Insularity K/FW

1. Counter interp
Weigh value to life arguments over all else, including topic education and
extinction. The ballot is to be used as a teaching mechanism that
embraces particular methods of pedagogy, not to test plan competition.
Using the debate space to criticize and explore expands the boundaries of
our consciousness and creates research practices that are more sensitive
to slow, everyday suffering- thats a pre-requisite to making the unseen
visible. (Rob, Rachel Carson Professor of English, University of WisconsinMadison, Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor, pgs. 14-16)How
do we bring home-and bring emotionally to life-threats that take time to
wreak their havoc, threats that never materialize in one spectacular,
explosive, cinematic scene? Apprehension is a critical word here, a crossover
term that draws together the domains of perception, emotion, and action. To
engage slow violence is to confront layered predicaments of apprehension: to
apprehend-to arrest, or at least mitigate-often imperceptible threats
requires rendering them apprehensible to the senses through the work
of scientific and imaginative testimony. An influential lineage of
environmental thought gives primacy to immediate sensory apprehension, to
sight above all, as foundational for any environmental ethics of place. George
Perkins Marsh, the mid-nineteenth-century environmental pioneer, argued in
Man and Nature that "the power most important to cultivate and at the same
time, hardest to acquire, is that of seeing what is before him." Aldo Leopold
similarly insisted that "we can be ethical only toward what we can see.'?'
But what happens when we are unsighted, when what extends before us-in
the space and time that we most deeply inhabit-remains invisible? How, indeed,
are we to act ethically toward human and biotic communities that lie beyond our
sensory ken? What then, in the fullest sense of the phrase, is the place of seeing
in the world that we now inhabit? What, moreover, is the place of the other
senses? How do we both make slow violence visible yet also challenge the
privileging of the visible? Such questions have profound consequences for the
apprehension of slow violence, whether on a cellular or a transnational scale.
Planetary consciousness (a notion that has undergone a host of theoretical
formulations) becomes pertinent here, perhaps most usefully in the sense in
which Mary Louise Pratt elaborates it, linking questions of power and
perspective, keeping front and center the often latent, often invisible
violence in the view. Who gets to see, and from where? When and how does
such empowered seeing become normative? And what perspectives-not least
those of the poor or women or the colonized-do hegemonic sight conventions of
visuality obscure? Pratt's formulation of planetary consciousness remains

invaluable because it allows us to connect forms of apprehension to forms of

imperial violence." Against this backdrop, 1want to introduce the third central
concern of this book. Alongside slow violence and the environmentalism of the
poor, the chapters that follow are critically concerned with the political,
imaginative, and strategic role of environmental writer-activists. Writer-activists
can help us apprehend threats imaginatively that remain imperceptible to the
senses, either because they are geographically remote, too vast or too minute in
scale, or are played out across a time span that exceeds the instance of
observation or even the physiological life of the human observer. In a world
permeated by insidious, yet unseen or imperceptible violence, imaginative
writing can help make the unapparent appear, making it accessible and
tangible by humanizing drawn-out threats inaccessible to the immediate
senses. Writing can challenge perceptual habits that downplay the damage
slow violence inflicts and bring into imaginative focus apprehensions that elude
sensory corroboration. The narrative imaginings of writer-activists may thus
offer us a different kind of witnessing: of sights unseen. To allay states of
apprehension-trepidations, forebodings, shadows cast by the invisible-entails
facing the challenge, at once imaginative and scientific, of giving the
unapparent a materiality upon which we can act. Yet poor communities, often
disproportionately exposed to the force fields of slow violence-be they military
residues or imported e-waste or the rising tides of
2. All of their topic education arguments are ridiculous, we still gain
the same amount of topic education through our advocacy
statement. We still advocate for exploring the oceans, the only thing
we do not get is imitating US legislators, and that is not the key
component to debate. Its whether or not something is a good idea,
and accessing critical thinking.
3. Fiat isnt real That means that even if we were to run some
pragmatic, topical, policy aff none of the impacts would actually be
prevented. This is unlike our advocacy which can spark actual
change to end suffering. We dont encourage government or actor to
participate because we wish to show that it can be one individually.
4. MALCOLM X PROVES THAT THEORETICAL DEBATE PROVIDES
TRAINING IN PERSUASIONTHIS IS CRITICAL TO ACTUAL SOCIAL
CHANGE This takes out their Goldstein 13

