And DONT ALLOW FOR new arguments in the 1AR- strat skews w.

c from the block

FW*** 2NC OV

The question of the debate is whether representing death in the simulation of debate represents a valuable or harmful practice- they cant access the case without justifying their conclusion that death simulations are important

We control the offense. Our impacts stem directly from being forced to debate death. Their impacts are missing the internal link between talking about death and fearing death.

Without the alts protest against militarization of the public sphere, continuously escalating spectacles of violence become desirable and necessary- all of their impact claims are produced to justify a constant state of domestic insecurity and the alt is the only way to solve any of them anyway. We are a pre-requisite to solve literally all of their offense, from fear of death good to political action good. Giroux 3/14
Henry A Giroux, Frequent author on pedagogy in the public sphere, Truthout, Youth in Revolt: The Plague of State-Sponsored Violence, March 14, 2012, http://truthout.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7249:youth-in-revolt-the-plague-of-statesponsoredviolence As the social is devalued along with rationality, ethics and any vestige of democracy, spectacles of war, violence and brutality now merge into forms of collective pleasure that constitute an important and new symbiosis among visual pleasure, violence and suffering. The control society is now the ultimate form of entertainment as the pain of others, especially those considered disposable and powerless, has become the subject not of compassion, but of ridicule and amusement in America. High-octane violence and human suffering are now considered another form of entertainment designed to raise the collective pleasure quotient . Reveling in the suffering of others should no longer be reduced to a matter of individual pathology, but now registers a larger economy of pleasure across the broader culture and social landscape. My emphasis here is on the sadistic impulse and how it merges spectacles of violence and brutality with forms of collective pleasure. No society can make a claim to being a democracy as long as it defines itself through shared fears rather than shared responsibilities. Widespread violence now functions as part of an anti-immune system that turns the economy of genuine pleasure into a mode of sadism that creates the foundation for sapping democracy of any political substance and moral vitality. The prevalence of institutionalized violence in American society and other parts of the world suggests the need for a new conversation and politics that addresses what a just and fair world looks like. The predominance of violence in all aspects of social life suggests that young people and others marginalized by class, race and ethnicity have been abandoned as American society's claim on democracy gives way to the forces of militarism, market fundamentalism and state terrorism. The prevalence of violence throughout American society suggests the need for a politics that not only negates the established order, but imagines a new one, one informed by a radical vision in which the future does not imitate the present.(27) In this discourse, critique merges with a sense of realistic hope and individual struggles merge into larger social movements. The challenge that young people are posing to American society is being met with a statesponsored violence that is about more than police brutality; it is more importantly about the transformation of the United States from a social state to a warfare state, from a state that embraced the social contract to one that no longer has a language for community - a state in which the bonds of fear and commodification have replaced the bonds of civic responsibility and democratic vision. Until we address how the metaphysics of war and violence have taken hold on American society (and in other parts of the world) and the savage social costs it has enacted, the forms of social, political and economic violence that young people are protesting against as well as the violence waged in response to their protests will become impossible to recognize and act on .

Framework
-Our interpretation is that the aff should have to defend a topical plan and the negative should get to defend the status quo, a competitive policy option or test the assumptions of the aff. We control the internal link to education- The aff should have to justify their introduction of death impacts into the debate- its an independent reason to vote neg- otherwise collapse of collective justice is inevitable

Giroux 12
Henry A Giroux, Truthout, 29 February 2012, Dangerous Pedagogy in the Age of Casino Capitalism and Religious Fundamentalism, http://truthout.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=6954:dangerous-pedagogy-in-the-age-of-casinocapitalism-and-religious-fundamentalism
All over the world, the forces of neoliberalism are on the march, dismantling the historically guaranteed social provisions provided by the welfare state, defining profit-making and market freedoms as the essence of democracy while diminishing civil liberties as part of the alleged "war" against terrorism. Secure in its dystopian vision that there are no alternatives to a market society, free-market fundamentalism eliminates issues of contingency, struggle and social agency by celebrating the inevitability of economic laws in which the ethical ideal of intervening in the world gives way to the idea that we "have no choice but to adapt both our hopes and our abilities to the new global market."[1] Coupled

with an ever-expanding culture of fear, market freedoms seem securely grounded in a defense of national security and the institutions of finance capital. Under such circumstances, a neoliberal model now bears down on American society, threatening to turn it into an authoritarian state. The script is now familiar: there is no such thing as the common good; market values become the template
for shaping all aspects of society; the free, possessive individual has no obligations to anything other than his or her self-interest; profit-making is the essence of democracy; the government, and particularly the welfare state, is the arch-enemy of freedom; private interests trump public values; consumerism is the essence of citizenship; privatization is the essence of freedom; law and order is the

war is the new organizing principle for organizing society and the economy; theocracy now becomes the legitimating code for punishing women, young people,
new language for mobilizing shared fears rather than shared responsibilities; the elderly, and those groups marginalized by class, race and ethnicity when religious moralism is needed to shore up the war against all social order.[2] Given

this current crisis, educators need a new political and pedagogical language for addressing the changing contexts and issues facing a world in which capital draws upon an unprecedented convergence of resources - financial, cultural, political, economic, scientific, military and technological - to exercise powerful and diverse forms of control. If educators and others are to counter global
capitalisms increased ability to separate the traditional nation-state-based space of politics from the transnational reach of power, it is crucial to develop educational approaches that reject a collapse of the distinction between market liberties and civil liberties, a market economy and a market society. This

suggests developing forms of critical pedagogy capable of challenging neoliberalism and other anti-democratic traditions, such as the emerging religious fundamentalism in the United States,
while resurrecting a radical democratic project that provides the basis for imagining a life beyond the "dream world" of capitalism. Under such circumstances, education becomes more than testing, an obsession with accountability schemes, zerotolerance policies and a site for simply training students for the workforce. At stake here is recognizing the power of education in creating the formative culture necessary to both challenge the various threats being mobilized against the very idea of justice and democracy while also fighting for those public spheres and formative cultures that offer alternative modes of identity, social relations and politics.

