¶ University of California¶ Political Economist¶ South Bay Mobilization¶ Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, http://philosophersforchange.org/2013/10/29/economics-socialism-ecology-a-critical-outline-part-2/)
Of course, it
AND
the capitalist system.

3. Anthropocentrism normalizes genocide and oppression
D’amato and Chopra, 91 (The American Journal International Law, 85 A.J.I.L. 21, Anthony, member of the board of Editors of the Journal, and Sudhir, staff attorney for the EPA)
Thus, a combination
AND
to life- whales. 

Thus I advocate that developing countries adopt deep ecology

4. Endorsing deep ecology breaks out of the anthropocentric mindset and allows the environment to flourish
Katz 2000 (Eric, assoc. professor of philosophy at New Jersey Institute of Technology. “Against the inevitability of Anthropocentrism,” in ¶ Beneath the Surface: Critical Essays in the Philosophy of Deep Ecology, edited by Eric Katz, Andrew Light and David Rothenberg, p. 21) ¶
Deep ecology values
AND
the natural world.

5. Only deep ecology can provide a framework for change by questioning humanity’s relationship with the environment
Naess 86 (Arne, Norwegian philosopher and the founder of deep ecology. Former professor at the University of Oslo, founder of the deep ecology movement. “The deep ecology movement some philosophical aspects” in Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, ed. George Sessions)
The decisive difference
AND
important premise/conclusion relations.

6. Advocacy is topical because deep ecology is environmental protection
Taylor and Zimmerman (Bron Taylor, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh ¶ Michael Zimmerman, Tulane University, http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/bron/pdf~-~-christianity/Taylor+Zimmerman~-~-Deep20Ecology.pdf)
Norwegian philosopher Arne
AND
their constituent parts.

Tournament: CPS | Round: Octas | Opponent: Miramonte | Judge: panel
interp: neg needs to defend resource extraction
Violation:
Standards:
1.Ground:

2. Clash:

Voter for fairness and education.
Reject the debater

Tournament: CPS | Round: Octas | Opponent: Miramonte | Judge: panel
a) Interpretation: Debaters must ask their opponents before the round if they can spread. This means there needs to be pre-round discussion regarding how fast is too fast and conform to the needs of their opponent. The responsibility is on those who wish to engage in harmful debate practices to make sure the practice in-and-of-itself includes everyone in the round.
b) Violation: 

c) Standards:

1.  Accessibility: 

And, simply telling someone to practice more does not solve as there are a variety of reasons someone could have trouble understanding  or comprehending fast speech. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (www.eeoc.gov/facts/deafness.html) July 26, 2006
Generally, hearing impairments are
AND
1.Death in the family2. Accident3. Crime

2. Clash -  

D. Voters:
Vote off fairness because 

 2. 

Vote off education because 

2. 

Theory is a reason to drop the debater because 

2.  

And, even if you don’t buy this, drop any argument that my opponent spread. 

And, don’t let my opponent spread responses to this shell, as they wouldn’t even be bothering to understand my theory shell and actually understand the troubles people can have understanding and participating in spreading.