The Gift: Index Shell 2-3 2Nr Overview 4

APP STATE THE GIFT
WILLIS (BROWER ASSIST) 1

THE GIFT
INDEX
SHELL 2-3
2NR OVERVIEW 4
2NC OVERVIEW 5
GOOD CARDS 6-14
PRE-FIAT 15
POST-FIAT 16
PERM ANSWERS 17-18
AFF ANS 19
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
1NC SHELL
Advances of the state are gifts that achieve the separation of the powerful from
the needy while feeding our individual desire of charity for those less
fortunate. This gift conceals a narcissistic power play the 1AC becomes a
token emblem of empowerment that fuels the voracious conceit of the
powerful. Criticism is the only option the gift can never be taken at face
value.
ARRIGO and WILLIAMS 2000

The (Im)Possibility of Democratic Justice and the Gift of the Majority On Derrida, Deconstruction, and the Search for
Equality BRUCE A. ARRIGO CHRISTOPHER R. WILLIAMS Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 16 No. 3,
August 2000
Derridas explication of the gift provides an insightful metaphor with which to analyze the
current state of sociopolitical affairs regarding traditionally subjugated
populations. The advances made by the state regarding minority citizen groups,
particularly within the context of employment (economic) and education (social), are gifts. Legislative
enactments designed to foster the growth of equality and thereby democratic justice (i.e.
standards of what is right and fair) produce hegemonic effects constitutive only of
narcissistic power. These effects are eclipsed by counterfeit, although impactful, offerings. The omnipotence of
majority sensibilities in Western cultures, particularly in the United States, has produced an exploitative and nongiving
existence for under- and nonrepresented citizen groups. Despite the many rights-based movements during the past
there
several decades that have ostensibly conferred to minorities such abstract gifts as liberty, equality, and freedom,
remains an enduring wall dividing the masses from those on whom such awards
are bestowed. This fortified separation is most prominent in the (silent)
reverberations of state and federal legislative reforms.
Relying on Derridas (1991, 1992, 1997) critique, we can regard such statutory reform initiatives
as gifts; that is, they are something given to nonmajority citizens by those in
power; they are tokens and emblems of empowerment in the process of equality and in
the name of democratic justice. The majority is presenting something to marginalized
groups, something that the giver holds in its entirety: power . The giver or presenter of such
power will never, out of capitalistic conceit and greed, completely surrender that which it owns. It is preposterous to
believe that the narcissistic majority would give up so much as to threaten what they own; that is, to surrender their
hospice and community while authentically welcoming in the other as stranger. This form of open-ended generosity has
yet to occur in Western democratic societies and, perhaps, it never will. Thus, it
is logical to assume that,
although unconscious in some respects, the efforts of the majority are
parsimonious and intended to secure (or accessorize) their own power . The following
two means by which a gift enables self-empowerment were already alluded to by Derrida (1997): (a) the giver (i.e.,
the sender or majority) either bestows to show off his or her power or (b) gives to
mobilize a cycle of reciprocation in which the receiver (i.e., the minority) will be
indebted. It is for these reasons that the majority gives. This explanation is not the same as authentically supporting
the cause of equality in furtherance of a cultural politics of difference and recognition. To ground these observations about
gift sending and receiving, the analogous example of a loan may be helpful. Let
us suppose that we have
$100.00 and that you have $1.00. If we were to give you some of our money (less
than $49 so as not to produce pecuniary equality), we would be subtlely engaged in a number of
things. First, following Derrida (1997), we would be showing off our power (money) by
exploiting the fact that we have so much more money than you do that we can
give some away and remain in good fiscal standing. Second, we would be expecting
something in returnmaybe not immediately, but eventually . This return could take several
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
forms. Although we may not expect financial reciprocation, it would be enough knowing that you know that we have given
currency to you. Thus, you are now indebted to us and forever grateful, realizing our
good deed: our gift. Reciprocation on your part is impossible. Even if one day you
are able to return our monetary favor twofold, we will always know that it was us
who first hosted you; extended to and entrusted in you an opportunity given your
time of need. As the initiators of such a charity, we are always in a position of
power, and you are always indebted to us. This is where the notion of egoism or
conceit assumes a hegemonic role. By giving to you, a supposed act of
generosity in the name of furthering your cause, we have not empowered
you. Rather, we have empowered ourselves. We have less than subtlely let you know that we
have more than you. We have so much more, in fact, that we can afford to give you some. Our giving becomes,
not an act of beneficence, but a show of power, that is, narcissistic hegemony!
Thus, we see that the majority gift is a ruse: a simulacrum of movement toward aporetic equality and
a simulation of democratic justice. By relying on the legislature (representing the majority) when economic and social
opportunities are availed to minority or underrepresented collectives, the process takes on exactly the form of Derridas
gift. The majority controls the political, economic, legal, and social arena; that is, it is
(and always has been) in control of such communities as the employment sector and the educational system. The
mandated opportunities that under- or nonrepresented citizens receive as a result of this falsely eudemonic endeavor are
gifts and, thus, ultimately constitute an effort to make minority populations feel better. There is a sense of movement
toward equality in the name of democratic justice, albeit falsely manufactured. In return for this effort, the majority shows
off its long-standing authority (this provides a stark realization to minority groups that power elites are the forces that
critically form society as a community), forever indebts under- and nonrepresented classes to the generosity of the
majority (after all, minorities groups now have, presumably, a real chance to attain happiness), and, in a more general
sense, furthers the narcissism of the majority (its representatives have displayed power and have been generous).
Thus, the ruse of the majority gift assumes the form and has the
hegemonical effect of empowering the empowered, relegitimating the
privileged, and fueling the voracious conceit of the advantaged.
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
2NR Overview
Actions by the state on behalf of traditionally disadvantaged peoples take cast of
a gift handed down from the majority society. These legal reforms have never
created the equality they seek, and for good reason they construct a wall
between the powerful and the powerless marking the difference between those
deemed needy and those who may exercise their charity.
The speech act of the 1AC embodies Arrigo and Williams claim that self-
righteous advocates will proselytize from on high, using their positions of
privilege to beg for reform. Unfortunately, the efforts of this majority
accomplish nothing more than the fixation of their place in the hierarchy of
power, showing off their position in an unconscious attempt to mobilize the
cycle of reciprocity. You can afford to be smug in your policy debate
superiority the 9 minute bully pulpits where you read your stump speech of
equality and generosity, secretly pleased that even if you were to be repaid
for your efforts twofold in terms of respect in the community for your false
activism, it would never be enough to overcome the initial benevolence.
Arrigo and Williams indicate that far from altruism, these efforts conceal a
show of power, of narcissistic hegemony. But the gift can never be taken at
face value -- before we question the effectiveness of the plan, we must first
break down the faade of the gift by exposing the authority of calculated legal
reform. This is the only way to stop the cycle of narcissistic hegemony and
false activism.
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
2NC Overview
Actions by the state on behalf of traditionally disadvantaged peoples take cast of
a gift handed down from the majority society. These legal reforms have never
created the equality they seek, and for good reason they construct a wall
between the powerful and the powerless marking the difference between those
deemed needy and those who may exercise their charity.
We will win several link arguments:

a.) The affirmative is an ideological defense of advances made by the state in
the name of minority groups these gifts take the form of legal reforms
that ostensibly create equality where none existed before.
b.) The affirmative is a symbolic action designed to quiet the mobilization of
agitated groups. Plan hands down tokens and emblems of empowerment,
holding back the only thing those groups dont possess power.
c.) The affirmative comes in a time of need. Since the gift was given first, and
just in the nick of time, it becomes impossible to overcome the first act of
charity since we first helped you, even twofold repayment is insufficient.
The ruse of the gift invariably results in domination both discursive and in the
acts that it legitimates. Two important impacts:
a.) Since the only logical result of the gift is indebtedness, the act of giving is
on its face a relegitimation of existing power relationships the plan feeds
the voracious conceit of the privileged.
b.) A gift forces reciprocation the cycle of reciprocity whereby a gift given
now will be used to justify a punishment in the future. Under this calculus,
any action no matter how destructive can be justified since repayment is
effectively impossible.
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
2NC Cards Ext:
TOKENISM
Two more link arguments:

a.) Gifts of legal reform reify and support misguided attempts by the state to
intervene on behalf of the supposed minorities, producing counterfeit
tokens of reform.
b.) State efforts perpetuate the endorsement of inequality, show that the
majority is still powerful.