BRANHAM 1995
(Robert, Professor of Rhetoric at Bates College, Argumentation and Advocacy, Winter)
Malcolm X spoke to predominantly white audiences and debated white opponents
throughout his prison experience and often during his later public career. These encounters in part
evidenced what Gambino has termed his "absolute faith in and reliance on the power of

communication" to convince even whites of the truth of his position

(p. 17). "The truth is

so strong and clear," wrote X in a letter in 1954, "that not even the white man himself will deny it once he
knows what we know" (Gambino, p. 17). But his expressed desire to "confront the white man" in debate
was perhaps not so much designed to convert his adversaries as it was to assert himself and his sense of
self-worth, to apply his learning, and, as in his later public appearances, to appeal to the large audience of

"By defeating the white man in debate," writes Wolfenstein,

was proving, to himself and to other black prisoners, the superiority of his
position" (1981, p. 228). To the "concentric" audience of his fellow inmates, such encounters
established his leadership and demonstrated the truth and strength of his beliefs
fellow African American prisoners.
"he

(Branham and Pearce, 1987, p. 245). According to Malcolm Jarvis, interviewed in Orlando Bagwell's 1994
documentary, Malcolm X: Make It Plain, it was when Malcolm X began debating that his "name and three
started spreading amongst the prison population and that's when the population started to grow at the
debating classes. Most of the fellows used to come over out of curiosity, just to hear him speak." Malcolm

fame as a
debater there helped gain the attention and respect that were prerequisites for
successful recruitment. By the time Bender arrived at Norfolk in 1950 or 1951, the prison's Muslim
X began proselytizing for the Nation of Islam while at Norfolk (Gambino, p. 14), and his

population had separated themselves from the debate team and other prison organizations. After refusing
to take a required typhoid innoculation, Malcolm X was transferred to Charlestown Prison on 23 March
1950 (Perry, p. 132). Malcolm X had spent less than two years in Norfolk, yet during his time there he had

Malcolm X's prison debating

experience represented a crucial transition in his practice as a Muslim and in the
development of a public style through which he could bring his thoughts before a
larger audience. Through his prison proselytizing and the "polemical confrontations" of his debates,
undergone enormous spiritual, political and intellectual transformation.

writes Wolfenstein, "Malcolm became fully engaged in a Muslim practice grounded in racial self-

He had acquired
proficiency in techniques of verbal confrontation and a confidence in the possibilities
of moral suasion that would inform his speaking activities for the remainder of his
life. "It was right there in prison," Malcolm X recalls in his autobiography, "that I made up my mind to
identification and mediated through self-productive aggressivity" (p. 229).

devote the rest of my life to telling the white man about himself - or die" (pp. 184-185).

5. Neg does not lose any ground, just because they cannot run their ptx
disads does not mean anything. Nobody wins on those anyways.

Insularity Alt DA
1. It is the normative education that the affirmative advocates for
which pushes for a breadth over depth discussion that enforces
individuals to cram their heads full of general knowledge without
going into deep discussions which morphs people into falsely
judging hypocrites and exacerbates suffering.
Schopenauer in 1804 (Arthur [philosopher] THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR
SCHOPENAUER; STUDIES IN PESSIMISM,
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10732/10732-8.txt ACCESSED 8/1/05)
The human intellect is said to be so constituted that _general ideas_
arise by abstraction from _particular observations_, and therefore
come after them in point of time. If this is what actually occurs, as
happens in the case of a man who has to depend solely upon his own

experience for what he learns--who has no teacher and no book,--such

a man knows quite well which of his particular observations belong to
and are represented by each of his general ideas. He has a perfect
acquaintance with both sides of his experience, and accordingly, he
treats everything that comes in his way from a right standpoint. This
might be called the _natural_ method of education.
Contrarily, the _artificial_ method is to hear what other people say,
learn and to read, and so to get your head crammed full of general
ideas before you have any sort of extended acquaintance with the world
as it is, and as you may see it for yourself. You will be told that
the particular observations which go to make these general ideas will
come to you later on in the course of experience; but until that time
arrives, you apply your general ideas wrongly, you judge men and
things from a wrong standpoint, you see them in a wrong light, and
treat them in a wrong way. So it is that education perverts the mind.