And, militarism spills over- this is the most portable impact in the debate- all of their portable skills arguments are useless if we only use them to produce a cultural that is obsessed with pain and suffering- this is a foundational question that we must address Giroux 3/14
Henry A Giroux, Frequent author on pedagogy in the public sphere, Truthout, Youth in Revolt: The Plague of State-Sponsored Violence, March 14, 2012, http://truthout.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=7249:youth-in-revolt-the-plague-of-statesponsoredviolence

Meanwhile, exaggerated violence is accelerated in the larger society and now rules screen culture. The public pedagogy of entertainment includes extreme images of violence, human suffering and torture splashed across giant movie screens, some in 3D, offering viewers every imaginable portrayal of violent acts, each more shocking and brutal than the last. The growing taste for violence can be seen in the increasing modeling of public schools after prisons, the criminalization of behaviors such as homelessness that once were the object of social protections. A symptomatic example of the way in which violence has saturated everyday life can be seen in the growing acceptance of criminalizing the behavior of young people in public schools. Behaviors that were normally handled by teachers, guidance counselors and school administrators are now dealt with by the police and the criminal justice system. The consequences have been disastrous for young people. Not only do schools resemble the culture of prisons, but young children are being arrested and subjected to court appearances for behaviors that can only be termed as trivial. How else to explain the case of the five-year-old girl in Florida who was put in handcuffs and taken to the local jail because she had a temper tantrum; or the case of Alexa Gonzales in New York who was arrested for doodling on her desk. Even worse, a 13-year-old boy in a Maryland school was arrested for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance. There is more at work than stupidity and a flight from responsibility on the part of educators, parents and politicians who maintain these laws; there is also the growing sentiment that young people constitute a threat to adults and that the only way to deal with them is to subject them to mind-crushing punishment. Students being miseducated, criminalized and arrested through a form of penal pedagogy in prison-type schools provide a grim reminder of the degree to which the ethos of containment and punishment now creeps into spheres of everyday life that were largely immune in the past from this type of state violence. The governing through crime ethic also reminds us that we live in an era that breaks young people, corrupts the notion of justice and saturates the minute details of everyday life with the threat , if not reality, of violence . This mediaeval type of punishment inflicts pain on the psyche and the body of young people as part of a public spectacle. Even more disturbing is how the legacy of slavery informs this practice given that "Arrests and police interactions ... disproportionately affect low-income schools with large African-American and Latino populations,"(26) paving the way for them to move almost effortlessly through the school-to-prison pipeline. Surely, the next step will be a reality TV franchise in which millions tune in to watch young kids being handcuffed, arrested, tried in the courts and sent to juvenile detention centers. This is not merely barbarism parading as reform - it is also a blatant indicator of the degree to which sadism and the infatuation with violence have become normalized in a society that seems to take delight in dehumanizing itself.

A.) We control the uq- militarism is collapsing dissent- we must win control of this space in order to spur critical thinking and a new democratic anti-militaristic ethos Giroux 11
Henry A Giroux, Truthout, Occupy Colleges Now: Students as the New Public Intellectuals, 21 November 2011, http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=5046:occupy-colleges-now-students-as-the-new-public-intellectuals But there is more. It is also crucial not to allow casino capitalism to transform higher education into another extension of the corporate and warfare state. If higher education loses its civic purpose and becomes simply an adjunct of corporate and military power, there will be practically no spaces left for dissent, dialogue, civic courage, and a spirit of thoughtfulness and critical engagement. This is all the more reason to occupy colleges and use them as a launching pad to

both educate and to expand the very meaning of the public sphere. Knowledge is about more than the truth; it is also a weapon of change. The language of a radical politics needs more than hope and outrage; it needs institutional spaces to produce ideas, values, and social relations capable of fighting off those ideological and material forces of casino capitalism that are intent in sabotaging any viable notion of human interaction, community, solidarity, friendship, and justice. Space is not the ultimate prize here.[4] Politics and ideology are the essence of what this movement should be about. But space becomes invaluable when it its democratic functions and uses are restored . In an age when the media have become a means of mass distraction and entertainment, the university offers a site of informed engagement, a place where theory and action inform each other, and a space that refuses to divorce intellectual activities from matters of politics, social responsibility and social justice. As students and faculty increasingly use the space of the university as a megaphone for a new kind of critical education and politics, it will hopefully reclaim the democratic function of higher education and demonstrate what it means for students, faculty, and others to assume the role of public intellectuals dedicated to creating a formative culture that can provide citizens and others with the knowledge and skills necessary for a radical democracy. Rather than reducing learning to a measurable quantity in the service of a narrow instrumental rationality, learning can take on a new role, becoming central to developing and expanding the capacity for critical modes of agency, new forms of solidarity, and an education in the service of the public good, an expanded imagination, democratic values, and social change. The student intellectual as a public figure merges rigor with civic courage, meaning with the struggle for eliminating injustice wherever it occurs and hope with a realistic notion of social change.