Equality BRUCE A. ARRIGO CHRISTOPHER R. WILLIAMS California School of Professional Psychology 2000
The impediments to establishing democratic justice in contemporary American

society have caused a national paralysis; one that has recklessly spawned an
aporetic existence for minorities.2 The entrenched ideological complexities
afflicting under- and nonrepresented groups (e.g., poverty, unemployment, illiteracy,
crime) at the hands of political, legal, cultural, and economic power elites have
produced counterfeit, perhaps even fraudulent, efforts at reform : Discrimination and
inequality in opportunity prevail (e.g., Lynch & Patterson, 1996). The misguided and futile initiatives of
the state, in pursuit of transcending this public affairs crisis, have fostered a reification, that is, a
reinforcement of divisiveness. This time, however, minority groups compete with
one another for recognition, affirmation, and identity in the national collective psyche (Rosenfeld, 1993). What
ensues by way of state effort, though, is a contemporaneous sense of equality for
all and a near imperceptible endorsement of inequality; a silent conviction that
the majority still retains power.
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
LEGAL GIFTS
Law must not be supported uncritically. Analysis of legal reform can become a
criticism of juridical ideology that uncovers superstructures of dominance.

The distinction between justice and law has significant ramifications for the logic of the gift and the discourse on equality
Laws are not just as laws. One obeys
in Western civilization. Justice, for Derrida, is not law:
them not because they are just but because they have authority (Derrida, 1992, p.
12); Justice is what gives us the impulse, the drive, or the movement to improve the law (Derrida, 1997, p. 16).
Justice functions as the catalyst by which laws are enacted, amended, or abolished. Thus, we
may speak
of the law as a thing: The law is a physical, written, definable, and
enforceable governing force that constitutes the judicial system in all its
legality, legitimacy, and authorization (Caputo, 1997, p. 130). Conversely, justice is not a thing. It
is not an existing reality (such as the law) but rather an absolutely (un)foreseeable prospect (Caputo, 1997, p.
132). It is through justice as an (im)possibility that the law can be criticized, that is, deconstructed (e.g., Balkin,
1987; Cornell, Rosenfeld,& Carlson, 1992; Landau, 1992). The
sufferance of critical
deconstructive analysis is that a provisional, relational complicity between
(majoritarian) rules and the (minority) transgressions the rules formally forbid
threaten the very authority of the law itself and are discoverable through
(un)foreseeable justice (Derrida, 1992, p. 4). Revealing the slippages between law and justice becomes
progressively transparent and represents incentive to seek justiceabsent the imposition of laws (the [im]possible,
just law). It
is this activity of displacing or dissociating law and, thus, moving toward justice
that makes convalescence possible in the sphere of the legal . Moreover, it is through
this (im)possibility that democracy strives for justice when deconstructively examining the law . In this
context, a critique of juridical ideology mobilized by the (im)possibility of
justice becomes a tool for a sociopolitical equality, its basis being the
desedimentation of the superstructures of law that both hide and reflect the
economic and political interests of the dominant forces of society (Derrida, 1992, p.
13).
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
ALTRUISM
Altruism fails absolutely. The gift begins a cycle of reciprocity where the receiver
is indebted, and degrees of intentionality are always present in the giver.

The gift is a calculated, majoritarian endeavor toward illusive equality. Equality