2. Knowledge without a specific understanding can only lead to

misuses of words and abusing the verbiage - only a deep
understanding to such words can prevent such atrocities from
happening.
Schopenauer in 1804 (Arthur [philosopher] THE ESSAYS OF ARTHUR
SCHOPENAUER; STUDIES IN PESSIMISM,
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10732/10732-8.txt ACCESSED 8/1/05)

It follows that an attempt should be made to find out the strictly

natural course of knowledge, so that education may proceed
methodically by keeping to it; and that children may become acquainted
with the ways of the world, without getting wrong ideas into their
heads, which very often cannot be got out again. If this plan were
adopted, special care would have to be taken to prevent children

from using words without clearly understanding their meaning and

application. The fatal tendency to be satisfied with words instead of
trying to understand things--to learn phrases by heart, so that
they may prove a refuge in time of need, exists, as a rule, even in
children; and the tendency lasts on into manhood, making the
knowledge
of many learned persons to consist in mere verbiage.
3. Role playing and constructing ourselves as imaginary people
destroys critical education and ignores the suffering of innocents--This framework will only replicate the harms they try to avoid and
foreclose any education goals
Gordon Mitchell (Associate professor at Pittsburg) 1998 Pedagogical Possibilities
for Argumentative Agency in Academic Debate Argumentation and Advocacy Vol.
25
While an isolated academic space that affords students an opportunity to learn in a protected environment has significant pedagogical value
(see e.g. Coverstone 1995, p. 8-9), the notion of the academic debate tournament as a sterile laboratory carries with it
some disturbing implications, when the metaphor is extended to its limit. To the extent that the academic space begins to take

on characteristics of a laboratory, the barriers demarcating such a space from other spheres of deliberation beyond
the school grow taller and less permeable. When such barriers reach insurmountable dimensions, argumentation in the
academic setting unfolds on a purely simulated plane, with students practicing critical thinking and advocacy skills
in strictly hypothetical thought-spaces. Although they may research and track public argument as it unfolds outside
the confines of the laboratory for research purposes, in this approach, students witness argumentation beyond the
walls of the academy as spectators, with little or no apparent recourse to directly participate or alter the course of
events (see Mitchell 1995; 1998). The sense of detachment associated with the spectator posture is highlighted during episodes
of alienation in which debaters cheer news of human suffering or misfortune. Instead of focusing on the visceral
negative responses to news accounts of human death and misery, debaters overcome with the competitive zeal of
contest round competition show a tendency to concentrate on the meanings that such evidence might hold for the
strength of their academic debate arguments. For example, news reports of mass starvation might tidy up the "uniqueness of a
disadvantage" or bolster the "inherency of an affirmative case" (in the technical parlance of debate-speak). Murchland categorizes cultivation of
this "spectator" mentality as one of the most politically debilitating failures of contemporary education: " Educational institutions have

failed even more grievously to provide the kind of civic forums we need. In fact, one could easily conclude that
the principle purposes of our schools is to deprive successor generations of their civic voice, to turn them into
mute and uncomprehending spectators in the drama of political life" (1991, p. 8). Complete reliance on the
laboratory metaphor to guide pedagogical practice can result in the unfortunate foreclosure of crucial learning
opportunities. These opportunities, which will be discussed in more detail in the later sections of this piece, center around the process of
argumentative engagement with wider public spheres of deliberation. In the strictly preparatory model of argument pedagogy, such direct
engagement is an activity that is appropriately pursued following the completion of academic debate training (see e.g. Coverstone 1995, p. 8).
Preparatory study of argumentation, undertaken in the confines of the academic laboratory, is conducted on the plane of simulation and is
designed to pave the way for eventual application of critical thinking and oral advocacy skills in "realworld" contexts.

4. Their framework ignores the problems inherent in their perspectives

-- making them inevitable, reject it.

Nayar 99 (Jayan, Critical Theorist, 9 Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 599, Lexis)

Rightly, we are concerned with the question of what can be done to alleviate the sufferings that prevail. But

there

are necessary prerequisites to answering the "what do we do?" question. We must first ask

the

intimately connected questions of "about what?" and "toward

what end?" These questions, obviously,

impinge on our vision and judgment. When we attempt to imagine transformations toward
preferred human futures, we engage in the difficult task of judging the present. This is difficult not because we
are oblivious to violence or that we are numb to the resulting suffering, but because, outrage with "events" of
violence aside, processes of violence embroil and implicate our familiarities in ways that defy the simplicities of
straightforward imputability. Despite our best efforts at categorizing violence into convenient compartments--into
"disciplines" of study and analysis such as "development" and "security" (health, environment, population, being
other examples of such compartmentalization)--the encroachments of order(ing) function at more pervasive levels.
And

without doubt, the perspectives of the observer, commentator, and actor become crucial

determinants . It is necessary, I believe, to question this, "our," perspective, to reflect upon a

perspective of violence which not only locates violence as a happening "out there" while we
stand as detached observers and critics, but is also one in which we are ourselves implicated in
the violence of ordered worlds where we stand very much as participants . For this purpose of a critique of
critique, it is necessary to consider the "technologies" of ordering.