B.) Space for critical education is critical to all political movements- the alternative is disintegration of democracy and collapse of critical thought Giroux 11
Henry A Giroux, Truthout, Occupy Colleges Now: Students as the New Public Intellectuals, 21 November 2011, http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=5046:occupy-colleges-now-students-as-the-new-public-intellectuals Hopefully, the Occupy Wall Street movements will expand their appropriation of public space to the university. And if so, let's hope that higher education will be viewed as a crucial public good and democratic public sphere. Under such circumstances, the university might be transformed into a new and broad-based community of learning and resistance. This is a huge possibility, but one worth struggling for. Unlike the youth movements of the past, such a movement will not crystallize around specific movements, but will create, hopefully, a community of the broadest possible resistance and political clout. In this way, the Occupy movement will connect to the larger world through a conversation and politics that links the particular with broader notions of freedom and justice. And against the pedagogical machine and political forces of casino capitalism, this expanding movement will fight hopefully with renewed energy. It will be determined in its mission to expand the capacities to think otherwise, and courageous in its attempts to take risks. It will be brave in its willingness to change the nature of the questions asked, fight to hold power accountable, and struggle to provide the formative culture for students and others to fight for those economic, political, social, and cultural conditions that are essential both to their future and to democracy itself.

Pedagogy is a prior question to the aff- if we win theyre pedagogically bankrupt, vote neg on presumption

Giroux 12
Henry A Giroux, Truthout, 29 February 2012, Dangerous Pedagogy in the Age of Casino Capitalism and Religious Fundamentalism, http://truthout.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=6954:dangerous-pedagogy-in-the-age-of-casinocapitalism-and-religious-fundamentalism An oppositional cultural politics can take many forms, but given the current assault by neoliberalism on all aspects of democratic public life, it seems imperative that educators revitalize the struggles to create conditions in which learning would be linked to social change in a wide variety of social sites, and pedagogy would take on the task of regenerating both a renewed sense of social and political agency and a critical subversion of dominant power itself. Making the political more pedagogical rests on the assumption that education takes place a variety of sites outside of the school. Under such circumstances, agency becomes the site through which power is not transcended but reworked, replayed and restaged in productive ways. Central to my argument is the assumption that politics is not only about power, but also, as Cornelius Castoriadis points out, "has to do with political judgements and value choices,"[4] indicating that questions of civic education and critical pedagogy (learning how to become a skilled citizen) are central to the struggle over political agency and democracy. In this instance, critical pedagogy emphasizes critical reflexivity, bridging the gap between learning and everyday life, understanding the connection between power and knowledge, and extending democratic rights and identities by using the resources of history. However, among many educators and social theorists, there is a widespread refusal to recognize that this form of education is not only the foundation for expanding and enabling political agency, but also that it takes place across a wide variety of public

spheres mediated through the very force of culture itself. One of the central tasks of any viable critical pedagogy would be to make visible alternative models of radical democratic relations in a wide variety of sites. These spaces can make the pedagogical more political by raising fundamental questions such as: what is the relationship between social justice and the distribution of public resources and goods? What are the conditions, knowledge and skills that are a prerequisite for civic literacy, political agency and social change? What kinds of identities, desires and social relations are being produced and legitimated in diverse sites of teaching and learning? How might the latter prepare or undermine the ability of students to be self-reflective, exercise judgment, engage in critical dialogues, and assume some responsibility for addressing the challenges to democracy at a national and global level? At the very least, such a project involves understanding and critically engaging dominant public transcripts and values within a broader set of historical and institutional contexts. Making the political more pedagogical in this instance suggests producing modes of knowledge and social practices in a variety of sites that not only affirm oppositional thinking, dissent and cultural work, but also offer opportunities to mobilize instances of collective outrage and collective action. Such mobilization opposes glaring material inequities and the growing cynical belief that today's culture of investment and finance makes it impossible to address many of the major social problems facing both the United States and the larger world. Most importantly, such work points to the link between civic education, critical pedagogy and modes of oppositional political agency that are pivotal to creating a politics that promotes democratic values, relations, autonomy and social change. Hints of such a politics is already evident in the various approaches the Occupy movement has taken in reclaiming the discourse of democracy and in collectively challenging the values and practices of finance capital. Borrowing a line from Rachel Donadio, the Occupy movement protesters are raising questions about "what happens to democracy when banks become more powerful than political institutions?"[5] What kind of education does it take, both in and out of schools, to recognize the dissolution of democracy and the emergence of an authoritarian state? In taking up these questions and the challenges they pose, critical pedagogy proposes that education is a form of political intervention in the world and is capable of creating the possibilities for social transformation. Rather than viewing teaching as technical practice, pedagogy, in the broadest critical sense, is premised on the assumption that learning is not about processing received knowledge, but actually transforming knowledge as part of a more expansive struggle for individual rights and social justice. This implies that any viable notion of pedagogy and resistance should illustrate how knowledge, values, desire and social relations are always implicated in relations of power, and how such an understanding can be used pedagogically and politically by students to further expand and deepen the imperatives of economic and political democracy. The fundamental challenge facing educators within the current age of neoliberalism, militarism and religious fundamentalism is to provide the conditions for students to address how knowledge is related to the power of both self-definition and social agency. In part, this means providing students with the skills, knowledge and authority they need to inquire and act upon what it means to live in a substantive democracy, to recognize anti-democratic forms of power, and to fight deeply rooted injustices in a society and world founded on systemic economic, racial and gendered inequalities. Re-envisioning pedagogy outweighs the aff- their impacts are visions of possible apocalyptic futures that live only in their fantasies- embracing our model of education means affirming that debate is part of a strong social fabric that seeks to build coalitions based on reasonable incrementalism. Thats the only way to make debate productive.

Giroux 11
Henry A Giroux, Truthout, Occupy Colleges Now: Students as the New Public Intellectuals, 21 November 2011, http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=5046:occupy-colleges-now-students-as-the-new-public-intellectuals Finding our way to a more humane future demands a new politics, a new set of values, and a renewed sense of the fragile nature of democracy. In part, this means educating a new generation of intellectuals who not only defend higher education as a democratic public sphere, but also frame their own agency as intellectuals willing to connect their research, teaching, knowledge, and service with broader democratic concerns over equality, justice, and an alternative vision of what the university might be and what society could become. Under the present circumstances, it is time to remind ourselves that academe may be one of the few public spheres available that can provide the educational conditions for students, faculty, administrators, and community members to embrace pedagogy as a space of dialogue and unmitigated questioning, imagine different futures, become border-crossers, and embrace a language of critique and possibility that makes visible the urgency of a politics necessary to address important social issues and contribute to the quality of public life and the common good. As people move or are pushed by authorities out of their makeshift tent cities in Zuccotti Park and other public spaces in cities across the United States, the harsh registers and interests of the punishing state become more visible. The corporate state cannot fight any longer with ideas because their visions, ideologies and survival of the fittest ethic are bankrupt, fast losing any semblance of legitimacy. Students all over the country are changing the language of politics while reclaiming pedagogy as central to any viable notion of agency, resistance and collective struggle. In short, they have become the new public intellectuals, using their bodies, social media, new digital technologies, and any other viable educational tool to raise new questions, point to new possibilities, and register their criticisms of the various antidemocratic elements of casino capitalism and the emerging punishing state. Increasingly, the Occupy Wall Street protesters are occupying colleges and universities, setting up tents, and using the power of ideas to engage other students, faculty, and anyone else who will listen to them. The call is going out from the University of California at Berkeley, Harvard University, Florida State University, Duke University, Rhode Island College, and over 120 other universities that the time has come to connect knowledge not just to power, but to the very meaning of what it means to be an engaged intellectual responsive to the possibilities of individual and collective resistance and change. This poses a new challenge not only for the brave students mobilizing these protests on college campuses, but also to faculty who often relegate themselves to the secure and comfortable claim that scholarship should be disinterested, objective and removed from politics. There is a great deal these students and young people can learn from this turn away from the so-called professionalism of disinterested knowledge and the disinterested intellectual by reading the works of Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Jacques Derrida, Howard Zinn, Arundhati Roy, Elaine Scarry, Pierre Bourdieu and others who offer a treasure trove of theoretical and political insights about what it means to assume the role of a public intellectual as both a matter of social responsibility and political urgency. In response to the political indifference and moral coma that embraced many universities and scholars since the 1980s, the late Said argued for intellectuals to move beyond the narrow interests of professionalism and specialization as well as the cheap seductions of celebrity culture being offered to a new breed of publicity and anti-public intellectuals. Said wanted to defend the necessity - indeed, keep open the possibility - of the intellectual who does not consolidate power, but questions it, connects his or her work to the alleviation of human suffering, enters the public sphere in order to deflate the claims of triumphalism and recalls from exile those dangerous memories that are often repressed or ignored.

Reinvesting our energy in pedagogical and intellectual questions is essential- anything else turns us into corporate drones and puts us constantly in lock-step with rationalism Giroux 11
Henry A Giroux, Truthout, Occupy Colleges Now: Students as the New Public Intellectuals, 21 November 2011, http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=5046:occupy-colleges-now-students-as-the-new-public-intellectuals Chomsky and the late Zinn have spoken about and demonstrated for over 40 years what it means to think rigorously and act courageously in the face of human suffering and manufactured hardships. All of these theorists are concerned with what it means for intellectuals both within and outside of higher education to embrace the university as a productive site of dialogue and contestation, to imagine it as a site that offers students the promise of a democracy to come, to help them understand that there is no genuine democracy without genuine opposing critical power and the social movements that can make it happen. But there is more at stake here than arguing for a more engaged public role for academics and students, for demanding the urgent need to reconnect humanistic inquiry to important social issues, or for insisting on the necessity for academics to reclaim a notion of ethical advocacy and connective relationships. There is also the challenge of connecting the university with visions that have some hold on the present, defending education as more than an investment opportunity or job credential, students as more than customers, and faculty as more than technicians or a subaltern army of casualized labor. At a time when higher education is increasingly being dominated by a reductive corporate logic and technocratic rationality unable to differentiate training from a critical education, we need a chorus of new voices to emphasize that the humanities, in particular, and the university, in general, should play a central role in keeping critical thought alive while fighting back all attempts to foreclose and pre-empt the further unraveling of human possibilities, prodding human society to go on questioning itself and prevent that questioning from ever stalling or being declared finished. Corporations and the warfare state should not dictate the needs of public and higher education, or, for that matter, any other democratic public sphere. As the Occupy student protesters have pointed out over the last few months, one of the great dangers facing the 21st century is not the risk of illusory hopes, but those undemocratic forces that promote and protect state terrorism, massive inequality, render some populations utterly disposable, imagine the future only in terms of immediate financial gains, and promote forms of self-serving historical reinvention in which power is measured by the degree to which it evades any sense of actual truth and moral responsibility. Students, like their youthful counterparts in the 1960s, are once again arguing that higher education, even in its imperfect state, still holds the promise, if not the reality, of being able to offer them the complex knowledge and interdisciplinary related skills that enable existing and future generations to break the continuity of common sense, come to terms with their own power as critical agents, be critical of the authority that speaks to them, translate private considerations into public issues, and assume the responsibility of not only being governed but learning how to govern. Inhabiting the role of public intellectuals, students can take on the difficult but urgent task of reclaiming the ideal and the practice of what it means to reclaim higher education in general and the humanities, more specifically, as a site of possibility that embraces the idea of democracy not merely as a mode of governance but, most importantly- as journalist Bill Moyers points out - as a means of dignifying people so they can become fully free to claim their moral and political agency.

Voting aff on framework represents an act of discipline that eviscerates the public sphere- its the debate equivalent of beating Occupy protestors at Berkeley- thats an independent reason to vote neg.
Giroux 11
Henry A Giroux, Truthout, Occupy Colleges Now: Students as the New Public Intellectuals, 21 November 2011, http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=5046:occupy-colleges-now-students-as-the-new-public-intellectuals Students are starting to recognize that it is crucial to struggle for the university as a democratic public sphere and the need to use that sphere to educate a generation of new students, faculty and others about the history of race, racism, politics, identity, power, the state and the struggle for justice. They are increasingly willing to argue in theoretically insightful and profound ways about what it means to defend the university as a site that opens up and sustains public connections through which people's fragmented, uncertain, incomplete narratives of agency are valued, preserved, and made available for exchange while being related analytically to wider contexts of politics and power. They are moving to reclaim, once again, the humanities as a sphere that is crucial for grounding ethics, justice and morality across existing disciplinary terrains, while raising both a sense of urgency and a set of relevant questions about what kind of education would be suited to the 21st-century university and its global arrangements as part of a larger project of addressing the most urgent issues that face the social and political world. The punishing state can use violence with impunity to eject young people from parks and other public sites, but it is far more difficult to eject them from sites that are designed for their intellectual growth and well-being, make a claim to educate them, and register society's investment and commitment to their future. Students can be forced out of parks and other public spaces, but it is much more difficult to force them out of those sites designed to educate them - places that are identified with young people and register the larger society's obligation to their future and wellbeing. The police violence that has taken place at the University of California campuses at Berkeley and Davis does more than border on pure thuggery; it also reveals a display of force that is as unnecessary as it is brutal, and it is impossible to justify. These young people are being beaten on their campuses for simply displaying the courage to protest a system that has robbed them of both a quality education and a viable future.

And, their fairness arguments are asinine1.) 1AC offense is a non-starter- they could have chose to read a defense of their methodology in the 1AC, their strategic choice not to means we force better aff strategy by forcing them to consider which advantages have the most defensible methods instead of just which ones have the most extinction impacts 2.) 1AC was in a specific frame is just an aff choice argument that begs the questi on of the link debate- were re-explaining the context of the 1ac

Our K is key to education*

Irving p. v)

Zaretsky, Professor of Anthropology University of Chicago, 79 (Death and Existence,

Of central importance in the life of every person is the confrontation of ones own mortality and thereby the development of an orientation on worldview toward life and death with which to shape the quality and content of daily conduct. Although every persons worldview is personally derived, it is not completely idiosyncratic; rather, it is culturally patterned and socially determined. Our socialization process, from infancy, provides us with only the initial raw material from which to develop our personal belief system.

Rhetoric key to policy*

Cori E. Dauber, Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina, 1 (Rhetoric & Public Affairs 4.4, The Shots Seen 'Round the World) The impact the Mogadishu images have had on American foreign policy is clear. But their impact is not inescapable or inevitable. It is based on the incorrect assumption that people can only read images unidirectionally. No matter how similar, no matter how powerfully one text evokes another, every image is unique. Each comes from a different historical situation, is placed within a different story, and offers an ambiguous text that can be exploited by astute commentators. Images matter profoundly, but so do their contexts and the words that accompany them. The implications of this shift in interpretation are potentially profound. Mogadishu, or the mention of a potential parallel with Mogadishu, need not be a straightjacket or a deterrent to the use of American power. Rhetoric, whether discursive or visual, has real power in the way events play out. What this article makes clear is that rhetoric (and therefore rhetorical analysis) also has power in the way policy is shaped and defined. In a recent book on the conflict in Kosovo, the authors note that when the president spoke to the nation on the night the air war began, he immediately ruled out the use of ground forces. This was done, they argue, due to fears that leaving open the possibility of ground force participation would sacrifice domestic public and congressional (and allied) support for the air war. But "publicly ruling out their use only helped to reduce Milosevic's uncertainty regarding the likely scope of NATO's military actions," 109 and possibly to lengthen the air war as a result. Yet, they report, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, "who authored the critical passage in the president's speech, maintains that 'we would not have won the war without this sentence.'" 110 It would be difficult to find more direct evidence for the profound impact and influence public rhetoric and debate have--and are understood to have--on policy, policymaking, and policymakers at the highest level. That means that rhetorical analysis can have a role to play and a voice at the table before policies are determined. Academic rhetoricians, through their choice of projects and the formats in which they publish, can stake a claim to having an important voice at the table--and they should do so.

Case
Firstly on Inhenrcy defer to Neg evidence for two reasons firstly are Uniqueness evidence firstly post-dates the Affirmitives , then also 3 areas of America-Cuban Realtions :Oil,Science ,Disaster Relief . Secondly are evidence is much more descriptive on what is occurring unlike the Affirmitives. Their Economist evidence is firstly only talking about financial instutions , which firstly does not interact with the aff , secondly be wary of any 1AR/2AR evidence . Be Wary of any Affirmitive Inhrency

Secondly on the Rasicism Turn:They complete drop these Racism Turn on Case - firstly evaluate Systemic Impacts Firstly because of how then voting Aff only continues within the System secondly lets do impact Calc now : The incalculable gratuitous violence against the black body shatters traditional impact calculus 1. Root Causality a. Social death is modeled and perfected on black body the ability to oppress, manipulate, and exploit is outwardly applied to all bodies since the dawn of europes landing on this continent b. The ability to police and mark bodies one of the biggest modern examples is the National Security Agency policing of bodies justified by the external desire to secure and protect society from threats to society this macro level policing of bodies was first utilized to secure the slave psychological manipulation and brutalize tools meant to strike fear into the human stripped of its rights 2. Perfection of modern enslavement ie the Prison Industrial complex Black bodies are incarcerated at a rate of double that of white bodies regardless of if they are Latino or European. This institutional normalization of violent imprisonment furthers a culture 3. Magnitude civil society, since its forced engagement on this continent has been defined by Black Death and red genocide this violence hasnt been progressively removed, merely relabeled. From the fields to factories exclusion hasnt changed. It doesnt matter how much money you make or how many degrees you have if you are the wrong shade of black you can be stopped and frisked.

Extend the Slater 97 evidence on how view and representation of Cuba is quite inherently racist Secondly then extend the Yancy evidence and how then Rasicsm kills any V2L ,and how that is the biggest impact in the debate a.Firstly group all their answers- firstly are views of v2L is more towards how its a idealogical thing , more towards a group of people . The Affirmitive answers just only display whiteness and how then Social Death and then they kill value to life . b.Value To life is the largest impact in debate was ceded we answered the arguments on how V2L is not an impact- but it is .
c. The key i/l was ceded so more impacts: Racism is the root cause of violence Foucault '76
[Michel, Society Must be Defended: Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976, p. 254-257 Trans. David Macey] What in fact is racism? It is primarily a way of introducing a break into the domain of life that is

under power's control: the break between what must live and what must die. The appearance within the
biological continuum of the human race of races, the distinction among races, the hierarchy of races, the fact that certain races are described as good and that others, in contrast, are described as inferior: all this is a way of fragmenting the field of the biological that power controls. It is a way of separating out the groups that exist within a population. It is, in short, a way of establishing a biological type caesura within a population that appears to be a biological domain. This will allow power to treat that population as a mixture of races, or to be more accurate, to treat the species, to subdivide the species it controls, into the subspecies known, precisely, as races. That is the first function of racism: to fragment, to create caesuras within the biological continuum addressed by biopower. Racism also has a second function. Its role is, if you like, to allow the establishment of a positive relation of this type: "The more you kill, the more deaths you will cause" or "The very fact that you let more die will allow you to live more." I would say that this relation ("If you want to live, you must take lives, you must be able to kill") was not invented by either racism or the modern State. It is the relationship of war: "In order to live, you must destroy your enemies." But racism does make the relationship of war-"If you want to live, the other must die" - function in a way that is completely new and that is quite compatible with the exercise of biopower. On the one hand ,

racism makes it possible to establish a relationship between my life and the death of the other that race or racism is the precondition that makes killing acceptable is not a military or warlike relationship of confrontation, but a biological-type relationship: "The more inferior species die out, the more abnormal individuals are eliminated, the fewer degenerates there
will be in the species as a whole, and the more Ias species rather than individual-can live, the stronger I will be, the more vigorous I will be. I will be able to proliferate." The fact that the other dies does not mean simply that I live in the sense that his death guarantees my safety; the death of the other, the death of the bad race, of the inferior race (or the degenerate, or the abnormal) is something that will make life in general healthier: healthier and purer. This is not, then, a military, warlike, or political relationship, but a biological relationship. And the reason this mechanism can come into play is that the enemies who have to be done away with are not adversaries in the political sense of the term; they are threats, either external or internal, to the population and for the population. In the biopower system, in other words, killing or the imperative to kill is acceptable only if it results not in a victory over political adversaries, but in the elimination of the biological threat to and the improvement of the species or race. There is a direct connection between the two. In a normalizing society,. When you have a normalizing society, you have a power which is, at least superficially, in the first instance, or in the first line a biopower, and racism is the indispensable precondition that allows someone to be killed, that allows others to be killed. Once the State functions in the biopower mode, racism alone can justify the murderous function of the State. So you can understand the importance-I almost said the vital importance-of racism to the exercise of such a power: it is the precondition for exercising the right to kill. If the power of normalization wished to exercise the old sovereign right to kill, it must become racist. And if, conversely, a power of sovereignty, or in other words, a power that has the right of life and death, wishes to work with the instruments, mechanisms, and technology of normalization, it too must become racist. When I say "killing," I obviously do not mean simply murder as such, but also every form of indirect murder: the fact of exposing someone to death, increasing the risk of death for some people, or, quite simply, political death, expulsion, rejection, and so on. I think that we are now in a position to understand a number of things. We can understand, first of all, the link that was quickly-I almost said immediately-established between nineteenth-century biological theory and the discourse of power. Basically, evolutionism, understood in the broad sense-or in other words, not so much Darwin's theory itself as a set, a bundle, of notions (such as: the hierarchy of species that grow from a common evolutionary tree, the struggle for existence among species, the selection that eliminates the less fit) naturally became within a few years during the nineteenth century not simply a way of transcribing a political discourse into biological terms, and not simply a way of dressing up a political discourse in scientific clothing, but a real way of thinking about the relations between colonization, the necessity for wars, criminality, the phenomena of madness and mental illness, the history of societies with their different classes, and so on. Whenever, in other words, there was a confrontation, a killing or the risk of death, the nineteenth century was quite literally obliged to think about them in the form of evolutionism. And we can also understand why racism should have developed in modern societies that function in the biopower mode; we can understand why racism broke out at a number of .privileged moments, and why they were precisely the moments

Racism first develops with colonization, or in other words, with colonizing genocide. If you are functioning in the biopower mode, how can you justify the need to kill people, to kill populations, and to kill civilizations? By using the themes of evolutionism, by appealing to a racism. War. How can one not only wage war on one's adversaries but also expose one's own citizens to war, and let them be killed by the million (and this is precisely what has been going on since the nineteenth century, or since the second half of the nineteenth century), except by activating the theme of racism
when the right to take life was imperative.

Secondly evidence on the Affirmitive now

They really do not : Agriculture

U.S and Cuba high agriculture trade partners, even with embargo
RenewAmerica 9/13
Marielena Montesino de Stuart column/ She is an experienced legal and international conference interpreter.. Marielena Montesino de Stuart's observations have appeared in: RenewAmerica, USAToday, U.S. Politics Today (an EIN Service for Political Professionals-*) Poynter Online, Spero News, Daily Estimate, The New Liturgical Movement-Poland, The Naples Daily News, Les Femmes-The Truth, Culture War Notes, ProLife Blogs, The Wanderer, etc./ A special report -- pastoral letter from the Conference of Cuban Catholic Bishops: more offensive socialist rhetoric/9/13/13/ http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/marielena/130916/djs/9/18/13 Despite the "embargo" and financial restrictions, U.S. exports to Cuba reached $711 million in 2008 before declining in 2009 and 2010. Cuba has become the 12th largest market in the Western Hemisphere for U.S. agricultural products. The U.S. Dollar value of U.S. exports to Cuba in 2012 was $457,318,357.00 under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA) of 2000, which re-authorized the direct commercial (on a cash basis) export of food products (including branded food products) and agricultural products (commodities) from the United States to Cuba. This does not include healthcare products, which remain authorized by the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992. After the TSRA was set in motion, the United States became Cuba's fourth largest trading partner behind Venezuela, China, and Spain . While product types may vary, the United States is Cuba's largest supplier of imported food during most years.

Firstly then the Status Quo , the US is their , so then these advantage should occur in the SQ , secondly this kills all solvency on this advantage for two reasons :
a.Either US can not get the Cuba Model to go global b.Or their impacts should have been trigger already

Next on the Collaspse : Firsltly to be skeptical are Piccone evidence is clearly stating how without the Gradual reform then the 1AC is only taking it out to fast , and the Cave12 evidence clearly states how this is the root cause of Rapid Reforms which then links it to are Feinburg evidence which of how Sudden Breakdown causes Cuban Instability and Collaspse . Firstly then they completely misinte rpret this evidence . Then what the Affirimtive tries to do , with using FIAT and such of how the plan is going to stop this no , they are causing the impacts they are trying to stop .Any risk of the Advantage flows neg , because of the lynchpin and key arguments dropped , and of how then this advantage acts as a Disad to the Aff itself .

Now onto Infulence : Firstly on the Korean impact scenario : they ceded are Stares evidence which clearly outline how this will never become full war ,on how Pyonyang only has been all rhetoric no real action backing the words. Which then kills any chance of this impact Iran Scenario : Firstly be quite skeptical of this scenario for two reasons : Firstly the amount of reasons the Iranian will like to attack the Americans is quite staggering firstly on how there should be no weight on how Anti-American views of the government , and their dislike of Sanctions against them . Another reasoning why the Iranian could attack us . Secondly the Iranians will not escalate , for the reasoning of how the American army is a much more powerful army and how the Iranian want of Warming realtions The Phone Call made by Rouhani proves .

China.

War with China inevitable-

A. Economic competition
Mearsheimer 05 [John, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, CLASH OF THE TITANS, Jan/Feb,
http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs/A0034.pdf]

China cannot rise peacefully, and if it continues its dramatic economic growth over the next few decades, the United States and China are likely to engage in an intense security competition with considerable potential for war. Most of Chinas neighbors, including India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Russia, and Vietnam, will likely join with the United States to contain Chinas power.

B. All recent Chinese actions prove- US experts were consistently wrong

Nyquist, renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, 05, [JR Geopolitical Global Analyst Recent China Revelations Weekly
Column July 1] [ct] [2]

Chinas war preparations are deliberate, and the implications should not be passed over lightly. China is a highly secretive country, like all communist countries. The objective of communism is world revolution, the overthrow of global capitalism, the

destruction of the free market, the elimination of the international bourgeoisie and

the disarming of the United States. We should it is difficult to account for the dismissive attitude of U.S. intelligence experts when regarding Chinese intentions. The China problem is a serious one. The people of the countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America should unite, said Chairman Mao in 1964.
be puzzled, indeed, if Chinese policy did not follow the communist line (however deviously). Given all this, The people of all continents should unite and so form the broadest united front to oppose the U.S. imperialist policies of aggression and war and to defend world peace. In terms of todays peace movement, Maos sentiments are up-to-date. They are, I think, a founding inspiration. The supposed death of communism may have eliminated a few soiled terms, but not the main idea. The

label on old hatreds may be changed, but the content remains the same. And because America is asleep, and the market is buzzing with Chinese goods, the U.S. government has turned a blind eye. The truth about China is worse than inconvenient. It is painful. So a
special context has been devised for dismissing inconvenient facts. This context is inculcated at graduate schools, think tanks and in government. The context for understanding international affairs must not admit the existence of a coordinated, secretive and dangerous combination of countries motivated to overthrow the United States. In other words, the existence of a communist bloc cannot be admitted. And Chinas role within this bloc above all must be rated as a crackpot notion. And yet, the existence of something identical to the old communist bloc whatever we choose to call it is indicated by actions across the board by Russia, the East European satellite countries, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and China. Some ideas fall from fashion. But truth is always true, fashion or not. U.S.

experts failed to connect the dots regarding Chinas development of a long-range cruise missile, a new attack submarine, new ground-to-air missiles, a new anti-ship missile (for sinking U.S. aircraft carriers) and more. China is preparing for war against the United States, specifically. As absurd as it sounds to the economic optimists who think trade with China guarantees peace, the U.S. and China are bound to collide. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesnt have a sense of history, doesnt understand communist thinking or the overall policy Beijing has consistently followed since 1949. Communist countries periodically experiment with capitalism, they always seek trade with the West, and they always sink the money and technology they gain thereby into a military buildup. Ultimately, they dont care about the prosperity of their people, the state of the national infrastructure, personal or press freedom.

China will modernize to counter the US

Jannuzi 2K [Frank, Missile Defense and East Asia: Downside and Risks, http://www.icasinc.org/2000/2000f/2000ffsj.html]
If China were to increase its strategic nuclear forces so as to counter our missile defense,

it might well decide to MIRV its missiles. After all, that's how you field lots of warheads without having to build so many missiles. China's nuclear doctrine has been based upon an ability to absorb a first strike and then respond. Will they maintain that doctrine if they MIRV their ICBM's? Will they be confident that we can't target their new mobile ICBM's? Or will they put them on "hair-trigger" alert? China has little or no missile warning capability, so a China with MIRV's on hair-trigger alert is not a comforting thought. Consider, also, just how China would MIRV its missiles. Some experts believe that in order to field small enough warheads, China would have to resume nuclear testing. That would put a stake through the heart of the Comprehensive Nuclear TestBan Treaty, and perhaps the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well. Does that give us greater security?

B. Causes prolif
Sanders and Jing-Dong 2K Phillip and Yuan, (China's Strategic ForceModernization: Issues and Implications in Proliferation Challenges
and Nonproliferation Opportunities for New Administrations. OccasionalPaper No. 4. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, July, http://cns.miis.edu/cns/projects/eanp/conf/op4_sjd.pdf)

Because this scenario involves a significant expansion of China's strategic nuclear force, it would have a broad negative impact on international arms control and nonproliferation regimes. In the worst case, the United States might interpret China's buildup in response to a US NMD deployment as evidence of hostile Chinese intentions, stimulating an arms race and an end to cooperation on regional security, nonproliferation, and arms
control issues. The United States might also respond by attempting to build a "thick" NMD system capable of neutralizing China's nuclear

deterrent. The costs of such an offense-defense arms race would be heavy for both sides, and it is not clear whether the technology for a

China's nuclear buildup in an arms race with the United States would have major negative consequences for other regional actors, such as Japan, Russia, and India.
"thick" missile defense system would be effective or affordable. A doctrinal shift from minimal deterrence to limited deterrence would call China's NFU pledge into question. The associated build-up of Chinese nuclear missile forces, coupled with a US-Russian START III build-down, would move China closer to numerical parity. This could have two contradictory consequences. China's two-decade free ride on superpower nuclear weapons reductions might end, as international pressure mounted for China to participate in the global nuclear disarmament process. However, the United States and Russia might reconsider further reductions in their strategic nuclear doctrine would probably be interpreted by the United States as evidence of Chinese hostility, which would worsen relations and undermine regional stability.

Any significant expansion of China's nuclear force would have important implications for regional security dynamics. Some Japanese analysts would interpret China's strategic modernization as a threat, especially if it includes a shift to limited deterrence and an expansion in the number of MRBMs. The closing of the gap between Chinese nuclear missile forces and US military capabilities and the potential for nuclear exchanges in the western Pacific could cause Tokyo to question the credibility of extended deterrrence and the US nuclear umbrella. This might lead Japan to make a greater commitment to theater missile defense and to reconsider its nuclear and ballistic missile options. This reassessment might
also be triggered by an easing of tensions on the Korean peninsula, which might undercut the rationale for a forward-based US presence in Northeast Asia.

C. Proliferation makes extinction inevitable

Taylor 02 Stuart Taylor Jr., Senior Writer The National Journal, Contributing Editor Newsweek, 9-16-2002, Legal Times, Lexis Unless we get serious about stopping proliferation, we are headed for a world filled with nuclear-weapons states, where every crisis threatens to go nuclear, where the survival of civilization truly is in question from day to day, and where it would be impossible to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists, religious cults, and criminal organizations. So writes Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr., a moderate Republican who served as a career arms-controller under six presidents and led the successful Clinton administration effort to extend the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

-So then China US WAR NOW IS key

QUICK NOTE ON CONSULT CP THEORY

Firstly Consult CP not a voter

CONSULT CP GOOD
First is our offense: 1. Key to negative ground a. They are the only CP that can solve the majority of most affs while still allowing for an attackable position by the aff b. They are the only way to level the playing field against aff structural advantages such as infinite prep and first and last speeches and topic bias such as double the amount of cases allowed c. Negative flexibility- we should be able to use any means to prove an advocacy better than the affirmative 2. Key to education a. Civil liberties in regards to the war on terror is a transnational issue- we should learn about how other countries feel about US policies in this global WOT b. Force 2AC strategic thinking- consult CPs cause the 2AC to make their most strategic arguments such as reading morality add-ons c. Straying away from the resolution is inevitable there is only a risk we increase topic education 3. Consult CPs are key to solve 2AC add-ons without them, the aff would always be able to get around any counterplan by reading a new add-on. Next is our defense: 1. Tests aff burden consult counterplans are the only way to make sure the aff upholds the word resolved in the resolution which means to make a firm decision about- thats from dictionary.com 2. We solve all of their offense- consulting relevant actors in such areas such as the War on Terror are unique to the topic and therefore just as much entitled to the negative as is an agent counterplan is relevant on areas as civil liberties- we merely embrace the other side of the topic 3. Predictability a. There are only a finite number of nations that we could cut specific perm and genuine consultation evidence on and good net benefits b. Their argument as to why international relations disads solve our offense just prove that one way or another they will have to be up on this debate 4. Consultation is inevitable in policymaking the aff starts a process in which inter-branch consultations occur, and the CP starts a similar process just on a larger level. 5. Reject the argument, not the team just evaluate it as a relations disad to the plan its enough punishment to lose a key piece of our strategy.