beyond such a conscious effort (i.e., where the illusion is displaced) is open-ended and
absent of any obligatory reciprocation. As Caputo (1997) notes, justice is the welcome given to the
other in which I do not . . . have anything up my sleeve (p. 149). With this formula of equality and justice in mind, one
may still speculate on the laws relationship to the gift. But again, the law as a commodity, as a thing to be transacted,
eliminates its prospects as something to be given. The law as law, on the other hand, is no gift, and hence no guarantee
of justice . . . the
law is a calculated balance of payments, of crime and punishment,
of offense and retribution, a closed circle of paying off and paying back . When things
are merely legal, no more than legal, then they contract into narrowly contractual relationships with no give, no gifts.
(Caputo, 1997, p. 149) The gift has no idiosyncratic or artful definition that needs to be addressed. Derridas concept of
the gift is simply as it sounds: Something that is given to someone by someone else. Gift, however, is a misleading term.
Once an award is given to someone, that someone assumes a debt (of gratitude
or a reciprocation of the gift). The giver of the gift, in return, is consciously and
explicitly pleased with him- or herself for the show of generosity (Caputo, 1997, p. 141).
This narcissistic, self-eudemonical exchange is in fact increased if the receiver is ungrateful or is unable, through the
anonymity of the gift, to show gratitude. Thus, the offering that is made without expectation of explicit gratitude simply
nourishes the narcissism of the giver. This
is the paradoxical dimension of the gift. The sender
of the gift, instead of giving, receives; and the receiver of the gift, instead of
receiving something, is in debt (Caputo, 1997). To avoid mobilizing the circular economy of the gift (the
circle of exchange, of reciprocation, and of reappropriation), the gift must not appear as such. Thus, the giver must not be
aware that he or she is giving, and the receiver must not be aware that he or she is receiving. Only under those
circumstances would the giver not fuel the fire of narcissistic generosity, and the receiver not assume a debt. As Caputo
(1997) notes, the pure gift could take place only if everything happened below the level of conscious intentionality, where
no one intends to give anything to anyone and no one is intentionally conscious of receiving anything (p. 147).
the agent always
Phenomenologists remind us, following Aristotles (1925) notion of act and intentionality, that
acts for its own good. The agent always intends to act for its own good;
otherwise, it will not act at all (e.g., Heidegger, 1962; Husserl, 1983). Thus, there are always
degrees of intentionalityexpectation, reciprocation, and reappropriationon the
part of the giver. The giving of the gift serves a purpose. It can be traced to
narcissism masked by a facade of generosity, or it can be linked to anticipation of
something that will come back at some point some time in the future (Derrida, 1997).
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
The Implication: The gift can never be taken at face value -- before we question
the effectiveness of the plan, we must first break down the faade of the gift
by exposing the authority of calculated legal reform.

August 2000
The gift of equality, procured through state legislative enactments as an

emblem of democratic justice, embodies true (legitimated) power that remains
nervously secure in the hands of the majority. The ostensible empowerment of
minority groups is a facade; it is the ruse of the majority gift. What exists, in fact,
is a simulacrum (Baudrillard, 1981, 1983) of equality (and by extension, democratic justice): a pseudo-sign
image (a hypertext or simulation) of real sociopolitical progress . For the future relationship
between equality and the social to more fully embrace minority sensibilities, calculated legal reform
efforts in the name of equality must be displaced and the rule and authority of
the status quo must be decentered. Imaginable, calculable equality is self-limiting and self-
referential. Ultimately, it is always (at least) one step removed from true equality and, therefore, true justice.6 The ruse of
the majority gift currently operates under the assumption of a presumed empowerment, which it confers on minority
populations. Yet, the presented power is itself circumscribed by the stifling horizons of majority rule with their effects.
Thus, the gift can only be construed as falsely eudemonic: An avaricious, although insatiable, pursuit of narcissistic
legitimacy supporting majority directives. The commission (bestowal) of power to minority
groups or citizens through prevailing state reformatory efforts underscores a
polemic with implications for public affairs and civic life.We contend that the avenir (i.e., the to come) of equality as
an (in)calculable, (un)recognizable destination in search of democratic justice is needed. However, we argue that this
displacement of equality is unattainable if prevailing juridico-ethico-political conditions (and societal consciousness
the gift of the
pertaining to them) remain fixed, stagnant, and immutable. In this article, we will demonstrate how
majority is problematic, producing, as it must, a narcissistic hegemony, that is, a
sustained empowering of the privileged, a constant relegitimation of the
powerful. Relying on Derridas postmodern critique of Eurocentric logic and thought, we will show how complicated
and fragmented the question of establishing democratic justice is in Western cultures, especially in American society. We
will argue that what
is needed is a relocation of the debate about justice and
difference from the circumscribed boundaries of legal redistributive discourse on
equality to the more encompassing context of alterity, undecidability, cultural
plurality, and affirmative postmodern thought.
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
The 1AC is a rhetorical gift, delivered in delicious anonymity, far away from the
groups who would ostensibly be empowered. Giving from afar is another way to
celebrate the power of the gift and the giver.

August 2000
The gift has no idiosyncratic or artful definition that needs to be addressed.