This Disad serves as a turn on the K/Framework debate.

Perf Con

Interpretation:
Negative teams should be allowed to have conditional options, but not
unrestrained conditionality in argumentation.

(Solt 03)Roger Solt, debate coach supreme, policy debate coach for 26 years, The Disposition of
Counterplans and Permutations: The case for Logical, Limited Conditionality 2003 - Mental Health
Policies: Escape from Bedlam?

But if advocacy and analysis are both important, how does one proceed? The two
involve, as I have suggested, differences in emphasis. And it may well be that in the end
different judges and debate theorists will simply emphasize one or the other based on
their own interests and temperamental dispositions. Still, I do have a suggestion for
anyone interested in a middle ground. Hold the affirmative to strict advocacy standardsone plan which they must defend from the beginning to the end. But hold the negative to
looser advocacy standards. Still require that they ADVOCATE the rejection of the
affirmative plan, but let them do so while incorporating at least limited elements of
conditional logic into their arguments. In sum, let them approach the debate as analysts
and inquirers, as devil's advocates rather than as the fully committed partisans of a
specific policy alternative. This is not an argument for complete critical license, nor is it
a defense of negation theory. It is legitimate, I think, to hold the negative to the same
degree of policy specificity as the affirmative. I am simply arguing that the negative
should get more than one policy alternative.

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

(Fiori 11) Director of Policy Debate Bronx Science High School, Perfomative Contradictions in policy
debate: the limit(lessness) of negative conditionality. http://utdebatecamp.com/2011/perfomativecontradictions-in-policy-debate-the-limitlessness-of-negative-conditionality/
I feel comfortable in speculating that the most popular Kritik on the military presence topic has been some iteration of the Security K. Something along the lines of, the drive to
securitize/stabilize/control various predicted threat scenarios is a mode of biopolitical control/technological thought/enlightenment rationality that should be rejected in favor
of a multifaceted epistemology of the international system, or interrogation of our ontology etc. These type of Kritiks almost invariably argue that the drive to war, or political
violence, is driven by the ontology/methodology of security and securitization and that these scenarios of risk, their discursive utterance, produces regimes of truth that make
the playing out of those scenarios highly likely. These arguments, presented in the 1NC, often times have alternative texts that advocate the absolute, or at least in the instance of
the 1AC rejection of the criticized, logic/discourse. Moreover, this kritik cannot argue that it is the plan action that it disagrees with since most authors writing critically of
American foreign policy would advocate a reduction in overseas military presence. Rather, teams that read the security K must argue that it is the
representations/methodology/ontology of the affirmative that should be rejected. Yet, despite this vehement rejection of securitization, on the next flow I often find myself
jotting down the outline of some form of the deterrence disadvantage. The disad will argue that only the preservation of the US military deterrent force in the region can prevent
some hostile threats to national security from mustering the will to start and all-out war. So in one breath, the negative argues that all forms of securitization should be rejected
and then engages in first-rate securitization of their own. The negative is committing the same rhetorical sins of the affirmative and they know it. This is the problem of the
performative contradiction, an argument not new to debate by any stretch of the imagination, but one, I think, conditionality theory debate will know that allowing the negative
to argue contradictory positions puts the affirmative in the position of making answers to one argument that are links to the other, contradictory, position. When the negative
decides that they no longer want to advocate the terrible six party talks counterplan, they can use all the arguments about why international dialogue fails and only changes in
military positioning can solve North Korean conflict as realism links to the security K. Moreover, the negative gets the block, which means while the 2ac may have only been able
to allocate 2-3 minutes to answer the K, the negative gets 13 minutes to respond. It is possible to argue that performative contradictions are unfair and are a reason to vote
affirmative. It is not entirely obvious that the sides need to be more balanced. I think it is relatively easy to make the case that allowing contradictions gives the negative too

More
importantly, the theoretical considerations of these contradictions seem to
defy the most basic tenant of the kritik: that what is said and how it is said
matters as much or more than the tangible outcome of a policy. If it is true
that the utterance of the reality of security threats produces them as real in
our conscious, shouldnt the negative also have produced some security
truths as well? Particularly when the kritik argues for a representations as opposed to ontological or
methodological framework, it is fairly persuasive argue that the contradiction is unfair . I think this stems from a premuch ground. And considering the move toward the negative on other practices I mentioned, sides maybe need to be re-balanced back toward the affirmative .

deposition as a critic to see the effect of each sides utterances as equally reasons to reject. The reality, however, is that this
argument is hard to win, except for with some particular critics. This is an unfortunate fact I feel, considering the truth of
the problem with this contradiction at the philosophical level the affirmative should be able to win more of these debates.
The first step to changing this norm is to go for this argument more often and spend more time thinking of arguments you
want to make. I will continue this discussion of negative conditionality with advice on how to both go for performative
contradictions bad and how to answer this argument soon.

Standards
Brightline- line between contradict and multiple worlds

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

If we choose to debate about core underlying assumptions or about fundamental

worldviews, we should attempt to do so in as much depth as possible, especially if
Kritiks are the most important thing to talk about, Worldview Conditionality
prevents this from happening. Prefer our interp of debate because it prevents critical
superficiality.
Critical Truth- philosophers look for the truth, not win a debate round

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

Voters
Fairness- The damage has already been done, cant throw out K

Rejecting the argument is not enough. The time skew involved with multiple off case
including multiple worldview wrecks AFF prep and strategy. If NEG concedes this
position to get out of the offense they are just re-linking to the position because they a
further skew prep and strategy. Hold the negative to the 1NC when it comes to
worldview conditionality because it is uniquely abusive. Were disclosing the 1AC, which
is giving them their links, but theres no reciprocity because we dont get prep for their
2NR. Worldview conditionality multiplies the issue of conditionality and makes it nearly
impossible for AFF teams to pick up.
Education- Prefer Education over competition, you can do both, but Edu
always comes first

The negative has to prove one of two things. Either theyre not preferring competition
over education or that sacrificing education for competition is good. They read multiple
off case positions not for the sake of having dialogue about each issue, but for exploiting
weaknesses of the Affirmative team. We grant that debate is a game, but they cant get
out of the fact that its an educational one first. Favoring competition over education
leaves the debate up to only the person who can read aloud the fastest.

Critical Education-

Disingenious advocacy of critical literature is a misinterpretation of the literature

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

Deterrence- NEG teams will not contradict again

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

Chow K
1. No Link- The link card is incredibly deceptive, while it may seem to
link to my aff because of a few buzz words, the fact is, its not
specific to the way my case solves suffering. We realize that we all
suffer differently, but we also realize that we can be reprieved from
our anguish, that at the epitome of our being suffering is inherent,
and the ways that we can transgress from it is through astheticism
and appreciating the beauty of the world through the eyes of the
brute. ALSO, no where in their evidence does it even mention
suffering, it simply states that white people speak for others
sometimes, that bolsters the no link argument.
2. Impact Extend across my Schopenhauer in 1804 card fourth down
from the 1AC, this card indicates that trying to solve for future
problems will only exacerbate suffering because it changes the ways
we live our daily lives.
3. The first Chow 6 evidence is drastically underhighlighted The only
thing he read was that militarism causes genocide, they provided no
warrant as to how that links back to my case and provides them with
a shady internal link story.
4. lt The alt wont solve. When we walk outside of this round will
white people continue to talk for others? Yes, the ballot wont
change anything but discourage me and my partner from wanting to
do policy debate, a vote for the neg will literally do nothing but
embrace the suffering of our existence.

CP
1. The CP does not meet the ROB, the ROB is whoever can ethically
solve suffering, ending the world with a nuclear was is NOT ethical in
any way. We would all die for one, and would then have left the
planet in such a shape it would collapse, which is in no way ethical.
2. Secondly, we solve better because we actually stay living. They may
solve, but the fact remains is that there is no point in solving
suffering if we do not get to access any of the benefits of us
defeating our greatest enemy. The fact still remains that we solve
ethically, and better all around than the cp.
3. The first piece of Schopenhauer evidence read was misinterpreted
that piece of evidence is indicative to Schopenhauers ideaology of
giving up all worldly self-interests, and meaning. He believes suicide
is a way you can prove that, but there are other methodologies to
solving suffering.

Case
Them running this argument proves they still dont understand the aff nor
Schopenhauers thesis for a few reasons.
1. Their evidence indicates a few key things, that misfortune will
happen, (which the aff does not deny) and that misfortune causes
massacres.
a. This is first of all wrong on the level that we dont deny that
misfortune will happen, rather what it comes down to is how
we deal with our suffering, and what procedures we can take
to stop that suffering (astheticism, thats the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy 12 ev.)
b. Schopenhauer does not believe it is misfortune that causes
mass war and genocide like claimed, it is boredom. That of
which that the affirmative also solves for through astheticism.
This evidence indicates that when men can no longer find what
to do with themselves the exploit others, and we take that out
at the root cause and solve for boredom through astheticism.