WE'RE NOT GOING FOR DATA, DON'T ALLOW UNPREDICTABLE CROSS APPLICATIONS

1. THEY STILL LINK ZELLNER AND ROSEKIND SAY THEY NEITHER EXPLICIT CITE THE
METHODOLOGIES, BACKGROUND, AND RESULTS OF THEIR EXPERIMENTS NOR USE A
QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY TO JUSTIFY THE PLAN, MEANS THEY LEAD TO BAD IDEOLOGICAL
EMPIRICISM, NOT GOOD EMPIRICISM.
2. DOESN'T APPLY TO OUR K'S DATA ONLY APPLIES TO PREDICTIONS, NOT VALUES BECAUSE THEY
ARE INHERENTLY UNQUANTIFIABLE AND NO
STATS EXIST FOR WHY YOUR LIFE MATTERS
3. CONDITIONALITY MEANS WE SHOULD GET TO KICK WORLDS SUCH AS
THE FRAMEWORK FOR NEGATIVE FLEXIBILITY TAKING AWAY ANY
REASON WHY YOU SHOULD PREFERENCE DATA ITS NO DIFFERENT THAN KICKING OUT OF OF T.
4. WE MEET THEIR EMPIRICISM STANDARD TOO OUR EV CITES JUST AS
MUCH IF NOT MORE DATA THAN THEM MEANS ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO
DISTINGUISH OR WEIGH MORE DATA

2NC OVW
Kritik outweighs and turns the case 1AC makes a drive to make the world perfect. The impact outweighs,
their securitization of apocalyptic discourse reinforces the fear that they use to persuade the judge to vote
affirmative. The fear comes first only way to stop securitizing our own downfall is to stop the apocalyptic
discourse. They allow the state identity a threat to justify things like military intervention and slaughter.
Creates a self fulfilling prophecy of identifying a threat just to destroy it justifies things like the Iraq war
where George Bush sais that there were WMDs in Iraq just to invade and killed a bunch of people.

The alternative goes conceded - no new solvency deficits in the 1AR. Extend Burke here Individual advocacy
in this round is crucial to the breaking down of security discourse, the way we present arguments influences
how we act in terms of political advocacy. Security operates through the lens of state social mapping.
People are told they are inherently violent, and it acts as a control mechanism. This round isnt about
whether or not the plan actually happens its about the personal accountability for the impacts. Burke says
only through rejecting the way security affects our lives on individual basis and our power to change. The
affirmative literally discourse feeds into a power system that makes life meaningless.

Burke indicates that and individual rejection of irrational security is the critical first step in breaking it down.
Many movements for liberation have started from the basis of a few individuals. This grassroots movement
will be able to change the way the United States operates in foreign policy through proactive change.


Thus the role of the ballot serves as two fold
1. To recognize that humans arent inherently violent-ask yourself when the last time you killed
someone was. People are only violent in the context of the state lens thats coviello. This rejection of
this cop out is necessary for coalition building- too create a positive basis for change.
2. The alternative should be evaluated before the case, if we win that violence is only inevitable when
we accept as being thus we open the possibility for the wholesale rejection of state based security.
Means we solve all of the affs internal links and avoid our net benefits of state genocide, and the
case turns.
2NC FW
Our interpretation is that the affirmative should have to present a topical plan action and should have to
justify its representations.

Reasons to prefer
A. Ground- if the negative were tied down only to CPs and the status quo the 2ac would win every
round by reading a ton of add-ons.
B. Fairness- Critiques are a key part of negative strategy we need them too to beat back unpredictable
affs.
C. Theyre predictable- Ks and frameworks have been around for a long time no reason they shouldnt
be able to predict them.
D. Education- The affirmatives interpretation kills all philosophical education by ruling out any critique
alternatives. Nobody would run them anymore because alternatives are key to winning k debates.
This philosophical education is good in learning about different worldviews.
E. Fiat is illusory- no coherent reason why simulating the case is good at best the judge too default to
what he has control over- the discourse in this round.

And, Security discourse defines who deserves authority these discourses shape policy by determining
what can and cannot be thought
Lipschutz 1998
Ronnie, Director Politics PhD Program, UC Santa Cruz, 1998. On Security p. 7

Conceptualizations of security--from which follow policy and practice--are to be found in discourses of security .
These are neither strictly objective assessments nor analytical constructs of threat, but rather the products of historical
structures and processes, of struggles for power within the state, of conflicts between the societal groupings that inhabit
states and the interests that besiege them. Hence, there are not only struggles over security among nations , but also
struggles over security among notions . Winning the right to define security provides not just access to resources
but also the authority to articulate new definitions and discourses of security, as well. As Karen Litfin points
out, "As determinants of what can and cannot be thought, discourses delimit the range of policy options,
thereby functioning as precursors to policy outcomes. . . . The supreme power is the power to delineate the
boundaries of thought--an attribute not so much of specific agents as it is of discursive practices."

Assuming that politics has an endpoint without looking at the justifications and processes that lead
to that politics results in devastating consequences by destroying the agency of discussing the
linguistic acts that lead to political choice
Bleiker 2000
(Roland, Popular Dissent, Agency, and Global Politics, p.242-243)

No dissenting writer can hope to incinerate immediately the dry grass of orthodox linguistic prairies. Discourses live on and appear reasonable long after their premises
have turned into anachronistic relics. More inclusive ways of thinking and acting cannot surface overnight. There are no quick solutions, no new
paradigms or miraculous political settlements that one could hope for. Discursive forms of resistance, even if they manage
to transgress national boundaries, do not engender human agency in an immediate and direct way. Writing dissent is a long
process, saturated with obstacles and contradictions. It operates, as outlined in the Interlude preceding this chapter, through tactical and temporal transformations of
discursive practices. But this lengthy and largely inaudible process is not to be equated with political impotence. The struggles
over the linguistic dimensions of transversal politics are as crucial and as real as the practices of international Realpolitik.
They affect the daily lives of people as much as so-called real-world issues. Language, in both speech and writing, is a
disguised but highly effective political practice. With this recognition emerges a new kind of activist, situated, as Barthes notes,
half-way between militant and writer, taking from the former the commitment to act and from the former the
commitment to act and from the latter the knowledge that the process of writing constitutes such an act. The task now
consists of removing one more layer of abstraction, so that the practical and transversal dimensions of language-based
forms of dissent can become visible. For this purpose the next chapter now examines how a specific stylistic form of resistance, usually thought to be the
most esoteric of all poetry may be able to engender human agency by transgressing the spatial and discursive boundaries of global politics.

They say fixations on representations are bad extend Coviello and Burke from the 1NC talks about
why reprenetstations are key. And we dont reject discussions of policy, we just say representations are
important, as long as they are justified they can weigh the aff.
2NC Perm Do Both
. All of their authors are flawed- they all wrote for the Washington think tanks that has supported the bush
administration they all made flawed predictions of the Iraq war depicting it as a threat, weve seen how
well that has worked. Perm severs out of the 1AC representations. I did this analysis above. No explanation
for the perm -reject all these blippy one liner perms. And he tries to make a double bind doesnt explain
this well enough, I explained why the alternative alone is key above. And mutually exclusive, alt rejects the
1AC. Nope.

2NC Perm Non Mutually Exclusive/Reject Reps
All of our links prove that the alternative is a mutually exclusive with the view of
security the affirmative perpetuates.

2. Coviello acts a DA to the permutation extend that under a framework of fear life
loses meaning. Theres a risk that all the affs body claim dont matter

3. Combinations of the alternative and the state result in the cooption of intellectuals
into a political, interventionist sphere

Shampa BISWAS, Prof Politics, Whitman, 2007 "Empire and Global Public Intellectuals:
Reading Edward Said as an International Relations Theorist" Millennium 36 (1)

While it is no surprise that the US academy should find itself too at that uneasy confluence of
neoliberal globalising dynamics and exclusivist nationalist agendas that is the predicament of
many contemporary institutions around the world, there is much reason for concern and
an urgent need to rethink the role and place of intellectual labour in the democratic
process. This is especially true for scholars of the global writing in this age of globalisation and
empire. Edward Said has written extensively on the place of the academy as one of the
few and increasingly precarious spaces for democratic deliberation and argued the
necessity for public intellectuals immured from the seductions of power.14 Defending
the US academy as one of the last remaining utopian spaces, the one public space
available to real alternative intellectual practices: no other institution like it on such a
scale exists anywhere else in the world today15, and lauding the remarkable critical theoretical
and historical work of many academic intellectuals in a lot of his work, Said also complains that
the American University, with its munificence, utopian sanctuary, and remarkable diversity,
has defanged (intellectuals)16. The most serious threat to the intellectual vocation, he
argues, is professionalism and mounts a pointed attack on the proliferation of
specializations and the cult of expertise with their focus on relatively narrow areas of
knowledge, technical formalism, impersonal theories and methodologies, and most
worrisome of all, their ability and willingness to be seduced by power.17 Said mentions
in this context the funding of academic programmes and research which came out of
the exigencies of the Cold War18, an area in which there was considerable traffic of
political scientists (largely trained as IR and comparative politics scholars) with institutions
of policy-making. Looking at various influential US academics as organic intellectuals
involved in a dialectical relationship with foreign policy-makers and examining the institutional
relationships at and among numerous think tanks and universities that create convergent
perspectives and interests, Christopher Clement has studied US intervention in the Third
World both during and after the Cold War made possible and justified through
various forms of intellectual articulation.19 This is not simply a matter of scholars
working for the state, but indeed a larger question of intellectual orientation. It is not
uncommon for IR scholars to feel the need to formulate their scholarly conclusions in
terms of its relevance for global politics, where relevance is measured entirely in
terms of policy wisdom. Edward Saids searing indictment of US intellectuals policy-experts
and Middle East experts - in the context of the first Gulf War20 is certainly even more resonant
in the contemporary context preceding and following the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

4. The perm is severance- You cant kick out of the way you frame your impacts and
the necessary responses in the 1ac- its a voter
A. Ground- the aff can just kick out of everything in the world where severance is
justified- means the neg doesnt have any kind of basis for writing positions
B. Fairness- If the 1AC can spike out of any position it means that we will also lose
on the negative

5. Its net beneficial to do the alt by itself- only then can we avoid all of the case turn
arguments
AT: No Root Cause

We dont make a root cause claim but securitized rhetoric is what has emipirically
caused state violence. Terror, WWII, Etc.

Link Debate
Terror