Derridas concept of the gift is simply as it sounds: Something that is given to
someone by someone else. Gift, however, is a misleading term. Once an award is given to someone, that
someone assumes a debt (of gratitude or a reciprocation of the gift). The giver of the gift, in return, is
consciously and explicitly pleased with him- or herself for the show of
generosity (Caputo, 1997, p. 141). This narcissistic, self-eudemonical exchange is in fact
increased if the receiver is ungrateful or is unable, through the anonymity of the
gift, to show gratitude. Thus, the offering that is made without expectation of
explicit gratitude simply nourishes the narcissism of the giver.
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
Efforts of legal reform have always failed due to the method of the gifts
initiatives foster divisiveness, place power in the hands of elites, and endorse
the silent conviction that the minority are unequal.

The impediments to establishing democratic justice in contemporary American

society have caused a national paralysis; one that has recklessly spawned
an aporetic existence for minorities.2 The entrenched ideological complexities
afflicting under- and nonrepresented groups (e.g., poverty, unemployment, illiteracy,
crime) at the hands of political, legal, cultural, and economic power elites have
produced counterfeit, perhaps even fraudulent, efforts at reform : Discrimination and
inequality in opportunity prevail (e.g., Lynch & Patterson, 1996). The misguided and futile
initiatives of the state, in pursuit of transcending this public affairs crisis, have fostered a
reification, that is, a reinforcement of divisiveness. This time, however,
minority groups compete with one another for recognition, affirmation, and identity in the
national collective psyche (Rosenfeld, 1993). What ensues by way of state effort, though, is
a contemporaneous sense of equality for all and a near imperceptible
endorsement of inequality; a silent conviction that the majority still retains
power.
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
Law can NEVER be used for good its a physical defining force that must be
deconstructed through disassociation. The criticism of law can break down
the power structures that hide within it.

The distinction between justice and law has significant ramifications for the logic of the gift and the discourse on equality
Laws are not just as laws. One obeys
in Western civilization. Justice, for Derrida, is not law:
them not because they are just but because they have authority (Derrida, 1992, p.
12); Justice is what gives us the impulse, the drive, or the movement to improve the law (Derrida, 1997, p. 16).
Justice functions as the catalyst by which laws are enacted, amended, or abolished. Thus, we
may speak
of the law as a thing: The law is a physical, written, definable, and
enforceable governing force that constitutes the judicial system in all its
legality, legitimacy, and authorization (Caputo, 1997, p. 130). Conversely, justice is not a thing. It
is not an existing reality (such as the law) but rather an absolutely (un)foreseeable prospect (Caputo, 1997, p.
132). It is through justice as an (im)possibility that the law can be criticized, that is, deconstructed (e.g., Balkin,
1987; Cornell, Rosenfeld,& Carlson, 1992; Landau, 1992). The
sufferance of critical
deconstructive analysis is that a provisional, relational complicity between
(majoritarian) rules and the (minority) transgressions the rules formally forbid
threaten the very authority of the law itself and are discoverable through
(un)foreseeable justice (Derrida, 1992, p. 4). Revealing the slippages between law and justice becomes
progressively transparent and represents incentive to seek justiceabsent the imposition of laws (the [im]possible,
just law). It
is this activity of displacing or dissociating law and, thus, moving toward justice
that makes convalescence possible in the sphere of the legal . Moreover, it is through
this (im)possibility that democracy strives for justice when deconstructively examining the law . In this
context, a critique of juridical ideology mobilized by the (im)possibility of
justice becomes a tool for a sociopolitical equality, its basis being the
desedimentation of the superstructures of law that both hide and reflect the
economic and political interests of the dominant forces of society (Derrida, 1992, p.
13).
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
The plan begins the cycle of reciprocity. The gift of equality demands a balance
of payments. Even altruism fails absolutely degrees of intentionality are
always present, which invalidates the plan on its face.

The gift is a calculated, majoritarian endeavor toward illusive equality. Equality

