Tournament: Stanford | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harker AC | Judge: Michael Harris
Chapter 1 is the Link

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.

Human solutions to environmental problems reinforce human chauvinism—nature/culture binaries must be questioned before environmental degradation can be confronted.
Lintott ’11 Sheila Lintott. Fall 2011. “Preservation, Passivity, and Pessimism”. Ethics and the Environment. 16:2. Pages 100-102.
Perhaps I am
AND
to base restorations.

Chapter 2 is the Impact

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.

Anthropocentrism is the root cause of every major environmental crisis. Resisting anthropocentrism is a prerequisite to having environmental protection
Sivil, 2K (Richard Sivil studied at the University of Durban Westville, and at the University of Natal, Durban. He has been lecturing philosophy since 1996. “WHY WE NEED A NEW ETHIC FOR THE ENVIRONMENT”, 2000, http://www.crvp.org/book/Series02/II-7/chapter_vii.htm)
I argue that
AND
of another paper.

Chapter 3 is the Alternative

Thus I advocate ecocentrism in the form of deep ecology.

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.

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.

Chapter 4 is Framework

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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
then you negate

4. 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. 

Chapter 5 is Perm doesn’t solve

1. Not a reason to vote aff: if I win a risk of a link, the perm isn’t offense; this is a no link argument without a warrant

2. Perm doesn’t solve- The alt is not an embracement of agency but a loss of identity, that of “the human”, which is critical to transformation of our relations to the animals and nature
Hudson, 4 (Laura, Cultural Studies PhD UC-Davis, The Political Animal: Species-Being and Bare life, Mediations: Journal of Marxist Literary Group, http://www.mediationsjournal.org/articles/the-political-animal)
In his discussion
AND
politics and society?

3. The perm devolves into self-serving rationalizations—these compromises are unacceptable.
Lupisella and Logsdon 97 (Mark, masters degree in philosophy of science at university of Maryland and researcher working at the Goddard Space Flight Center, and John, Director, Space Policy Institute The George Washington University, Washington, “DO WE NEED A COSMOCENTRIC ETHIC?” http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.25.7502)
Steve Gillett has
AND
self-serving actions.”

Tournament: CPS | Round: Quads | Opponent: opp | Judge: judge
1NC Environment 

The affirmative’s attempt to understand our relationship with nature generates responses that try to master the totality of the real, this creates a false sense of security and denial about environmental dangers
Stavrakakis 2k (Yannis Stavrakakis, Department of Gov’t at University of Essex, 2000, “On the Emergence of Green Ideology: the Dislocation Factor in Green Politics,” Discourse Theory and Political Analysis, eds: Howarth, Norbal and Stavrakais)
The field of our relationship
AND
if they remained intact. 

The Impact: attempts to master the real create utopian visions of reality – utopia’s failure causes endless violence and genocide  
Stavrakakis, 99 (Yannis, Lacan and the Political, Visiting Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex, pages  99-100).
Note – “aporia” means “difficulty in establishing truth”
Our age is clearly
AND
as a highly problematic area (seminar of 18 June 1958).

The call for a world in which obligations are concrete necessitates the elimination of those that refuse to engage in obligations to the other. And, even if they don’t claim to “fiat” a world in which obligations are mandatory to those in need, the imagination of the world alone and construction of utopia and good that would come from it is enough for a link. Their discourse and engagement of ethics creates a normative good that must be followed without exception.

The alternative is to institutionalize the lack in relation to environmental understanding andembrace Lacanian politics of doubt and uncertainity.
Stavrakakis, 99(Yannis, Lacan and the Political, Visiting Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex, pages  99-100). Note – “aporia” means “difficulty in establishing truth”
According to my reading
AND
radically transformed ethical framework.

And, even if they win the alternative doesn’t solve, this is an independent reason to vote negative, as their assumptions about the world are not neutral. The affirmative’s ignorance of the Lack that drives their desire for action goes unrecognized and proves that their offense is not objectively true but simply a drive to constitute the ego.
My interpretation-~--the judge should assume the position of an analyst-~--interrogating the aff’s psychological investment in the politics of the status quo should be a prior question to their advantages and solvency claims-~--it’s not about what the neg does it’s about what the aff needs to do better
Zizek 2k – prof @ University of Ljubljana (Slavoj, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality, 124-127)
Now I can also answer
AND
traversing the fantasy towards the Real. 

To create a fantasy is to view the world through a lens of the symbolic-we view things by how we express the world as language and thus how we want to see it, in line with our fantasies. This inevitably excludes those things which can't be described by language and the symbolic-those become the real. Reliance on a security worldview means other ideas that don't fit in can't be symbolized and are thus part of the lack. This means their impacts are a rigged game bc they only analyze certain facts.
Zizek 4 Slavoj, Birkbeck Institite for the Humanities, Conversations with Zizek, Glyn Daly, 78-79
Here I would agree with
AND
structurally inherent, self-blockade.  

Universal ethical principles ignore the crucial Lacanian insight that desire cannot simply be ignored.  Trying to renounce all desire in favor of ethics turns us into perpetual Hamlets—frozen in indecision with catastrophic results all around.  
Donahue 1 (Brian, Department of English, Gonzaga University, “Marxism, Postmodernism, Žižek,” Postmodern Culture,12.2, Project Muse)
Žižek specifies this crucial
AND
it cannot be universalized (69).

Tournament: Berkeley | Round: 1 | Opponent: Arcadia VL | Judge: idr
Interp: aff can’t defend an advocacy that requires fiat of multiple actors
Violation:
Ground:
Standards:
Lit check:
Predictability:
Voter: Voter for fairness and education
Prefer competing interps

Tournament: CPS | Round: 1 | Opponent: Monta Vista | Judge: judge
Interp: aff needs to defend a plan
Violation:
Standards:
1-predictability-
2. Real World-
Voter: Voter for fairness and education
Prefer competing interps

Tournament: CPS | Round: 3 | Opponent: presentation | Judge: judge
Interp: aff can’t defend a plan
Violation:
Standards: 

1. Limits:
   Prefer competing interps

Tournament: CPS | Round: 3 | Opponent: presentation | Judge: judge

1. Interpretation: The affirmative may only derive offense from arguments where they prove that environmental protection and resource extraction are incompatible. Conflict is incompatibility
   Merriam Webster Dictionary(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conflict)
   Full Definition of CONFLICT¶ 1¶ : fight, battle, war an armed conflict¶ 2¶ a : competitive or opposing action of incompatibles : antagonistic state or action (as of divergent ideas, interests, or persons)¶ b : mental struggle resulting from incompatible or opposing needs, drives, wishes, or external or internal demands

2. Violation: 

3. Standards:
A) Limits: 

B) Neg Ground and Research: 

4. Voters:
Voter for fairness and education

5. Drop the Debater

6. Prefer competing interpretations

Tournament: Stanford | Round: 6 | Opponent: Malborough AG | Judge: Wheeler
Interp: aff can’t implement a utopian world
Violation:
Standards-
Clash-
Ground-
Voter: Voter for fairness and education
Prefer competing interps, reasonability is too arbitrary and invites judge intervention