beyond such a conscious effort (i.e., where the illusion is displaced) is open-ended and
absent of any obligatory reciprocation. As Caputo (1997) notes, justice is the welcome given to the
other in which I do not . . . have anything up my sleeve (p. 149). With this formula of equality and justice in mind, one
may still speculate on the laws relationship to the gift. But again, the law as a commodity, as a thing to be transacted,
eliminates its prospects as something to be given. The law as law, on the other hand, is no gift, and hence no guarantee
of justice . . . the
law is a calculated balance of payments, of crime and punishment,
of offense and retribution, a closed circle of paying off and paying back . When things
are merely legal, no more than legal, then they contract into narrowly contractual relationships with no give, no gifts.
(Caputo, 1997, p. 149) The gift has no idiosyncratic or artful definition that needs to be addressed. Derridas concept of
the gift is simply as it sounds: Something that is given to someone by someone else. Gift, however, is a misleading term.
Once an award is given to someone, that someone assumes a debt (of gratitude
or a reciprocation of the gift). The giver of the gift, in return, is consciously and
explicitly pleased with him- or herself for the show of generosity (Caputo, 1997, p. 141).
This narcissistic, self-eudemonical exchange is in fact increased if the receiver is ungrateful or is unable, through the
anonymity of the gift, to show gratitude. Thus, the offering that is made without expectation of explicit gratitude simply
nourishes the narcissism of the giver. This
is the paradoxical dimension of the gift. The sender
of the gift, instead of giving, receives; and the receiver of the gift, instead of
receiving something, is in debt (Caputo, 1997). To avoid mobilizing the circular economy of the gift (the
circle of exchange, of reciprocation, and of reappropriation), the gift must not appear as such. Thus, the giver must not be
aware that he or she is giving, and the receiver must not be aware that he or she is receiving. Only under those
circumstances would the giver not fuel the fire of narcissistic generosity, and the receiver not assume a debt. As Caputo
(1997) notes, the pure gift could take place only if everything happened below the level of conscious intentionality, where
no one intends to give anything to anyone and no one is intentionally conscious of receiving anything (p. 147).
the agent always
Phenomenologists remind us, following Aristotles (1925) notion of act and intentionality, that
acts for its own good. The agent always intends to act for its own good;
otherwise, it will not act at all (e.g., Heidegger, 1962; Husserl, 1983). Thus, there are always
degrees of intentionalityexpectation, reciprocation, and reappropriationon the
part of the giver. The giving of the gift serves a purpose. It can be traced to
narcissism masked by a facade of generosity, or it can be linked to anticipation of
something that will come back at some point some time in the future (Derrida, 1997).
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
Political or legislative reform is insufficient to deconstruct the discursive position
of the gift they result in fleeting moments of injustice. Even pragmatism fails
to deliver social value.
What we do suggest, however, is simply the following: That political and/or

legislative attempts at empowerment (as they currently stand) are insufficient to attain the
deconstructive and discursive condition of equality for minority citizen groups
(Collins, 1993). More significant, we contend that construction of these initiatives as
Derridean gifts advance, at best, fleeting vertiginous moments of inequality and
injustice. Still further, we recommend the (im)possible; that which, at first blush,
admittedly delivers no pragmatic value for social analysts
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
POSTFIAT vs. GIFT
Youll try and weigh some postfiat impacts against the criticism, but youll lose. A
few reasons:
a.) Ballot doesnt stop wars or save children.
No simpler than that one debate judges are people too, but they dont have
their finger on the button. Your evidence is compelling, but it compels people
who are in charge. Also, youve got no internal link between voting negative
and bad things happening. I promise, Arizona State told us that we would be
immoral, and we werent, and University of Georgia told us that wed cause a
nuclear war, and we didnt.
b.) Better to question ideology before impacts.
Besides being more real world, its always good to accept your limitations.
Our evidence indicates that the ideology of the gift permeates society, and
that even though its a power structure, unquestioned acceptance is the
mechanism by which it maintains strength. You can be a part of that
questioning before unwrapping the gift, ask if it should have been given in
the first place.
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
PREFIAT vs. GIFT
Youll try and weigh some prefiat impacts against the criticism, but youll lose. A
few reasons:
a.) We turn your criticism.
Our evidence indicates that gifts are the root of several important power
structures. By participating in that system, you taint your own advocacy. No
criticism thats premised on legal reform should be permissible.
b.) We solve more than your criticism.
Questioning the gift can uncover multiple relationships. Specifically, our

evidence says that calculated legal reform must be questioned, or the debate
about power, alterity, and difference will stagnate.
c.) Uncovering altruism asks why you demand to be included.
No agent acts out of altruism. We act because we dislike the gift, and
because we like debate. We question your motives, however. Our evidence
says that every agent has themselves in mind we can uncover your criticism
as a vehicle for narcissism or self-love.
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
PERM
1.) Theres nothing to permute the criticism has no text, and its completely
critical of both the plans text as well as its advocacy. Theres a procedural
issue permutation of this argument would legitimate permuting a DA or a
case turn, its bad because it allows the affirmative to disco out of hard links
to the case, independent voter for ground and time skew.
2.) If we win a link, the permutation is a bad idea. Couple of reasons:

a.) No net benefits ours is a question of methodology, a threshold issue.
Weighing the benefit of the case would be to accept the gift before being
critical of it.
b.) Each link proves the permutation will fail. Inclusion of the plan would never
be a good idea if the act of giving has been invalidated.
c.) Theyll say pragmatism but the ballot doesnt accomplish a pragmatic
action for or against anyone. Not a policymaker, of course, and dont
bother to pretend. Really, the permutation doesnt include the
advantages of the affirmative, just the ideology of giving. If this is a bad
ideology, it shouldnt be supported.
3.) The known combination of giving and criticism fails as soon as the gift is
given, it is nullified as an object of achieving equality. Permutation is another link
to the cycle of reciprocity.

August 2000
Much of the distinction between law and justice has implications for the gift (of
equality) and the (im)possibility of justice as equality: The gift is precisely , and
this is what it has in common with justice, something which cannot be reappropriated
(Derrida, 1997, p. 18).11 Once a gift is given, if any gratitude is extended in return, the gift becomes circumscribed
Ultimately, as soon as the giver
in a moment of reappropriation (Derrida, 1997, p. 18).
knows that he or she has given something, the gift is nullified . The giver
congratulates him- or herself, and the economy of gratitude, of
reappropriation, commences. Once the offering has been acknowledged as a
gift by the giver or receiver it is destroyed.
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
4.) The permutation fails. Ideology of legal empowerment taints criticism and
eviscerates pragmatism. Gift can never be used for good.
What we do suggest, however, is simply the following: That political and/or

legislative attempts at empowerment (as they currently stand) are insufficient to attain the
deconstructive and discursive condition of equality for minority citizen groups
(Collins, 1993). More significant, we contend that construction of these initiatives as
Derridean gifts advance, at best, fleeting vertiginous moments of inequality and
injustice. Still further, we recommend the (im)possible; that which, at first blush,
admittedly delivers no pragmatic value for social analysts.
APP STATE THE GIFT
THE GIFT
A2: The Gift
Turn Inaction is worse than the plan. We must not be incapable of rendering
meaningful action. Thus, permutation: Do both. Well always have better
solvency.

This article is far from a right-wing cry for cessation of those undertakings that
would further the cause of equality in American society. This article is also not a
statement of despair, a skeptical and nihilistic pronouncement on the
(im)possibility of justice (Fish, 1982) in which we are all rendered incapable of
establishing a provisional, deconstructive political agenda for meaningful social
change and action.

The Gift: Index Shell 2-3 2Nr Overview 4

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Gift: Index Shell 2-3 2Nr Overview 4

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

APP STATE THE GIFT

WILLIS (BROWER ASSIST) 1

ARRIGO and WILLIAMS 2000

We will win several link arguments:

Two more link arguments:

ARRIGO and WILLIAMS 2000

The impediments to establishing democratic justice in contemporary American

ARRIGO and WILLIAMS 2000

ARRIGO and WILLIAMS 2000

The gift is a calculated, majoritarian endeavor toward illusive equality. Equality

ARRIGO and WILLIAMS 2000

The gift of equality, procured through state legislative enactments as an

ARRIGO and WILLIAMS 2000

The gift has no idiosyncratic or artful definition that needs to be addressed.

ARRIGO and WILLIAMS 2000

The impediments to establishing democratic justice in contemporary American

ARRIGO and WILLIAMS 2000

ARRIGO and WILLIAMS 2000

The gift is a calculated, majoritarian endeavor toward illusive equality. Equality

What we do suggest, however, is simply the following: That political and/or

a.) Ballot doesnt stop wars or save children.

b.) Better to question ideology before impacts.

a.) We turn your criticism.

b.) We solve more than your criticism.

Questioning the gift can uncover multiple relationships. Specifically, our

c.) Uncovering altruism asks why you demand to be included.

2.) If we win a link, the permutation is a bad idea. Couple of reasons:

ARRIGO and WILLIAMS 2000

What we do suggest, however, is simply the following: That political and/or

ARRIGO and WILLIAMS 2000

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi